She is right, however the President ran on building a wall and the people elected him, in part, to do it. It needs to be built. I personally think it is a terrible idea, but when someone is elected and then tries to do what he said he was going to do, Congress shouldn't get in the way of the will of the people and they should do it.
here is the practical problem with the electoral college system, how do you reconcile your statement 'the people' with the election numbers?
We've had this electoral college discussion before, but since you asked. Republican presidential candidates don't campaign in California, New York, or Massachusetts. They often don't campaign in Illinois. Additionally, Republicans in those states know that their vote for the Republican candidate is absolutely meaningless so there isn't a push for them to actually vote. The inverse is true in places like Georgia and Texas (though Texas is becoming more of a swing state as seen by O'Rourke in the last Senate vote). So taking those results as what the people want doesn't work, because it wasn't an election where those votes were needed. If you just made it winner take all, then the candidates would ignore 90% of the country and just focus on the major population centers. In fact, 33% of the US population resides in just 4 states (CA, TX, FL, NY). The election would basically be held in those 4 states, plus the states that we think of swing states that have the major population centers (PA, IL, OH, GA, MI, NC, GA, MO, WA, AZ, VA, MD, WI, IN). There would be no reason to go anywhere else and even within all of those states, you would only have to go to the major population centers (like you go to Chicago, not southern Illinois).
The reasonable solution is frankly the elimination of winner-take-all and elimination of gerrymandering. If they fixed the congressional districts by eliminating gerrymandering and then had a presidential candidate win electoral votes based on the congressional districts (with the winner of the state's popular vote getting the 2 senate seat electors), it would solve a lot of the problems in the current system. Candidates couldn't just ignore large portions of the country and the election would run more smoothly. And by eliminating the gerrymandering it would create a far more fair system.