Hegseth to be grilled by Congress for first time since Iran war began

The US Secretary of Defense appeared before the House and Senate Armed Services Committees for the first time since the United States began military operatio...

What Happened

The US Secretary of Defense appeared before the House and Senate Armed Services Committees for the first time since the United States began military operations against Iran on February 28, 2026, in hearings nominally focused on the administration's proposed FY 2027 military budget of $1.5 trillion.
The war, launched without prior congressional authorisation, has so far cost an estimated $25 billion, involved a significant drawdown of critical military stockpiles, and raised legal questions about compliance with the War Powers Resolution, 1973.
A fragile ceasefire is in place; the administration has argued that the ceasefire constitutes "termination of hostilities," pausing or ending the 60-day deadline under the War Powers Resolution — a legal interpretation rejected by most constitutional scholars.
A senator announced plans to introduce an Authorization for Use of Military Force (AUMF) when Congress returns from recess in mid-May 2026, if the administration does not present a formal war authorisation plan to Congress.
Congressional debate has focused on three issues: the absence of a formal AUMF; the ballooning financial and material costs of the conflict; and the constitutional question of whether the War Powers Resolution's 60-day clock continues to run during a ceasefire.

Static Topic Bridges

US Constitutional Framework: War Powers and Congressional Authority

The US Constitution divides war powers between the legislative and executive branches. Article I, Section 8 grants Congress the sole authority to declare war and appropriate funds for military operations. Article II, Section 2 designates the President as Commander-in-Chief of the Armed Forces. This constitutional division has historically been a source of tension when Presidents initiate military action without a formal declaration of war.

The US has not issued a formal declaration of war since World War II (1941–42), despite numerous armed conflicts since then (Korea, Vietnam, Gulf War, Afghanistan, Iraq, Libya).
In practice, military operations have been authorised through AUMFs (statutory authorisations short of a formal declaration of war) or initiated by Presidential executive authority with later congressional ratification through budget approvals.
The 2001 AUMF (post-9/11) authorised force against those responsible for the September 11 attacks; the 2002 AUMF authorised the Iraq invasion. These are among the most consequential congressional war authorisations in recent history.

Connection to this news: The absence of a specific AUMF for Iran operations — and the administration's reliance solely on executive authority — is at the heart of the congressional challenge to the legality of the conflict.

War Powers Resolution, 1973 (50 U.S.C. §§ 1541–1548)

The War Powers Resolution (WPR) of 1973 was enacted by Congress over a Presidential veto to reassert legislative control over decisions to commit US forces to armed conflict. It was a direct response to the undeclared wars in Korea and Vietnam, which saw massive military commitments without formal congressional authorisation.

The WPR requires the President to notify Congress within 48 hours of introducing armed forces into hostilities.
Once hostilities begin, the President has 60 days to obtain congressional authorisation, failing which a 30-day withdrawal period is automatically triggered (making the total window 90 days).
The 60-day clock formally began on March 2, 2026, when the administration notified Congress of the commencement of hostilities; May 1, 2026 is widely identified as the deadline.
The administration's claim that the ceasefire "terminates" hostilities and pauses the clock has been rejected by independent legal experts; the WPR contains no provision for clock pauses based on ceasefires.
Congressional Republicans and Democrats disagree on whether to invoke the WPR, given the current ceasefire and ongoing diplomatic negotiations.

Connection to this news: The Hegseth hearings crystallised the constitutional standoff: the executive branch's interpretation of the WPR is being contested in real time, with potentially significant consequences for the balance of war powers in the US system.

Authorization for Use of Military Force (AUMF): Concept and Significance

An AUMF is a joint resolution passed by both chambers of Congress that authorises the President to use military force in a specific context, against a specific enemy or in a specific geographic area. It is distinct from a formal declaration of war but serves as congressional sanction for military action and is legally required under the War Powers Resolution if military operations exceed 60 days.

AUMFs define the scope, duration, and geographic limits of authorised force; overly broad or open-ended AUMFs can become platforms for mission creep (as occurred with the 2001 AUMF, which was invoked in at least 19 countries over two decades).
A proposed Iran-specific AUMF would need to specify: the enemy (Iranian government? IRGC? specific proxies?), the authorised military means, geographic scope, time limits, and reporting requirements.
Congress's "power of the purse" (Article I, Section 9) provides a complementary check — even without invoking the WPR, Congress can refuse to appropriate funds for military operations.

Connection to this news: The pending AUMF proposal is an exercise of the constitutionally fundamental legislative check on executive war-making — UPSC questions on US foreign policy and international conflict often probe the role of Congress in military decisions.

US–Iran Relations: Historical and Strategic Context

US–Iran relations have been adversarial since the 1979 Islamic Revolution, which overthrew the US-backed Shah and resulted in the 444-day hostage crisis at the US Embassy in Tehran. Key subsequent flashpoints include: US support for Iraq during the Iran–Iraq War (1980–88); US withdrawal from the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action (JCPOA/Iran Nuclear Deal) in 2018; the killing of IRGC Quds Force commander Qasem Soleimani in 2020; and escalating proxy conflicts across the Middle East through 2023–25.

Iran's nuclear programme — particularly uranium enrichment capacity — has been the central strategic flashpoint; the JCPOA (2015) attempted to cap enrichment levels in exchange for sanctions relief, but collapsed after US withdrawal.
The Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps (IRGC) was designated a foreign terrorist organisation by the US in 2019.
Iran's network of regional proxies (Hezbollah in Lebanon, Houthi movement in Yemen, Shia militias in Iraq and Syria) has been a vector for asymmetric confrontation with Israel and the US.
The February 2026 conflict marks a significant escalation — the first direct US military engagement against Iran proper, rather than against Iranian-backed proxies.

Connection to this news: Understanding this context is essential for UPSC Mains questions on West Asia security architecture, US foreign policy under shifting administrations, and the international law dimensions of armed conflict.

International Law on Use of Force: UN Charter Framework

The UN Charter (1945) establishes a foundational prohibition on the use of force in international relations, with two primary exceptions: self-defence under Article 51, and force authorised by the UN Security Council under Chapter VII. All UN member states — including the US — are bound by this framework.

Article 2(4) prohibits the threat or use of force against the territorial integrity or political independence of any state.
Article 51 preserves the inherent right of individual or collective self-defence if an armed attack occurs, until the Security Council takes necessary measures.
Chapter VII authorises the Security Council to determine threats to peace and authorise enforcement action, including military force.
Unilateral military action not authorised by the UN Security Council and not qualifying as Article 51 self-defence is a violation of international law — regardless of domestic legal authorisation within the attacking country.

Connection to this news: The absence of a UN Security Council authorisation for US military action against Iran, alongside the contested domestic legal basis (no AUMF), creates a dual-level legal challenge to the legitimacy of the conflict — a dimension UPSC tests in both IR and International Law questions.

Key Facts & Data

US military operations against Iran began: February 28, 2026
Congressional notification of hostilities: March 2, 2026
War Powers Resolution 60-day deadline: May 1, 2026
Estimated war cost: $25 billion (Pentagon figures as of April 2026)
Proposed FY 2027 US defense budget: $1.5 trillion (historic high)
Key law: War Powers Resolution, 1973 (50 U.S.C. §§ 1541–1548)
Pending action: AUMF to be introduced in US Senate week of May 11, 2026
Administration's legal position: ceasefire terminates hostilities, WPR clock does not apply
Expert consensus: ceasefire does not affect the WPR 60-day clock
Relevant AUMFs for comparison: 2001 AUMF (post-9/11); 2002 AUMF (Iraq)
UN Charter provisions on force: Article 2(4) (prohibition), Article 51 (self-defence), Chapter VII (UNSC authorisation)
Iran nuclear deal: JCPOA (2015), US withdrew in 2018
IRGC designated foreign terrorist organisation by US: 2019