Hegseth Asks for More Money as Iran War Costs Skyrocket 75%

By Nick Turse66%

5/12/2026, 5:22:12 PM

BS Summary: This article contains 33 faulty reasoning types, including Appeal to Authority, Pessimism Bias, and Unattributed Quote, with Negativity Bias as the most egregious example at 34.8% saturation with 261 hits. Analysis detected 2,131 faulty-reasoning hits from 750 analyzed words, generating a BS Score of 67.1% and a BS Rank of 75% (5,469 of 21,887 articles). This article is worse (more manipulative) than 75.00% of the article peer group.

Despite a ceasefire that has been in effect for more than a month, the cost of the U.S. war with Iran keeps spiking higher, a senior Pentagon official said on Tuesday. 
Two weeks ago, the Pentagon claimed the war had cost $25 billion, a figure that analysts said was likely a gross undercount. 
In testimony before the House Appropriations defense subcommittee, the Department of War’s comptroller, Jay Hurst, said the cost of the war has risen “closer” to $29 billion because of the “repair and replacement of equipment” and “general operational costs” of keeping troops in the Middle East. 
Experts also expressed skepticism at this revised count. 
“The costs of this war are still growing, and the Pentagon is still not being straight with taxpayers or lawmakers about the numbers. 
If the numbers being thrown around in committee hearings were complete, why would the Pentagon continue withholding a comprehensive, itemized cost assessment from Congress?” 
said Gabe Murphy, a policy analyst at Taxpayers for Common Sense, a nonpartisan budget watchdog advocating for an end to wasteful spending. 
“Taxpayers deserve answers, and lawmakers need them in order to craft a responsible budget.” 
“If they can’t defend the nation with a trillion dollars, they’re doing it wrong.” 
Hurst, War Secretary Pete Hegseth, and Gen. 
Dan Caine, chair of the Joint Chiefs of Staff are on Capitol Hill to discuss the Pentagon’s $1.5 trillion budget request for 2027 before House and Senate appropriations subcommittees on Tuesday. 
Hegseth said the massive sum  the largest request in history  “reflects the urgency of the moment” and would address both the “deferment of long-standing problems as well as position our forces for the current and future fight.” 
Murphy called the dramatic 45 percent increase a negotiating tactic. 
“They’re seeking $350 billion through reconciliation and $1.15 trillion in the base budget, but they know reconciliation is a long shot. 
It’s all about trying to make a $1.15 trillion Pentagon budget seem reasonable in comparison,” said Murphy. 
“But there’s nothing reasonable about it. 
It’s a roughly $150 billion increase over last year.” 
Americans, Murphy said, deserve an explanation for the runaway military budget. 
“If they can’t defend the nation with a trillion dollars, they’re doing it wrong.” 
President Donald Trump said Monday that the ceasefire with Iran  which went into effect on April 8  is “on life support” after Iran’s response to the latest U.S. peace proposal. 
Reuters, citing Iranian state media, reported that Iran’s proposal included war reparations from the United States, lifting sanctions on Tehran, and recognition of its sovereignty over the Strait of Hormuz. 
Trump rejected Iran’s reply as “totally unacceptable” and called it a “piece of garbage.” 
Hegseth said the Pentagon was prepared to reignite hostilities with Iran. 
“We have a plan to escalate, if necessary; we have a plan to retrograde if necessary. 
We have a plan to shift assets,” the secretary testified, declining to say more in the public hearing. 
An analysis by The Intercept found that Trump has embroiled the U.S. in more than 20 military interventions, armed conflicts, and wars during his five-plus years in the White House. 
The expenses of this wide-ranging war on the world are rising across the globe. 
The Intercept was, for example, the first outlet to reveal that the U.S. military’s intervention in Venezuela and attacks on boats in the Caribbean and the Eastern Pacific  Operations Absolute Resolve and Operation Southern Spear, respectively  have already cost taxpayers at least $4.7 billion, according to an exceptionally cautious estimate from Brown University’s Costs of War Project. 
The ultimate price tag of Americas wars in Latin America will further balloon in the decades ahead, saddling future Americans with soaring costs, according to the report. 
“War is financed by debt, adding interest costs to the public budget,” wrote authors Hanna Homestead, a research analyst with the National Priorities Project, and Jennifer Kavanagh, the director of military analysis at Defense Priorities, a nonpartisan research group. 
“Furthermore, the federal government undertakes an obligation to pay veterans benefits for decades into the future.” 
Recently, Linda Bilmes, a former assistant secretary and chief financial officer of the U.S. 
Department of Commerce and currently a public policy professor at the Harvard Kennedy School, told The Intercept that the already-excessive expense of the Iran war would likely be pushed into the trillions of dollars by such long-term costs like veterans benefits and interest on the debt to pay for the war. 
Article reasoning-pattern comparisonThis article: 9.9%Nick Turse: 5.7%The Intercept: 5.3%Confirmation Bias9.9%This article: 10.8%Nick Turse: 0.8%The Intercept: 0.5%Anchoring Bias10.8%This article: 8.9%Nick Turse: 2.7%The Intercept: 3.0%Availability Heuristic8.9%This article: 0.0%Nick Turse: 0.8%The Intercept: 1.0%Representativeness Heuristic0.0%This article: 3.6%Nick Turse: 0.6%The Intercept: 0.7%Hindsight Bias3.6%This article: 6.8%Nick Turse: 2.3%The Intercept: 1.5%Overconfidence Bias6.8%This article: 8.9%Nick Turse: 6.5%The Intercept: 9.2%Framing Effect8.9%This article: 7.3%Nick Turse: 0.1%The Intercept: 0.4%Loss Aversion7.3%This article: 0.0%Nick Turse: 0.4%The Intercept: 0.4%Status Quo Bias0.0%This article: 1.2%Nick Turse: 0.1%The Intercept: 0.1%Sunk Cost Effect1.2%This article: 5.2%Nick Turse: 0.8%The Intercept: 1.0%Optimism Bias5.2%This article: 18.3%Nick Turse: 2.1%The Intercept: 2.2%Pessimism Bias18.3%This article: 34.8%Nick Turse: 17.4%The Intercept: 12.3%Negativity Bias34.8%This article: 2.3%Nick Turse: 0.7%The Intercept: 0.9%Self-Serving Bias2.3%This article: 6.0%Nick Turse: 0.7%The Intercept: 1.4%Fundamental Attribution Error6.0%This article: 0.0%Nick Turse: 0.2%The Intercept: 0.2%Actor-Observer Bias0.0%This article: 2.9%Nick Turse: 0.5%The Intercept: 1.7%In-Group Bias2.9%This article: 0.0%Nick Turse: 0.3%The Intercept: 1.0%Out-Group Homogeneity Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Nick Turse: 0.6%The Intercept: 1.0%Halo Effect0.0%This article: 0.0%Nick Turse: 0.2%The Intercept: 0.2%Horn Effect0.0%This article: 0.0%Nick Turse: 0.0%The Intercept: 0.0%Dunning-Kruger Effect0.0%This article: 12.4%Nick Turse: 1.2%The Intercept: 1.3%Recency Bias12.4%This article: 5.2%Nick Turse: 0.3%The Intercept: 0.3%Primacy Effect5.2%This article: 2.4%Nick Turse: 0.1%The Intercept: 0.0%Blind-Spot Bias2.4%This article: 3.1%Nick Turse: 2.8%The Intercept: 2.4%Ad Hominem3.1%This article: 0.0%Nick Turse: 0.5%The Intercept: 0.7%Straw Man0.0%This article: 34.8%Nick Turse: 7.9%The Intercept: 3.4%Appeal to Authority34.8%This article: 3.7%Nick Turse: 1.4%The Intercept: 2.0%False Dilemma3.7%This article: 3.6%Nick Turse: 0.7%The Intercept: 1.7%Slippery Slope3.6%This article: 0.0%Nick Turse: 0.2%The Intercept: 0.1%Circular Reasoning0.0%This article: 5.3%Nick Turse: 5.7%The Intercept: 7.2%Hasty Generalization5.3%This article: 0.0%Nick Turse: 0.2%The Intercept: 0.3%Red Herring0.0%This article: 0.0%Nick Turse: 0.1%The Intercept: 0.4%Bandwagon0.0%This article: 14.7%Nick Turse: 6.1%The Intercept: 6.4%Appeal to Emotion14.7%This article: 3.2%Nick Turse: 1.3%The Intercept: 1.4%Begging the Question3.2%This article: 10.4%Nick Turse: 2.9%The Intercept: 3.1%Post Hoc (False Cause)10.4%This article: 0.0%Nick Turse: 0.1%The Intercept: 0.2%Tu Quoque0.0%This article: 5.6%Nick Turse: 1.0%The Intercept: 0.7%Burden of Proof5.6%This article: 0.0%Nick Turse: 0.1%The Intercept: 0.1%Appeal to Nature0.0%This article: 1.9%Nick Turse: 0.5%The Intercept: 0.4%Composition/Division1.9%This article: 9.7%Nick Turse: 2.1%The Intercept: 2.3%Anecdotal9.7%This article: 0.0%Nick Turse: 0.1%The Intercept: 0.1%No True Scotsman0.0%This article: 4.1%Nick Turse: 1.9%The Intercept: 1.5%Ambiguity (Equivocation)4.1%This article: 0.0%Nick Turse: 0.0%The Intercept: 0.0%Gambler’s Fallacy0.0%This article: 0.0%Nick Turse: 0.0%The Intercept: 0.1%Middle Ground0.0%This article: 0.0%Nick Turse: 0.1%The Intercept: 0.1%Personal Incredulity0.0%This article: 0.0%Nick Turse: 0.2%The Intercept: 0.1%Special Pleading0.0%This article: 0.0%Nick Turse: 0.2%The Intercept: 0.4%Genetic Fallacy0.0%This article: 17.7%Nick Turse: 2.8%The Intercept: 2.1%Unattributed Quote17.7%This article: 3.1%Nick Turse: 1.6%The Intercept: 1.3%Quote-first Misdirection3.1%This article: 7.6%Nick Turse: 12.6%The Intercept: 10.5%Biased Writer Voice7.6%This article: 8.7%Nick Turse: 1.4%The Intercept: 2.1%Indoctrination8.7%This article: 0.0%Nick Turse: 5.2%The Intercept: 6.1%Politically Left Leaning Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Nick Turse: 0.2%The Intercept: 0.3%Politically Right Leaning Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Nick Turse: 0.1%The Intercept: 0.5%Attempt to Sell a Product or S…0.0%

750 words analyzed.

Speakers

10speakers80%attributed speech150writer words
Voice mapSelect a segment to jump to its words
Writer's voice • 10 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 31 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 22 words • 100.0% coverageJay Hurst • 46 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 8 words • 100.0% coverageGabe Murphy • 23 words • 100.0% coverageGabe Murphy • 24 words • 100.0% coverageTaxpayers for Common Sense • 22 words • 0.0% coverageGabe Murphy • 14 words • 100.0% coverageGabe Murphy • 14 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 7 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 31 words • 0.0% coveragePete Hegseth • 39 words • 0.0% coverageGabe Murphy • 10 words • 0.0% coverageGabe Murphy • 21 words • 0.0% coverageGabe Murphy • 17 words • 0.0% coverageGabe Murphy • 6 words • 100.0% coverageGabe Murphy • 9 words • 0.0% coverageGabe Murphy • 11 words • 0.0% coverageGabe Murphy • 14 words • 100.0% coverageDonald Trump • 32 words • 0.0% coverageReuters • 30 words • 100.0% coverageDonald Trump • 14 words • 0.0% coveragePete Hegseth • 11 words • 0.0% coveragePete Hegseth • 16 words • 0.0% coveragePete Hegseth • 18 words • 100.0% coverageThe Intercept • 30 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 14 words • 100.0% coverageThe Intercept • 59 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 27 words • 100.0% coverageHanna Homestead • 39 words • 0.0% coverageJennifer Kavanagh • 16 words • 0.0% coverageLinda Bilmes • 14 words • 0.0% coverageLinda Bilmes • 51 words • 0.0% coverage
Selected voice

Linda Bilmes

78%flagged-word coverage
65 attributed words11% of attributed speech75% writer coverage
0%22.5%45.0%Unattributed Quote-40.7 ptsWriter: 40.7%Linda Bilmes: 0.0%0.0%Biased Writer Voice-34.0 ptsWriter: 34.0%Linda Bilmes: 0.0%0.0%

Attribution is sentence-level. Pattern percentages are calculated only from words assigned to that voice.

Loading…
Loading…
Loading…
Loading…
Loading…
Loading…

Analysis

Hover over highlighted words in the article to view the associated bias or fallacy analysis.