Arizona’s U.S. Senate race heated up on Wednesday night as Republican Kari Lake and Democrat Rep. Ruben Gallego squared off in a fiery debate. At the heart of the clash was the contentious issue of border security, particularly Gallego’s shifting stance on the border wall—a topic that has defined much of the political discourse in the state.
Lake, the former news anchor turned Republican Senate candidate, accused Gallego of flip-flopping on the issue. She slammed the congressman for his previous harsh criticisms of former President Donald Trump’s border wall, which Gallego once referred to as “stupid” and “dumb.” During the debate, however, Gallego appeared to change his tune, stating that a border wall is now “important” as part of a broader southern border security package.
Gallego’s apparent reversal on the border wall was a focal point of the debate, with Lake wasting no time in highlighting his inconsistent stance. While Gallego has long been a vocal opponent of Trump’s immigration policies, during Wednesday’s debate, he acknowledged that physical barriers, like a wall, could be part of a broader solution to the border crisis.
“I believe a border wall is important,” Gallego stated when asked whether his opinion on border walls had evolved. This marked a significant departure from his earlier rhetoric, where he dismissed the idea of a border wall as a misguided solution to a non-existent problem.
In 2017, Gallego wrote an opinion piece titled “Why we should not build Trump’s border wall,” arguing that “Trump’s border wall is trying to solve a problem that doesn’t exist.” He went on to call the project both “stupid” and “dumb,” sentiments that Lake was quick to remind voters of during the debate.
Lake came prepared with receipts. “I just jotted down Ruben’s exact quote. He called it the dumb, stupid border wall,” she said, referring to his past statements. She also pointed to Gallego’s op-ed and official congressional statements in which he criticized Trump’s border security efforts.
“We’re getting the Extreme Makeover version of Ruben tonight,” Lake quipped, adding that Gallego’s newfound support for a border wall seemed tailored for the Senate race rather than a genuine change in policy.
Lake accused Gallego of pandering to voters by suddenly shifting his stance on an issue as critical as border security. She positioned herself as the candidate with a consistent, strong record on the issue, harking back to her days as a news anchor covering border politics in Arizona.
Lake praised former President Trump’s efforts to secure the southern border, arguing that he made more progress than any previous president. “I covered this state for 27 years,” Lake said, referencing her time as a journalist. “We watched as career politicians said they were going to secure the border, and they never did. It wasn’t until President Trump came along that we actually saw real border security.”
She noted, however, that Trump faced significant opposition, especially from politicians like Gallego. “He had to do it with one hand tied behind his back because people like my opponent were fighting him every step of the way, refusing to fund the wall,” Lake said. She emphasized that the border wall was a critical element of Trump’s immigration policy and one that she fully supports as a means to protect Arizona’s communities.
The debate took another sharp turn when Gallego touted a recent immigration bill that he and other Democrats have characterized as a “bipartisan” solution to the ongoing crisis at the border. Lake seized on this, suggesting that the bill was anything but a solution. Instead, she argued, it would exacerbate the problem by codifying illegal immigration.
“That piece of legislation, thank you for reminding me, I am not for it,” Lake said sarcastically during the debate. “It would codify into law 5,000 people every day coming in illegally. That means 5,000 people every day would be pouring across our border illegally.”
Lake’s criticism referenced an analysis by Rosemary Jenks, from the Immigration Accountability Project, which found that the legislation would allow for up to 5,000 illegal crossings daily. According to Lake, this would only deepen the crisis at the border and further strain Arizona’s resources.
Gallego, for his part, tried to position himself as a pragmatic moderate on immigration. He acknowledged the need for stronger border security but framed the issue as a broader one that included addressing the root causes of migration and ensuring a more comprehensive immigration reform.
However, Lake’s accusations of inconsistency clearly put Gallego on the defensive. Throughout the debate, he struggled to reconcile his past opposition to the border wall with his current support for it in a more limited capacity.
The debate over the border wall—and immigration policy more broadly—remains one of the most significant issues in Arizona’s Senate race. Lake’s sharp criticism of Gallego’s flip-flopping on the issue underscored her strategy of painting him as a politician who changes his views based on political convenience.
In contrast, Lake positioned herself as a staunch supporter of Trump’s border policies and framed herself as the only candidate with a consistent track record on immigration. As the Senate race intensifies, voters will have to decide which candidate they believe will best handle the border crisis and protect the state’s interests.
