February 19, 2019

Trump Declares National Emergency

We're officially on Insta! Did I throw on a blazer at 5 am for all you lovely people? You bet I did!

On Friday, President Trump declared “a national emergency that would serve, in part, as the basis for authorizing an additional $6.5 billion for wall construction.” The proclamation included three sources of funding, the first two of which do not require a national emergency in order to redirect funds:

  • “$601 million from the Treasury Forfeiture Fund…
  • “$2.5 billion under the Department of Defense funds transferred for Support for Counterdrug Activities…
  • “$3.6 billion reallocated from Department of Defense [DoD] military construction projects under the President’s declaration of a national emergency.” In order to reallocate DoD funds in this manner, the law specifies that the funds must be used for projects “that are necessary to support [the] use of the armed forces” during an emergency that “requires use of the armed forces.”

Lawfare Blog, Whitehouse.gov

“California and 15 other states filed a lawsuit Monday against President Donald Trump’s emergency declaration to fund a wall on the U.S.-Mexico border.”
AP News

See past issues

From the Left

The left argues that this is an inappropriate use of the National Emergencies Act, and urges Congress to rein in the President’s executive overreach.

“President Trump’s emergency declaration for a border wall is based on an obvious falsehood: There is no emergency at the U.S.-Mexico border.”
New York Times

Meanwhile, “problems that should engage our energy are forced to the back of the queue of public attention. The normal constitutional approaches to governing — bills passed through committees, compromises reached in conferences involving both parties and both houses of Congress — are no longer respected… The real national emergency is the triviality of our politics.”
Washington Post

“Illegal immigration has declined 75 percent since 2000. The only real emergency here is the way that Trump is misusing the powers of the presidency. The solution… is for Congress to codify many of the unwritten expectations of presidential conduct and to constrain the president’s vast discretion. But that won’t happen anytime soon because Republican members of Congress have violated an important norm of their own: They are putting their loyalty to the president and their political party above their loyalty to the country and the Constitution.”
Washington Post

“Congress has yielded more and more power to the executive branch over decades. In many areas, it has reduced the legislative branch to a mere pedestrian in government, leaving real governing decisions to a kind of ‘fourth branch’ of federal agencies. For their part, presidents have thus become more and more bold in circumventing Congress. When Obama gave a State of the Union proclaiming his intention to bypass Congress after it failed to pass immigration reform, Democrats applauded loudly… Congress has been heading to hell for decades, and it is a bit late to complain about the destination.”
The Hill

Congress could readily specify certain conditions that must exist before the president can make such a declaration… magnitude (the feared incremental harms of the condition are very large, not just marginal); geographic scope (those harms should be nationwide even if the triggering condition is more localized); extraordinary (the condition should be rare, if not unprecedented); imminence (the anticipated harms should be so close in time that Congress cannot deliberate); and likely effectiveness… In the long run, this is more crucial to the vitality of our democracy than whether President Trump ultimately gets his wall.”
New York Times

Regarding the non-emergency portion of the funding, according to the director of the Project on Government Oversight’s Center for Defense Information, while “‘the Pentagon’s budget can be trimmed in places, it shouldn’t be at the expense of national security and certainly not for a border wall.’ It is anticipated that $3.5 billion will come from the military construction budget, which is intended to improve military bases, many of which are in dire need of overhaul…

“[He] is expected to tap an additional $2.5 billion from DOD’s drug interdiction operations, targeting drugs coming into the United States at official ports of entry… Cutting this part of DOD’s budget ‘will significantly undermine the capacity of the department to address that mission.’”

From the Right

The right is worried about the precedent that Trump’s move sets, and is divided as to its legality.

From the Right

The right is worried about the precedent that Trump’s move sets, and is divided as to its legality.

Trump’s claim of emergency power [is not] outlandish—at least by the standards of past presidential practice… President Clinton… declared an emergency to address the 1996 Cuban military shootdown of two Brothers to the Rescue aircraft… The ‘emergency’ is still in place. But it has morphed into a navigation policy with the aim—like the one Trump invokes for the wall—of preventing (among other things) ‘a mass migration from Cuba [that] would endanger our security by posing a disturbance or threatened disturbance of the international relations of the United States’...

“A similar analysis could be done on (among others) Obama’s declared national emergencies due to the situation in Burundi in 2015 and piratical activity near Somalia, and on Bush’s declared national emergencies due to the sale of Iraqi Petroleum in 2003 or to political oppression in Zimbabwe in 2003… presidents have modified and renewed all of these declarations in the intervening years.”
Lawfare Blog

Some note that “in the last two years alone, ICE has arrested 266,000 illegal immigrants with criminal records, including those convicted of 4,000 homicides, 30,000 sex crimes and 100,000 assaults… In 2019, ICE made over 1,500 human trafficking arrests, almost all of which were for sex trafficking; 20,000 children were illegally smuggled into the United States during the month of December alone. If this isn't a crisis at our border, it's hard to know what is.”
Fox News

Others argue that “Trump is stretching the law to its limit, employing a dubious interpretation of old and ill-considered emergency power legislation to justify something it was never intended to justify… Conservatives rightly refused to accept such an idea when Obama was president, and they should not be accepting it now.”
Washington Examiner

Trump is “barely even deigning to explain why there is a particular crisis today… He claims it ‘threatens core national security interests’ yet then goes on to describe civilian challenges… Gang activity and drug-smuggling are grave problems, but they are crimes, not acts of war… While a court isn’t likely to overturn the emergency declaration itself, it is unlikely to believe the administration’s fiction that a civilian wall is true ‘military construction’ or that it is any way ‘necessary’ to support the use of the armed forces.”
National Review

Dated But Relevant: “For much of American history, the primary purpose of the armed forces was border defense, not exporting democracy or keeping the peace in Europe and Asia. I do not think that Congress can unilaterally transform a historic military mission — safeguarding the nation’s territorial integrity — into a civilian law-enforcement mission through immigration laws… Further, decisions over what ‘requires’ the armed forces and what is ‘necessary to support’ them traditionally have rested with the president and have rarely, if ever, been second-guessed by the courts.”
National Review

Regarding the non-emergency portion of the funding, “Obama signed a bill into law that gave his successor the very precise power to ‘construct ... fences ... across international boundaries of the United States’... Congress cannot claim that the president is subverting the rule of law when it gives him the precise authority he needs to accomplish his goal.”
Lawfare Blog

“The Democrats want to talk to Don McGahn, and maybe they will ultimately prevail in court to get his testimony, but what’s the point? McGahn talked extensively to Mueller, and surely everything remotely damaging is already in the report

“Congress has the report, and now it is up to it to decide. But it doesn’t want to. It’s too painful to admit that the Mueller report was a bust on Russia and that the obstruction material, while damaging to Trump, is hardly a slam dunk; that the public doesn’t support impeachment; that if the House goes through with it anyway, it will end with a whimper in the Senate; and that it’s better for Democrats to focus on beating Trump in 2020 than a forlorn impeachment.”
Rich Lowry, National Review

A libertarian's take

“The scoop reflects poorly on Trump, who willfully misled the public for a decade in hopes of fraudulently representing himself as a man with a Midas touch. But he could not have succeeded without the assistance of many Americans, some mercenary, others over-credulous, who helped to spread the deceit and deception, generating countless newspaper articles, magazine stories, and TV segments that misinformed the public about the publicity hound’s record in business. New evidence of his staggering losses in that decade therefore provides an apt occasion to reflect on the media’s complicity in Trump’s brazen deceit and deception… Let [this] be a lesson for today’s tabloids, gossip columnists, over-credulous or mercenary journalists, and reality-television producers.”
Conor Friedersdorf, The Atlantic

On the bright side...

Get troll-free political news.

Thank you! Your submission has been received!
Oops! Something went wrong while submitting the form.