Hegseth Clashes With Lawmakers in Six-Hour Senate Hearing on Iran War

On April 29, 2026, Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth sat before the House Armed Services Committee for nearly six hours — his first public congressional testimony since the United States and Israel launched Operation Epic Fury against Iran on February 28. What followed was a hearing that laid bare the political, legal, and strategic fault lines of the most consequential American military operation since the 2003 invasion of Iraq.

Hegseth offered no timeline for ending the war. He called Democrats who questioned him "the biggest adversary we face" [1]. He defended a $25 billion expenditure with no formal congressional appropriation [2]. And he did so on the eve of a constitutional deadline that could render the entire operation illegal under the War Powers Resolution of 1973.

The Hearing: A Clash Over Facts and Framing

Hegseth appeared alongside Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff General Dan Caine, facing questions from lawmakers who had been shut out of substantive briefings for weeks. The tone was adversarial from the start [3].

Rep. John Garamendi (D-CA) accused Hegseth directly: "You have been lying to the American public about this war from day one" [4]. Rep. Adam Smith (D-WA), the ranking member, focused on what he characterized as a contradiction at the heart of the administration's case — that last year's Israeli strikes had "obliterated" Iran's nuclear program, yet the same program was cited as the imminent threat justifying the current war [5].

Hegseth's response: "Their facilities are bombed and obliterated. Their ambitions continued, and they're building a conventional shield" [1]. He described the war as an existential necessity: "You have to stare down this kind of enemy who's hell-bent on getting a nuclear weapon" [2].

But the most quoted exchange came when Hegseth pivoted from defense to offense. Rather than engaging with questions about war aims or exit strategy, he declared: "The biggest challenge, the biggest adversary we face at this point are the reckless, feckless and defeatist words of congressional Democrats and some Republicans" [6]. He then asked a Democratic lawmaker: "Who are you cheering for?" [4].

Not all Republican members were satisfied either. Several pressed for details on how long operations would continue and what, specifically, constituted victory [3]. Rep. Nancy Mace (R-SC), who had been skeptical of Hegseth during his confirmation, nonetheless said he "surpassed all my expectations" during the hearing [1].

Deployment, Casualties, and Operational Tempo

Operation Epic Fury represents the largest American military deployment to the Middle East since the Iraq invasion. Approximately 40,000 U.S. troops have been deployed, supported by multiple carrier strike groups and B-2 stealth bombers flying 30-hour missions from Whiteman Air Force Base in Missouri [7].

The Pentagon has acknowledged 13 to 15 U.S. service members killed and between 381 and 538 wounded, depending on the source and date — a discrepancy that has drawn scrutiny. The Intercept reported that the Pentagon had removed wounded service members from official casualty lists, prompting accusations of a "cover-up" from congressional Democrats and veterans' advocacy groups [8].

Source: Pentagon / CRS

Data as of Apr 29, 2026CSV

In comparative terms, the first 60 days of Iran operations have produced fewer U.S. killed-in-action than the opening phase of the Iraq war (139 KIA), but a comparable number of wounded (538 vs. 551 in Iraq). The toll far exceeds the early Afghanistan campaign, which saw 12 killed and 43 wounded in its first two months [9]. The significantly higher wounded-to-killed ratio in the Iran conflict reflects the extensive use of Iranian ballistic missiles and drones against forward-deployed U.S. positions in the Gulf states.

Civilian casualties in Iran have been substantial. Iran's health ministry reported 1,500 killed and over 18,500 injured between February 28 and March 25 alone [10]. Broader estimates place total deaths — including combatants across Iran, Lebanon, and Gulf states — at approximately 10,000 [7]. The UNHCR reported 3.2 million Iranians internally displaced, with most fleeing Tehran and other major urban centers toward northern and rural areas [11]. Over 68,000 Iranians have arrived in Turkey, while roughly 30,000 have crossed into Afghanistan [10].

The $25 Billion War — Without a Vote

Pentagon Comptroller Jules W. Hurst confirmed $25 billion spent on Operation Epic Fury in the war's first 60 days — the first public disclosure of the conflict's cost [2]. That figure exceeds the first 60 days of the Iraq war ($9.5 billion in 2003 dollars) by a factor of more than two, and dwarfs the early Afghanistan campaign ($3.8 billion) [12].

Source: Pentagon / CRS estimates

Data as of Apr 29, 2026CSV

The administration has yet to submit a formal supplemental spending request to Congress for the war. The Washington Post reported that the Pentagon asked the White House to approve a $200 billion supplemental request, but it had not been transmitted to Capitol Hill as of late April [13]. Hegseth, asked about the figure, said: "Takes money to kill bad guys" [14].

The absence of a supplemental means the Pentagon has been funding the war through reprogramming — shifting money from existing accounts — without explicit congressional approval for the expenditure. The Trump administration's proposed fiscal year 2027 defense budget stands at $1.5 trillion, roughly 40% higher than the current year, the largest defense request in American history [15].

Democrats and some Republicans have questioned whether this end-run around the appropriations process violates the Constitution's spending clause. No formal vote to fund the Iran operations has taken place.

The War Powers Showdown

The legal battle over the war's authorization reached its most acute phase as the hearing took place. May 1, 2026, marks 60 days since the president formally notified Congress of hostilities — the deadline under the War Powers Resolution of 1973 after which the president must either obtain congressional authorization or begin withdrawing forces [16].

The administration has invoked the president's Article II authority as commander-in-chief, arguing that the strikes were necessary to prevent an imminent nuclear threat. Vice President JD Vance went further, calling the War Powers Act "fundamentally a fake and unconstitutional law" [17].

Constitutional law professor Michael Glennon, who helped draft the War Powers Resolution, rejected the administration's position: "It's clearly beyond the Constitutional authority of the President, acting without congressional approval, because there was no likelihood of an imminent attack on the United States or its armed forces" [17].

The Senate has voted four times to block resolutions invoking the War Powers Act, with the Republican majority holding the line each time [18]. This has effectively allowed the conflict to continue without formal authorization. The Council on Foreign Relations characterized Congress as having "declined to demand a say in the Iran War" [19].

Democrats have discussed pursuing litigation if operations continue past the May 1 deadline without authorization [4]. Constitutional scholars are divided on whether courts would intervene in what has historically been treated as a political question between the executive and legislative branches.

Are Democrats Obstructing — or Overseeing?

Hegseth's characterization of Democratic critics as the war's primary "adversary" raises a question the administration's defenders have pressed: Are Democrats conducting legitimate oversight, or are they undermining a military operation in progress?

The administration's strongest version of this argument holds that Democratic demands for an exit timeline, public cost estimates, and vote on authorization signal to Iran that American resolve is wavering — emboldening Tehran to hold out for better terms. Hegseth testified that "on an existential fight for American safety, Iran cannot have a nuclear bomb," framing dissent as dangerous during active hostilities [1].

There is historical precedent for executive resistance to congressional war-powers challenges from both parties. The Obama administration argued in 2011 that operations in Libya did not constitute "hostilities" under the War Powers Resolution, avoiding the 60-day clock entirely [16]. The Clinton administration conducted a 78-day bombing campaign in Kosovo in 1999 without congressional authorization. In both cases, Democratic presidents cited executive prerogative in terms similar to those the Trump administration uses today.

However, critics of the current framing note that the scale of the Iran conflict — 40,000 troops, $25 billion in spending, significant casualties — far exceeds Libya or Kosovo. Rep. Smith argued that labeling oversight as obstruction is itself a tactic to avoid accountability: "The question isn't who we're cheering for. The question is whether this war has achievable objectives and legal authority" [5].

Diplomacy: One Round of Talks, Multiple Broken Channels

The administration's diplomatic record on Iran is thin. Pakistan has served as the primary mediator, with China also involved in truce negotiations [20]. The United States and Iran held one round of face-to-face talks in Islamabad on April 11, lasting 21 hours. Vice President Vance announced the sides had "not reached an agreement," primarily because of Iran's refusal to abandon its nuclear program [20].

A ceasefire brokered on April 8 through Pakistani mediation has nominally held but has been violated by both sides [21]. Trump extended the truce at Pakistan's request to allow time for an Iranian counterproposal, but then cancelled a planned visit by U.S. envoys to Islamabad [22]. Iran's Foreign Minister Abbas Araghchi has pursued parallel diplomatic channels with Egypt, France, Qatar, Saudi Arabia, and Turkey [22].

The core issues under negotiation include freedom of navigation through the Strait of Hormuz, Iran's nuclear and ballistic missile programs, reconstruction, sanctions relief, and a long-term peace framework [21]. Iran has insisted on confining negotiations to the nuclear issue while seeking sanctions relief, which the U.S. has rejected [23]. As of late April, Trump warned Iran to "get smart soon," while no formal peace terms from the administration have been made public [22].

Coalition of the Willing — and the Reluctant

The U.S.-led coalition supporting the Iran operations is narrower than the 2003 Iraq coalition and marked by significant gaps between pledges and deliveries.

The United Kingdom has been the most active partner, deploying RAF Typhoons from bases in Qatar and Cyprus, shooting down Iranian drones and missiles over allied countries, and sending HMS Dragon to Cyprus along with air defense systems to Bahrain, Kuwait, and Saudi Arabia [24]. A UK-led coalition of 40 countries signed a statement demanding Iran stop blocking the Strait of Hormuz and pledging to "contribute to appropriate efforts to ensure safe passage" [25].

France deployed an aircraft carrier. Italy, the Netherlands, and Spain confirmed warships to defend Cyprus [7]. But the European response has been characterized as "disjointed" by the Council on Foreign Relations, with nations prioritizing maritime security in the Strait of Hormuz over direct participation in strikes on Iran [26].

Several NATO allies, including Germany, have offered diplomatic support without committing combat forces. No ally has contributed ground troops. The gap between the 40-country statement and actual military commitments remains wide [25].

Oil, Shipping, and Economic Fallout

The economic consequences of the Iran war have been severe and immediate. Iran's closure of the Strait of Hormuz — through which 25% of the world's seaborne oil trade and 20% of global LNG shipments normally pass — has produced what the International Energy Agency called "the largest supply disruption in the history of the global oil market" [27].

Source: FRED / EIA

Data as of Apr 27, 2026CSV

WTI crude oil prices have risen from roughly $63 per barrel in late February to above $100 per barrel by late April — a 57.8% increase year-over-year [28]. Brent crude reached $114.58 at its peak [27]. U.S. gas prices have risen $1.16 per gallon since the war began [27].

Shipping through the Strait has collapsed to roughly 5% of pre-war levels, down from an average of 129 vessels per day [27]. War-risk insurance premiums for transiting the Strait have increased from 0.125% to between 0.2% and 0.4% of ship insurance value per transit — an increase of roughly $250,000 per voyage for large oil tankers [27].

The UAE announced its withdrawal from OPEC and OPEC+ in the final week of April, a move analysts attributed directly to the war's disruption of Gulf energy markets [22]. The economic fallout has extended well beyond energy: global supply chains dependent on Middle Eastern shipping routes have been rerouted, adding transit time and cost.

The administration has not publicly released the economic projections it presented to Congress in pre-war briefings, making direct comparison between projected and actual impacts impossible. Several lawmakers requested these projections during the hearing; Hegseth declined to provide them, citing classification [2].

Strategic Objectives: Met, Unmet, and Undefined

The administration stated several objectives at the outset of the conflict: destroying Iran's nuclear weapons capability, eliminating its ballistic missile infrastructure, and ensuring Iran could never acquire a nuclear weapon [23].

On nuclear facilities, the record is mixed. Hegseth testified that approximately 13,000 targets had been struck and that nuclear facilities had been "obliterated" [2]. However, analysts from the Bulletin of Atomic Scientists noted that Iran retained the scientific knowledge and an estimated 400 kilograms of uranium enriched to 60% — sufficient, if further enriched, for multiple weapons [23]. Iran expelled IAEA inspectors in February, citing "acts of aggression," leaving the international community unable to independently verify the status of Iran's nuclear stockpile [23].

On ballistic missiles, Israeli assessments indicated the June 2025 strikes delayed Iran's missile program but did not eliminate it. Iran's doctrine has focused on rebuilding toward a stockpile of 2,000 missiles while engaging in parallel diplomacy [23].

No independent assessment has concluded that the war's stated objectives have been fully achieved. The Strait of Hormuz remains effectively closed. The ceasefire is fragile. Iran's nuclear knowledge is intact. And 60 days in, neither the administration nor the Pentagon has articulated what "victory" looks like or when American forces might come home.

What Comes Next

The May 1 War Powers Act deadline will test whether Congress is willing to assert its constitutional authority over war-making — or whether, as has happened repeatedly since 1973, it will acquiesce to executive action. The Senate hearing on April 30, where Hegseth will face the Armed Services Committee again alongside the $1.5 trillion budget request, may provide further clarity [15].

The fragile ceasefire, stalled negotiations, and rising economic costs create pressure on both sides. But as the hearing made clear, the debate in Washington is not just about Iran. It is about whether a war begun without congressional authorization, funded without congressional appropriation, and conducted with shifting justifications can continue indefinitely on the say-so of the executive branch alone.

That question — older than the War Powers Resolution itself — remains unanswered.