WHOA: Pentagon finds FOUR TIMES what Trump was asking for the border wall!

The Pentagon has come back to Trump with a list of funding sources that he can use to build the border wall, and it amounts to almost four times what Trump had requested from the Pentagon in the first place.

Here’s more:

WASHINGTON EXAMINER – The Defense Department has identified $12.8 billion in possible funding that it could use to fulfill President Trump’s call for a border wall.

Sen. Jack Reed, D-R.I., released the 20-page spreadsheet on Twitter Monday night.

Trump last month declared a national emergency at the border, and said he wants to use $3.6 billion for border wall projects. The Pentagon’s list said it has found possible funding sources that are “in excess of the amount needed.”

But it’s not clear which projects the Defense Department will draw from. Some states that have been allocated big chunks of money that haven’t been spent could see a hit.

California, for example, was identified as having more than $700 million in unused Army and Navy military construction that could be used. Hawaii has more than $400 million that could be used.

More than $200 million in similar funding allocated for Hawaii, Maine, New York, North Carolina, Guam, Germany, Guam, and Guantanamo Bay Cuba are also on the list.

If you want to see the entire list of funding sources, you can read it here.

This was released by a Democrat, so of course he tried to scare states that aren’t spending the money by telling them in a tweet that “military bases in your state could be negatively impacted”.

But this is great news regarding the building of the wall. The next piece of great news I hope to report is the actual building of the wall in areas where there is no wall, which is supposed to start in April. We know they are already building new wall to replace older walls. I think adding new sections of wall will really get people fired up.

Comment Policy: Please read our comment policy before making a comment. In short, please be respectful of others and do not engage in personal attacks. Otherwise we will revoke your comment privileges.

95 thoughts on “WHOA: Pentagon finds FOUR TIMES what Trump was asking for the border wall!

  1. I am pretty confident only States / districts Democratic Congressmen and Senators will be affected by spending RE-ALLOCATION

  2. Finally some good news for securing our borders. :clapping: :clapping:
    Now get all the wall built ASAP.

  3. If the military ended no-bid contracts. Imagine how much there would be. But that’s okay. I like spending $600 for a torque wrench.

    1. @chow yun fatty As I mentioned to Doc below. I worked in that arena, and those prices are legitimate and NOT outrageous. The Govt Acquisition world is a major profession, highly complex, and when you are talking about new and emerging systems awards are never made based on the lowest bidder. Just an FYI

      1. Fair enough, you have experience in the field that I don’t. Nonetheless, I think we could incorporate a cash allowance system for small priced items like hammers, wrenches, etc… Which would allow the military to purchase such items at a local store as needed and quickly, rather than paying so much.

      2. It’s unacceptable for people put in charge of making purchases for our government to NOT be good stewards of the money we work hard for, that is taken from us for them to spend.

        And, it’s unacceptable for businesses doing business with the government to STEAL money from WE THE PEOPLE by charging RIDICULOUS prices for ordinary products we can all pick up at the corner hardware store for one/tenth of the price.

        In the private sector it is a purchasing agents responsibility to get the best price for everything, from paper clips to machinery. Not so with the government, they spend OUR MONEY like there is no tomorrow. This needs to stop. They should all be ashamed of themselves.

    1. @Sentinel Well, they may have to go without some $600 toilet seats, but we’ll survive.

      1. @dr-strangelove I know you’re joking about that, but FYI I worked in those areas back in my Air Force days and as insane as a $600 toilet or $400 hammer sounds, those prices are legit because of how the Government requires contractors to price their work. I had a class where the instructor had been tasked to investigate these prices and he said he could show us how the prices were good but it would take too long because it wasn’t part of the class.

        1. @Paladin Yes, much of my humor is rooted in the truth. I recall a congressional investigation about the outrageous prices, but I’m sure that it continues.

          1. @dr-strangelove And it’s going to continue because of how the Government does business with our major weapon systems contractors, especially on the new systems.

        2. @paladin “those prices are legit because of how the Government requires contractors to price their work.”

          I get what you’re saying, but it also just show when they’re spending other peoples money (our tax dollars), they really don’t care how much it costs. And it doesn’t surprise me in the least that they have 12.8 billion lying around. I’m sure they have more.

          I always think of that movie Dave where a guy who does impressions of the president gets hired to impersonate when the real president has a stroke and brings in his accountant friend to cut the budget. 🙂

          1. Actually the Government does care about price but new technologies and unique parts made of costly materials that can endure extremes or which you get no economies of scale are going to cost, AND when we’re talking about fighting and winning wars, you’re right cost is less important, but it’s always important.

        1. And that will break over and over and constantly need to be replaced, and most likely won’t fit because of the unique sizes the systems e.g. planes use.
          I know you’re not really serious but most people do not know that we’re supposed to look for a cheap commercial solution before we resort to custom made.

        2. I have Tons of like new stuff in the garage i can donate, lets all pitch in to build the Wall, 🙂

  4. This was released by a Democrat, so of course he tried to scare states that aren’t spending the money by telling them in a tweet that “military bases in your state could be negatively impacted”.

    Ha! now that’s hilarious, Thanks Sen. Jack Reed for your contribution in finding more money for the wall.

    Goes to show you most democrats are for funding the wall, they just don’t want to admit it, bless their hearts. 🙂

    1. Thank God we dodged a bullet. If HRC had been allowed to continue their 16 year plan, we as a country would be toast. Walls on the southern and northern borders would be built so fast it would make our head spin. Not for the safety and sovereignty of our country, but to follow in the foot steps of East Germany. The walls would be designed to keep people in. The terror and horror she had planned for this country would feel like hell on earth. It would make Sodom and Gomorrah look like Disneyland. These people are sick, and they need to be prosecuted for treason, sedition, and crimes against humanity.

    2. Seems awfully trivial when all the lip serviced provided by Congress on this issue over the past 3 decades is taken into consideration.

    3. @ronbo
      That doesn’t fly here, you can’t even joke about it.

      It “may” be what was shouted out a hundred times, but it’s not what he really meant….. so there / s

      1. Well, it’s allowed here. It’s lame and we get it, some of you are still butthurt over 2016 and you think mentioning “Mexico will pay for it” is an insightful comment every single time the Wall comes up… but by all means be the kind of person to make lame butthurt comments.

        1. @trytothink Thank you! That was about as good a response as you can give to that comment. Trump’s pathological lying during the campaign drove me insane, but I have long since moved on, concentrating on what he’s done and is trying to do rather than what he said 3 years ago to get elected. Seems like some people are stuck in the past and can’t move on, in spite of the fact things they want are happening.

          1. @paladin
            I just imagine the people who keep making those same comments as they sit there typing. They think they’re putting their finger in people’s eyes because we’re all blind to the fact that Trump pandered about Mexico paying for it and somehow… SOMEHOW, when they remind us yet again of one of his lies, we’ll wake up and realize that we should be ashamed for not criticizing him every day while he does actually seem to be attempting to do something about illegal immigration even though he lied about how it would be done.

            As I said, it’s lame. Those of us who weren’t Trump supporters but acknowledge the good of his policies and the reality that Hillary would have been much worse could reply with “But Jerusalem! But Iran Treaty! But tax cuts! But Keystone! But sHrillary!” and on and on. But by doing that we’re trapped in the same lame mental process as they are. Personally, I want better for myself.

        2. @trytothink
          The “Mexico will pay for it” comment was made enough times, it will be quoted forever by those who actually believed it.

          I don’t see it being brought up “EVERY single time” in fact, very seldom. Just the odd person, but so what?

          I think The “butthurt about 2016” has run its course as well, but, it to…. gets used all the time.

          1. “I don’t see it being brought up “EVERY single time” ”

            So that’s your defense for using the same old lame TDS talking point? That it isn’t used every single time or often?

            Hint: It’s not just lame because it’s used quite often. It’s lame because we all understand the context that you think you’re so sagely providing while apparently being ignorant of the even larger context of the battle being fought.

            “I think The “butthurt about 2016” has run its course as well”

            There’s an easy way to make those observations stop. Put some salve on it and stop bringing up or defending your same butthurt comments. Move on. Grow up. Try to understand the political environment we’re dealing with and comment intelligently rather than using some lame blender-speak.

            1. @trytothink

              No, my defense is simply I don’t let it bother me & can make fun of it, whereas you go into attack mode …for absolutely no reason.

              Bringing up or defending butt hurt comments…, seriously, where did I “defend” anything other than the right to post.

              I’ve comment on here for the last 6 or 7 years. you would have to search far & wide to find ANYTHING supporting the lefts agenda, but I’ll take your criticism into consideration.

    4. Ronbo, if your symbol is correct you are an Army service member, as am I. You should know better. Billions of dollars are WASTED every year in the federal budget, and not simply by the DOD. Additionally, if the wall stops illegals from coming here (a net cost savings), drugs from coming here (another $ savings as well as LIFE savings), and a better trade deal with Mexico in lieu of NAFTA (more $ revenue for the USA from multiple sources), wouldn’t it be possible to say that Mexico IS paying for the wall? See my accountant for an explanation of how one can label hidden expenses or income. BTW, I am not sure if you are anti-Trumper or not, but Trump has been very respectful and good to the military. He has our back like the previous “occupant” didn’t.

  5. I’m all for getting this southern wall started YESTERDAY !
    But the increasing numbers of people coming up from Central America as { families, fake families at that } has gone from annoying daily news to just damn scary. The loopholes in our current immigration laws are being exploited. For reasons that don’t make sense to me, Central Americans can’t just be simply deported like Mexican citizens. We are under invasion.
    Maybe some of the billions should be used by our military to invade Central America and hold back the flow ourselves. I know it’s far fetched, crazy and violates every rule the UN has on immigration but I’m past giving a damn.

    1. @Landscaper Anyone who thinks we aren’t under invasion should take a look around Texas towns. Forget the cities. Look at how much the burbs have changed in Texas. Look at the tats. Listen to the languages being spoken in our grocery stores. Look at the GARBAGE on the ground everywhere. Texas is changing dramatically and very quickly!

      1. @Landscaper Texas? Try Illinois. I stop in Rochelle (rural north central) frequently and the HS football fields have soccer goals and half of the people working in the truck stop are Hispanic and speak Spanish amongst themselves. And if you go into Chicago, there are places where only the management speaks English.

    2. @landscaper
      It’s always been about our laws. BP actually has to escort them in when they make it onto American soil. They can be on the “south” side of the fence/barrier, etc, it’s still American soil. Two words – asylum & Refugee & in they come. Border Patrols hands are tied.

      I would of rather he insisted on some changes in the law
      – catch & release,
      – chain migration,
      – federally mandate e-verify,
      – a law to remove “anyone” from office/power who openly promotes & protects Sanctuary Cities,
      – a vote on Ted Cruz’s $14B El Chapo bill

      He had access to $4B without using the NE. Go for changes in the law, then insist on more money in Sept/Oct appropriations.

  6. This is truly MAGA!!

    Not only are we gonna get our wall, but the government is Scouring around for the money instead of increasing spending or raising taxes!!

  7. Let’s just kill this stupid “replacement” argument right now…

    Does anyone with a quorum of neurons that *connect* actually believe Hillary was going to use 30 foot high, concrete-filled, steel bollard wall, with a 5 foot anti-climbing plate in *any* of the so-called “replacement fencing?”

    Anyone at all.

    Come on, let’s hear it.

    Stand forward and declare your fealty to St. Hillary of the Surprisingly Strong Borders right now.


    The answer is that no one believes that. And of the Trumpfhasser who propagate this ridiculous, “It’s only a replacement!” “argument,” what do you hope to accomplish here, other than revealing your love of open borders?

    Seriously. What do you care that it was “replacement?”

    (Note: Scoop isn’t getting involved in this argument. He’s just pointing out that it exists.)

    1. The whole point of a Trump Presidency was to build a 1,000 mile wall to keep out the illegals. Now we are down to 20 miles of replacement wall here and there and 33 miles of new wall in April. This bait and switch practice is NOT what Trump campaigned on! So far he’s getting a D- on the border wall and that’s being generous.

      1. St. Hillary of the Surprisingly Strong Borders hears your prayer.

        Welcome to Open Borders level 3!

        1. I just call balls and strikes. Is Trump even close to following through on his 1,000 mile border wall promise? Nope. Ad hominem comments don’t change this.

          1. @blacula
            If you were building a house for $500,000 but could only get a mortgage for $25,000, how much of the house would get built.

            Try using some common sense.

          2. @Blacula Say, have you ever actually searched how much of the wall has been improved, replaced and newly built?

      2. Did he obstruct himself on wall funding, or was that the establishment GOP? The same people who ridicule his inability to negotiate a 1,000 mile wall through a Republican Congress are the ones pretending we’re in a constitutional crisis over the national emergency, so which is it?

      3. @blacula
        Well, I guess every mile counts doesn’t it?

        Don’t blame a lack of accomplishment when funding has been withheld. The majority of us understand that.

    2. @k-bob
      First of all, no one brought up Killary, so that’s a dumb argument, especially around here.

      Someone having a different point of view (new/replacement) DOESNT mean they are an “open borders” kinda guy, although that gets thrown out there every time.

      If someone wants to call it replacement, so what? Is that really worth the insults?

      Just my point of view.

      1. @sam People argue on semantics all the time, including in the courtroom. It’s a way to conflate, confuse and deceive.

        1. @golfcartone
          Yes it is. I don’t have an issue with calling it either. It’s still miles built, which is the bottom line.

      2. @sam My obvious point is that the “replacement” hustlers are selling it hard (and completely failing) as a way to try and damage Trump.

        They aren’t just being annoying pedants. Especially since even the most annoying, diehard pedant cannot compete with a mile-by-mile, day-by-day diminishment–by way of new wall construction–of whatever stupid point they think they are making.

        1. @k-bob
          The “replacement hustlers” are few & far between. I can agree, or NOT, depending on what they post.

          Perhaps tell them to start posting “where no barrier existed before”. That might settle it & make either side happy, who knows.

      3. And by the way: I brought up Hillary. That’s the point: Hillary wasn’t going to do what Trump did. So calling what Trump did “replacement” as a way to disparage him is foolish for that particular reason.

        This isn’t about word accuracy. No one buys that.

        1. @k-bob
          The thing that annoys me (not you, but you are a pain in the azz sometimes) are people in general always pointing out …. “yeah, but if we had Killary, she wouldn’t have”. We don’t.
          Having Anyone From the Dem party as CIC would be devastating.

          Everyone, (you, me, Trump) is a target for criticism, some are valid, some are not. You interpret things one way, I may interpret it differently. I just can’t get as worked up about the choice of wording as you do.

    3. @K-Bob It’s funny reading the arguments from people who haven’t looked up how much of the wall has been repaired, improved and newly completed. Some people just can’t get past their preconceived notions.

  8. The missing funds was a story out there for years, but from what I’ve read it was a myth and a conspiracy theory. I don’t buy into any conspiracy theories.

    PS- If you have any info proving those claims Susitna, please provide those links. I’m open.

    1. @scope-formerly-pinecone : Hi there! Thanks for your answer. I have at the moment only this link, but I can do more research if you want. When I read the title above it suddenly came up to my mind that many years ago money was missing:

      I just wanted to know what you guys think about. I cannot find my initial comment anymore.

      You know, the communist NWO is constantly conspiring and what some of us are doing is analyzing what might be going on. The truth often gets shut down as being a conspiracy theory.

      Imagine if I would have come out in 1935 and said that communists would take over Germany and kill 6 million Jews and burn them in concentrations camps. I would have been called a conspiracy theorist.

      1. The Jews who were already leaving Germany at that time would have agreed with you. A lot of people saw it coming, but for the most part, the population was still fatigued from WWI and didn’t want to see the truth.

        1. @Dr. Strangelove: What is shocking is, that this horrible crime didn’t take place a long time ago……We still have victims among us!
          Why is it that we have the tendency to avoid seeing the truth?
          Meanwhile, we have accepted watching the enemy sitting in the House of Rep.

  9. I just looked at the list of items where the DOD would take back unspent money. In VA. there is an item where the DOD would take back $30,000. for a project scheduled for for 2020, that would repave roads in Arlington. My 2 Progressive Senators from VA, Time Kaine and Mark Warner have been crying because as Tim Kaine claimed that military housing would be impacted, because he drove by a housing unit in Norfolk that had a sign claiming that the property had asbestos. It is expressley written in the above listed document that “No miliarty housing, barracks or dormitory projects will be impacted. Yeah, all those Dem. idiots are liars, but unfortunately we have many many dumb people in my newly turned blue state.

    1. Sounds to me like a perfectly good place to begin diversity of funds (Arlington – Norfolk) to the southern border. Y’all can handle a few potholes until we secure our nation’s borders, can’t you?

      1. @DaYopper- That’s too funny about the potholes. Years ago I traveled 30 miles one way to work. There was never even a wrinkle in the roadway, but low and behold, there they were repaving a perfectly good roadway. Even small rural roads got the repaving treatment whether they needed it or not. It was pretty obvious they were just trying to keep the VA transportation dept. with jobs and work.

        1. @Scope That’s funny, I-88 in Illinois is in great shape, but gets repaired every year, while downstate I-55 is a mess. I sort of figured that the union doesn’t like the commute so far from Chicago.

          1. @dr-strangelove – Hey Doc, they have to get the money from somewhere for Obama’s museum to himself. 🙂

            1. @Scope I find it hilarious that Jackson Park- a predominantly black neighborhood- is rejecting 0’s self-congratulatory monument.

              1. @dr-strangelove – That is quite the conundrum isn’t it? I thought Obama was their God.

                1. @Scope I think that people are beginning to realize that he’s not down with the struggle.

                2. @dr-strangelove – According to Moochelle that would be the “shtruggle.” 😀

  10. Trump has been winning on this issue since running for POTUS and now has a chance to pick up a major policy win on immigration. The money is there for the wall now, so the only issue left is Trump greenlighting construction.

  11. It’s nice to see the Pentagon and the President are on the same (spreadsheet) page.

  12. Let’s see – California, Hawaii, and New York werent’ going to vote for him anyway. That sounds like over a billion dollars with zero consequences.

        1. @slantry I wasn’t referring to policy decisions but rather to an unexpected bright side. 🙂

          1. @nc-checks-and-balances Slantry is a democrat or NT. (Hard to tell the diff between the two.) You don’t need to justify anything to that account.

              1. @jamesmadison Agree. He’s supposedly a lawyer. I’m a law student. I’ve gone rounds with him. He uses semantic arguments as legal interpretations. Has no problem combining statutes to make one law. Andrew Weissman type tactics.

                1. Explain how I use “semantic arguments as legal interpretation?” Unless you’re referring to the concept of statutory interpretation, which is largely an exercise in semantics.

                  I can’t remember when we’ve gone rounds, but I’m always happy to have informed debate. Also, this is not intended to be sarcastic or smarmy, but if you ever have questions about things you’re learning in your classes (assuming you’re a 1L), I stand ready and willing to be a resource. Except torts; you probably shouldn’t ask me about torts.

                2. @slantry I was referring to semantic arguments as being comparable to how Weissman conflates the law by combining 2 statutes, intentionally CREATING deception. I wasn’t referring to statutory interpretation. I’m 3rd year. Sincerely appreciate your resource offer but I learn by reading statutes, The Federalist Papers and The Constitution, among a few.

                3. Ah yes, I remember that discussion. I think part of the issue is that I really wasn’t trying to make a normative argument, but it may have been interpreted as such. What is true is that the jury instructions in Arthur Andersen were kind of a product of that moment in federal criminal law, and so I don’t think they were the result of concentrated bad faith. You kind of need to view it in the broader context of the push and pull between the courts and US attorneys on financial and process crimes; I think McNally, Skilling, and Andersen were all correctly decided, but also they tell a broader story.

                4. That’s an odd comment. Torts are about the easiest area of law to study, which is why 1L is so heavily weighted in that area.

                  Unless you are saying you are like me and disagree with a lot of the psychobabble concepts that have destroyed Tort law, like “mental anguish” and “emotional distress” as quantifiable damages.

                5. My torts professor was an economist at heart and taught us almost nothing about torts. It’s also an area that I’ve basically never practiced in or otherwise dealt with since, other than once or twice during my clerkships.

                  I don’t disagree conceptually with mental anguish being actionable but I think it’s nearly impossible to value it, so I’m not too fond of it in practice.

        2. @Slantry No, but think of the schadenfreude when the Democrats rage about their money being taken for the wall.

    1. We start digging in Arizona on Monday. Sorry ’bout that, California, Hawaii & New York. You can always raise taxes to make up the difference.

    2. @TomNewman And the pleasant side effect will be the rage of the Deathocrats when they realize that it’s their money he’s taking.

      1. Just like their rage about the tax law. Nothing they can do but try to win nationwide elections in an electoral system that doesn’t favor the coasts.

Comments are closed.