Hegseth Defends Iran Campaign, Faces Lawmakers’ Pushback Over Costs and Firings
Hegseth faced a nearly six-hour House hearing over the Iran campaign as Pentagon comptroller cited roughly $25 billion in war costs and the department sought a $1.45–$1.5 trillion 2027 budget.
CNNPentagon’s $25 billion cost estimate for Iran war is low and does not include cost of rebuilding US bases, sources say | CNN Politics
MS NOWAfter tense House hearing, Senate Democrats prepare to press Hegseth on Iran war
Daily BeastPentagon Pete Blows Up at Hearing Before Being Shut Up by Republican
CBS NewsIran war has cost $25 billion to date, defense official says, as Hegseth faces questions about war strategy
Overview
Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth sparred for nearly six hours with the House Armed Services Committee, defending the Iran campaign and the Pentagon's 2027 budget request.
Pentagon comptroller Jules Hurst III testified the Iran war has cost roughly $25 billion so far, and the department said it will seek about $200 billion in supplemental funding while requesting a $1.45 to $1.5 trillion budget for 2027.
Lawmakers across parties challenged Hegseth over the war's rationale and his firings, with Republicans Don Bacon and Austin Scott contesting Gen. Randy George's removal and Democrats including Rep. John Garamendi accusing the administration of misleading the public.
Iranian strikes reportedly damaged at least nine U.S. military sites and analysts at CSIS said the United States used roughly half of certain missiles and munitions, while Iranian officials said a Minab strike killed 168 people, including about 110 children.
Hegseth will appear before the Senate Armed Services Committee on Thursday and lawmakers face a 60-day window under the 1973 War Powers Resolution that closes Friday, with a one-time 30-day extension available as investigations continue.
Analysis
Center-leaning sources frame the coverage as an adversarial spectacle by leading with a prolonged clash and using evaluative descriptors ("sparred," "often-combative," "defiant tone"). They prioritize partisan conflict and budgetary controversy, foregrounding inflammatory exchanges and cost figures while offering limited deeper policy context or alternatives.