We can cut the proposed border funding in half, from $150 billion to $75 billion, and still secure our border and protect the American people.
Let me give you an example of how this is excessive.
Let’s take the proposed border wall.
Proposed fence cost: $46.5 billion
Actual fence cost: $6.5 billion
How did I come up with that number? Math based on costs, according to Border Patrol.
$6.5 million per mile x 1,000 miles of border wall = $6.5 billion
Where is that extra $40 billion going?
I’m all for hiring new people to help secure our borders, but we don’t need it to the extent that’s in this bill, especially when our border is largely contained.
We have to remember that every person we hire comes with added costs: health care benefits, pension benefits, the list goes on.
Don’t fall for the Swamp’s version of reality, where they claim we either borrow against our future to secure our border now, or we have wide-open borders. We can have BOTH border security AND fiscal responsibility. $75 billion is more than enough to accomplish both.
• • •
Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to
force a refresh
Trump is right to reconsider NATO. Under Article II, the president has full constitutional authority to withdraw from any treaty without Senate approval. The 2023 Kaine-Rubio provision can't override the Constitution. It's his call to make. thehill.com/homenews/admin…
The Constitution says nothing about how to exit treaties, so that power remains with the president. The Founders designed it this way deliberately: hard to get in, easy to get out when an alliance no longer serves America's interests.
NATO's Article 5 doesn't automatically drag us into war. It only requires "such action as it deems necessary" and must follow our Constitution. Congress declares war, not NATO bureaucrats. The alliance has grown bloated through endless expansion. Time for a real debate about whether it still serves us.
🧵If H.R. 260 becomes law, $631M meant for Afghanistan reconstruction will be clawed back to the Treasury. After twenty years of war and failure, not another dollar should ever reach the Taliban.
H.R. 260 finally ends Washington’s blind commitment to relocate Afghans without adequate safeguards. We’ve already seen the cost. One National Guardsman is dead at the hands of a terrorist who entered through resettlement. We must put security first.
No country or NGO that props up the Taliban should ever receive U.S. tax dollars. This amendment makes that principle law. America must not bankroll those who side with our enemies.
🧵A vote is coming to send more taxpayer dollars to the refugee program. Don’t be fooled. Appropriators know the public opposes this, so they’ll likely hide it in a CR. Sunlight is the only way to stop it.
After the Somali fraud exposed billions being siphoned off, Washington’s answer is… more money? A program meant to help the vulnerable was looted for years. Why would any Republican senator vote to refill a program that was just ripped off?
They hope you won’t notice. That’s why this will be buried in a continuing resolution. But voters deserve to know who is willing to keep funding a system proven corrupt.
I’m baaaaaack, and I’ve been checking out some of your grievances on X - it’s a good thing @elonmusk let free speech back on here. Some of you would definitely have been banned before. Some of you probably should lay off the eggnog before posting.
Speaking of @elonmusk - I am working on a list of people I would like to make sure you send on one of the first flights to Mars. Let’s chat soon.
Did you know @elonmusk has been vocal and helpful in supporting my friend @thomasmassie? I think it’s because Thomas has the only known Tesla with the Friends of Coal bumper sticker on it. The left doesn’t know what to do with that. Or the reclaimed Tesla batteries that run his off the grid house. It’s pretty awesome, actually.