US Defense Secretary Hegseth evades questions on Iran war at Senate hearing, draining bipartisan patience

Lawmakers Press Pentagon Chief for Clear Strategy

In a rare opportunity to question top Pentagon leaders, senators from both parties on Tuesday pleaded with Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth to outline a clear strategy for the U.S. war on Iran—or at minimum, to defend his previous statements about it. Hegseth responded at times combatively or evasively, highlighting growing frustration over the costly conflict and the Trump administration's multiple, shifting rationales for the war.

The hearing underscored a declining appetite among lawmakers for the White House's unprecedented $1.5 trillion defense-spending request.

Public Opinion Turns Sharply Against the War

Lawmakers are not alone in their frustration. According to an Ipsos poll, 68 percent of the public said last week that Operation Epic Fury was "not worth fighting."

Fresh data from Politico released Wednesday showed that only one-third of self-identified MAGA voters now approve of the war—a 13-point drop in just two months.

Key Exchanges from the Hearing

Sen. Chris Coons (D-DE)

Coons argued that the declining support does not reflect disagreement over the threat of an Iranian nuclear weapon, but rather disapproval of how the White House has handled the situation:

"This radical Iranian regime should never possess a nuclear weapon. I think we agree on all of these core basic points. I think your first strategic mistake was to not consult the American people and Congress and make a clear case for the reasons behind this war. There have been many, lots offered."

Sen. Jon Ossoff (D-GA)

Ossoff read Hegseth's previous public statements back to him verbatim and pressed for a recommitment:

Ossoff: "You said, quote, 'Operation Epic Fury was a historic and overwhelming victory.' You said Iran's military had been rendered, quote, 'combat-ineffective for years to come,' and you stated we had, quote, 'achieved every single objective.' Were those accurate statements?"

Hegseth acknowledged that U.S. strikes had decimated Iran's Air Force, Navy, and industrial base, but conceded that the country was still developing and launching drones and missiles:

"So we never expected they would stop having capabilities to shoot. The question is at scale against opponents like the United States of America."

Ossoff repeated the question, seeking a declarative yes or no—which did not come. He continued:

"On March 8, day nine of the war, on 60 Minutes, you assured the American people of Iranian surrender. Does that remain your prediction?"

Hegseth replied:

"Iran will never have a nuclear weapon to threaten the United States of America. That has been the objective, and it remains so."

Sen. Kirsten Gillibrand (D-NY)

Gillibrand addressed the issue of consistency and credibility directly:

"The reason why [voters] are so upset with you and this administration is because the words you have used in the past don't add up. About Iran, specifically, you said that we had obliterated, quote unquote, Iran's ability to create nuclear weapons. The president made the same claim. Yet eight months later, in 2026, the president launched an act of war, claiming Iran was within two weeks of having a weapon. So when you say two very different things, the American people don't know who to believe or what to believe."

She reframed the issue in terms of economic uncertainty:

"They just know they can't afford their health care; they can't afford their food; they can't afford housing, and our farmers are continuing to suffer. So, which is true? Was it obliterated or wasn't it?"

Sen. John Kennedy (R-LA)

Even staunch Trump allies lost patience. Kennedy asked Hegseth whether Iran could restart its nuclear program if the U.S. concludes operations too soon. Without providing a clear yes or no, Hegseth answered that Iran had not given up its nuclear ambitions even though its nuclear sites had been obliterated.

Kennedy interrupted with a shout:

"We need straight answers!"

Broader Implications

The lack of clear answers is damaging not only the White House's credibility but also senators' ability to support the administration's requests. As public and congressional patience erodes, the path forward for Operation Epic Fury—and the massive defense budget tied to it—remains uncertain.