DHS raids are the stuff of Rand Paul’s nightmares. What will he do about it?

Rand Paul made his name as a gadfly preaching about the dangers of a tyrannical federal government. Now, after the killings of two Minnesota residents at the hands of Homeland Security agents, the Kentucky Republican has a chance to do something about it.

The 63-year-old, who spent years on the outskirts of the party, is now at the center of the Senate’s response to the deaths of Renee Good and Alex Pretti, which have sparked new criticism of the administration’s immigration enforcement policies and raised many of the same civil liberties questions Paul has long been asking.

As chair of the Senate Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs Committee, he’s already forced a trio of top immigration officials to agree to testify, publicly criticized the administration’s response to the Pretti shooting and even raised the possibility Congress might step in if the administration refuses to conduct an independent investigation of that incident.

“For people to have confidence in government and confidence in law enforcement … we have to be very honest,” Paul told reporters. “I don’t think anybody in America believes he was assaulting those officers, so we have to tell the truth.”

But Paul — who is already in President Donald Trump’s doghouse as an inconsistent GOP ally — is still walking a fine line.

He repeatedly refused this week to weigh in on if Homeland Security Secretary Kristi Noem should leave the administration, saying he was “reserving judgment for now.” And he has also taken pains to separate himself from some of DHS’s most aggressive Democratic critics, telling reporters he is “for restoring trust in ICE” — not abolishing it.

Were Noem to depart, Paul could find himself in an especially precarious position. As chair of the Homeland Security panel, he would essentially serve as gatekeeper for the confirmation of any replacement. A single Republican defection on the committee could block any Trump nominee who does not have Democratic support.

Speaking to reporters, he connected his skepticism about the Trump administration’s immigration enforcement practices to his longstanding ideological crusade.

“I mean, it's something I've been concerned with the whole time I've been here,” he said. “What are the rights of individuals? Who can you kill? When can you kill them? What is war? What is not war? What is due process? When do you have Fourth Amendment protections? So all these things are incredibly important.”

For now, it’s an open question as to how far he is willing to risk his political career to push back against Trump’s historically aggressive agenda — with GOP colleagues skeptical he would block a Cabinet pick.

He might not have to go to such extremes. After Paul publicly questioned why the DHS agents involved in the Pretti shooting were still on the job Tuesday, the department announced Wednesday they had been placed on leave — though no steps have been publicly taken toward the independent probe the senator is seeking.

While Paul’s skepticism of federal power, both domestically and abroad, has long made him suspect in the eyes of Trump loyalists, his decision to use his committee gavel to seek answers from DHS is earning support from fellow Republicans — many of whom are uneasy over the administration’s enforcement surge in Minnesota, even if they aren’t willing to go as far as Paul.

“Terrible — I mean, this is why there needs to be a full investigation as the president said,” Sen. Josh Hawley (R-Mo.), a member of the Homeland Security panel, told reporters earlier this week. “I’m a firm believer in qualified immunity for law enforcement, but qualified immunity isn’t total immunity.”

Hawley added that the Feb. 12 hearing, under Paul’s direction, would be “thorough.”

Senate Majority Leader John Thune, who has disagreed plenty with his libertarian-leaning GOP colleague, also backed up Paul’s decision to have the hearing with the heads of ICE, Customs and Border Protection, and Citizenship and Immigration Services.

“I think it's important,” Thune said.

Underscoring the unusual role Paul occupies in the Senate, Democrats also view him as a potential ally who might help them force answers out of top administration leaders. While the Kentucky Republican frequently clashes with Democrats, especially on fiscal matters, he’s teamed up in recent weeks on bipartisan efforts to check the president’s war and tariff powers.

Sen. Andy Kim (D-N.J.), another member of the Homeland panel, praised Paul’s decision to call in the administration officials to testify.

“We've had a number of other experiences where there have been issues that are very much on the people's minds, and Congress and colleagues have not called in the administration,” he said in an interview. “This is a good sign from his proactive nature.”

Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer also praised Paul as an example of a Republican who understands that “the American people demand truth and accountability right now.”

Paul, however, is making clear his concerns about the administration’s response to Saturday’s shooting aren’t personal against Trump. And there are signs his orbit is treading lightly around the Minnesota crisis.

After Pretti’s killing Saturday, Doug Stafford — Paul’s longtime chief strategist — posted on X, questioning why Border Patrol officers were in a city nowhere near the border and “when did it become illegal to carry a gun in America.”

He later deleted the post. A spokesperson for Paul’s office did not respond to a request for comment on that decision.

“[Paul is] not a partisan voice,” said Brian Darling, a lobbyist who previously worked for Paul in the Senate. “He’s somebody who is going to look at the issue and look at it from a conservative perspective. And look at it from the perspective of preserving liberty. That’s the way he analyzes issues.”

In the case of the Minnesota shooting, Darling said Paul would not simply look the other way because of his Republican colleagues.

“He’s not going to play team ball on an issue where he sees important issues like the Fourth Amendment, the Second Amendment at risk,” he added.

Often a maverick among the Senate GOP, Paul was cast aside as the party crafted Trump’s landmark domestic policy bill last year. As Homeland chair, Paul had jurisdiction over one of the legislation’s central pillars — a surge in new spending on border security.

But he clashed with the Trump administration and Senate leadership over how much to give the agencies in question. Members of his panel, at the time, suggested Paul was operating without consulting his peers.

His legislative text was rejected. Budget Committee Chair Lindsey Graham (R-S.C.), who has a history of butting heads with Paul, instead led the drafting of the language.

As the fury mounted over Pretti’s killing Monday and Democrats started uniting around blocking funding for ICE, Paul offered a public reminder of how much funding the agency already had.

“The Senate is debating another $10B for ICE. But Congress already locked in nearly $19B a year for four years,” he wrote on X. “Even if this fails, ICE will still have about 87% more funding than last year.”

Jennifer Scholtes contributed to this report.