TOI Correspondent from Washington : A reported clash between Donald Trump and his Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth over dwindling stock of missiles and munitions that purportedly led to the U.S President calling off “the biggest attack since World War II” on Iran has briefly eclipsed the war itself.
Get breaking news anytime, anywhere. Download the TOI app now!
Trump angrily confronted Hegseth during a meeting at Camp David after learning that America's stocks of key missiles and interceptors had fallen to dangerously low levels despite earlier assurances that the problem had been addressed, according to a report in The Washington Post. Two people familiar with the exchange told the paper that Trump demanded to know why he had been led to believe the shortage had been fixed, particularly after military commanders warned the Pentagon that critical inventories had been severely depleted.
Hegseth reportedly defended himself by blaming Deputy Defense Secretary Stephen Feinberg for failing to keep both the Pentagon and the President fully informed about the extent of the shortages. Trump is said to have later confronted Feinberg directly as well, prompting an emergency Pentagon meeting focused on accelerating missile production.
The row comes after Trump unexpectedly called off what was threatened as the heaviest punitive strikes on Iran since the WW II. While the administration cited diplomatic considerations for the pause, some accounts said concerns over munitions availability had become a factor in limiting military options.
Both the White House and Pentagon denied the report calling it “fake news.” In a post onTruth Social, Trump said the U.S. has massive amounts of munitions, especially of certain types, and additionally, large amounts are being manufactured and shipped to the U.S. as needed.
“The “leakers” of these treasonous statements are being hunted down. Long term jail sentences will be sought!” Trump warned, adding that “defense companies are building the largest number of plants and factories in our country’s history.”
According to analysts, American forces have fired more than 850 Tomahawk cruise missiles, over 1,000 Patriot and THAAD air-defense interceptors, and more than 1,300 Army tactical ballistic missiles during the campaign. Between February 28 and the April ceasefire, U.S. forces reportedly struck more than 13,000 Iranian targets while simultaneously defending against more than 8,500 incoming missiles, rockets and drones.
Pentagon assessments reportedly estimate that roughly 80% of the U.S. THAAD interceptor inventory has been consumed, around 65% of Patriot interceptors have been expended, while stocks of ATACMS and the newer Precision Strike Missile (PrSM) have been reduced to near exhaustion. Despite this, Iran remains battered but unbowed.
The implications of the depletion extend well beyond the Iran conflict. THAAD and Patriot batteries form the backbone of American and allied missile defence across the Middle East, Europe and the Indo-Pacific. ATACMS and PrSM provide the Army's principal long-range precision strike capability. Rebuilding such inventories is measured not in weeks but in years because of limited production capacity, specialised components and complex supply chains; one can’t just flip the switch and the munition appears in the hands of a soldier.
The White House has categorically rejected the reports of the clash. Press Secretary Karoline Leavitt dismissed the account as "100% fake news," insisting that President Trump has "the utmost confidence in Secretary Hegseth." The Pentagon has likewise denied any crisis. Hegseth himself has repeatedly said reports of depleted inventories are "manufactured."
Whether the reported blame-shifting inside the Pentagon is accurate may ultimately prove less significant than what the episode reveals about modern warfare. Precision-guided munitions have enabled the U.S to effectively conduct sustained, high-tempo operations. Yet they also expose an uncomfortable strategic reality: even the world's largest military-industrial base can struggle to replenish advanced missiles as quickly as a major regional war consumes them. If the reported figures are broadly accurate, the Iran campaign may become a defining case study in how industrial capacity -- not simply battlefield success -- can shape the limits of American military power.
