Congress Schedules Budget Hearing While War Powers Collapse
Three weeks into a war with Iran that has killed 13 American service members and thousands of Iranians, House Republicans have called Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth to testify in late April, not about whether the United States should be fighting, but about the invoice, according to congressional leadership statements. The hearing represents the first time Congress will publicly question Hegseth since U.S. and Israeli forces launched attacks on February 28, and it will focus on the administration's request for more than $200 billion in additional funding rather than the constitutional question of war authorization.
Senate Majority Leader John Thune told reporters he does not expect public hearings specifically on the Iran war itself. Senate Armed Services Committee Chair Roger Wicker said his committee has no plans in the near term to hold hearings on the conflict. The only scheduled oversight will examine the supplemental budget request, treating a major military campaign as an accounting matter rather than a constitutional decision requiring legislative approval.
How War Approval Became War Accounting
The transformation reveals how completely the post-9/11 era has dismantled the constitutional system of shared war powers. President Donald Trump never sought congressional approval before attacking Iran. Instead of debating authorization, Congress will review costs after the fact. Administration officials told lawmakers the first six days of fighting cost more than $11 billion, according to briefing materials shared with congressional committees. Lawmakers estimate daily expenses now run between $1 billion and $2 billion.
The money is already flowing. Last year, the Republican-led Congress approved the Fiscal 2026 Defense Appropriations Act with roughly $840 billion in funding. Last summer, lawmakers passed a tax cut and spending bill that included $156 billion for defense. The Pentagon is spending from those existing accounts while preparing a supplemental request that could exceed $200 billion, a figure President Trump has not yet formally submitted and which administration officials say could change.
Defense Secretary Hegseth and Gen. Dan Caine, chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, have held regular news conferences to brief journalists on military operations. They have not appeared before Congress for public questioning. When asked about the funding request, Hegseth told reporters: "It takes money to kill bad guys."
The Classified Briefing Dodge
Congress has received classified briefings on the war, but multiple senators have dismissed them as inadequate. Sen. John Kennedy exited one classified session calling it a "total waste of time," according to his public statements to reporters. The closed-door format prevents public scrutiny of the administration's justifications and allows lawmakers to avoid taking public positions on the conflict.
Democratic Senator Cory Booker said there has been "no oversight whatsoever" despite the government spending a billion dollars a day, according to his remarks to the press. Democratic Senator Chris Van Hollen called the $200 billion request a "non-starter" and argued the best way to end the war is to cut off funding. Democrats have threatened to force a series of votes on the war to pressure Republicans into action, but they lack the majority needed to compel hearings or block appropriations.
Republican Senator Susan Collins, who chairs the Appropriations Committee, said the $200 billion total is "considerably higher than I would have guessed," according to her public comments. She added that she would most likely want a public hearing on a supplemental request of that size, but framed her interest around the budget process rather than war authorization. Sen. Lisa Murkowski expressed concern about "receiving only an invoice" from the Department of Defense without prior engagement on strategy or objectives.
Public Opposition Without Congressional Response
Opinion polls show only about one in four Americans support the war, according to recent national surveys. The conflict has killed thousands of people, disrupted the lives of millions, and roiled world energy and stock markets. Yet public skepticism has not translated into congressional action. The gap between constituent opinion and legislative response illustrates how thoroughly Congress has ceded its war powers role.
The significance of this constitutional breakdown extends beyond the immediate Iran conflict. When Congress abandons its role as a check on executive war-making, it eliminates the primary mechanism the framers designed to ensure military action reflects the will of the people. The 13 American families who have lost service members, and the Iranian communities devastated by bombing campaigns, represent the human cost of a system where wars begin without democratic deliberation. Military families face deployments decided by executive order rather than congressional debate, while taxpayers fund conflicts they never approved through their elected representatives.
This development signals a broader shift in how democratic accountability functions during wartime. The post-9/11 pattern of presidential military action followed by congressional appropriations has created a new constitutional reality: wars that begin without legislative authorization and continue because cutting funding for troops already deployed becomes politically untenable. The Iran conflict demonstrates this cycle has become normalized across both parties, with neither willing to reclaim the war powers the Constitution explicitly grants to Congress.
What Happens When the Power of the Purse Arrives Late
The late April hearing will mark the first time Hegseth faces public congressional questioning since the attacks began. By then, the war will be nearly two months old. The hearing's focus on budget rather than authorization means Congress will debate how much to spend on a war it never voted to start, completing the inversion of constitutional priorities that began after September 11, 2001.
The pattern extends beyond this conflict. For more than two decades, Congress has relied on authorizations for use of military force that never expire, allowing presidents to launch military operations without seeking new approval, according to legal analyses of the 2001 and 2002 AUMFs. Lawmakers have transformed oversight into a reactive process: classified briefings with no public record, appropriations debates after troops are already deployed, and budget hearings that treat war as just another line item requiring funding rather than a constitutional decision requiring legislative authorization.
The Constitution gives Congress the power to declare war and control federal spending. Both powers have become functionally meaningless when applied after military operations begin. By the time lawmakers hold a hearing on the $200 billion request, the Pentagon will have spent months of existing appropriations on combat operations. Voting against supplemental funding at that point means cutting off troops already in the field, a political impossibility that both parties understand.
The administration has not yet submitted a formal funding request, and the amount remains uncertain. But the timing ensures Congress will face a fait accompli: either approve the money for a war already underway or accept responsibility for denying resources to service members in combat. The choice eliminates any meaningful legislative check on presidential war-making.
If Congress will not assert its constitutional role when 13 Americans have died and billions of dollars flow to an unauthorized war, the power has shifted permanently. The late April hearing will test whether any legislative oversight remains, or whether Congress has fully accepted its new role as the accounting department for wars it no longer declares.