US Defence Chief Defends $1.5 Trillion Budget Amid Iran War

International

Washington — US Defence Secretary Pete Hegseth faced intense questioning from lawmakers on Capitol Hill as the war with Iran continues to shape America’s military priorities and spending, according to BBC News.

Speaking before the House Armed Services Committee, Hegseth defended the Pentagon’s proposed $1.5 trillion budget, calling it both “historic” and necessary in what he described as a moment of rising global tension. “This budget reflects the urgency of the moment,” he said, pointing to the demands of an ongoing conflict that has already stretched military resources.

It was the first time Hegseth has testified under oath since fighting between the United States and Iran began in February. Lawmakers pressed him on the cost of the war, its long-term strategy, and whether current spending levels are sustainable.

Pentagon Comptroller officials told the committee that the war has already cost the US about $25 billion, with the majority of that spending going toward munitions and military supplies. The figure highlights the financial weight of the conflict, even as leaders search for a path toward peace.

Hegseth also used the hearing to criticize the previous Biden administration, accusing it of underinvesting in defence and leaving the military less prepared for large-scale conflict. His remarks underscored a broader political divide over military funding and national security priorities.

Meanwhile, General Dan Caine, chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, stressed the need for stable and long-term investment. He told lawmakers that the military requires “timely, predictable and sustained” funding to remain effective in an increasingly uncertain world.

Despite the ongoing tensions, there are cautious signs of progress. The United States and Iran have agreed to a temporary ceasefire, raising hopes that negotiations could lead to a more lasting peace agreement.

Still, as the war continues to cast a long shadow, both military leaders and lawmakers face difficult choices about cost, strategy, and the future of US involvement.