Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth told House lawmakers under oath on May 12, 2026, that the Pentagon has drawn up plans to widen the war with Iran if diplomacy and current military operations fall short. Then he put a number on what the conflict has already cost: $29 billion and counting.
The disclosure, delivered during a House Appropriations Defense Subcommittee budget hearing, triggered the sharpest bipartisan confrontation over the conflict since hostilities began. Members of both parties demanded to know how long American taxpayers would keep funding operations that lack a publicly stated endgame, and several warned they would block future spending bills until the administration provides one.
“We have a plan to escalate if necessary”
Hegseth’s appearance before the subcommittee was scheduled as a routine step in building the fiscal year 2027 defense spending bill. It became something else entirely when, under direct questioning, he told appropriators: “We have a plan to escalate if necessary.” The Associated Press reported the statement, noting it was the first time a senior Pentagon official had publicly confirmed the existence of contingency plans to broaden military action against Iran beyond ongoing operations.
Those ongoing operations, which include naval patrols, air defense missions, and strikes against Iranian-backed proxy forces across the Middle East, have been running for months without a formal congressional authorization specifically tailored to the conflict. The administration has relied on existing authorities, but multiple lawmakers signaled during the hearing that the escalation admission reopens the question of whether new authorization under the War Powers Resolution is required before any widening of the fight.
Hegseth’s prepared testimony is listed on the hearing’s official event page, though a full transcript of his oral remarks and the question-and-answer session had not been published as of mid-May 2026. Much of the most consequential testimony, according to the AP account, came not from his written statement but from his live responses to increasingly pointed questions.
The $29 billion price tag
The cumulative cost figure surfaced during an exchange over supplemental funding requests the Pentagon has submitted to cover war-related expenses. At $29 billion, the conflict’s price tag already rivals the early-year spending rates of the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan. For comparison, the Congressional Research Service estimated that the first full year of major combat operations in Iraq cost roughly $53 billion in inflation-adjusted terms; Afghanistan’s first year ran about $20 billion. The Iran conflict is tracking between those benchmarks, with no plateau in sight.
Set against the broader defense budget, $29 billion represents roughly 3.5 percent of the Pentagon’s annual topline, money that competes directly with shipbuilding contracts, nuclear modernization, and readiness accounts that military leaders have called underfunded for years. Subcommittee Chair Ken Calvert, R-Calif., who controls the panel that writes the Pentagon’s annual spending bill, pressed Hegseth on whether the department can sustain both the war and its modernization priorities simultaneously. Hegseth acknowledged the tension but argued that deterring Iran is itself a readiness imperative.
Democrats on the panel pushed from a different angle. Rep. Betty McCollum of Minnesota, the subcommittee’s ranking member, asked whether the $29 billion includes classified intelligence community spending or costs borne by allied nations participating in coalition operations. Hegseth said a detailed breakdown would be provided in a classified setting but did not commit to a public accounting, a response that drew visible frustration from members on both sides.
Bipartisan pushback on the missing endgame
What unified the hearing’s sharpest moments was a single question neither party felt Hegseth answered: What does success look like?
Lawmakers pressed for measurable objectives, a timeline, or at minimum a set of conditions under which the United States would consider the conflict resolved. Hegseth spoke broadly about deterring Iranian aggression, protecting U.S. forces and regional partners, and degrading Tehran’s ability to project power through proxy networks. But he did not define a specific threshold for any of those goals, and he did not describe circumstances under which military operations would wind down.
That gap alarmed members of the president’s own party as much as it did the opposition. Several Republican appropriators warned that without clearer benchmarks, future supplemental funding requests would face serious resistance on the House floor. The concern is not abstract: the subcommittee’s markup of the FY2027 defense bill is expected in the coming weeks, and war funding will be one of its most contentious line items.
Members also raised stockpile concerns, citing reports of depleted missile inventories and strained production lines. The military’s ability to sustain current operations while holding reserves for a potential escalation is an open question that Hegseth acknowledged but did not resolve publicly. Industrial base constraints, including long lead times for precision munitions, mean that ramping up production cannot happen overnight even if Congress approves the funding.
Legal authority and the road ahead
Hegseth’s escalation admission lands in the middle of a simmering debate over war powers. The administration has not sought a new Authorization for Use of Military Force specific to Iran, instead relying on a combination of the president’s Article II powers and older statutory authorities. Critics in both parties argue that acknowledging plans to widen the conflict strengthens the case for a new AUMF vote, which would force a public debate the White House has so far avoided.
The hearing also sets the legislative calendar in motion. The Defense Subcommittee’s budget session is the opening act of a months-long appropriations process that will include markups, floor votes, and conference negotiations with the Senate. Every future request for war funding will be filtered through the concerns aired on May 12: transparency, cost controls, legal authority, and the absence of a stated endgame.
For now, the confirmed record is narrow but consequential. The Pentagon has developed options to escalate the war with Iran. The conflict has already consumed $29 billion in taxpayer funds. And key lawmakers in both parties are signaling that continued support is no longer automatic. What happens next depends on whether the administration answers the questions it faced in that hearing room, or whether it asks Congress to keep writing checks while the strategy remains classified.
More from Morning Overview
*This article was researched with the help of AI, with human editors creating the final content.
