The U.S. military campaign against Iran has cost an estimated $25 billion so far, a senior Pentagon official told lawmakers Wednesday, offering the first detailed figure as the conflict approaches the 60-day mark and scrutiny intensifies on Capitol Hill.
Jules Hurst, who is performing the duties of Pentagon comptroller, disclosed the estimate during testimony before the House Armed Services Committee, where he appeared alongside Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth and Joint Chiefs of Staff Chairman Dan Caine.
“Approximately, as of today, we’re spending about $25 billion on Operation Epic Fury,” Hurst said in response to questions from Rep. Adam Smith of Washington, the panel’s top Democrat. He explained that the bulk of the spending has gone toward munitions, as well as operational costs, maintenance and equipment replacement.
The figure marks a sharp increase from earlier disclosures. Pentagon officials had previously told Congress that the first six days of the conflict alone cost $11.3 billion, highlighting the rapid pace of military expenditures since the United States began strikes on Feb. 28.
Hurst told lawmakers that the Defense Department is preparing a supplemental funding request that will be submitted through the White House once a full accounting of the conflict’s financial impact is completed. He also committed to providing a detailed breakdown of spending after further questions from Rep. Maggie Goodlander of New Hampshire.
The lack of immediate clarity on how the $25 billion has been allocated drew criticism during the hearing. Goodlander pressed defense officials on why lawmakers had not yet received a comprehensive accounting of taxpayer dollars tied to the war.
“We are 60 days into this conflict and still do not have a basic breakdown of the costs,” she said, questioning whether existing defense funds had been redirected to sustain operations.
Hurst responded that the Pentagon routinely manages contingency operations within its existing budget framework, though he did not specify which accounts had been tapped.
Defense Secretary Hegseth defended the spending, framing it as necessary to prevent Iran from developing nuclear weapons. “What would you pay to ensure Iran does not get a nuclear bomb?” he asked lawmakers during the hearing, emphasizing the administration’s strategic objective.
The disclosure comes as the conflict nears a critical legal threshold under the War Powers Resolution of 1973, which limits a president’s ability to conduct military operations without congressional authorization to 60 days. Lawmakers may soon be required to vote on whether to approve continued military engagement or demand a withdrawal.
So far, efforts in Congress to curtail the conflict have fallen short. The Senate has rejected multiple measures seeking to end U.S. involvement, while a similar resolution in the House failed by a narrow margin.
Beyond Washington, the financial toll of the war is being felt across the broader economy. The ongoing closure of the Strait of Hormuz, a key global shipping route, has disrupted energy markets and driven up fuel prices. Data from the American Automobile Association shows gasoline prices in the United States have climbed to their highest levels in nearly four years.
The Associated Press and Reuters both highlighted that disruptions to oil and natural gas shipments have contributed to rising costs for consumers, including increases in fertilizer and other essential goods tied to global supply chains.
The White House confirmed that President Donald Trump met this week with energy industry executives to discuss the economic fallout and potential next steps, including whether to maintain the blockade of Iranian ports. Trump also signaled frustration with stalled diplomatic efforts, warning that Iran “better get smart soon” as negotiations remain at an impasse.
Meanwhile, U.S. officials have acknowledged that Iranian strikes have inflicted more damage on American military installations in the region than initially disclosed, potentially adding billions more in repair costs.
According to Reuters, the $25 billion price tag is roughly equivalent to the annual budget of NASA, underscoring the scale of the financial commitment. The report also noted that 13 U.S. service members have been killed and hundreds wounded since the conflict began.
Public opinion appears to be shifting as the war continues. A Reuters/Ipsos poll found that support for the conflict has declined in recent weeks, with approval ratings dropping as economic pressures mount.
The $25 billion cost figure underscores how rapidly modern military operations can escalate in financial terms, particularly when they involve sustained air campaigns and high-tech weaponry. Munitions, especially precision-guided systems, are among the most expensive components of contemporary warfare, and their heavy use suggests a strategy reliant on sustained strikes rather than limited engagement.
The timing of the disclosure is significant. As the 60-day threshold under the War Powers Resolution approaches, lawmakers are under increasing pressure to assert their constitutional role in authorizing military action. The absence of a detailed spending breakdown may complicate that process, as legislators weigh both strategic and fiscal considerations.
Economic consequences are also emerging as a central factor in the political debate. The disruption of the Strait of Hormuz has amplified global energy volatility, directly affecting fuel prices and inflation. For consumers, the war’s financial burden is not limited to government spending but extends to everyday costs, from transportation to food production.
The comparison to NASA’s annual budget provides a stark illustration of opportunity cost. Funds directed toward military operations could otherwise support domestic programs, infrastructure, or scientific research, a point likely to feature prominently in ongoing policy discussions.
At the same time, the administration’s emphasis on preventing nuclear proliferation reflects a broader strategic calculation that prioritizes long-term security concerns over short-term financial costs. This tension between fiscal restraint and national security objectives has historically shaped U.S. foreign policy decisions and is likely to remain a defining feature of the current debate.
Looking ahead, the ultimate cost of the conflict will depend on its duration, the extent of damage to U.S. assets, and whether diplomatic efforts succeed in producing a lasting resolution. If the conflict continues or escalates, the $25 billion figure may represent only an early snapshot of a much larger financial commitment.
NBC/Reuters
