(WASHINGTON) — Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth said Thursday that the Pentagon will be asking Congress for more money to cover the Iran war, saying he wants to ensure current and future costs are covered “above and beyond.”

A senior administration official confirmed that a $200 billion request was sent from the Pentagon to the White House on Wednesday. The Washington Post first reported the request.

It was not clear whether the White House had formally submitted the request to Congress as of Thursday morning or what kind of reception it would have among lawmakers, who remain deeply divided on President Donald Trump’s decision to attack Iran.

The conflict began Feb. 28 after negotiations on its nuclear and ballistic missile program failed, and the U.S. and Israel launched joint strikes. In its third week, the U.S. says it’s destroyed more than 7,800 military targets, 120 Iranian ships and 11 submarines.

Pentagon officials told a group of senators in a closed-door briefing earlier this month that the war in Iran cost at least $11.3 billion in its first six days.

When asked about the $200 billion request, Hegseth didn’t confirm the total, saying that the number “could move.”

“As far as $200 billion, I think that number could move. Obviously it takes, it takes money to kill bad guys,” Hegseth said in a news conference Thursday morning. “So we’re going back to Congress and our folks there to ensure that we’re properly funded for what’s been done, for what we may have to do in the future, ensure that our ammunition is — everything’s refilled, and not just refilled, but above and beyond.”

Wartime supplementals are used to ensure the military remains ready to handle other potential conflicts and to replenish stockpiles spent on the ongoing mission.

Asked about the $200 billion request on Thursday, Trump said “we’re asking for a lot of reasons beyond even what we’re talking about in Iran.”

“So we’re in very good shape, but we want to be in the best shape. The best shape we’ve ever been in,” Trump said.

House leadership has not received a formal defense supplemental request from the Trump administration, according to a source familiar with the details.

Asked about the amount, Speaker Mike Johnson said Congress has a commitment to “adequately fund defense.”

“I’m sure it’s not a random number, so we’ll look at that,” Johnson said Thursday morning. “But obviously it’s a dangerous time in the world, and we have to adequately fund defense, and we have a commitment to do that.”

As of Wednesday night, several Senate appropriators, including Appropriations Chair Susan Collins, said they had not yet seen the request.

Sen. Patty Murray, the top Democrat on the Senate Appropriations committee, said she had not seen the funding request, and would need details to be provided.

“We have not seen that request, and I will tell you that this administration needs to tell Congress definitely what they’re doing and how long this is going to take. There is no goal here, and we’re not going to write them a blank check,” Murray said.

Republican Sen. Lisa Murkowski, who is on the Defense Appropriations Subcommittee, told reporters on Thursday morning that to her knowledge the Pentagon has not made a request to Congress.

“What we have is a number that we have heard the White House presented to the Pentagon. So far as I know it has not been presented to us in Congress. So it needs to not only be presented, the amount, but also the rationale behind it,” Murkowski said.

The money that has so far been spent to fund operations in Iran comes out of Pentagon funds already allocated by Congress. Congress has not yet approved any additional funding for the war with Iran.

The funding request also indicates plans for a longer war — after Trump has previously said the war would last four to five weeks. The president has also brushed off that timeline, saying “whatever it takes.”

ABC News’ Lauren Peller contributed to this report.

Copyright © 2026, ABC Audio. All rights reserved.

(MONTGOMERY, Ala.) — The former Alabama Supreme Court justice who wrote the controversial ruling that temporarily halted in vitro fertilization services two years ago is running for state attorney general — and a group of conservative IVF parents is banding together to try to stop him.

Jay Mitchell wrote the majority opinion in a ruling that classified frozen embryos as people, prompting three of the state’s largest IVF treatment providers to halt care out of fear of wrongful death lawsuits when handling embryos.

“Unborn children are ‘children’ … without exception based on developmental stage, physical location, or any other ancillary characteristics,” Mitchell wrote in the majority ruling in 2024.

The decision led to widespread public outcry and an effort at the Alabama statehouse to pass a bill protecting IVF treatments. Republican Gov. Kay Ivey signed the bill shortly after the legislature passed it.

In the aftermath of the ruling, a group of parents who relied on in vitro fertilization to build their families created “Alabama Families for IVF,” a conservative grassroots coalition. The group is now airing ads against Mitchell in the state, voiced by Annie Hensler, who became a mother through IVF, though they have not yet endorsed a specific candidate.

“The attorney general’s office is a very powerful position, and we cannot have someone in that position that has this kind of judgment,” Katelanne Fadalla, an IVF parent who chairs the group, told ABC News.

Alabama’s attorney general would be responsible for enforcing state laws, including those related to reproductive health.

“We cannot risk having someone in office with this much influence over Alabama legislation who has already demonstrated that they cannot think through the consequences of the words that they write,” she added.

In a statement to ABC, Mitchell said, “I support IVF. My opinion protected IVF families and upheld Alabama law, but woke liberals and my political opponents continue to push lies about this case because they know I will fearlessly advance President Trump’s agenda as Alabama’s next Attorney General.”

Fadalla said she was preparing for her first consultation about IVF when news of the ruling broke in 2024.

“It was absolutely devastating,” she said.

“The opinion that came out of the Supreme Court from Jay Mitchell was not only extremely disruptive, but it was devastating to families across the state of Alabama during a time when all we are trying to do is grow our families,” Fadalla said.

In an ad airing across the state, the group accuses Mitchell of going against President Donald Trump, who declared his support for IVF after the 2024 ruling and called on the state legislature “to act quickly to find an immediate solution to preserve the availability of IVF in Alabama.”

“We want to make it easier for mothers and fathers to have babies, not harder — you know that. That includes — and you saw this was a big deal over the last few days — that includes supporting the availability of fertility treatments like IVF in every state in America,” Trump said during the 2024 presidential campaign shortly after the ruling.

Mitchell has defended his record, describing himself as a “rock-solid conservative and warrior for the Trump agenda.”

“Jay shares the incredible commitment Alabamians have to faith, family and freedom, and his legal record proves that he is ready and willing to defend those values in court,” his campaign states on its website.

Three candidates are running in the Republican primary for Alabama attorney general, which will take place on May 19.

Copyright © 2026, ABC Audio. All rights reserved.