Skip to main content

Sign up for our newsletter.

Quality journalism. Progressive values. Direct to your inbox.

President Donald Trump speaks to reporters as he visits the banks of the Rio Grande River with U.S. Sen. Ted Cruz and U.S. Customs and Border Protection officers and agents during a visit to the U.S.-Mexico border on Thursday, January 10, 2019. (Photo: Leah Millis/Reuters)

No Mere 'Stunt': Experts Warn Trump Emergency Declaration Would Spark 'Constitutional Crisis'

"The president is about to make unprecedented use of emergency powers given to the commander in chief for times of true national crisis in order to enact his political agenda."

Jake Johnson, staff writer

As President Donald Trump continues to escalate his threat to declare a national emergency to construct a wall along the U.S.-Mexico border—and amid reports that his administration is already laying the groundwork for the declaration—legal experts and progressive critics warned against the notion that the move would be a mere political "stunt" and argued it would spark a full-blown constitutional crisis.

"If he can claim anything is a crisis to get what he wants, there is no meaningful balance of power."
—Stephen Miles, Win Without War

"This is a constitutional crisis, plain and simple," Stephen Miles, director of Win Without War, wrote in a series of tweets on Thursday following Trump's brief visit to the border, where he said he will "most likely" make good on his threats to declare a national emergency.

"The constitution gives Congress solely the power to appropriate funds," Miles added. "They have done so and Trump is planning to unilaterally take those funds and use them for another purpose for his own political agenda... If he can claim anything is a crisis to get what he wants, there is no meaningful balance of power."

While many legal experts have argued that declaring a national emergency to fund the construction of a border wall would be an illegal abuse of power, Miles argued that there is "no reason to believe" the courts—and particularly not the conservative-dominated Supreme Court—will stop Trump from bypassing Congress to construct a border wall that most Americans don't want.

In a recent piece for the New York Times, Yale law professor Bruce Ackerman argued that not only would Trump's proposed emergency declaration be illegal, "but if members of the armed forces obeyed his command, they would be committing a federal crime."

"No president in the last twoo centuries has invoked emergency power to fund a policy goal after failing to secure approval from Congress."
—Kristen Clarke, Lawyers' Committee on Civil Rights Under Law

"What this all adds up to is a potential crisis much graver than whatever immigration emergencies the president has in mind: A legally ignorant president forcing our troops to choose between his commands and the rule of law in a petty political struggle over a domestic political question," Ackerman concluded.

While it is not at all clear when or even if the president will declare a national emergency, Kristen Clarke—president and executive director of the Lawyers' Committee on Civil Rights Under Law—echoed Miles and others in arguing that the move would spark a constitutional crisis.

"If Trump invokes 'emergency' powers to build his wall, this would thrust the nation into a constitutional crisis," Clarke wrote. "No president in the last two centuries has invoked emergency power to fund a policy goal after failing to secure approval from Congress."

Warnings about the dire implications of Trump's possible national emergency declaration over a non-existent crisis came as NBC News reported on Thursday that the president is considering a plan to divert billions of dollars away from from disaster relief and prevention efforts in Puerto Rico, Texas, and California to fund the construction of "315 miles of barrier along the U.S.-Mexico border."

"Under the proposal," NBC reported, "Trump could dip into the $2.4 billion allocated to projects in California, including flood prevention and protection projects along the Yuba River Basin and the Folsom Dam, as well as the $2.5 billion set aside for reconstruction projects in Puerto Rico, which is still recovering from Hurricane Maria."

In a statement, Rep. Nydia Velázquez (D-N.Y.) said it "would be beyond appalling for the president to take money from places like Puerto Rico that have suffered enormous catastrophes, costing thousands of American citizens lives, in order to pay for Donald Trump’s foolish, offensive, and hateful wall."

"Siphoning funding from real disasters to pay for a crisis manufactured by the president is wholly unacceptable and the American people won't fall for it," Velázquez added.


Our work is licensed under Creative Commons (CC BY-NC-ND 3.0). Feel free to republish and share widely.
We need your help.

Support progressive journalism.

Common Dreams is not your average news site. We don't survive on clicks or advertising dollars. We rely entirely on your support. And without it, our independent progressive journalism simply wouldn’t exist. Every gift of every amount matters.

Join the fight and support our common dreams today.

MSNBC Declines to Voluntarily Recognize Newsroom Union Effort

Organizers said that "we want to support one another and make this an even better place to build a career."

Jessica Corbett, staff writer ·


Sanders Speaks Out Against 'Dangerous' Chorus Pushing for New Cold War With China

"Developing a mutually beneficial relationship with China will not be easy," the senator writes. "But we can do better than a new Cold War."

Brett Wilkins, staff writer ·


Indigenous Women Invite Deb Haaland to See Devastation of Line 3 for Herself

The tar sands project "poses a significant threat to water, Indigenous treaty rights, and worsens the global climate crisis," the group wrote to Biden's Interior Secretary.

Kenny Stancil, staff writer ·


After SCOTUS Upholds ACA, Progressives Set Sights on Medicare for All

Now, said campaigner Michael Lighty, "we can instead go to a system that will actually guarantee healthcare to everybody, which the ACA does not do and cannot do."

Jessica Corbett, staff writer ·


McConnell Makes Clear 'All Republicans Will Oppose' Manchin Voting Rights Compromise

"The idea that Manchin can pass a law to protect the vote with help from the very people it needs protecting from is suspect at best."

Jake Johnson, staff writer ·