What will President Trump do now? This is the $5.7 billion question confronting Congress as the latest government-funding deal grinds its way toward his desk.
Desperate to avoid another shutdown debacle, negotiators on the House-Senate conference committee reached a bipartisan agreement in principle on Monday evening that, among many other measures, would provide $1.375 billion for border barriers — less than a quarter of the wall funding Mr. Trump has been demanding. News of the tentative deal trickled out as the president was headed into a rowdy “Finish the Wall” rally in El Paso.
Will Mr. Trump accept this new bill or veto it? Will he sign it but then declare a national emergency and order the military to build the wall? Will he try to “reprogram” money approved by Congress for other ends — disaster relief, flood control, housing for military families? Maybe there’s a “none of the above” option that he is preparing to spring on everyone at the last second.
Whatever path the president is inclined to take, Republican leaders are sending him a clear message along with the deal: This is the best offer he’s going to get under the circumstances, and if he refuses it, he’ll wind up hanging out on that political limb alone.
After nearly two months of presidential grandstanding and partisan finger-pointing, not to mention 35 days of a partial government shutdown that accomplished nothing, it seems that even Republican lawmakers have had enough of Mr. Trump’s posturing.
Heading into this round of haggling, both sides committed to digging in, making concessions and arriving at a deal that could pass both chambers. They committed, in other words, to actually legislating. If the president couldn’t stomach the final product, well, that was his choice. But, in this matter at least, the Senate Republican leader, Mitch McConnell, appears to be done protecting Mr. Trump from tough choices.
Looking beyond the wall for a moment, the emerging deal is sufficiently complex to allow both teams to claim partial victory — in some cases over the same provision. Democrats, for instance, are boasting of having cut the number of “detention beds” to be funded, from the current level of 49,000 down to 40,000, with a path toward further reductions. For their part, Republicans are contending that, thanks to flexibility in how departments use their funding, the budget would actually allow for 45,000-plus beds, with an eventual increase to more than 58,000.
When it comes to the heart of this fight, however, there is no ambiguity. Democrats stayed unified and denied Mr. Trump his $5.7 billion. Republicans determined that the cost of continuing the battle was too steep. Congress, like Mexico, will not pay for Mr. Trump’s wall.
The president’s conservative fan base was quick to pounce. On Monday night, the Fox News host Sean Hannity, one of the pro-wall die-hards who goaded the president into rejecting a funding deal in December, warned, “Any Republican that supports this garbage compromise, you’ll have to explain.”
How will the president handle this disappointment? At a cabinet meeting on Tuesday, he declared himself “not happy” with the deal. Fair enough. Why would he be happy about a plan that contains no more funding for his boondoggle than the compromise he turned down in December?
When asked at the cabinet meeting if he would sign the deal, Mr. Trump was noncommittal (and non-coherent): “It’s not doing the trick. But I’m adding things to it. And when you add whatever I have to add, it’s all going to happen where we’re going to build a beautiful, big, strong wall that’s not going to let criminals and traffickers and drug dealers and drugs into our country. It’s very simple.”
In reality, none of Mr. Trump’s options are “very simple.” Any substantive tinkering on his part could easily blow up the bargain. Declaring a national emergency would prompt a political eruption likely to scald his entire party, not to mention establish a dangerous precedent. The same goes for using an executive order to siphon funding from other programs and projects.
For weeks, the president has had his acting chief of staff, Mick Mulvaney, scrounging under agency sofa cushions for unspent cash, to the perturbation of even fellow Republicans. Clawing back money tends to make members of Congress cranky — especially if any of it was destined for their state or district. Jim Dyer, a former (Republican) staff director for the House Appropriations Committee, recently predicted that any move in this direction would “create a firestorm.”
Thus Mr. Trump finds himself once more walled in by his border promises, with no clear way out and having exhausted the patience of his own congressional team.
The Times is committed to publishing a diversity of letters to the editor. We’d like to hear what you think about this or any of our articles. Here are some tips. And here’s our email: [email protected].
Follow The New York Times Opinion section on Facebook, Twitter (@NYTopinion) and Instagram.
Source: Read Full Article
Home » Analysis & Comment » Opinion | Deal or No Deal, Mr. Trump?
Opinion | Deal or No Deal, Mr. Trump?
What will President Trump do now? This is the $5.7 billion question confronting Congress as the latest government-funding deal grinds its way toward his desk.
Desperate to avoid another shutdown debacle, negotiators on the House-Senate conference committee reached a bipartisan agreement in principle on Monday evening that, among many other measures, would provide $1.375 billion for border barriers — less than a quarter of the wall funding Mr. Trump has been demanding. News of the tentative deal trickled out as the president was headed into a rowdy “Finish the Wall” rally in El Paso.
Will Mr. Trump accept this new bill or veto it? Will he sign it but then declare a national emergency and order the military to build the wall? Will he try to “reprogram” money approved by Congress for other ends — disaster relief, flood control, housing for military families? Maybe there’s a “none of the above” option that he is preparing to spring on everyone at the last second.
Whatever path the president is inclined to take, Republican leaders are sending him a clear message along with the deal: This is the best offer he’s going to get under the circumstances, and if he refuses it, he’ll wind up hanging out on that political limb alone.
After nearly two months of presidential grandstanding and partisan finger-pointing, not to mention 35 days of a partial government shutdown that accomplished nothing, it seems that even Republican lawmakers have had enough of Mr. Trump’s posturing.
Heading into this round of haggling, both sides committed to digging in, making concessions and arriving at a deal that could pass both chambers. They committed, in other words, to actually legislating. If the president couldn’t stomach the final product, well, that was his choice. But, in this matter at least, the Senate Republican leader, Mitch McConnell, appears to be done protecting Mr. Trump from tough choices.
Looking beyond the wall for a moment, the emerging deal is sufficiently complex to allow both teams to claim partial victory — in some cases over the same provision. Democrats, for instance, are boasting of having cut the number of “detention beds” to be funded, from the current level of 49,000 down to 40,000, with a path toward further reductions. For their part, Republicans are contending that, thanks to flexibility in how departments use their funding, the budget would actually allow for 45,000-plus beds, with an eventual increase to more than 58,000.
When it comes to the heart of this fight, however, there is no ambiguity. Democrats stayed unified and denied Mr. Trump his $5.7 billion. Republicans determined that the cost of continuing the battle was too steep. Congress, like Mexico, will not pay for Mr. Trump’s wall.
The president’s conservative fan base was quick to pounce. On Monday night, the Fox News host Sean Hannity, one of the pro-wall die-hards who goaded the president into rejecting a funding deal in December, warned, “Any Republican that supports this garbage compromise, you’ll have to explain.”
How will the president handle this disappointment? At a cabinet meeting on Tuesday, he declared himself “not happy” with the deal. Fair enough. Why would he be happy about a plan that contains no more funding for his boondoggle than the compromise he turned down in December?
When asked at the cabinet meeting if he would sign the deal, Mr. Trump was noncommittal (and non-coherent): “It’s not doing the trick. But I’m adding things to it. And when you add whatever I have to add, it’s all going to happen where we’re going to build a beautiful, big, strong wall that’s not going to let criminals and traffickers and drug dealers and drugs into our country. It’s very simple.”
In reality, none of Mr. Trump’s options are “very simple.” Any substantive tinkering on his part could easily blow up the bargain. Declaring a national emergency would prompt a political eruption likely to scald his entire party, not to mention establish a dangerous precedent. The same goes for using an executive order to siphon funding from other programs and projects.
For weeks, the president has had his acting chief of staff, Mick Mulvaney, scrounging under agency sofa cushions for unspent cash, to the perturbation of even fellow Republicans. Clawing back money tends to make members of Congress cranky — especially if any of it was destined for their state or district. Jim Dyer, a former (Republican) staff director for the House Appropriations Committee, recently predicted that any move in this direction would “create a firestorm.”
Thus Mr. Trump finds himself once more walled in by his border promises, with no clear way out and having exhausted the patience of his own congressional team.
The Times is committed to publishing a diversity of letters to the editor. We’d like to hear what you think about this or any of our articles. Here are some tips. And here’s our email: [email protected].
Follow The New York Times Opinion section on Facebook, Twitter (@NYTopinion) and Instagram.
Source: Read Full Article