‘Where’s the Rest $46 Billion?’ Rand Paul Corners Kristi Noem on Missing Border Funds

And today, Senator Rand Paul delivered exactly that, pressing DHS Secretary Kristi Noem on border spending, surveillance abuses, and why billion-dollar sports corporations get security on the backs of ordinary Americans. This exchange wasn't just tense.

It exposed major cracks in the administration's numbers and accountability.

Secretary knows, everybody knows, that's the end. We're gonna try to move on to the next person to get you out of here. We talked a little bit about the wall earlier. The administration has asked for 46.5 billion dollars for the wall. The border on the Mexican border about nineteen hundred and fifty miles. We've fenced or walled about 700 of it.

That leaves about 1,200 miles. There's two or three hundred miles of it that probably never gonna have a fence on It's mountainous or just impossible to fence or wall. So I would say realistically you got under a thousand. But let's just say there's a thousand. You really want a wall in a thousand. CBP says it's 6.5 million per mile. Your response today was 12 million per mile.

That means 12 billion dollars for a thousand miles. We're off here by a factor of three or four with 46 billion. Where's the rest of the 46 billion? The administration says they want 46 billion for a wall. You could pave all of it and still have, you know, 34 billion left. What's 34 billion going for?

Yes, Senator, thank you for the question. We do have 702 miles of wall today. 598 of that are steel. The rest of that is temporary that's in place. Since the president's been in office, over 70 miles has been erected. We have 11 contracts that have gone out and allocated. We also have five more that are pending. Based on the dollars that have been requested, it's not just the infrastructure that would

be built that would be the actual wall construction. It would be also surveillance equipment.

It would be the actual wall construction. It would be also surveillance equipment. The numbers weigh off. You could do a thousand miles for 12 billion, you're asking for 46 billion. So I'm one who's not impressed and would have to see more detail as to where the rest of the money went. We can't just throw $30 billion out there and say things

cost a lot. I agree. We'll get you the specifics on it.

With regard to the drones and all the preparatory work that DHS does and the government does for the NFL and for FIFA, does the NFL pay DHS for the work you do? Wait, not to my knowledge. I will... Well, I mean, here's my point. The NFL makes billions of dollars. We're two trillion in the hole. I don't care if government shares their technology and government helps out the World Cup. They ought to pay. People are paying hundreds of dollars for tickets, I mean thousands of dollars for the NFL,

for Super Bowl and things. They're also paying for FIFA. And so these people ought to pay. And so I'm one holding up these authorizations, and I'll let them go forward. But I want people to pay.

I mean, it's ridiculous that the average taxpayer who could never afford to go to an NFL Super Bowl has got to pay for their security. Should the government help? If we have technology, they don't? Perhaps. But they ought to pay. So NFL, FIFA, I think they all ought to pay. And we'll be insisting on trying to put language in that.

If you're a for-profit entity and the government's helping you, you ought to pay for it. I suspect there are going to be other people that were caught up in this thing as well. I'm horrified by the idea that we took a former congresswoman and we're surveilling her and riding on jets with her. There was another story of an air marshal whose wife, I mean, might have been at January 6th or something, and now we're, you know, have air marshals riding following another air marshal or his wife. So I want to hear the whole story of what happened. I want to hear that people have been let go, that they're no longer doing this. If there were abuses of Tulsi Gabbard's liberties, I want to hear from that. But I want repercussions to come

from this and I think you've said something's coming. Please let us know and let us know how the program, the destruction of civil liberties can be minimized. I frankly probably have trouble with the whole program, but let's see if there's some way, but we need significant reform. If it needs legislation, please come to us with that.

Thank you for your testimony today.

This exchange between Senator Rand Paul and DHS Secretary Kristi Noem is one of those moments where political rhetoric collides with mathematical reality and exposes just how flimsy the administration's border security narrative truly is. Paul's central question is simple on its face, where is the rest of the $46 billion? But underneath that question sits a much larger issue, the lack of transparency, the inflated numbers, and the repeated use of border security as a catch-all justification for spending without accountability.

Rand Paul highlights something DHS has struggled to justify. The administration claims it needs $46.5 billion for border wall construction, yet when you run the numbers, the math collapses immediately. He points out that roughly 1,000 miles of border could potentially support a wall and even at 12 million dollars per mile, which is already higher than CBP's own estimate, that equals 12 billion dollars, not 46 billion. That leaves tens of billions unaccounted for. His frustration is rooted in the fact that DHS isn't offering a clear breakdown of costs, timelines, or project allocations.

And that lack of clarity is not a small oversight. It's exactly the kind of opacity that invites corruption, misuse, and political manipulation. For years, Donald Trump and his allies have sold the border wall as a magic solution, despite experts, analysts, and even Border Patrol officials acknowledging that a physical wall does little to stop modern migration patterns, drug trafficking, or organized crime. The wall has always functioned more as a symbol than a strategy, a visual promise that generates

applause at rallies, even though it does not address the root causes of migration or the systemic gaps in modern border enforcement. So when Paul asks, where's the rest of the 46 billion, he's really exposing how the administration is weaponizing the idea of a wall to justify massive unexamined spending. And Secretary Nome's response, offering vague references to contracts, drones, and preparatory work, only reinforces the concern that no one can

actually defend the numbers. And then Rand Paul shifts to another crucial point. Why is DHS using taxpayer dollars to provide security for billion-dollar sports leagues like the NFL and FIFA? This is an important moment because it showcases how government agencies often absorb costs for wealthy private entities without demanding reimbursement. A normal American who can't afford a ticket to a Super Bowl is still paying for its security.

And that's not a partisan issue. That's an issue of fairness, equity, and fiscal responsibility. Democrats have long argued that the government should stop subsidizing billion-dollar corporations, especially when those corporations are not contributing their fair share to the public good. But perhaps the most troubling part of the hearing is what Rand Paul raises next, surveillance abuses under the TSA's Quiet Skies program, including the monitoring of Tulsi Gabbard, a former congresswoman, and even the tracking of Air Marshal's own family members.

This is exactly the type of overreach Democrats have warned about for years, government surveillance programs expanding beyond their intended scope, targeting people without probable cause and eroding civil liberties in the name of national security. What Paul exposes here is a truth that both parties should be able to agree on. Unchecked surveillance powers inevitably lead to abuse. Yet under this administration, those abuses seem to flourish without oversight or consequences. The broader theme of the hearing is unmistakable. An administration

that demands enormous sums of money, fails to justify it, uses national security as a shield for questionable spending, and oversees federal programs that violate civil liberties. Ultimately, what Rand Paul exposes, intentionally or not, is the weakness at the heart of the administration's border agenda. Not only is the spending opaque and inflated, but the strategies being funded don't actually address the real issues at the border.

Instead of focusing on immigration reform, modern technology, staffing, processing capacity, and humanitarian management, the things Democrats have long argued are essential, the administration pours billions into a physical symbol designed for political impact, not policy effectiveness. This moment matters because it forces Americans to ask, if the government can't justify where $34 billion is going

in a single budget request, what else isn't being disclosed? And beyond that, what happens when national security becomes a convenient excuse to hide bad policy, bad accounting, and bad intentions? This is why hearings like this are important. They peel back the layers and reveal the truth

behind the talking points. And it's not just the government's fault. excuse to hide bad policy, bad accounting, and bad intentions. This is why hearings like this are important. They peel back the layers and reveal the truth behind the talking points. And as always, it's up to us, the public, to stay informed, stay the talking points. And as always, it's up to us, the public, to stay informed, stay critical, and demand accountability from the leaders spending our money in our name.