-
Click here to listen to this article - Share via
See more from the L.A. Times in Google Search. Set us as preferred
- Secretary Pete Hegseth and Gen. Dan Caine urged Congress to approve billions in defense funding to sustain war efforts.
- Lawmakers voiced bipartisan skepticism about the administration’s military strategies.
WASHINGTON — The Trump administration urged Congress on Tuesday to approve roughly $70 billion in emergency defense funding to sustain U.S. military capabilities amid its escalating war against Iran, warning that without it the Pentagon could face “critical shortfalls” disrupting its readiness.
The request comes as the United States and Iran have traded strikes for 10 consecutive days in a renewed conflict, deepening concerns in Washington over an expanding war that could inflame the global economy and trap the president in a quagmire.
The collapse of a ceasefire agreement and the sudden resumption of war have raised alarms within the Pentagon over its ability to protect U.S. forces and assets in the Middle East over a prolonged conflict, with defensive munitions in dangerously short supply, two Defense Department officials told The Times.
Yet the administration is facing bipartisan skepticism from lawmakers over the continuation of a war unpopular with a vast majority of Americans, over which they have had little oversight, and that in recent days has led to deaths of U.S. soldiers.
Those tensions became clear as Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth and Gen. Dan Caine, the chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, testified before the Senate Appropriations Committee to make their case for the tens of billions of dollars and offer their first in-depth public remarks about the war since May.
Hegseth told senators the United States is at a “moment where we cannot afford inaction,” while Caine argued the funding request is coming to Congress “while time is still on our side.”
“It is critical that we stay ahead of our adversaries and we must have the funds before we are out of time,” Caine said.
President Trump railed against “forever wars,” but with hostilities increasing and negotiations at a standstill, there appears no easy exit from the war he launched on Iran.
Hegseth said the war is now expected to cost Americans $37.5 billion, up from a $29-billion estimate from early May. The war, initially projected by President Trump to last four to five weeks, is now entering its fifth month.
With no end in sight, senators from both parties signaled frustrations with the administration’s plans.
Sen. Patty Murray (D-Wash.), the top Democrat on the Appropriations Committee, said Democrats will not support more funding for the war.
“This administration’s refusal to explain what it is doing, or how this war is protecting Americans, its refusal to seek authorization from Congress, and its expectations that Americans will just pay for it all without any explanation or transparency is disrespectful,” she said.
Republican lawmakers also confronted Hegseth and Caine on several fronts.
Sen. John Kennedy (R-La.) told the Pentagon leaders that lawmakers “need some proper answers and some straight talk” about the administration’s plans to ensure Iran does not choke traffic through the Strait of Hormuz.
Asked whether Iran would impose tolls on merchant vessels passing through the vital waterway, Caine said it was a “hypothetical” scenario — a response Kennedy rejected.
Sen. Lisa Murkowski (R-Alaska) also put pressure on Hegseth, as she asked him whether the administration was still taking the position that it needed no authorization from Congress to continue hostilities against Iran.
“Senator, I know there’s a long-standing legal debate on this particular topic, but we certainly at the department share the position with the White House that we have all the necessary authorities at this moment,” Hegseth said.
Murkowski’s remarks come just weeks after Republicans joined Democrats in both the House and Senate in voting to reassert Congress’ constitutional role over the war, underscoring the simmering tensions over Trump’s decision to sideline Congress in the matter.
Hours before the hearing, Trump downplayed concerns over the war’s effect on the midterm elections and further threats in the war, as Houthis, the Iran-backed militia in Yemen, declared a maritime blockade Monday on Saudi Arabia.
“So far, it hasn’t happened. It might happen but we take care of things, if something like that happens,” Trump told reporters in the Oval Office.
Trump maintained that Iranian leaders are “desperately” trying to reach a deal to end the war but said he has no interest in meeting with them until he is convinced the talks will be “meaningful.”
“If we left right now, it would take Iran 20 to 25 years to rebuild. We are not finished at all,” Trump said. “We are not leaving right now.”
Asked if he thought Iran was trying to have an effect on the midterm elections by threatening the Strait of Hormuz, Trump said, “probably.”
“It won’t have any impact on me,” he said. “The election, I can’t think about that having to do with this.”
An agreement reached in June between the United States and Iran proposed an end to a U.S. naval blockade of Iranian ports and to U.S. sanctions on Iranian oil exports in exchange for Tehran allowing unfettered commercial shipping traffic through the Strait of Hormuz. But the agreement fell apart, with Iran firing on commercial vessels and pursuing a toll system for transit that had not existed before the war started.
The deal was supposed to set up a structure for more detailed negotiations on Iran’s nuclear program, a prime target of the U.S. campaign launched in February in partnership with Israel.
Much of Iran’s nuclear infrastructure was degraded in a U.S. strike conducted last year that targeted three major facilities. But the fissile material required to build nuclear weapons remains in the country, under the watch of U.S. satellite surveillance. Iran has vowed to continue pursuing civilian nuclear work.
“How about these people? They’re in this because of nuclear weapons, and they’re trying to possibly reconstitute a site? We’ll hit that site. Any site where they’re even thinking about nuclear — we’ll be hitting it very, very powerfully,” Trump said.
As the war expands, there’s been heightened concern about the infrastructure that civilians in neighboring countries rely on for water and power.
Diplomats are seeking to salvage the collapsed interim deal between Iran and the U.S. even as both countries kept up attacks in a 10th day of renewed fighting.
Iranian officials said U.S. strikes hit the Bunji desalination plant on Iran’s southeastern coast, leaving 20 villages — where some 10,000 people reside — without water, according to reports from Iran’s semi-official news agency Tasnim.
Meanwhile, the Kuwaiti government said its power plants and desalination plants were struck by Iran on Monday — the fourth consecutive day of attacks on a key source of drinking water for the small desert nation.
The attacks spurred the Kuwaiti government over the weekend to launch an ad campaign calling on residents to reduce their water and power usage, especially during peak hours between 11 a.m. and 5 p.m.
A concerted campaign targeting desalination plants would be devastating both for Iran and the Persian Gulf nations it has peppered with drones and missiles since the start of the war.
Bahrain, Kuwait, Oman, Qatar, the Emirates and Saudi Arabia are among the world’s eight most water-stressed countries. Israel ranks 9th, while Iran is 14th, according to the Washington, D.C.-based Water Resources Institute.
All of them suffer from “absolute water scarcity,” according to metrics used by the U.N.’s Food and Agriculture organization.
Times staff writer Nabih Bulos in Beirut contributed to this report.
Facts Only
* Secretary Pete Hegseth urged Congress to approve roughly $70 billion in emergency defense funding.
* The request was to sustain U.S. military capabilities amid escalating war against Iran.
* Two Defense Department officials reported defensive munitions were in dangerously short supply due to the prolonged conflict.
* Defense Secretary Hegseth stated the United States was at a moment where inaction could not be afforded.
* General Dan Caine argued that funding needed to be approved while time was still on the side of the U.S.
* The war against Iran has involved strikes for ten consecutive days.
* The conflict has entered its fifth month.
* The estimated cost of the war is projected at $37.5 billion, up from a $29-billion estimate in early May.
* Senator Patty Murray stated Democrats would not support more funding for the war.
* Senator John Kennedy requested answers about plans to prevent Iran from choking traffic through the Strait of Hormuz.
* The Kuwaiti government launched an advertisement calling for reduced water and power usage following attacks on its facilities.
Executive Summary
The Trump administration requested approximately $70 billion in emergency defense funding from Congress to sustain U.S. military capabilities amid escalating conflict with Iran, warning that a lack of funds could cause critical shortfalls in readiness. This request followed a renewed conflict where the U.S. and Iran exchanged strikes for ten consecutive days. Concerns arose within the Pentagon regarding the ability to protect assets and forces in the Middle East during prolonged conflict, particularly concerning the shortage of defensive munitions.
Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth and Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff Gen. Dan Caine testified before the Senate Appropriations Committee. Hegseth asserted that inaction was unaffordable, while Caine stressed the necessity of funding before time ran out to stay ahead of adversaries. The conflict has been ongoing for five months, with estimates suggesting the war could cost Americans $37.5 billion. Lawmakers expressed bipartisan skepticism regarding the administration's military strategies and the continuation of a war unpopular with many Americans.
Lawmakers from both parties confronted the administration leaders regarding transparency and authorization. Senators expressed concerns about the lack of explanation for the war's justification and the expectations placed on the public to bear the costs without adequate oversight. Discussions also touched upon specific geopolitical risks, such as Iran potentially imposing tolls through the Strait of Hormuz, and the impact of hostilities on critical infrastructure in neighboring nations through attacks targeting water and power facilities.
Full Take
The narrative presented balances urgent military necessity against profound political and moral friction. The tension arises because immediate operational concerns regarding defense readiness and supply are being juxtaposed against deep-seated public dissatisfaction over the war's duration, cost, and lack of transparency regarding Congressional authorization. This dynamic suggests a conflict between executive imperatives—the perceived need for immediate military action backed by high-level appeals—and democratic accountability, which demands explicit justification and consent from the legislative branch.
A critical pattern emerges in how geopolitical crises are managed: when the scope of conflict extends beyond immediate military objectives to include economic stability and collateral impact (such as water infrastructure in neighboring states), the focus shifts toward systemic failure. The discussion surrounding the potential for transit choke points, like the Strait of Hormuz, demonstrates that protracted warfare inevitably metastasizes into concerns about global systems and civilian survival.
The resistance from lawmakers—both Republican and Democrat—to accepting the administration's framing highlights a fundamental disagreement over the role of executive authority versus legislative oversight in protracted conflicts. The defense officials' appeals are framed around temporal urgency ("we must have the funds before we are out of time"), while the lawmakers' demands center on legitimacy ("proper answers and some straight talk"). This divergence reveals an underlying pattern where perceived urgency is leveraged to preempt comprehensive deliberation, forcing a debate not just on military strategy but on the very framework of governance surrounding foreign policy decisions.
BRIDGE QUESTIONS: If the prioritization of immediate readiness always supersedes full accountability in protracted conflicts, what long-term systemic costs are incurred when transparency is deliberately withheld? How can political structures evolve to mandate continuous, evidence-based reassessment of war objectives beyond short-term kinetic outcomes? What alternative frameworks for establishing executive authority during existential military threats could mitigate the cycle of bipartisan skepticism and operational deadlock?
Sentinel — Human
The text exhibits the dense, layered synthesis typical of journalistic reporting, skillfully balancing political arguments with logistical and environmental details.
