Skip to content
You can now search across every topic, entity and event.What's new
Iran Conflict 2026
22JUL

Hegseth prices the war at $37.5bn

3 min read
12:09UTC

Pete Hegseth gave the Senate Appropriations Committee the first official cost of the Iran campaign, $37.5 billion, and no basis for what the number counts.

ConflictDeveloping
Key takeaway

Washington's first official price for the Iran war arrived with no accounting basis attached.

Pete Hegseth, the US Secretary of War, told the Senate Appropriations Committee on Tuesday 21 July that the Iran campaign has cost $37.5 billion so far, the first official figure Washington has attached to this war 1. He gave no accounting basis for it. Not obligated, not appropriated, not incremental: the number arrived bare, under questioning, with Joint Chiefs Chairman General Dan Caine sitting beside him.

The request the committee was examining had been on the table since 24 June. Russell Vought, director of the Office of Management and Budget (OMB), wrote to Speaker Mike Johnson that day asking for $87.6 billion, of which $67 billion is the Defence component covering Iran 2. An OMB letter is a request rather than a bill, and Congress has to draft and pass the appropriation itself. No markup or vote date has been set.

Reporting on the request describes $32.7 billion of it, roughly half, as direct war operations 3. No public itemisation of the remainder holds together as a breakdown, and the figures circulating for the individual lines do not reconcile against the total. Ranking member Patty Murray said the committee would not "rubber-stamp a request to bankroll this war", noting the department received over $1 trillion last year and is asking $1.3 trillion for the current fiscal year 4. Dick Durbin said the two witnesses "can't explain how this money is going to be spent" 5.

Washington has looked elsewhere for the money before. Donald Trump floated a 20% toll on Hormuz shipping in mid-July, then dropped it inside a day in favour of Gulf states investing billions in the United States in exchange for naval protection . Neither idea produced a dollar, and both left the bill where it started, with an appropriations committee that has now said aloud it cannot tell what it would be funding.

The timing sharpens the ask. Washington is being pressed to pay for naval protection of one chokepoint in the same week a second one closed to Saudi traffic at the cost of a transmitter.

Deep Analysis

In plain English

The US Defense Secretary, Pete Hegseth, told a Senate committee that fighting the war with Iran has cost $37.5 billion so far. This is the first time the US government has put an official price tag on the war. Hegseth did not explain what exactly that money paid for, and two senators on the committee said publicly that he and the top US general, Dan Caine, could not explain how the money had been or would be spent. Separately, the White House has already asked Congress for $67 billion more, as part of a bigger $87.6 billion request that also includes money for farmers and for an Ebola outbreak response. Congress has not yet voted on that request.

Deep Analysis
Root Causes

The $67 billion Defense component sits inside OMB Director Russell Vought's 24 June letter to Speaker Mike Johnson seeking $87.6 billion, which also bundles $11.1 billion in farm assistance, $1.4 billion for Ebola response, and smaller items for DC restoration and Penn Station modernisation, structurally raising the political cost of blocking war funding without also blocking unrelated domestic spending.

The itemised breakdown reported around the hearing does not reconcile with the headline ask: components cited as $32.7bn for direct operations, $21bn for munitions, $17.3bn for operations, and $12.1bn for classified programmes sum closer to $95.8 billion against a stated $67.1 billion request, leaving no single authoritative accounting of what the money actually covers.

What could happen next?
  • Consequence

    Without a committee markup or vote date set, the $67 billion Defense component of the supplemental request could stall in Congress through the current fiscal year, leaving war funding reliant on existing appropriations.

  • Risk

    Continued inability to reconcile itemised cost figures against the headline ask gives appropriators grounds to demand a formal accounting before releasing further funds.

First Reported In

Update #159 · A second strait closes by radio alone

Spectrum News· 22 Jul 2026
Read original
Different Perspectives
China's foreign ministry
China's foreign ministry
Spokesman Lin Jian rejected Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent's 25 August warning that Iranian oil buyers face an "economic D-Day", saying sanctions do not help and that Beijing would safeguard its own rights and interests. China's Iranian crude imports had already halved for unrelated reasons.
Iraq's government and Erbil authorities
Iraq's government and Erbil authorities
Erbil authorities said 10 explosive-laden drones were shot down over the city on 1-2 September with no casualties. Iraq's government condemned the attacks without naming Iran as their source, and neither Washington nor Baghdad confirmed the IRGC's claim to have hit US bases there.
Bahrain Defence Force
Bahrain Defence Force
The General Command said air defences intercepted several Iranian missiles and drones on 1-2 September and called the use of such weapons against civilians and private property a flagrant violation of international humanitarian law.
Kuwait's Fire Force and foreign ministry
Kuwait's Fire Force and foreign ministry
KUNA reported a hostile Iranian drone struck a residential complex in Kuwait City on 2 September; Fire Force spokesman Brigadier General Mohammad Al-Gharib said losses were confined to property. Kuwait's foreign ministry called the attack a clear breach of its sovereignty.
Jordan's Armed Forces
Jordan's Armed Forces
Petra carried a statement that air defences intercepted eight missiles violating Jordanian airspace early on 31 August and 10 of 13 fired on 1 September. The statement named no target and did not address the IRGC's claim to have struck Camp Titin and killed US personnel.
CENTCOM
CENTCOM
CENTCOM's 1 September target list named IRGC air defence, radar, maritime and mine-laying sites in Iran but no tanker, after Axios reported anonymous officials describing a Trump-approved "tanker for tanker" drone policy. A CENTCOM spokesman declined to confirm the policy and referred questions to policymakers.