Kentucky Senator Rand Paul Talks Iran War Cost

Summary

Podcast Summary: Bloomberg Talks – Kentucky Senator Rand Paul Talks Iran War Cost

Date: July 21, 2026
Host: Bloomberg News
Guest: Senator Rand Paul (R-Kentucky), Chair of Homeland Security Committee, Member of the Foreign Relations Committee

---

Episode Overview

This episode centers on a candid conversation with Senator Rand Paul about the proposed U.S. defense budget escalation amid the Iran conflict, the constitutional issues surrounding war powers, and the domestic and global fallout of current U.S. policies. Senator Paul discusses his deep fiscal concerns, the effectiveness of military and economic strategies, and broader issues from U.S. elections to sanctions and COVID-19 response oversight.

---

Key Discussion Points and Insights

1. Questioning the Pentagon’s War Cost and Budget Request

• Opening Point: The Pentagon requests $37.5 billion supplemental funding, atop a proposed $1.5 trillion base budget, which would be a historic 50% year-on-year increase.
• Senator Paul’s Reaction:
  • "No one in, in the history of the country has ever asked this much. This is more money that you can't even print it that fast. All right, so threatens our country. You know, the biggest threat we have right now is our debt. We are more in danger of devaluing our currency than we are of Iran invading the United States." (01:16)

2. Fiscal Risk as National Security Threat

• Senator Paul prioritizes national debt over external threats:
  • "The greatest threat to our national security is our debt... It is completely and utterly fiscally irresponsible to someone to ask for a 50% increase in the military." (01:58)
  • Contrasts current budgeting with past war authorizations: Congress has not officially voted on this war, unlike Afghanistan/Iraq.

3. War Powers and Constitutional Oversight

• Critique of Presidential Actions:
  • Argues that war powers reside with Congress per the Constitution, and the 60-day window from the War Powers Act is too often misinterpreted or abused:
    • "You're not supposed to fight any war unless you're under imminent attack or that there's a self defense need to do it. 60 days isn't a gift." (02:51)
• Economic Impact:
  • Ties ongoing conflict to cumulative inflation:
    • "We've had 25% loss of purchasing power in the last five years... There are a lot of people being pinched. And I think the elections are going to represent people very unhappy that they aren't getting by as well as they did five years [ago]." (03:32–04:15)

4. Iran Policy and Prospects for Peace

• Strait of Hormuz Conflict:
  • Critiques escalation:
    • "Are we better off now or before the war?... I think we're actually farther away [from stability]…If you tell me, 'Oh, we just need more bombs,'…they just don't care." (04:29–05:58)
• On Sanctions Relief and Diplomacy:
  • Discusses potential deal:
    • "To get a deal, you have to give something. So the trade is this: We would have to create sanctions relief for removal of the enriched uranium." (06:23)
  • Skeptical about GOP willingness to negotiate:
    • "There are many hawks in my party who don't want any deal with the regime. We don't trust these scoundrels." (06:36)

5. Domestic Legislation and Election Security Debate

• SAVE America Act and Federal Election Programs:
  • "I'm for people showing an ID and showing that they're a citizen, but it doesn't have the votes to pass... We don't need more federal programs. So I think we should try to fight some of this on a state by state basis." (07:26–08:25)
  • Emphasizes states’ rights and practical efforts (like banning ballot harvesting) over federal mandates.

6. On Fellow Republicans and New Sanctions Legislation

• Reactions to Late Senator Lindsey Graham and Senator Mitch McConnell:
  • Expresses hope for McConnell's recovery (08:59)
• Critiques new Russia/China/India sanction bills:
  • "It would be more disastrous to the world economy than the Smoot–Hawley tariffs in the 1930s... The worst thing I have seen in a decade in Washington." (09:22)
  • Points out sanctions’ ineffectiveness:
    • "We have... 26,000 [sanctions] on Russia. Do you know how many behaviors Russia has changed since we put 26,000 tariffs on?" (10:15)

7. Russia, Ukraine, and NATO Policy

• Warns against pushing Ukraine into NATO:
  • "You think Russia is going to quit the war if you take their money and give it to the people they're fighting with? Doesn't make Russia right... but adamantly... saying they must be in NATO is a mistake." (10:28–11:07)
  • Uses hypothetical: "What if Mexico wanted to join the Warsaw Pact?... We would have gone to war for that." (11:23)

8. COVID Oversight – Subpoenaing Dr. Fauci

• On Gain of Function Research:
  • "It was one of the worst medical decisions in our history for Anthony Fauci to approve dangerous gain of function research in communist China." (12:35)
  • Expresses need for transparency and public accountability, especially when research is overseen abroad.

---

Notable Quotes & Memorable Moments

• On Defense Budget:

  • "No one in, in the history of the country has ever asked this much. This is more money that you can't even print it that fast." — Rand Paul (01:19)

• On National Debt:

  • "The greatest threat to our national security is our debt." — Rand Paul (01:58)

• On War Powers:

  • "The initiation of war, the declaration of war was given specifically to the legislature. So we're not adhering to the Constitution." — Rand Paul (02:51)

• On Military Escalation with Iran:

  • "My favorite one is this, though. They say, well, the new guys are a lot easier to work with. And it's like, oh, yeah. Oh, you mean the guy whose dad you killed and you blew his leg off and disfigured him and you call him insulting things all the time. Oh, he's going to be much more inclined to sue for peace. They're more inclined to battle to the end." — Rand Paul (05:37)

• On Sanctions:

  • "We have... 26,000 [sanctions] on Russia. Do you know how many behaviors Russia has changed since we put 26,000 tariffs on?" — Rand Paul (10:15)

• On US Push for Ukraine in NATO:

  • "We never can imagine things in reverse. Well, what if Mexico were in the Warsaw Pact...? We would have gone to war for that." — Rand Paul (11:23)

• On COVID Research Oversight:

  • "It was one of the worst medical decisions in our history for Anthony Fauci to approve dangerous gain of function research in communist China." — Rand Paul (12:35)

---

Important Segment Timestamps

• [00:37–01:19] — Defense budget numbers and initial reaction
• [01:47–02:51] — National debt and constitutional war powers
• [03:32–04:15] — Inflation, cost of war, and impact on American families
• [04:29–05:58] — Strait of Hormuz, escalation in Iran, prospects for peace
• [06:23–06:53] — Conditions for a sanctions relief/nuclear deal with Iran
• [07:26–08:28] — Federal vs. state election policy debate
• [09:22–10:08] — Critique of new sanctions bill targeting Russia, China, India
• [11:23–11:47] — Hypothetical reversal and NATO expansion debate
• [12:25–13:22] — Dr. Fauci subpoena and the gain of function research controversy

---

Conclusion

Senator Rand Paul delivers passionate, often critical views on U.S. military spending, foreign entanglements, and the structure of American democracy. He is sharply concerned about fiscal sustainability, skeptical of aggressive military interventions, wary of sweeping federal solutions, and highly critical of both the effectiveness of sanctions and the transparency of pandemic research policy. For listeners searching for a contrarian and constitution-focused take on today's persistent policy dilemmas, this episode compels reflection on the risk, reach, and rationale of American power.

Transcript

[A]

So there's a lot of noise about AI, but time's too tight for more promises. So let's talk about results. At IBM, we work with our employees to integrate technology right into the systems they need. Now a Global workforce of 300,000 can use AI to fill their HR questions. Resolving 94% of common questions, not noise. Proof of how we can help companies get smarter by putting AI where it actually pays off. Deep in the work that moves the business. Let's create smarter business. IBM,

[B]

Bloomberg Audio Studios podcasts, radio news.

[C]

$37.5 billion, the number presented by the Secretary of Defense. And joining us now to kick off our coverage this evening is Republican Senator Rand Paul of Kentucky, is of course, chair of the Homeland Security Committee as well a member of the Foreign Relations Committee. It's great to see you, Mr. Chairman. Thanks for meeting us up here. Once again, 37.5. I don't know how that number hits you, but if you do a little quick math in your head, we're asking for about 60. And in the supplemental budget request, are we signing up for another 10 months of work?

[B]

To be fair, I think you're underestimating it. He was clear in his testimony that they also want 1.5 trillion as the base budget.

[C]

Well, that's right.

[B]

So we currently spend a trillion. He wants 1.5 trillion. That's $500 billion increase. Plus another, you know, paltry 37 billion on top of the 500 billion. No one in, in the history of the country has ever asked this much. This is more money that you can't even print it that fast. All right, so threatens our country. You know, the biggest threat we have right now is our debt. We are less. We are more in danger of devaluing our currency than we are of Iran invading the United States.

[D]

Well, the Defense Secretary testified that for national security, it is critical that they get the money that they are asking for. What would you say to someone that says the actual danger that the country is?

[B]

I would say that he's mistaken the problem, the threat, the greatest threat to our national security is our debt. That's what Admiral Mullen said 10 years ago, and it's gotten 10 times worse. It is completely and utterly fiscally irresponsible to someone to ask for a 50% increase in the military. But they're not asking for the approval of Congress. We have a war that we have not voted upon. No congressional vote. Look, George Bush at the very least came to Congress. He asked for a war, an authorization for the use of military force for Afghanistan and for Iraq without a vote. And yet that he wants us to give him a 50% increase. We're $2 trillion short this year. Increasing the military SPE spending about 50% is absolutely irresponsible.

[C]

So where does that leave the war powers argument? I thought it was interesting that the President sent a letter to Congress announcing the resumption of the war. Doesn't that get a 60 day clock ticking again?

[B]

No, the only way it works for the Constitution is the initiation or declaration of war. Is Congress. The War Powers act says you can go to war if you're attacked or if you're in imminent danger. The 60 day thing is misinterpreted that you get 60 days to fight the war. No, you're not supposed to fight any war unless you've been you're under imminent attack or that there's a self defense need to do it. 60 days isn't a gift. Every time a president says oh, I want a 60 days to start the world, we stopped yesterday. Yes, we'll start tomorrow. Give us 60 more days. No, the initial, the initiation of war, the declaration of war was given specifically to the legislature. So we're not adhering to the Constitution. Now we have an unpopular war and we have a war that's increasing prices for people already pinched. Look, we've had 25% inflation in the last five years. Inflation is cumulative. People don't say, oh, I don't care that I had 9% inflation under Biden. They still lost 9% of the purchasing power. It's all added up. And even with inflation going down, we've had 25% loss of purchasing power in the last five years. So people, let's say you make $50,000 and you have two kids, you're married, have two kids. And if you have a 25% increase in wages, you've lost money in the last five years. Add on top of that the gas prices. There are a lot of people being pinched. And I think the elections are going to represent people very unhappy that they aren't getting by as well as they did five years.

[D]

Well, and if the reopening of the Strait of Hormuz may prove critical and at least getting the energy and gasoline costs people are paying down, why not just try to expedite the opening by finishing the job for good in Iran, Going as hard militarily as possible.

[B]

As the President said, he's us closer or farther away from getting rid of militarization. So let's just make the argument are we better off now or before the war. So before the war, there had been discussion, but never had been a military militarization war. You've talked about it for decades, but it never happened. So now the Strait of Hormuz is militarized. So that I would argue we're worse off. People say, well, maybe we're better off because we have more leverage to get them to give up their nuclear weapons. I don't know. I see them dragging their heels and being sly and clever with this and knowing that we're probably not going to put troops in there. If you really want to control the Straits of Hormuz, you would have to send a couple hundred thousand troops in. I don't think the President's inclined to do that. I think the Iranians know that. I still hope for the best. And the best would be open the Strait of Hormuz and then maybe get them to trade sanctions relief for removal of enriched uranium. But I don't think we're closer to that. I think we're actually farther away. And if you tell me, oh, well, we just need more bombs, we bomb the crap out of them. We have completely and utterly annihilate. We defeated them completely, but they just don't care. And you bomb them some more and you think they're going to. My favorite one is this, though. They say, well, the new guys are a lot easier to work with. And it's like, oh, yeah. Oh, you mean the guy whose dad you killed and you blew his leg off and disfigured him and you call him insulting things all the time. Oh, he's going to be much more inclined to sue for peace. They're more inclined to battle to the end.

[C]

Yeah.

[B]

And they know if they allow too much to happen that the regime could be toppled. So I think they will fight to the bitter end.

[C]

So what's the course of action with everything that you just said? If there's going to be a deal that trade, sanctions relief, do we start drawing down our presence? Do we start bringing men and women home? They've been hanging out there for five months. Even more than that, Senator, when do Americans see their families is again?

[B]

So I think the military defeat hasn't gotten us closer to a deal. To get a deal, you have to give something. So the trade is this. We would have to create sanctions relief for removal of the enriched uranium.

[C]

Okay.

[B]

And you could argue that we're in a better position maybe to get that because we've shown our military might. I'm hopeful but not certain that that's where we are, but that's a trade worth happening. But realize there are many hawks in my party who don't want any deal with the regime. We don't trust these scoundrels. We're never dealing with them.

[C]

Right.

[B]

That's our attitud. Then we've got a whole lot more chaotic news for the world markets.

[D]

Well, speaking of making deals, there's plenty of deal making happening here on Capitol Hill to try to get the President as much of what he desires as possible. When it comes to the Save America act, it seems that it's going to be folded at least in part into this budget resolution to pave the way for reconciliation 3.0. Is that effort to try to get the Save America act passed hampering progress on other issues? Because the votes aren't here in the Senate, the math doesn't work that way.

[B]

I'm four people showing an ID and showing that they're a citizen, but it doesn't have the votes to pass. What they're actually talking about now is not the SAVE Act. They're starting a new federal program with grants, $10 billion and they're going to pay people to adhere to it. But you've seen the government of California. You think they're going to take money to do what Republicans tell them to do? I think no way. And then some of the battleground states, they already do this. People need to realize that in Arkansas, in Arizona, which is a battleground state every year presidentially and maybe for the Senate, you already have to have proof of citizenship to reg to vote. In some states, they looked at this. In Utah, they looked at 2 million voters. They found one person who wasn't a citizen. So I'm all for checking to see if we were citizens. In Kentucky, we've already policed our roles. We don't need any money from the federal government. And creating a new federal program, I mean, you know, it was Reagan who said the closest thing to immortality is a federal program. We don't need more federal programs. So I think we should try to fight some of this on a state by state basis. Try to get rid of unsolicited mail in ballots and try to get rid of harvesting as statewide initiatives. I think those would be maybe a more realistic way of getting some of this done to get to a more valid election.

[C]

You mentioned some of the hawks in your party and I immediately think of the late Senator Lindsey Graham. I think as well about Senator Mitch McConnell, who was a vocal advocate as a hawk when it comes to Ukraine as well.

[B]

Right.

[C]

How is he doing? Are you hearing from constituents about his well being and have you spoken with the senator?

[B]

I haven't spoken to him directly. I've seen what the news reports are and I hope that he gets better and is back soon. But you're right. These are people now advocating for a new sanctions bill on Russia in memory of Lindsey Graham. But this new sanctions bill has 100% tariffs on the top five recipients of Russian oil. It'd be 100% tariff on China, 100% tariff on India, 100% tariff on Turkey. It would be more disastrous to the world in the world economy than the hoot Smalley Smally who tariffs in the 1930s. It's a terrible, terrible rotten bill. The worst thing I have seen in a decade in Washington and everybody's glomming on to is like, oh, Russia is bad, Ukraine good. But you know what? You're going to devastate the world's economy. It also gives the president the authority the Supreme Court took away from him and said he didn't have. It's going to give wide, vast tariff authority to the executive branch. And I think that's a huge mistake. It's a $500 billion tax increase.

[E]

Wow.

[B]

We do $500 billion with the trade with China, India and a handful of other countries. If you put 100% tariff on them and if they were to pay it $500 billion tax increase.

[C]

President says he wants to add Iran to the economy. Add Iran and Hezbollah. He said again, the President wants to

[B]

add Iran to sanctions.

[C]

Yeah, yeah.

[B]

We have. You know how many sanctions we have on Russia? 26,000. Do you know how many behaviors Russia has changed since we put 26,000 tariffs on?

[C]

Yeah.

[D]

So what's the better way, Senator? How do you put pressure on Russia?

[B]

Well, I think you One, you shouldn't be advocating for Ukraine to be a naito. Two, you shouldn't threaten to steal their money. We have confiscated about 250 billion dol of theirs in foreign trade accounts. Senator Graham wanted to give it to Ukraine. That would be a recipe for an eternal war. You think Russia is going to quit the war if you take their money and give it to the people they're fighting with doesn't make Russia right in any of this. Russia is the aggressor. I agree with all that sympathies with Ukraine, but adamantly stomping our feet and tapping, slapping our shoe and saying they must be in naito is a mistake. The same people who pushed for Ukraine to be a NATO want Georgia to be a NATO. It's a mess.

[D]

Still a live conversation about Ukraine being a NATO. The European Union, certainly. But they're not still advocating for their own membership, at least to this day.

[B]

They've advocated for, for a decade. If you to the eu, they'll say everyone has the right to be a NATO. That is a stupid alliance if everybody has the right to be in it. Many of these people had nothing to do with, you know, the original reason we had NATO. But Ukraine was part of the Soviet Union at one point. Georgia was too. I'm glad they have independent countries now. But we have to, we never can imagine things in reverse. Well, what if Mexico were in the Warsaw Pact in 1965 or want to join the Warsaw Pact? We would have gone to war for that.

[C]

Yeah.

[B]

And yet we don't quite understand why Russia is at war when we agitate to put Ukraine, a former part of the Soviet Union, into a military alliance against Russia. So I think it was a huge mistake and I think that, you know, the elections went back and forth in Ukraine for, for decades. There'd be a pro Russian then, a pro west and pro Russian, pro West and what we did didn't work and it led to war. And I hope we won't repeat the same thing with Georgia.

[C]

I wonder how many people remember the Warsaw Pact at this point. Senator, lastly, you subpoenaed Dr. Anthony Foushee, who I believe is going to appear before your committee next week.

[B]

Yes.

[C]

As you try to challenge him on the roots of COVID How does that exploration, that conversation next week help to prevent the next pandemic?

[B]

I think it's important to know what mistakes we made. It was one of the worst medical decisions in our history for Anthony Fauci to approve dangerous gain of function research in communist as China. It's an opaque society. It's a society that often doesn't tell the truth about many things. And they weren't honest about it at first. They said, well, it's not even being transmitted human to human. When it was all over on, they were just being dishonest with us. But this gain of function research where you create a virus that gains transmissibility and gains the virulence or pathogenicity is a bad idea. And there are people doing it with the avian flu, there are people wanting to do it with Ebola. These are, this is the type of research we shouldn't find here, but we really should, shouldn't fund it in an opaque society that we really don't trust in many fronts.

[D]

All right Republican Senator Rand Paul of Kentucky. Thank you so much for joining us live on Capitol Hill.

[E]

Support for the show comes from public.com if you're actively involved in your portfolio, you probably catch yourself repeating the same actions. Buying the dip, manually sweeping idle cash, putting on a hedge on Public you can now create AI agents that handle all these tasks on your behalf. Have just describe what you want to do in plain English like if the Vix hits 25, buy a put option on the S&P 500 or if my cash balance goes above $20,000, move the excess into my direct index. You approve the workflow and your agent handles the risk, monitoring the market, watching for your conditions and executing your strategies exactly as defined. An investing platform driven by your intent, not just your claim clicks. You can also get full read and write access to your account via the public API. Go to public.com market and fund your account in five minutes or less. That's public.com market paid for by Public

[B]

Investing Brokerage Services by Open to the Public Investing Inc. Member FINRA and SIPC Advisory Services by Public Advisors, LLC SEC registered advisor complete

[E]

disclosures [e-mail] disclosure when you're running a business, the best days are the ones where priorities stay on track. For midsize and large companies, risk can affect multiple parts of the organization at once, from property and liability to cyber and regulatory challenges. At that level, managing risk becomes an ongoing discipline. At the Hartford, the focus is on helping businesses manage risk before it turns into something more disruptive. And when losses do happen, that work is paired with insurance coverage shaped by years of underwriting, risk engineering and claims experience. Learn more@the Hartford.com riskmitigation policies provided by Harford Fire Insurance Company and its property and casualty affiliates Hartford, Connecticut.