We made a mistake and that happens in war. Two months after it happened we refused to say anything.
Before a divided Congress, US Defence Secretary Pete Hegseth defended a war against Iran that has consumed $25 billion in public funds and left 168 people — most of them children — dead in a schoolyard in Minab. The hearing, his first under oath since the conflict began, laid bare a deeper national reckoning: whether a democracy can wage war without formal consent, and whether the full cost of such choices — in treasure and in lives — is ever truly counted.
- Democrats accused Hegseth of lying to the American public about a war they say was launched without Congressional authorization and has already cost $25 billion.
- The ghost of a school in Minab — 168 dead, roughly 110 of them children — haunted the chamber, with lawmakers demanding accountability for a strike US investigators call likely unintentional but have yet to formally resolve.
- Hegseth deflected, attacked, and reframed — calling Democratic criticism 'defeatist' and refusing to assign any cost to the school strike while it remains under investigation.
- The White House is pressing for a $1.5 trillion defence budget, the largest military expansion since World War Two, even as a fragile ceasefire holds and peace talks remain unresolved.
- The hearing ended not with answers but with a sharpened fault line: a government divided over whether this war was a necessity, a mistake, or something no one is yet prepared to fully name.
On a Wednesday afternoon, Pete Hegseth appeared before the House Armed Services Committee for nearly six hours — his first sworn testimony since the US-Israel operation against Iran began. He arrived on the offensive, framing Democratic skepticism as the true threat, while beside him sat the Joint Chiefs chairman and a financial officer who confirmed the war's price tag: $25 billion, most of it spent on munitions and equipment.
Democrats were unsparing. John Garamendi accused the administration of lying to the public from the start, calling the conflict a costly Middle Eastern quagmire launched without formal Congressional approval. Hegseth fired back, calling such statements reckless and driven by hatred of the president. The exchange captured the hearing's tone — less a search for truth than a collision of irreconcilable convictions.
Looming over the proceedings was the strike on a school in Minab, Iran, which killed 168 people, approximately 110 of them children. US investigators have suggested the targeting was unintentional, but no final determination has been made. Democrat Adam Smith voiced a frustration that cut deeper than the strike itself: two months of official silence, he said, had left the world with the impression that America simply did not care. Hegseth declined to comment further, citing the ongoing investigation.
Meanwhile, the administration is asking Congress to approve a $1.5 trillion defence budget — the largest military spending increase since World War Two. Republicans largely rallied behind it, invoking decades of Iranian hostility as justification. A ceasefire is holding and peace negotiations are underway, but the conflict has not formally ended. Hegseth faces the Senate next. What these hearings have made plain is that the argument is no longer only about Iran — it is about who pays, who decides, and who is keeping count.
Pete Hegseth sat before the House Armed Services Committee on a Wednesday afternoon, facing nearly six hours of questioning about a war that has consumed $25 billion in American military spending and left a school in Minab, Iran reduced to rubble with 168 dead, roughly 110 of them children. It was his first time under oath since the conflict began, and the hearing quickly turned combative.
Hegseth came armed with a framing device: the real adversary, he said in his opening remarks, was not Iran but the "defeatist words" of Democrats and some Republicans who questioned the war's necessity and cost. Alongside him sat General Dan Caine, chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, and Jules Hurst, the defence department's chief financial officer. Hurst delivered the number that would dominate the day's argument: $25 billion spent so far, most of it on munitions and equipment replacement. He promised a fuller accounting later.
The Democrats on the committee treated the war as a choice, not an inevitability—a conflict waged without formal Congressional approval that had become, in their view, an expensive mistake. John Garamendi of California was blunt: "You have been lying to the American public about this war from day one, and so has the president." He accused Trump of being stuck in another Middle Eastern quagmire. Hegseth shot back, calling the statement reckless and telling Garamendi that hatred for the president was blinding his judgment. At another moment, when pressed by a congressman, Hegseth simply said: "Shame on you."
The hearing also centered on money in a larger sense. The White House is asking Congress to approve a $1.5 trillion defence budget—the largest military spending increase since World War Two. Hegseth called it necessary, a reflection of "the urgency of the moment." General Caine framed it as a "historic down payment for future security," essential for keeping pace with rapidly evolving military technology. Republicans largely supported this vision. Carlos Gimenez of Florida invoked Iran's four-decade hostility toward the United States: "When someone tells me for 47 years that they want to kill us, I think I am going to take them at their word."
But the school strike hung over everything. According to Iranian officials, American forces hit a school in Minab during the opening phase of the joint US-Israel operation, killing 168 people. US military investigators later concluded the strike was likely unintentional, though no final determination had been made. Adam Smith, the committee's leading Democrat, expressed frustration not just with the strike itself but with the silence that followed. "We made a mistake and that happens in war," he said. "Two months after it happened we refused to say anything about it, giving the world the impression that we just don't care." When Ro Khanna pressed Hegseth on the cost of that strike, the defence secretary said the matter remained under investigation and that he would not assign a dollar figure to it.
The ceasefire between the US and Iran is holding, and peace talks are underway. The conflict has not officially ended. Hegseth will face another hearing before the Senate on Thursday. What emerges from these testimonies is a fundamental disagreement not just about whether the war was justified, but about what it has cost and whether anyone is truly accounting for it.
Notable Quotes
You have been lying to the American public about this war from day one, and so has the president.— Rep. John Garamendi (D-California)
When someone tells me for 47 years that they want to kill us, I think I am going to take them at their word.— Rep. Carlos Gimenez (R-Florida)
The Hearth Conversation Another angle on the story
Why did this hearing matter enough to run six hours? What was actually at stake?
Two things colliding. One is the money—$25 billion already spent, and the White House asking for the largest military budget expansion since 1945. The other is accountability. A school was hit. 168 people died. For two months, nothing was said about it. Democrats wanted to know why.
But Hegseth didn't seem interested in that conversation.
He treated it as a distraction. He said it was under investigation, that you can't put a price on it. The implication was: we're at war, these things happen, move on.
Is that a reasonable position?
Depends who you ask. Republicans in the room seemed to think so. They saw Iran as an existential threat. Democrats saw a war of choice that nobody voted for, costing billions, with civilian deaths that went unacknowledged.
What about the ceasefire? Doesn't that change the argument?
It complicates it. The fighting has stopped, talks are happening. But the budget request is still on the table. The question becomes: are we preparing for the next conflict, or are we locked into a pattern of spending that assumes permanent war?
And Hegseth's answer?
That the moment demands urgency. That technology is moving fast, adversaries are real, and you can't afford to be behind. Whether that's true or whether it's a rationale for endless spending—that's what the hearing was really about.