The United States defence secretary Pete Hegseth told lawmakers the Pentagon’s proposed $1.5 trillion budget reflects “the urgency of the moment” amid the ongoing war with Iran, as he faced questioning under oath for the first time since the conflict began in February.

Addressing the House Armed Services Committee, Hegseth described the request as a “historic” and “war-fighting” budget, arguing that current geopolitical conditions require sustained military investment. He said the proposal is shaped by operational demands linked to the conflict and broader security concerns, while also criticising previous spending levels under the administration of Joe Biden, which he said had underinvested in defence.

The Pentagon’s finance chief told the committee the war has so far cost “about $25bn”, with the majority attributed to munitions. Hegseth indicated that additional funding requests could follow, saying that while costs directly linked to Iran may remain below that figure, “there’s a lot more we would ask for beyond just Iran”.

Military leadership emphasised the need for continuity in funding. Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff Dan Caine said the armed forces require “timely, predictable and sustained investment” to maintain operational readiness. He said planning assumptions continue to evolve in response to developments in the region, including maritime disruptions and air operations.

Questioning focused heavily on both financial and strategic aspects of the conflict. Democratic lawmakers raised concerns over long-term costs and broader economic impact, including rising prices affecting households. Representative Ro Khanna pressed for clarity on total expenditure, including replacement of equipment and infrastructure damage. Hegseth responded that current estimates reflect “the total cost that we’re seeing”, while declining to provide detailed projections beyond existing figures.

Debate also turned to the effectiveness of the military campaign. When asked whether the United States is winning the war, Hegseth replied “absolutely”, describing operations as an “astounding military success” and framing the campaign around preventing Iran from acquiring nuclear weapons. He repeatedly argued that strategic evaluation should consider “the cost of Iran having a nuclear weapon” rather than immediate financial burdens.

Other lawmakers challenged this assessment. Democratic congressman Seth Moulton questioned whether developments such as disruptions in the Strait of Hormuz could be interpreted as success, while John Garamendi described the conflict as a “serious self-inflicted wound”, citing casualties and regional instability. Hegseth rejected the criticism, calling such characterisations “reckless” and warning that they risk reinforcing adversary narratives.

The hearing also included exchanges on domestic political issues. Democratic congresswoman Sara Jacobs questioned whether Donald Trump is “mentally stable enough” to serve as commander-in-chief, referencing recent public statements. Hegseth declined to engage directly with the question, instead responding that similar concerns had not been raised during the previous administration and describing the line of questioning as inappropriate.

Separate issues raised during the session included leadership changes within the military. Hegseth confirmed the recent dismissal of the US Navy secretary, saying “it was time for a new leadership and a new direction”, adding that senior officials are evaluated based on whether they are “running with the mission they’ve been given”.

The broader context of the hearing is shaped by the ongoing conflict, which has led to increased military activity and economic strain. While a temporary ceasefire between the United States and Iran has been announced as negotiations continue, officials indicated that operational and financial planning remains aligned with continued uncertainty.

Hegseth said the current budget request is intended to ensure preparedness across all domains, including air, naval and logistical capabilities. He reiterated that the proposal reflects both immediate wartime needs and longer-term strategic positioning, as the United States navigates what he described as a rapidly shifting security environment.