US Defense Secretary Hegseth evades questions at Iran war hearing, bipartisan patience wears thin

Given a rare opportunity to press 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 least to defend his previous statements about it. Hegseth responded at times combatively or evasively.

The hearing highlighted growing frustration over the costly war and the Trump administration's multiple and shifting rationales for it—all of which appear to be reducing lawmakers' appetite for the White House's unprecedented $1.5 trillion defense-spending request.

Public Opinion Turns Against the War

Lawmakers are not the only ones frustrated with Operation Epic Fury. Last week, 68 percent of the public said the war was "not worth fighting," according to an Ipsos poll. Wednesday brought fresh numbers from Politico showing that just one-third of self-identified MAGA voters approve of the war—a 13-point drop in two months.

At the hearing, Sen. Chris Coons (D-Del.) said the drops do not reflect differences in concern about a potential Iranian nuclear arsenal, but rather disapproval of how the White House has gone about trying to prevent it.

"This radical Iranian regime should never possess a nuclear weapon. I think we agree on all of these core basic points," Coons said. "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."

Hegseth's Past Statements Put to the Test

Perhaps the most telling portion of the hearing came toward the end, when Sen. Jon Ossoff (D-Ga.) read Hegseth's previous public statements back to him verbatim and then asked Hegseth to recommit to them.

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 answered that U.S. strikes had decimated Iran's Air Force, Navy, and industrial base, but acknowledged 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 that 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."

'The Words You Have Used Don't Add Up'

Sen. Kirsten Gillibrand (D-N.Y.) put the consistency and credibility issue to Hegseth more bluntly.

"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," she said. "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 growing economic uncertainty among voters, who are merely seeking consistent answers as they are asked to make sacrifices.

"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?"

Even Trump Allies Demand Straight Answers

Even some staunch supporters of President Trump and his agenda lost patience with Hegseth's inability to articulate a clear goal for ending the war and the consequences of the United States leaving it before a favorable outcome could be reached.

One such Trump ally, Sen. John Kennedy (R-La.), asked Hegseth whether Iran would be able to restart its nuclear program if the United States concludes operations too soon.

Without providing a clear yes or no, Hegseth answered that Iran had not given up its nuclear ambitions even though their nuclear sites had been obliterated.

Kennedy interrupted the response with a shout: "We need straight answers!"

That lack of straight answers is hurting not only the White House but also senators' ability to meet the administration's requests for continued support.