For a moment it seemed as though there might be a bit of compromise in the US government. As we all know, the government was shut down for 35 days from the end of December through most of January after Congress could not decide on a spending bill. The impasse stemmed largely from President Donald Trump’s insistence on 5.7 billion in funds for a wall along the southern border of the country to inhibit illegal immigration. Trump called the situation a “crisis”, a claim many (Mostly democrats) disputed. This weekend the government was set to shut down once again if an agreement could not be reached.

Via Chicago Tribune

However, it seemed as though an agreement might be reached. Congress had put together a spending bill, but it only included 1.4 billion dollars for border security and never once mentioned “wall” in the bill. This would pay for about 55 miles of barrier on the Mexican border. It seemed as though this bipartisan spending bill would pass, but after signing the bill, Trump declared a national emergency, directly opposing Congress. In a statement February 15, he said, “We’re going to confront the national security crisis on our southern border and we’re going to do it one way or the other…We have an invasion of drugs and criminals coming into our country”.

So while compromise seemed possible for a brief bit, Trump refused to give in so that he could maintain a political promise that he made in his campaign. The problem in all of this is that it sets a dangerous precedent. It’s not wrong that many national emergencies have been called in U.S. history,  there have been about five dozen in U.S.  history. Over thirty of those are ongoing, but most relate to pressing issues like drugs or wars. Only two have ever been used as a measure to appropriate federal funds. Once was George H.W. Bush sending funds to support the Gulf War, and the second was George W. Bush after the 9/11 terrorist attacks. No President has ever used a declaration of a national emergency as a political weapon to directly challenge Congress. The precedent has now been set. There is potential that a future President, perhaps liberal, could use this same strategy and declare Climate Change a national emergency, or more controversially, gun violence. This could then force action to be taken that a lot of the country does not agree with. It’s a highly dangerous proposition, and one that the near sighted president has either not considered, or considered and dismissed.

One positive that I feel can be taken from this, is there actually has been a bit of bipartisanship in regards to both Democrats and Republicans believing that this declaration was wrong. 56% of United States citizens disagree with the declaration of a national emergency to secure border wall funding, including 20% of Republicans.

The issue is this is more of a political move than having anything to do with border security. Trump promised a wall in his campaign, and failed to deliver in the first two years of his presidency, when Republicans controlled both houses of Congress. Of that failure he said, ““It would have been great to have done it earlier. But I was a little new to the job, a little new to the profession. And we had a little disappointment for the first year and a half. People that should have stepped up did not step up. But we’re stepping up now.” Shifting the blame to others has become a common theme of the Presidency.

Trump acknowledged that the national emergency would be challenged in the courts, and indeed the lawsuits have already begun to pour in, including landowners in Texas who will lose their land to the wall. He predicted, however, that when the issue hits the Supreme Court, it will be upheld.

The national emergency will allow Trump to take the $3.6 billion slated for military construction projects and use it for the border wall. $2.5 billion will come from counternarcotics programs which aligns more with the purpose of the wall. Lastly, $600 million will be used from a “Treasury Department asset forfeiture fund”. Combined with the $1.4 billion approved in the spending bill, Trump will have about $8 billion dollars to go toward his precious wall, far above the $5.7 billion he originally asked for that led to the government shutdown.

People on both sides of the aisle have spoken out against the move.  According to the New York Times, “George T. Conway III, a conservative lawyer and the husband of Kellyanne Conway, the president’s counselor [said] ‘If he knows he is going to lose…then he knows he is violating the Constitution and laws he has sworn to uphold’.” Others, like Speaker of the House Nanci Pelosi and Democrat Chuck Schumer have also been very vocal critics.

Only time will tell how this works out and if compromise will ever be reached.

Via Al Jazeera

Sources.

The New Yorker: A Weak and Rambling President Declares a Fake National Emergency

Fox News: Trump declares emergency on border, eyes $8B for wall as he signs spending package

The New York Times: Trump Declares a National Emergency, and Provokes a Constitutional Clash