President Trump's use of military forces to support immigration raids in Los Angeles is now being challenged in federal court.

We're hearing from Senator Rand Paul about that.

Plus those ongoing budget talks.

Laura Rogers spoke with Senator Paul this morning.

Senator Paul, we thank you so much for your time today.

Want to begin with the situation in Los Angeles and President Trump deploying the California National Guard, the U.S. Marines, to respond to the resistance against an immigration crackdown there?

Do you agree with his decision to do that?

Well, you know, when you see the images of people who have come to our country illegally holding Mexican flags, another nation burning vehicles, prohibiting the, federal officers from checking, for people who have committed crimes, who are here in the country illegally, it's hard to have a lot of sympathy for these people.

It's like, look, we have such a great country.

You came all the way to our country, and you're marching in the streets with another country's flag.

I mean, really, you can see why there's not a lot of sympathy for that.

And for the violence, frankly, there is a long standing history in our country since the Civil War and really since the civil rights era that, the federal law is supreme and that you can't disobey the federal law.

So when you have the governor of California and the mayor of L.A. saying, we're not going to obey the federal law.

And when somebody is in jail or in custody and we have them in custody, if we find out they're illegal, we're not going to tell anybody in the federal government.

That's his sanctuary city thing that's been going on for decades.

But it's led to so many people who have violent backgrounds and already violent convictions.

And so I think if you ask most Americans, are you okay with, protecting the officers, the federal officers, from harm, who are trying to remove violent people from our country?

I think most people just aren't going to have a problem with it.

And and I don't either.

Now, would I rather it be local officers?

Yeah.

But they're they're refusing to do their job.

Local police are always better than the army.

And so I've always preferred local police.

They no more the Fourth Amendment, no more the First Amendment.

They're just better equipped to do this because it's a difficult job.

But what happens when the local, government authorities are resisting federal law?

You have a conundrum.

There has been some concern here.

In your home district of Bowling Green.

And an 18 year old was arrested by IYC.

Just graduated from high school a few weeks ago here in Bowling Green.

And his advocates say he has the legal documentation to be here.

He has a bond hearing next week.

What do you say?

What is your message to your constituents in Bowling Green?

We have a significant refugee population here.

Should they be concerned about being picked up by ice without cause?

You know, Bowling Green has been a very welcoming community.

I've lived in the community for 30 years, and, we have many, many friends who are first generation immigrants.

We are a very, very welcoming community.

But do you know the difference between lawful immigrants and unlawful immigrants is is a big difference.

You know, I don't know the details of this particular individual, so I'm not going to comment one way or the other.

But I would say in general, we're a very welcoming community.

But most of the people I know who are first generation, in fact, all the people I know came here to a lawful process.

You know, they legally applied and came, and no one's threatening them.

No one's, you know, marching into homes, threatening people who came here legally.

So I don't know.

There have to be laws that we're going to have laws or no laws.

And, we admit over a million legal immigrants.

And like I say, I met with some just recently, you know, on Monday in Bowling Green who are first generation good people, who are, creating jobs and leading businesses in our community.

But they're all here lawfully.

They didn't sort of break into the country.

So while we either have laws or we don't have laws, and I think particularly if we're going after the criminal element, I think there's going to be a lot of agreement about the criminal element.

And then let's get to budget reconciliation.

We know that you do not support adding $4 trillion to the national debt.

Under President Trump's tax and spending budget.

So is there anything else that needs to be changed to get you on board with this legislation?

Well, the big beautiful bill involves several things.

One of them is, the tax cuts from 2017, which I supported and I still support.

And I'd like to make those tax cuts permanent.

So that thing that I'm completely on board with President Trump, with that with regard to the spending cuts, I think they're wimpy and anemic and aren't enough to really change the course of the accumulation of debt.

We're accumulating about $2 trillion in debt every year.

Our national debt is $36 trillion.

So this is literally an out of control problem.

It leads to inflation, rising prices, and ultimately will lead to a crash and a recession in our country.

So yes, we have to do something about that.

We have to do more in the bill.

But the thing that most concerns me is they're extending the credit line, the debt ceiling.

So currently, you know, we're at 36 trillion.

They want to add 5 trillion right now in one fell swoop, 5 trillion to our increase in the credit line.

And, that's historically the biggest increase in the debt ceiling ever.

And I think if someone is not spending money wisely, like Congress or like your teenager, you don't, you know, if you're 16 year old teenagers maxed out a credit card at $2,000 debt, they come to you.

Do you give them more to say, oh, here's a $10.

You need a $10,000 credit line?

No, you give them less until they start paying their bills.

So same with Congress.

We should give them small increments of debt ceiling increase, and then have them prove to us whether or not they're going to be reliable, cutting spending.

And then maybe some of them need to be sent home if they're unwilling to try to balance the budget.

Senator Rand Paul, we appreciate your time so much today.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Thanks, Laura.

Senator Paul told reporters yesterday he had been uninvited to today's congressional picnic at the white House, calling the move, quote, incredibly petty.

But President Trump told reporters this morning that Paul and his family are welcome to attend.

You, made a lengthy posting today on Truth Social about Senator Rand Paul.

Do you expect to see him at the picnic tonight, sir?

I do, I look forward to seeing him.

Actually, I like him.

He's the hardest vote in the history of the U.S. Senate.

To get, probably won't get him, but he's very tough.

I mean, he's a very tough vote, and he's always been a friend of mine.

You know, I endorsed him and got him elected.

I got him elected twice.

But, I don't think he understands how great this bill is.

Is a great bill.

Senator Paul later posted a photo on X with his grandson, saying they are ready for the picnic.