NY Times Injects Opinion into Piece on Trump Setting ‘A Troubling Precedent’
by Carrie Sheffieldon
The New York Times’ reporter Carl Hulse moved into opinion territory with his article, “In Wielding Emergency Powers, Trump Paves Dangerous Path Forward,” calling President Trump’s declaration of a national emergency in order to secure our southern border “a troubling precedent” and failing to provide any reporting about the president’s justification for the declaration and no context about how often and in what context that other presidents have declared national emergencies in the past.
Hulse instead spends the article quoting multiple congressional Republicans and Democrats who are skeptical of President Trump’s decision, without mentioning the calamitous opioid crisis that is decimating our country–fueled by southern border crossings.
“That willingness to stand with the president at the expense of their own institution underscores that the border wall remains a powerful symbol with Republican voters and suggests Republicans would rather risk a troubling precedent than run afoul of Mr. Trump, who made the wall his signature campaign promise in 2016, and his constituency,” writes Hulse.
“It also shows how deeply lawmakers wanted to avoid another calamitous shutdown … The president sees the emergency declaration as a way to get his way over a resistant Congress. But to many on Capitol Hill, it is the declaration itself that could become the emergency.”Hulse makes no mention of the possible legal argument laid out by Margaret Taylor in Lawfare, “outlined in 10 U.S. Code § 2808(a), provides that: ‘[i]n the event of a declaration of war or the declaration by the president of a national emergency in accordance with the National Emergencies Act (50 U.S.C. 1601 et seq.) that requires use of the armed forces, the Secretary of Defense, without regard to any other provision of law, may undertake military construction projects, and may authorize the Secretaries of the military departments to undertake military construction projects, not otherwise authorized by law that are necessary to support such use of the armed forces.
Such projects may be undertaken only within the total amount of funds that have been appropriated for military construction, including funds appropriated for family housing, that have not been obligated.’ (Emphasis added.)”