America is heading towards a real 'national emergency'
(Photo by Chip Somodevilla/Getty Images)
One of Donald Trump’s most well-known – and controversial – policies during his 2016 presidential campaign was that he would build a wall along the U.S.-Mexico border to stop illegal immigration, and “make Mexico pay for it.”
Two years later, the President’s quest to get $5.7 billion to build his border security wall has hit… well, a wall.
This policy remains a high priority for the Trump White House. But it’s become fundamentally clear Mexico isn’t going to pay for this wall, either directly or indirectly. As for U.S. taxpayers, they aren’t keen on picking up the tab themselves.
Meanwhile, Republicans couldn’t pass legislation to get the necessary funding when they controlled both the House of Representatives and Senate. When Democrats, who strongly oppose Trump’s wall, took control of the House after last November’s mid-term elections, the task at hand became even more difficult.
This last obstacle led to a 35-day partial government shutdown, the longest in U.S. history, and a significant drop in Trump’s popular approval. After a three-week grace period with fruitless negotiations, the threat of a second shutdown loomed.
Fortunately, some political wrangling prevented this from happening – and the President, who was granted $1.375 billion in funding, begrudgingly signed the agreement. But he had an ace up his sleeve: he also declared a national emergency to bypass Congress altogether and get the remaining money he needs.
It’s not the first time this has ever happened in U.S. political history. Far from it, in fact.
The first national emergency was declared by then-president Woodrow Wilson more than a century ago. On Feb. 5, 1917, Proclamation 1534 (Emergency in Water Transportation of the United States) stated in part, “I have found that there exists a national emergency arising from the insufficiency of maritime tonnage to carry the products of the farms, forests, mines and manufacturing industries of the United States, to their consumers abroad and within the United States.”
A more formal process was established when then-president Gerald Ford signed the National Emergencies Act into law on Sept. 14, 1976. The act can “terminate certain authorities with respect to national emergencies still in effect,” and provide for “orderly implementation and termination of future national emergencies.”
Various Republican and Democrat presidents have declared 58 previous national emergencies. The vast majority have been used to restrict trade with foreign countries and entities under a vital section of the National Emergencies Act known as the International Emergency Economic Powers Act. And 31 of them remain on the books.
The oldest existing national emergency dates back to Nov. 14, 1979, when then-president Jimmy Carter blocked Iranian government property during the hostage crisis. Others include the proliferation of weapons of mass destruction (1994), regulation of anchorage and movement of Cuban vessels (1996), and sanctions related to Venezuela (2015).
Trump has already declared three national emergencies: Blocking the Property of Persons Involved in Serious Human Rights Abuse or Corruption (2017), Imposing Certain Sanctions in the Event of Foreign Interference in a United States Election (2018), and Blocking Property of Certain Persons Contributing to the Situation in Nicaragua (2018).
It’s unlikely most people were aware of this. Indeed, national emergencies are quietly renewed each year without the tiniest whisper from Washington insiders, or slightest hint of controversy from average Americans.
Trump’s wall is a far more contentious issue, however.
Some believe this initiative has little to do with national safety and security, and more to do with intolerance towards Hispanic and Latin American communities. There’s no way to prove this in some circles of interest, or eliminate this sentiment in others.
Where the funding will ultimately come from remains a mystery. It will either have to be shifted from existing government programs, or certain programs will have to be eliminated altogether – which will frustrate some individuals and groups. (The military budget was recently eliminated as a possible source, which was a wise thing to do.)
There’s also some question as to whether this impending national emergency is an emergency at all. While there are long-standing security issues with Mexico related to crime, drugs, weapons and illegal immigration, the existence of a security threat involving a new, larger migrant caravan coming from Central America remains a disputed fact.
Hence, the Democrats and their supporters will launch a legal challenge to the U.S. Supreme Court in short order. New legal/constitutional precedents will then be set in terms of what actually constitutes a national emergency, and whether presidential powers are this far reaching.
If the Republican-controlled Supreme Court supports Trump, national emergencies will be used more frequently by this president – and future presidents – as a political tool in a divided Congress. If the Supreme Court supports Trump’s opponents, the judiciary will have overstepped its boundaries and taken the political process out of the hands of elected officials, again.
Either way, this will weaken elements of U.S.-style democracy and create an even more rigidly partisan political atmosphere in Washington. That could be a bigger national emergency than anything related to building a border security wall with Mexico.
