US President Donald Trump declared a national state of emergency on the afternoon of Friday 15 February. The decision was aimed at circumventing the compromise reached between Democrats and Republicans in Congress, particularly regarding funding for the reinforcement of barriers along the border with Mexico.

For the wall, Donald Trump could obtain $8 billion

The announcement of a parliamentary agreement had come on Monday evening, after weeks of intense negotiations between the parties. One of the leading Republican negotiators, Senator Richard Shelby, had told CNN that the deal also included funds for border security.

Members of Congress had opted for a metal barrier – not a wall – 55 miles (approximately 88 kilometres) long. To build it, they had approved $1.375 billion. Far too little for the American billionaire, who had been aiming to obtain at least five. He therefore decided to force the issue in the hardest way possible (and not without risks, political and legal).

Reuters ✓ @Reuters

𝕏

Trump and a reporter sparred over immigration facts, as the president said he would declare a national emergency a the U.S.-Mexico border reut.rs/2UYSYwr

♥ 146💬 46 15 feb 2019 · Apri su X →

The White House's justification rests on the claim that, according to the Trump administration, the United States is facing "an invasion" of migrants. Technically, the "emergency" procedure allows the president to unlock federal funds normally allocated to the Pentagon. In this way, he could manage to secure as much as eight billion dollars to complete the project.

Governors, attorneys general and lawmakers promise a legal battle

The reactions from the Democratic opposition were extremely harsh. The main leaders described it as an "unconstitutional initiative", as it is based on a non-existent emergency: "Donald Trump's declaration is illegal," wrote the Speaker of the House of Representatives, Nancy Pelosi. But beyond words, what the United States is preparing to face is a legal battle. The Democratic leader herself, in fact, according to the Washington Post could respond to the White House with legislative tools: "Any national emergency declared by the sitting president can be brought to an end by passing an ordinary law." This is indeed stipulated by law 50, section 1622 (50 U.S. Code § 1622), which in the United States governs precisely this type of situation.

Kayleigh McEnany 45 Archived ✓ @PressSec45

𝕏

President @realDonaldTrump signs the Declaration for a National Emergency to address the national security and humanitarian crisis at the Southern Border.

♥ 32483💬 6189 15 feb 2019 · Apri su X →

The Governor and Attorney General of California, Gavin Newsom and Xavier Becerra, had warned even before the White House made the decision official: "If the president attempts to use a made-up emergency to fund the border wall, we'll see him in court." A similar stance was taken by the state of New York.

For this reason, the Washington Post has already anticipated that the federal courts of the two states will likely be called upon to rule on the Trump administration's decision. But that is not all. The route of the wall, which would extend between California and Texas, would need to pass over privately owned land as well. Land that would need to be expropriated.

"This way Congress will lose every means of counterbalancing government action"

According to the Congressional Research Service – the research office of the US Congress – it is very likely that many landowners could decide to contest the legality of the measures imposed on them. "Fortunately, we will win," said the US President, appearing extremely self-assured.

Read also: What Donald Trump managed to accomplish in two years as President of the United States

But even within his own camp many have expressed concern. Republican Senator Marco Rubio stated that "for a Democratic president, the national emergency could be climate change" (as if it weren't one for everyone…). Meanwhile, Senator Susan Collins said that "declaring a state of emergency diminishes the role of Congress." Finally, Rand Paul, a lawmaker from Kentucky, expressed his "disappointment" and stressed that "the Constitution clearly separates powers. If we start treating these things as emergencies, I think we will very soon lose every means of checking and counterbalancing government action."