Sen. Rand Paul Talks US Debt, ICE, Future of DHS

Summary

---

Podcast Summary: Bloomberg Talks

Episode: Sen. Rand Paul Talks US Debt, ICE, Future of DHS
Date: March 11, 2026
Host: Bloomberg
Guest: Sen. Rand Paul, Chairman of the Committee on Homeland Security

---

Episode Overview

This episode features an in-depth interview with Senator Rand Paul, focusing on critical topics such as the war in Iran, Congressional war powers, U.S. national debt, the ongoing closure of the Department of Homeland Security (DHS), reforms related to ICE and TSA, and intra-party dynamics involving Senator Markwayne Mullin’s nomination. The conversation also touches on Kentucky-specific politics and the re-election campaign of Rep. Thomas Massie.

---

Key Discussion Points & Insights

1. War in Iran & Constitutional War Powers

• Rand Paul as leading Senate voice on war powers: The host introduces Senator Paul as an unwavering advocate for Congressional authority over war decisions ([00:34]).
• Founding fathers’ intent:
  • Paul: “They didn’t want the president to have the power to initiate or declare war. They wanted that power to be with Congress...They wanted war to be a rarity, not, not common.” ([01:06])
• War Powers Act Misconceptions:
  • Paul: “A lot of people confuse it. They say, oh, it’s just a reporting requirement...it acknowledges the first part...you have to have either a declaration of war or a vote to authorize force, or there has to be imminent danger.” ([02:01])
• Criticism of Administration’s Rationale:
  • Paul dismisses claims of a perpetual state of war, emphasizing lack of imminence and the need for Congressional authorization ([02:20]).
  • Paul: “They said, well, they’ve been at war with us for 47 years. And I said, well, that doesn’t sound very imminent.” ([02:29])
• Stance on Legality:
  • Paul (on the Iran conflict): “Yeah, I don’t think this is what our founding fathers intended. It’s not what the Constitution intends.” ([02:39])

2. National Debt & Military Spending

• Debt as a National Security Issue:
  • Paul: “I think the biggest threat to our country and to our national security is our debt…adding more to our debt doesn’t make us safer.” ([03:02])
• Skepticism of Supplementary Budgets:
  • Opposition to expanding the defense budget when the U.S. already spends more than the next ten countries combined ([03:17]).
• On Military Engagements & Costs:
  • Paul objects to current and proposed military actions in Venezuela, Iran, and Cuba ([04:18]).
  • Paul: “I’m just not for the war in Venezuela, I’m not for the war in Iran, and I’m certainly not for a war with Cuba.” ([04:31])

3. Homeland Security & Domestic Terror Threats

• Latest Threat Assessments:
  • Paul hasn’t received intelligence suggesting an increased domestic terror threat but recognizes risks of escalation during wartime ([04:44]).
• On DHS Shutdown’s Impact:
  • Paul: “I don’t know how much DHS actually does...I’m one of those who after 9/11 thought, Gosh, we’re just going to create these enormous bureaucracies that cost a lot of money but don’t necessarily make us safer.” ([05:16])
  • He argues for targeted counterterror spending vs. “big bloated bureaucracy” ([05:31]).

4. Federal Workers and Shutdown Reforms (TSA, Air Traffic Controllers)

• Support for Paying Federal Workers during Shutdowns:
  • Paul: “If you work for the government and I have a contract...we should just keep paying everybody...What is unhealthy is that not paying workers.” ([06:10])
• Pushes for Regulatory Reform:
  • Advocates for legislative changes to ensure employees like TSA and air traffic controllers are paid during funding lapses ([07:05]).

5. ICE and Policy Reforms

• ICE Behavior & Accountability:
  • Paul criticizes ICE agents’ aggressive responses during protests, calling for clear behavioral guidelines and greater accountability ([07:27]).
  • Paul: “People are going to yell at you. And as long as it’s words, we shouldn’t be reacting in a physical way...they kind of in our hearing admitted that all the actions that we were seeing...wasn’t appropriate.” ([08:06]–[08:40])
• Praise for Tom Homan’s Reforms:
  • Paul credits former ICE leadership for reducing confrontational incidents in Minnesota ([08:48]).

6. “Demasking” and Policing Tactics

• Federal Agents Wearing Masks:
  • Paul: “If you’re on the border and...in the thick of battle with cartels, maybe [there is a reason]. But...in the courthouse in Chicago...there’s no reason why one set of federal officials should be masked and another set shouldn’t be.” ([09:08])
  • Argues that unnecessary anonymity can lead to bad behavior ([09:52]).

7. Committee Politics and Markwayne Mullin’s Nomination

• On Markwayne Mullin’s “Colorful Language”:
  • When asked about Mullin calling him a “snake,” Paul teases a lively hearing: Paul: “You’ll find out more if you come to the nomination hearing. I promise you there will be a good and fulsome hearing.” ([10:13])
• On Mullin’s Likelihood of Confirmation:
  • Paul: “We’ll see.” ([10:25])

8. Kentucky Politics & Rep. Thomas Massie’s Campaign

• Comments on Local Election Dynamics:
  • Paul highlights the irony of Trump supporting a candidate formerly opposed to him, contrasting with Massie’s record ([10:38]).
  • Paul: “His opponent...when Donald Trump won the nomination in 2016, left the party in disgust...So it’s ironic that the President is now supporting a guy who hated Donald Trump so much that he left the party.” ([10:48])
• On Massie’s Legislative Effectiveness:
  • Praises Massie’s bipartisan success in passing legislation on the Epstein files: Paul: “He 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.” ([11:21])
  • Massie is “the most fiscally conservative member” of the House ([11:34]).
• Paul’s Support & Campaigning Plans:
  • Paul confirms multiple campaign stops and fundraising efforts for Massie ([12:09], [12:13]).
  • Predicts a tough race but remains optimistic about Massie’s prospects: Paul: “I think he has a very good chance of winning. Won’t be easy, you know, but I think he has a very good chance of still winning.” ([12:44])

---

Notable Quotes & Memorable Moments

• On Constitutional War Powers:
  • Paul: “They wanted war to be less often...not, not common.” ([01:12])
• On Military Spending:
  • Paul: “We spend more on our military than the next 10 countries combined.” ([03:17])
• On DHS Bureaucracy:
  • Paul: “Enormous bureaucracies that cost a lot of money but don’t necessarily make us safer.” ([05:19])
• On ICE Conduct:
  • Paul: “As long as it’s words, we shouldn’t be reacting in a physical way.” ([08:13])
• On Agency Masking Practices:
  • Paul: “I think anonymity leads to bad behavior.” ([09:58])
• On intra-GOP dynamics (re: Massie and Trump):
  • Paul: “There is a certain amount of irony there. And voters actually know this stuff.” ([11:03])
• On Campaigning:
  • Paul: “We’re raising money for him, and he will be outspent...They’ll probably spend 20 to 30 million trying to defeat a Republican, which really is, to me, a waste of money.” ([12:13])

---

Important Timestamps

• War Powers & Constitution: [01:06]–[02:39]
• National Debt/Military Spending: [03:02]–[04:31]
• Homeland Security / Domestic Threats: [04:31]–[05:55]
• Federal Worker Pay & Shutdown: [06:10]–[07:05]
• ICE Conduct & Reforms: [07:27]–[09:02]
• Demasking Discussion: [09:08]–[09:58]
• Committee Politics & Mullin Nomination: [10:13]–[10:25]
• Kentucky Politics / Massie: [10:38]–[12:44]

---

Summary Conclusion

Senator Rand Paul delivers a candid critique of current U.S. foreign and domestic security practices, expressing pronounced skepticism toward unchecked executive war powers, unsustainable national debt, and sprawling federal bureaucracies. He advocates for targeted, accountable government action—especially in defense and law enforcement—and stresses Congressional oversight. Paul’s support for Thomas Massie and frank remarks on intra-party politics add a personal, political dimension to a policy-heavy episode.

Transcript

[A]

This message is brought to you by Apple Card. Apple Card members can earn unlimited daily cash back on everyday purchases wherever they shop. This means you could be earning daily cash on just about anything, like a slice of pizza from your local pizza place or a latte from the corner coffee shop. Apply for Apple Card and the Wallet app to see your credit limit offer in minutes. Subject to credit approval. Apple Card issued by Goldman Sachs Bank USA Salt Lake City Branch terms and more at applecard.com Bloomberg Audio Studios podcasts

[B]

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.

[C]

Well, you know, the thing about the debate over war, it's 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 to have 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 is 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, not common.

[B]

So last week then, in that failed vote, Congress voted to abdicate its duties, its powers, the War Powers Act.

[C]

A lot of people confuse it. They say, oh, it's just a reporting requirement.

[B]

Yes. Right.

[C]

President has to report after 60 days. It's really much more than that because it acknowledges the first part of the War Powers act says you have to have either a declaration of war or a vote to authorize force 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 47 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.

[B]

Absolutely. It sounds like you see this as an illegal action then.

[C]

Yeah, I don't think this is what our founding fathers intended. It's 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.

[B]

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

[C]

threat to our country and to our national security is our debt.

[B]

Yeah.

[C]

And so I think adding more to our debt doesn't make us safer. It actually will make us, you know, make us more in danger to be further in debt. So the administration has said they want to increase the budget by 50%.

[B]

Yes.

[C]

That sounds like a large increase from a trillion to 1.5 trillion. That's right. And then in the meantime, they may ask for another 50 billion or so. Maybe 100. 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 that 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 territory, it'll be a mess and it'll be something that anybody who's fiscally conservative will not.

[B]

So you're a no, regardless of the

[C]

numbers now, because we know right now our military, we spend more on our military than the next 10 countries combined. So for people to argue we're not spending enough, we're spending more than the next 10 countries come by. We spend plenty on our military. We needs to be spent wisely. But they've spent an extraordinary amount on two wars. We have two wars in one month. I mean, for goodness sakes, they're talking about another war with Cuba as we speak.

[B]

Right.

[C]

So yeah, they cost money, they cost lives, most importantly, but they also cost money. And I'm just not for, I'm not for the war in Venezuela, I'm not for the war in Iran, and I'm certainly not for a war with Cuba.

[B]

Your 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 action.

[C]

I don't have specific knowledge that it has. We have not had any specific briefing to say it as, but I'm not here to argue that it isn't a potential problem. I think any time you're at war, there is the potential for, you know, terrorist actions. I think we already had, you know, one shooting in Texas that people said was related to the terrorism. End to the war.

[B]

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.

[C]

Yeah. I don't know how much DHS actually does. I know there's 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 9, 11 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 of Homeland Security has become.

[B]

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, thought was an interesting headline this morning considering the strain on the system. How long can TSA hold up without getting paid?

[C]

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 $80,000 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 traffic controllers. I fly all the time, frankly. I want my air traffic controller to be well paid, sir, well rested and not unhappy when he or she comes to work. Right. 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 over funding. 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 any time we have a shutdown the contract aspect of the workers that we pay should just go on despite the impacts.

[B]

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.

[C]

Have you scheduled a hearing next week? If all the paperwork still. There has to be an FBI background check and there has to be some ethics, ethics documents. And the minority party has to have a certain amount of days to look at these.

[B]

Understood.

[C]

These are things we agree to. If it can all be done, we're going to try to do the hearing and 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 behave. When I had the agents come in recently, the head of ICE and the head of the border Patrol, I ask him that specific question. You know, if. If I'm me to you and I'm the ICE agent, you're yelling at me, is it 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 videos 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 my recommendation. Announce and home and kind of did some of this. They removed people from the streets. They quit doing the confrontation and they also said that agents that misbehave 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, you really. Since he showed up and removed from the streets, you haven't seen a whole lot of right of footage coming out of Minnesota.

[B]

Demasking has been a line for most Republicans. Is it for you?

[C]

I think that there might be a time when a mask might be appropriate. If you're on the border and you're dealing with, you know, 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 10 kids and, you know, basically rounding them all up and being masked. Look, the bailiffs aren't masked. The Chicago police aren't masked.

[B]

Right.

[C]

So I think in our cities, in areas where the other police. Police officers are masked, there's no reason why one set of federal officials should be masked and 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.

[B]

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 called the chairman a snake.

[C]

You'll find out more if you come to the nomination hearing. I promise you there will be a good and fulsome hearing.

[B]

Okay. Sounds like everyone sees him getting this job, though. Will he be confirmed in the end?

[C]

We'll see.

[B]

Okay. President Trump is on his way to Kentucky today. The affordability tour lands in Tom Massey's district. What are people in Kentucky telling you about $3.20 gas right now?

[C]

You know, I'm a big supporter of Thomas Massie. I have campaigned with him. We'll continue to campaign with him. He released some material yesterday that was pretty extraordinary. His opponent, actually, when Donald Trump won the nomination in 2016, left the party in disgust. 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, you know, this will be all over and is all over television right now that his opponent basically left the party because of Donald Trump.

[B]

Wow.

[C]

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?

[B]

Right.

[C]

But there's a lot of respect for, for Thomas Massie. I mean, look, he took an issue that, that the President had promoted, revealing the Epstein files. President was all for it. Thomas Massie took that issue and ran with it. An issue the President supported until the president didn't support the issue anymore. But 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. Yeah. So I think a lot of people see that. Thomas Fact, Thomas Massie 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.

[B]

Well, indeed. You have a lot in common. And to your point, you will campaign for him for his reelection?

[C]

Absolutely.

[B]

Do you have plans to be on the stump anytime soon?

[C]

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 20 to 30 million trying to defeat a Republican, 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.

[B]

You think he keeps his job? Sounds like.

[C]

I think he has a very good chance of winning. Won't be easy, you know, but I think he has a very good chance of still winning.

[D]

I'm Barry Ritholtz, inviting you to join me for the Masters in Business podcast. Every week we bring you fascinating conversations with the people who shape markets, investing and business. CEOs, fund managers, billionaires, Nobel laureates, traders, analysts, economists, everybody that affects what's going on in the market, whether you own stocks, bonds, real estate, commodities, crypto. You really need to hear these conversations. Sometimes it's behaviorists like Dick Thaler or Bob Shiller. Sometimes it's fund managers like Peter Lynch, Bill Miller, Ray Dalio. Sometimes it's authors. Michael Lewis, author of the Big Short and Moneyball. Regardless of the conversation, these are the folks that move markets each week. That's the Masters in Business podcast with me, Barry Ritholtz. Listen. On Apple, Spotify, or wherever you get your podcasts,