A Senate hearing intended to review border security spending turned into a pointed examination of government math, corporate subsidies, and civil liberties when Senator Rand Paul confronted Homeland Security Secretary Kristi Noem over a $46.5 billion budget request that, by his calculations, simply does not add up.

At the center of the exchange was a question that sounded deceptively simple: where is the rest of the money?

The administration has asked Congress for roughly $46 billion to expand construction of a border wall along the southern border. Paul, a Republican from Kentucky known for his fiscal hawkishness, walked through the numbers step by step. Of the nearly 2,000-mile U.S.–Mexico border, he noted, roughly 700 miles are already fenced or walled. Large portions of the remaining terrain are mountainous or otherwise impractical to wall, leaving — by his estimate — about 1,000 miles where construction would even be feasible.

Using cost estimates cited by Customs and Border Protection, Paul argued that even at a generous $12 million per mile, wall construction for that stretch would total about $12 billion. The remaining $34 billion, he said, was nowhere to be found in the administration’s public explanation.

“You could pave all of it and still have tens of billions left over,” Paul said, pressing Noem to explain what the additional funds were for.

Noem responded that the request covered more than just physical barriers. She pointed to contracts already awarded, additional projects pending, and supporting infrastructure tied to border security. But she did not offer a detailed breakdown during the hearing, eventually agreeing to provide more specifics later.

For Paul, that answer was not sufficient. His frustration reflected a broader concern that border security has become a political catchall — invoked to justify massive spending without the level of scrutiny normally demanded for projects of that size. “We can’t just throw $30 billion out there and say things cost a lot,” he said.

The exchange highlighted a recurring tension in Washington: bipartisan agreement that the border is a problem, paired with deep disagreement over whether the proposed solutions are effective, transparent, or fiscally responsible. While supporters of a wall frame it as a necessary symbol of enforcement and sovereignty, critics — including some conservatives — argue that modern migration patterns and trafficking networks are poorly addressed by a physical barrier alone.

Paul’s questioning did not stop at the wall. He shifted to another issue that has drawn less public attention but carries significant budgetary implications: why the Department of Homeland Security provides security and surveillance support for major for-profit events like NFL games and international soccer tournaments without reimbursement.

The senator noted that the NFL and FIFA generate billions in revenue, while the federal government is deeply in debt. Taxpayers who could never afford a ticket to a Super Bowl, he argued, should not be subsidizing security for wealthy private organizations.

Noem said she was not aware of those organizations paying DHS for the services. Paul made clear he intended to push for legislative language requiring reimbursement, framing the issue as one of basic fairness rather than ideology.

The hearing then turned from money to power.

Paul raised concerns about the TSA’s Quiet Skies program, which has faced criticism for monitoring travelers without clear evidence of wrongdoing. He cited cases involving former congresswoman Tulsi Gabbard and even family members of air marshals, suggesting a surveillance apparatus that has drifted far beyond its original intent.

“I’m horrified,” Paul said, describing the idea of federal agents tracking Americans without probable cause. He called for reforms, accountability, and potentially legislation to rein in what he characterized as a threat to civil liberties.

Here, the irony was hard to miss. Surveillance overreach has traditionally been a rallying cry for Democrats, while Republicans have often emphasized security. In this hearing, those lines blurred. Paul framed his objections not as partisan attacks, but as warnings about unchecked government authority — a message that resonated across ideological divides.

Taken together, the exchange painted a troubling picture for the administration. On one front, DHS is asking Congress for tens of billions of dollars without providing a clear, public accounting of how those funds would be spent. On another, it is underwriting security for highly profitable private entities. And on a third, it is overseeing surveillance programs that raise unresolved questions about privacy and constitutional rights.

The broader implication of Paul’s questioning was not simply that a budget request is inflated, but that border security has become a political symbol rather than a coherent strategy. Walls, drones, contracts, and surveillance are bundled together under a single narrative, making it difficult for lawmakers — and the public — to evaluate what actually works and what merely sounds tough.

Hearings like this rarely change policy overnight. But they matter because they force uncomfortable questions into the open. If the government cannot clearly explain where $34 billion is going, confidence in its priorities erodes. And when national security is used as a shield against scrutiny, skepticism becomes not only reasonable, but necessary.

In that sense, Paul’s sharpest question was not about miles or dollars. It was about accountability — and whether anyone is truly prepared to defend it.