Skip to content
Search

Latest Stories

Follow Us:
Top Stories

Powers in the balance thanks to wall ‘emergency’

Restoring some equilibrium among the executive, legislative and judicial branches is a central ingredient to reviving democratic normalcy. And the emergency wall declaration is creating one of the most consequential federal balance-of-power battles in modern times.

President Trump is the clear favorite, but his advantage as he pushes to build more border barriers is not prohibitive.

The president's cause could be slowed and eventually derailed by the federal courts, but that tussle might continue well into the election year. More quickly and decisively, he could be rebuffed in a matter of weeks by Congress, but only if the legislative branch acts with a resoundingly bipartisan voice.

And this is a bit less of a longshot than it may appear. A critical mass of congressional Republicans is theoretically prepared to conclude it's in their best interest to fight for either their legislative authority or their views of conservative governance, even if that means deviating from their habits of deference and political loyalty to the president.


The climax of this battle looks clear: It will come whenever the House and Senate vote on whether to override Trump's first veto.

The 1976 law the president invoked last week – establishing the presidential power to address national emergencies with money appropriated for other purposes – says such an emergency declaration can be nullified with a "disapproval resolution" passed by Congress. Exactly when that bill will start moving, and its precise terms, is being deliberated by the Democratic leadership while Congress is in recess this Presidents' Day week. But it's a sure bet the measure will easily move through the House, because all 235 members of the Democratic majority will vote yes, at a minimum. And Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell has signaled that at least four of his fellow Republicans are going to join all 47 Democrats to clear the measure in his chamber.

The drama comes after Trump then uses his veto pen to send the legislation back to the Capitol, at which point negating the emergency declaration would require two-thirds support in both the Senate and the House.

That's not altogether out of the question. Twenty GOP senators, the minimum needed to approve guarantee an override, are already on record opposing Trump's declaration – arguing that it either inappropriately tramples on the congressional power of the purse, or sets a dangerous precedent that a liberal future president could use to advance policies on climate change, gun rights or health care without a Capitol Hill stamp of approval. (Their comments have been collected by The Bulwark, a conservative web site highly critical of Trump, and some of the senators spoke before the emergency declaration was a sure thing.)

Only seven GOP House members have made similar public comments to date. But the magic number of 55 would be in reach if they were joined by almost all 23 Republicans on the Appropriations Committee (which now faces having dozens of its spending decisions of the past year nullified) and all 26 Republicans on the Armed Services Committee (angry that Trump wants to take $3.6 million in military construction funding to finance his border construction). Speaker Nancy Pelosi is also circulating a list of projects, many in GOP-held districts, that might be mothballed under Trump's plan.


Read More

A person in a military uniform hugging a child, who is hugging them back with a small U.S. flag in her hand.

Veterans from past wars and those returning from ongoing wars will need the country’s continued support.

Special Courts Helps Veterans Stay out of Jail – but Staffing Losses at VA and Cuts to Government Programs Are Threatening Their Work

Memorial Day is an apt time to reflect on the long-term consequences of war. Among them are substance use, mental health problems, homelessness and jail time for those who served in the military.

About 8% of all Americans in prisons or jails are veterans, according to the Council on Criminal Justice, a nonpartisan think tank. Veterans end up incarcerated largely because of substance use and mental health disorders, both of which also contribute to homelessness.

Keep ReadingShow less
Soldier saluting an American flag

One year after leaving the U.S. Navy, a former Lieutenant Commander examines growing threats to military independence, democratic institutions, veterans' rights, and constitutional accountability under the Trump administration.

Tetra Images/Getty Images

The Military Needs You To Help Defend It

Exactly one year ago today, I resigned my commission as a Lieutenant Commander in the United States Navy. For fourteen years, I had voluntarily accepted the standard bargain of military service that included signing away a substantial portion of my First Amendment rights. I reclaimed them just in time.

Upon entering civilian life with a decade of active-duty observations, I started writing more. Over the past twelve months, I contributed over twenty op-eds to The Fulcrum (in addition to being published by VoteVets, Slate, and The New York Times). The vast majority of my pieces have touched on national security or the military-connected community. Turns out, I have a lot to say. Also, there’s been no shortage of material.

Keep ReadingShow less
Can Coalitions Built on Opposition Still Govern?

Supporters of President Donald Trump, February 09, 2024 in Harrisburg, Pennsylvania.

(Photo by Spencer Platt/Getty Images)

Can Coalitions Built on Opposition Still Govern?

Political parties are supposed to do two things at once: win elections and govern. Those are not the same skill.

Winning elections requires assembling coalitions large enough to secure power. Governing requires maintaining enough internal agreement to make decisions, negotiate trade-offs, allocate resources, and sustain policy direction once power is achieved.

Keep ReadingShow less
Digital illustration of robot's hand holding and supporting man who is working on his desk using computer, represent themes of artificial intelligence (AI), the future of work, and the intersection of humanity and technology.

A critique of Steven Rosenbaum's The Future of Truth and the irony of AI-generated errors in a book warning about AI, truth, trust, and democratic responsibility.

Andriy Onufriyenko / Getty Images

On Truth, Shame, and the Abuse of AI

A democracy is only as robust and vibrant as the citizens who sustain it. Self-government depends upon people willing to deliberate honestly, reason carefully, and exercise judgment responsibly. With the emergence of AI, this obligation becomes even more consequential because these powerful systems can either deepen human agency or quietly erode it. They can either help citizens think more clearly and participate more meaningfully, or they can encourage the outsourcing of judgment itself and the slow substitution of synthetic plausibility for human responsibility.

Imagine, then, publishing a book warning humanity about the epistemological collapse supposedly ushered in by artificial intelligence. Imagine assembling endorsements from solemn guardians of the humanities, critics of automation, custodians of truth, defenders of interpretation against probabilistic sludge. Imagine presenting yourself as a kind of intellectual fire marshal standing before a burning building, yelling that people must immediately stop playing with matches.

Keep ReadingShow less