Hegseth Faces Hard Questions Over Iran War, Civilian Deaths, Strategy

Pete Hegseth spent a second day under congressional questioning on the Iran war as lawmakers pressed him on civilian deaths, the costs of the campaign and whether the United States had launched it with a coherent strategy. In a hearing that became a test of wartime accountability in Washington, the defense secretary faced sustained scrutiny over how the conflict was being fought and what Congress could still learn about its conduct.

The April 29 appearance before the House Armed Services Committee, where Hegseth testified alongside Gen. Dan Caine, marked the first public congressional hearing on the Iran war since the conflict began. By April 30, Democrats were challenging Hegseth’s assurances and asking whether the war had been launched without evidence of an imminent threat. The Pentagon’s comptroller said the war had already cost about $25 billion, with the largest share going to munitions, sharpening concern over both the pace of spending and the absence of a clear end state.

Civilian harm dominated part of the exchange. Lawmakers questioned Hegseth about the rising toll of the air campaign after humanitarian reporting said intense strikes had caused high civilian casualties and extensive damage to homes, schools and health facilities. TIME also reported that civilians killed in the war included women, children, health workers and journalists, underscoring the breadth of the losses as the conflict continued to escalate.

The hearing also reopened a long-running fight over Hegseth’s views on women in combat. His position has drawn criticism since at least his January 2025 confirmation hearing, when senators from both parties challenged him on the issue. Female veterans and service members have since pushed back forcefully, arguing that women have already shown combat competence and heroism in Iraq and Afghanistan, and that the military cannot afford to ignore their record.

Hegseth was also questioned over an accusation involving antisemitic remarks, though the full exchange was not made clear in the available details. Even so, the line of questioning showed how many of the debates surrounding him now converge in one place: wartime strategy, civilian protection, civilian control of the military and the values he has brought to one of the government’s most powerful posts.