The Pentagon says the US campaign against Iran has cost at least $25bn so far, and Defence Secretary Pete Hegseth faced sharp questioning at a Senate Armed Services Committee hearing on Thursday. Hegseth and Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff Dan Cain answered senators for a second day, after appearing before a House panel on Wednesday. They defended ongoing operations, pushed back on critics, and offered a novel legal view on the 1973 War Powers Act. The testimony lays out budgetary strains, legal friction with Congress, and an unclear path to renewed diplomacy.

What happened at the hearing

The session was the first public, full Congressional questioning of top Pentagon leaders since US and Israeli strikes began on February 28. United States Secretary of Defense Pete Hegseth and Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff Dan Cain sat before the Senate Armed Services Committee on Thursday. They had already testified before the House a day earlier.

Hegseth repeatedly defended the military campaign. He rejected criticisms from lawmakers and observers. At times his language was blunt. He accused critics of helping US enemies in what he called a feckless way.

Cain addressed questions about external support for Iran. He said, "There's definitely some action there," when asked about Russia's role.

He offered few public details. The general signalled limits on what he could say in an open hearing.

Committee members pressed on several fronts. They wanted to know the cost of the campaign. They raised alarms about munitions and hardware levels. The group tested legal arguments over how long the president can keep US forces engaged without explicit Congressional authorisation.

Costs and materiel

Pentagon officials told Congress the campaign has cost the US at least $25bn since it began.

Hegseth said US munitions stockpiles were "in good shape." He used that phrase to counter claims that the US had drained key weapons supplies.

Lawmakers have pointed to reports that long-range stealth weapons and Patriot interceptor missiles have been used heavily. Those reports say the military has moved weapons from other regions to keep operations going. Committee members warned that surging munitions to the Middle East could leave gaps elsewhere.

The money figure the Pentagon gave lawmakers didn't clearly say whether it included damage to US assets in the region. That gap left questions about the full fiscal hit on US forces and equipment.

Mastheads

Legal fight over the War Powers Act

Friday marked 60 days since President Trump gave formal notice to Congress of the attacks on Iran, the point at which the 1973 War Powers Act normally forces a halt unless Congress approves a continuation. Hegseth presented an interpretation that shifts how that clock might run.

He argued the "60-day clock pauses, or stops" during any pause in fighting. US and Iranian forces have mostly paused attacks since early April while ceasefire talks were attempted. Those talks have since stalled.

Hegseth’s view narrows the window for mandatory Congressional action. It also raises fresh questions for lawmakers who feel the Iraq and Afghanistan-era lessons demand clearer limits on executive war-making. Senators pressed him on whether the administration was using pauses in combat to avoid legal constraints. Hegseth declined to yield ground on his reading of the statute.

Russia and wider geopolitics

Cain’s admission that Russia has provided some assistance to Iran confirms broader diplomatic friction. Russia and Iran have long exchanged political support and arms. Cain said he couldn't expand on details in a public setting.

Russian leaders have publicly voiced support for Iran during the conflict. That support adds complexity to any attempt to de-escalate. It also complicates US planning because assistance from a major power can change timelines for resupply and operational risk assessments.

Lawmakers from both parties tested Hegseth on strategy and spending. Some argued the military must be resourced for multiple contingencies. Others said the administration must give clearer aims and timelines. Hegseth refused to disclose detailed next steps and said operations were continuing where necessary.

The legal theory on the War Powers Act places more pressure on Congress. If pauses in combat are treated as pauses to the 60-day limit, lawmakers face a harder choice over when to demand votes or authorisations. That could expand the executive’s room to manoeuvre without new legislation.

At the same time, public fiscal figures feed domestic debates about priorities. A $25bn operation is a political fact in Washington. Members of Congress will weigh that number as they debate budget bills and oversight measures. The lack of clarity on whether damages are included will likely push more questions to the Pentagon and Treasury.

Lawmakers raised the prospect that moving weapons into the Middle East creates risks elsewhere. If the military shifts interceptors and long-range munitions from other regions, those areas might see reduced defensive capacity. Senators warned the committee about potential vulnerability in the Indo-Pacific and NATO theatres.

Hegseth’s assurance that stocks are "in good shape" was meant to calm those concerns. But his statement didn't satisfy every senator. Several requested more detailed, classified briefings to gauge the true condition of inventories.

The hearing took place against a backdrop of halted ceasefire negotiations. The US and Iran paused most attacks from April 8 while talks were on. This pause has since not produced a lasting agreement. That stall matters because it keeps the region on edge and forces the Pentagon to maintain costly operations.

Cain and Hegseth both warned that public testimony can't include sensitive details. Their closed briefings will likely address tactical questions that senators could then use to press for policy shifts or funding changes.

Senators said they want clear, timely information. Defence leaders pushed back. They said some data must stay classified for operational security. That tension is an old cleft between Congress and the Pentagon. It has returned in sharp form with high operational tempo and large expenditures.

Lawmakers signalled they will continue oversight. Several senators said they expect additional briefings and votes on authorisations. The public face of the hearings is likely to keep pressure on the administration, even as some details remain behind closed doors.

Related Articles

Senators said they expect further briefings and possible authorisation votes, while pressing for clearer cost accounting, legal clarity and munitions assurances.

This article was created with AI assistance.