Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth told senators that the war with Iran is expected to cost the United States $37.5 billion through the end of the fiscal year. He paired that estimate with a request for $67 billion in supplemental defense money, forcing Congress to weigh battlefield replenishment against growing resistance to an expanding conflict. The testimony attached a concrete price to operations that had previously been discussed mainly through daily strikes and casualty reports.
Joint Chiefs Chairman Gen. Dan Caine accompanied Hegseth before the Senate committee that controls appropriations. At the July 21, 2026 hearing, they also defended a separate proposal for a $1.5 trillion Pentagon budget in fiscal 2027. The administration says both streams are needed because the supplement covers immediate operations and replacement stocks while the annual budget supports the wider force.
The $67 billion defense request belongs to a broader $88 billion supplemental package. Of the military share, $21 billion would restore ammunition and readiness; operations receive $17.3 billion, while classified work accounts for $12.1 billion. Other parts of the full package cover farm assistance and efforts against an Ebola outbreak in Africa, which explains why the headline request is larger than the military portion presented by Hegseth.
A War Estimate Climbs by $12.5 Billion Since April
The Pentagon's current estimate is $12.5 billion above the roughly $25 billion figure a defense official gave Congress in late April. Hegseth said the new total contains projected costs through September 30 rather than only money already paid. That accounting choice gives lawmakers a forecast for the remainder of the fiscal year but does not establish how much a longer campaign would require. It also prevents a direct comparison with a cash-spending total measured on the hearing date.
Combat has intensified since a ceasefire collapsed. The United States conducted a tenth consecutive night of strikes on Iranian military sites on Monday, while Iranian attacks have continued against American bases and allies in the region. Hegseth acknowledged during questioning that some Iranian ballistic missiles survived US bombing because they were stored deep underground, although he said the country's forces had suffered severe damage.
The human cost now shapes the funding argument. Seventeen American service members have been killed since operations began in February, according to the figures cited during the hearing. Three died over the preceding weekend, including one service member killed during an Iranian drone disposal in Iraq. Officials told CBS News that nearly 100 troops were injured in Iranian strikes on Middle Eastern bases during July. Replacing interceptors and other equipment cannot be separated from decisions that keep those personnel exposed.
Unspent Earlier Money Complicates the New Request
Several Democratic senators pointed to approximately $75 billion that remains unspent from an earlier budget-reconciliation law. They asked why another large appropriation should advance before the Pentagon uses funds Congress has already provided. Hegseth answered that 95% of the previous money would be allocated by the end of September, a distinction between committing funds to contracts and the government actually making payments. Senators can demand contract schedules before deciding whether that promise resolves the apparent backlog.
Sen. Patty Murray, the committee's top Democrat, rejected a rapid approval and argued that the administration had not supplied a strategy for ending the war. Her objection went beyond the size of the request: voting for replacement weapons and operational expenses could sustain a campaign even if Congress has not separately endorsed its duration or objectives.
Committee Chair Susan Collins, a Republican, recognized the sharp disagreement over the decision to use force. She nevertheless argued that troop training, weapons stocks and other required bills cannot simply be ignored. Collins and Sen. Lisa Murkowski have supported attempts to limit presidential war powers, leaving them between opposition to unchecked operations and concern that withholding money could weaken forces already deployed.
The Senate Route Is Less Certain Than the House Plan
House Republicans have considered moving the money through budget reconciliation, a procedure that can pass qualifying fiscal measures without Democratic votes. The Senate applies narrower rules to that process, and Majority Leader John Thune has not committed to using it. Senators would still have to settle offsets, the mix between defense and agriculture, and whether every provision has a sufficient budgetary effect. Failure under reconciliation would push leaders toward a conventional spending bill that needs a broader coalition.
Gen. Caine framed the request as a time-sensitive chance to prepare for threats in the Middle East, Europe and the Pacific. That broad justification may help the Pentagon argue that replenished stocks serve missions beyond Iran. It can also make oversight harder because a dollar assigned to general readiness does not show whether Congress is paying an existing bill, restoring a depleted weapon or financing the next phase of combat.
The funding vote will decide far more than whether the Pentagon receives another account. Approval without limits would give the administration resources to continue operations after its own $37.5 billion estimate ends on September 30; rejection would leave Congress responsible for shortages incurred during a war already under way. A credible bill must therefore connect each tranche of money to an identified cost, a reporting deadline and a decision on how long US forces are expected to remain in the fight.