Bloomberg Audio Studios, podcasts, radio news.
Knowing that Rand Paul has been the face, at least the Republican face of the war powers debate on Capitol Hill, at least in the Upper Chamber, I started our conversation, and we have a lot to talk about. Remember, he's the chairman of the Committee on Homeland Security, so he's going to be the man who has to usher in Mark Wayne Mullen, and I'm pretty sure these two are not friends. We talked about the hearing that will take place, the confirmation hearing next week, but starting with the war
in Iran. I asked the Senator if he believes this is an illegal war.
Listen, Well, you know the thing about the debate over awards, one of the most important debates we have. Our founding fathers had an extensive discussion over this, the Constitutional Convention, the Federalist papers.
They all had strong feelings.
But interesting, even though there were differences between Hamilton and Jefferson, really they all came together and said they didn't want the president of the power to initiate or declare war. They wanted that power to be with Congress. So this is a very important, if not the most important congressional debate we have over war powers and over the Constitution, And yeah, I think the Constitution's very clear you go
to war, and war should be initiated through Congress. And the reason our founding fathers made it so is they didn't like war. They wanted war to be less often, they wanted war to be a rarity, not common.
So last week, then in that failed vote, Congress voted to abdicate its duties its powers.
Yeah, war the War Powers Act. A lot of people confused it. They say, always just a reporting requirement. President has to report after sixty days. It's really much more than that because it acknowledges the first part of the War Powers Acts as you have to have either a declaration of war or a vote to authorize for us, or there has to be imminent danger.
That's really what our judgment should be.
And so many of the arguments that came from this administration really.
Don't hold water.
They said, well, they've been at war with us for forty seven years, and I said, well, that doesn't sound very imminent. That kind of sounds like you might have had time to come to Congress and get a declaration of war.
Absolutely, it sounds like you see this as an illegal action.
Then yeah, I don't think this is what our founding fathers intended, is not what the Constitution intends, And so I continue to support these war powers action to try to limit the executive the same way I would under and did under President Obama and President Biden as well.
So will that make it difficult for you to vote to support a supplemental budget request assuming that does arrive? As we've heard, I.
Think the biggest threat to our country and to our national security is our debt, and so I think adding more to our debt doesn't make us safer. It actually will make us make it more in danger to be further in debt. So the administration has said they want to increase the budget by fifty percent. Yes, that sounds like a large increase, from a trillion to one point five trillion, and then in the meantime they may ask
for another fifty billion or so, maybe one hundred. Already talking about, well, we got to give the farmers some money. You know, the tariffs aren't so good for farmers, and instead of removing the tariffs they are hurting the farmers. They're going to give the farmers some money. And then they're like, well, we've had had some disasters around here, so we're going to do military disasters, you know, stipend
for the farmers since the tariff arting them. It'll be a mess, and it'll be something that anybody who's fiscally conservative will not. So you're in no regardless of the number, soundly because right now our military, we spend more on our military than the next ten countries combined. So for people to argue we're not spending enough, we're spending more than the next ten countries combined.
We spend plenty on our military.
They used to be spent wisely, but they've spent an extraordinary amount on two wars.
We've had two wars in one month.
I mean, for goodness sakes, they're talking about another war with Cuba as we speak.
So yeah, they cost money.
They cost laws most importantly, but they also cost money. And I'm just not for I'm not wasn't for the war in Venezuela, I'm not for the war in Iran, and I'm certainly not for a war with Cuba.
You're chairman of the Committee on Homeland Security. Are you hearing about domestic terror threats that we need to know about. There's been a great concern about sleeper cells, about lone wolves. Has that threat increased because of this?
Actually, I don't have specific knowledge that it has. We have not had any specific briefing to say it has. But I'm not here to argue that it isn't a potential problem. I think anytime you're at war there is a potential for terrorist actions. I think we already had, you know, one shooting in Texas that people said it was related to the terrorism and to the war.
Yeah, some have worried that the fact that DHS, the department, not your committee, is closed right now is making us less safe. It is the ability for DHS to combat domestic terror threats compromised by this closure.
Yeah, I don't know how much DHS actually does. I don't know those people who believe. Of course, the FBI has an important task in trying to.
Look for people who are in the country that might harm us.
There are aspects of crossing of borders that make a difference. But you know, I'm one of those who after nine to eleven thought, gosh, we're just going to create these enormous bureaucracies that cost a lot of money, but don't necessarily make us safer interesting, So I would rather the money probably be spent specifically on detailed defenses against terrorism, as opposed to a big, bloated bureaucracy.
Which is what the department from my insecurity has become.
Well, I know that you've got TSA workers who are going to start missing paychecks if they aren't already. I understand that Global Entry is being reopened, which I thought was an interesting headline this morning, considering the strain on the system. How long can TSA hold up without getting paid.
I've been for a reform of this. I think what we should do.
If you work for the government and I have a contract and I pay you eighty thousand dollars a year, it's a breach of contract.
We should just keep paying everybody. The appropriations could be.
For a lot of other things that are optional, but the employment is not so optional, particularly of like air trap for controllers.
I fly all the time. Frankly, I want my air traffic controller.
To be well paid, well rested, and not unhappy when he or she comes to work. So there is a reform that's floated around, and I've voted for it several times. And this is you know, this isn't the first time or won't be the last time there's a debate overfunding. The debate is actually healthy. What is unhealthy is that not paying workers. And so I think the workers, if they're working, ought to be paid. And so I'm for a reform that anytime we have a shutdown, the contract aspect.
Of the workers that we pay should just go on despite the impact.
Well, so what's it going to take to reopen this agency? And would maybe a new secretary do the trick? You're going to be tasked with this confirmation process? Have you scheduled to.
Hearing next week? Give all the PaperWorks done?
There has to be an FBI background check, and there has to be some ethics documents, and the minority party has to have a certain amount of days to look.
At these understood, these are things we agreed to. If it can all be done, we're going to try to do the hearing in the vote next week. But I think that.
Overall my suggestion, I'm not sure they're going to listen to me.
My suggestion would be to.
Acknowledge that there have been failures with ICE and that they're coming out with new policies and new regulations.
As to how their agents behaved.
When I had the agents come in recently, the head of ICE and the head of the Border Patrol, I ask them that specific question.
You know, if I'm me to you and I'm the ICE agent, you're yelling at me.
He said, okay for me to lunge at you and spray you right in the face with pepper spray for your words. And he said no, but that's what we were seeing in all of those images. We saw women thrown to the ground for yelling at officers. And nobody likes to be yelled at, but that is part of America. People are going to yell at you, and as long as it's words, we shouldn't be reacting in a physical way.
So I think ICE needs to announce that.
They kind of in our hearing admitted that all the actions that we were seeing in these wasn't appropriate.
But there was also a.
Lot of denial going on, and I'm looking to see if it's going to be any different, and frankly, that would be I recommendation announced.
And Homan kind of did some of this. They removed people from the streets.
They quit doing the confrontation, and they also said that agents that misbehaved would be punished. None of that was happening before Tom Homan showed up and gave a little more professionalism to the.
Things that were going on in Minnesota.
But you know, really, since he showed up and removed them the streets, you haven't seen a whole lot of right of of footage coming out of Minnesota.
Demasking has been a line for most Republicans. Is it for you?
I think that there might be a time when a mask might be appropriate if you're on the border and you're dealing, you know, in the in the thick of battle with cartels. Maybe if you're in an elevator, in a in the in the courthouse in Chicago, I saw one image of mask agents going in. It was three or four moms and ten kids, and you know, basically rounding them all up and being masked. Look, the bailiffs aren't masked, the Chicago police aren't masked.
So I think in our cities, in.
Areas where the other police officers are masked, there's no reason why one set of federal officials should be masked in another set shouldn't be. So I won't say it's an absolute that no masks, But I would say when you're participating where other law enforcement isn't, I don't think it's anonymity.
I think leads to bad behavior. Interesting.
What do you make of the nomination of Senator Mark Wayne Mullen? And did the senator from Oklahoma jeopardize his standing with you with some of the colorful language he used to describe you last month? You'll follow the chairman of Snake.
You'll find out more if you come to the nomination here. I promise you they'll We'll be a good and fulsome hearing.
Okay, sounds like everyone sees him getting this job, though, will he be confirmed in the.
End, We'll see.
Okay. President Trump's on his way lucky today the affordability tour lands in Tom Massey's districts. What are people in Kentucky telling you about three dollars and twenty cent gas? Right now?
You know, I'm a big supporter of Thomas Massey. I have campaign with him, will continue to campaign with him. He released some material yesterday that was pretty extraordinary. His opponent, actually, when Donald Trump won the nomination in twenty sixteen, left the party in discussed so It's ironic that the president is now supporting a guy who hated Donald Trump so much that he left the party only came back into
the party when Joe Biden became president. So there is a certain amount of irony there, and voters actually know this stuff, and this.
Will be all over It is all over television.
Right now that his opponent basically left the party because of Donald Trump.
So can he get over that irony? I don't know.
I think a lot of people are going to say, well, what's up with this? You know, But there's a lot of respect for Thomas Massey. I mean, look, he took an issue that the President had promoted, revealing the Epstein files.
President was all for it.
Thomas Massey took that issue and ran with it, and issue the president supported until the President didn't support the issue anymore.
Think about the.
Effectiveness of a guy who only had three Republican allies when it started and in the end passed it unanimously in the House, passed it unanimously in the Senate, and the President signed it. That is an extraordinary feat. So I think a lot of people see that Thomas fact. Thomas Massey is quite effective, and I would say, he's also the most fiscally conservative member of the House. It's a conservative district. I think he's actually doing pretty well well.
Indeed, you have a lot in common, and to your point, you will campaign for him for his reelection.
Absolutely.
Do you have plans to be on the stump any time soon.
I've already done two days with him.
I have two days coming up in two weeks and we just added another two days, So I will spend a lot of time in the district. We're raising money for him, and he will be outspent. They'll probably spend twenty to thirty million trying to defeat a republic which really is to me a waste of money to try to beat a Republican.
But they're also trying to beat the most conservative member of the House of Representatives, and the irony is not lost on a lot of people.
And you think he keeps his job. It sounds like I.
Think he has a very good chance of winning.
It won't be easy, you know, but I think he has a very good chance of still winning.