During the October 22 session of the Standing Finance Committee, Homeland Security Minister Roger Alexander repeatedly invoked ‘national security interests’ to avoid answering questions, raising concerns about transparency and accountability. This approach, while not unprecedented, reached new heights as Alexander dismissed inquiries on topics ranging from police vehicle leasing to minor equipment purchases, labeling them as state secrets. For instance, when MP Keith Scotland questioned the use of drones detailed in the budget, Alexander accused him of revealing ‘national security information.’ Similarly, a $2.5 million allocation for a new unit was deemed ‘operative and covert,’ with Alexander refusing further discussion. This pattern of deflection drew criticism from opposition MPs, who accused the minister of overusing national security as a shield. The situation highlighted Alexander’s struggle to balance operational security with parliamentary accountability, a challenge exacerbated by his recent additional responsibility for prisons in the Prime Minister’s portfolio reshuffle. Critics argue that Alexander, a former TV host and controversial police officer, appears more adept at the operational aspects of security policy than navigating the complexities of parliamentary scrutiny. The PNM’s criticism of Alexander’s lack of transparency also drew scrutiny, given their own history of invoking secrecy during their tenure. The episode underscores the need for greater clarity and oversight in how national security concerns are addressed in parliamentary proceedings.