TEHRAN – US Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth came under intense bipartisan scrutiny during a contentious Senate Appropriations Committee hearing as lawmakers challenged the Trump administration's strategy in the war against Iran, questioned the rapidly escalating financial and human costs of the conflict, and demanded greater transparency over the Pentagon's long-term objectives.

Appearing alongside Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff Gen. Dan Caine and Agriculture Secretary Brooke Rollins, Hegseth defended President Donald Trump's emergency supplemental funding request, arguing that additional resources were essential to sustain military operations and replenish US weapons stockpiles.

The hearing, however, quickly evolved into one of the administration's toughest congressional examinations since the conflict began.

Pentagon defends $67 billion war request

Hegseth told senators that the war has already cost the United States approximately $37.5 billion, a figure significantly higher than previous estimates, while requesting $67.1 billion in additional Pentagon funding as part of an $87.6 billion supplemental package submitted by the White House. According to the Defense Department, the funding would cover ongoing combat operations, replace expended precision-guided munitions, strengthen force readiness and modernize military capabilities. 

The defense secretary warned that failure to approve the funding would force the Pentagon to curtail military training, delay equipment maintenance and disrupt operational readiness at a time when US forces remain engaged across the Middle East.

Senators question strategy and objectives

While Republicans largely supported maintaining military readiness, lawmakers from both parties questioned whether the administration had presented a coherent strategy for the conflict.

Democratic Senator Gary Peters delivered one of the hearing's sharpest exchanges, accusing Hegseth of failing to explain how the United States intended to conclude the war or define success. Peters argued that military operations appeared increasingly disconnected from clearly articulated political objectives, warning that the country risked becoming trapped in another prolonged Middle Eastern conflict. 

Senator Patty Murray likewise criticized what she described as the administration's request for a "blank check," arguing that Congress should not approve tens of billions of dollars in additional funding without a detailed explanation of how the conflict would end. She warned that the United States appeared to be drifting toward "another forever war" despite repeated White House assurances that the fighting would soon conclude. 

Several lawmakers also questioned why the Pentagon required additional emergency appropriations when substantial defense funds approved in previous legislation reportedly remain unspent.

Questions over congressional authority

Beyond budgetary concerns, senators renewed criticism of the administration's decision to enter the conflict without explicit congressional authorization.

Some members argued that the Constitution grants Congress—not the executive branch—the authority to declare war, insisting that any prolonged military campaign against Iran requires formal legislative approval.

Growing bipartisan support has also emerged for legislation intended to limit or condition the administration's authority to continue military operations absent congressional approval. 

Contradictions over Iran's military capabilities

Another major line of questioning focused on the administration's shifting public assessments of Iran's military and nuclear capabilities.

Senator Kirsten Gillibrand challenged Hegseth over previous administration statements claiming US strikes had effectively destroyed Iran's nuclear infrastructure, asking why the White House later justified a broader war by arguing that Tehran remained only weeks away from obtaining a nuclear weapon.

The exchange reflected broader concerns among lawmakers regarding inconsistent public messaging and whether the administration had clearly defined the strategic rationale behind the conflict. 

Mounting human and financial costs

The hearing came only days after the Pentagon confirmed additional US military casualties, increasing political pressure on the administration.

According to Defense Department figures presented during the hearing, 17 American service members have now been killed since the conflict began, while more than 100 troops have been wounded. Combined with the sharply rising financial burden, lawmakers questioned whether the administration had realistically assessed the long-term costs of the campaign. 

Caine denies knowledge of US strikes on Iranian desalination plants

Iranian state media has announced that the US hit the Bonji desalination plant along the Iranian coast over the weekend, as well as a desalination plant on Qeshm Island in the early days of the war.

Caine said he was unaware of reports that U.S. strikes hit desalination plants that provide water to thousands of Iranians across dozens of villages.

“I’m not aware of those as being particular targets, nor am I aware of those reports,” the chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff told Sen. Jeff Merkley, Democrat-Oregon.

Caine defended the military’s actions when pressed that infrastructure relied upon by civilians for their survival is not considered a legitimate military target. 

“We have a robust process which considers a target, that goes through a system that looks at a variety of considerations, to include what you’re alluding to, around both purely civilian or dual-use targets,” Caine said, adding that he has “trust and confidence” in CENTCOM’s assessments.

Protesters interrupt hearing

Anti-war demonstrators repeatedly interrupted Hegseth's opening remarks, forcing Capitol Police officers to remove protesters from the hearing room. Several held signs demanding an end to the war with Iran, highlighting growing public opposition outside Congress. 

Outside experts warn of strategic drift

Criticism has not been confined to Capitol Hill.

Defense analysts at the Center for Strategic and International Studies (CSIS) argued that although the administration has framed the supplemental request as wartime spending, much of the proposed funding reflects longer-term Pentagon modernization priorities rather than immediate operational costs, raising questions about how much of the package is directly linked to combat requirements. 

Former defense officials and independent military analysts have also warned that the Pentagon faces increasing budgetary strain while lacking a clearly articulated exit strategy. Analysts quoted by multiple US. media outlets argue that without defined political objectives, continued military escalation risks expanding the conflict while placing additional pressure on US force readiness and weapons inventories. 

Several experts have further cautioned that the administration has struggled to reconcile evolving public justifications for the war—from preventing Iran's nuclear ambitions to protecting maritime commerce in the Strait of Hormuz—fueling congressional skepticism over the campaign's strategic direction. 

As Congress prepares to debate the supplemental funding request, Tuesday's hearing underscored the growing political challenge confronting the Trump administration: convincing lawmakers that the expanding military campaign against Iran has clearly defined objectives, adequate oversight and a credible path toward conclusion.