‘Where’s the Rest $46 Billion?’ Rand Paul Corners Kristi Noem on Missing Border Funds
The Senate hearing featuring Senator Rand Paul and DHS Secretary Christy Noem was less a debate and more a surgical exposé of the administration’s opaque spending habits, inflated border security rhetoric, and egregious civil liberties violations. Paul’s pointed questions revealed major cracks in the administration’s fiscal accountability and exposed the systemic abuses flourishing under the guise of national security.
The central line of attack centered on the administration’s budget request for $46.5 billion for border wall construction, a figure Paul demonstrated was mathematically indefensible. The collapsing math is staggering: Paul pointed out that the border only requires a wall on roughly 1,000 miles of feasible terrain. Even using the high-end estimate of $12 million per mile—Secretary Noem’s own figure, which is nearly double the CBP’s estimate—the total cost for construction should only amount to approximately $12 billion. The administration’s request leaves a massive $34 billion hole unaccounted for. Secretary Noem’s response, offering vague references to existing wall mileage, contracts, and “infrastructure” costs beyond construction, failed entirely to provide a clear, detailed breakdown of where the remaining tens of billions would be allocated. This total lack of transparency reinforces the criticism that the wall has always been a political symbol—a tool to generate applause—rather than a viable border management strategy. The sheer scale of the unjustified expenditure suggests the administration is weaponizing the idea of a “wall” to justify massive, unexamined spending that has not been clearly earmarked for actual enforcement, technology, or personnel needs. The budget request itself officially allocated the $46.55 billion for “border infrastructure and wall system,” which may include roads, lighting, and surveillance, but the enormous difference between the construction cost and the requested budget remains an alarming sign of fiscal irresponsibility.
Paul then pivoted to a critical issue of fiscal fairness, demanding to know why the taxpayer is footing the bill for the security of billion-dollar, for-profit sports leagues. He directly questioned Secretary Noem on whether the NFL or FIFA reimburses DHS for the extensive security, technology, and preparatory work provided for mega-events like the Super Bowl or the World Cup, to which Noem offered no affirmative knowledge of reimbursement. Paul rightly condemned the ridiculousness of the average taxpayer, who can never afford a ticket to the Super Bowl, being forced to subsidize the security for the corporations and wealthy attendees. This is a clear case of corporate welfare, where federal agencies absorb massive costs for private entities. Given that Congress recently moved to provide over $1 billion in federal funding for the security of the 2026 FIFA World Cup alone, Paul’s demand to insert language requiring for-profit entities to pay for federal assistance is a necessary check on fiscal abuse and perceived hypocrisy.
Perhaps the most troubling part of the hearing was the exposure of the TSA’s Quiet Skies program abuses, which Paul asserted had been weaponized into a tool for political surveillance against American citizens. He detailed instances where the program allegedly targeted former Congresswoman Tulsi Gabbard—who became increasingly critical of the former administration—and even the wife of a Federal Air Marshal, who was placed on a surveillance list simply for attending a political rally. Internal records reportedly showed that the agency was fully aware it was tracking a former Congresswoman. The documentation suggests that TSA relied on First Amendment-protected activity as the pretext for watchlisting Americans, a tactic that is patently unconstitutional. Although Secretary Noem has commendably moved to end the Quiet Skies program, Paul is right to demand significant reform and accountability, emphasizing that every official who approved this surveillance for political reasons must face repercussions. Unchecked surveillance powers inevitably lead to abuse, targeting the innocent and eroding the core promise of civil liberties in the name of political expediency. The hearing made clear that the lack of clarity on the $34 billion discrepancy, the failure to demand reimbursement from the wealthiest corporations, and the confirmed abuses of federal surveillance power all underscore an administration that is allergic to accountability, using national security as a flimsy shield for opaque spending and illegal activities.
