House Democrats are expected to pass a resolution today disapproving of President Trump’s emergency declaration at the southern border. The national emergency would be overturned if the resolution passed the Senate and overcame a presidential veto. More immediately, it will force a vote from Senate Republicans. The declaration, which is unlike any other, has been denounced by 58 former senior national security officials and faces lawsuits from over a dozen states. Few Republican Senators have released definitive statements on the resolution, but many have made statements on the emergency.
Supports
Senators who have explicitly supported the national emergency declaration
Braun
Capito
Cramer
Crapo
Daines
Graham
Hoeven
Kennedy
McConnell
Scott
Shelby
Expressed concerns
Senators who have expressed concerns about the national emergency declaration but have not taken a firm stance on a resolution
Barrasso
Blunt
Cornyn
Grassley
Isakson
Johnson
Lankford
Moran
Portman
Roberts
Romney
Rounds
Rubio
Sasse
Toomey
Wicker
Opposes
Senators who have spoken in opposition to the national emergency declaration
Alexander
Collins
Lee
Murkowski
Paul
Tillis
Trump’s emergency declaration to build a border wall with $6.5 billion in funds came after Congress approved $1.375 billion for fencing in its latest spending bill. The administration began considering a national emergency after last March’s spending bill delivered only $1.6 billion for border fencing. Sen. Lindsey O. Graham (R-S.C.) began publicly advocating it during the recent partial government shutdown, which began Dec. 22 and lasted 34 full days — the longest shutdown ever. But the strategy has not been uniformly supported by Republicans.
At least six Republican senators, Lamar Alexander (R-Tenn.), Susan Collins (R-Maine), Mike Lee (R-Utah), Lisa Murkowski (R-Alaska), Rand Paul (R-Ky.) and Thom Tillis (R-N.C.), have expressed opposition to the national emergency since it was declared. All six support more border security but saw the move as executive overreach and potentially unconstitutional.
Collins and Tillis have explicitly said they would vote for the resolution disapproving of the emergency. Murkowski indicated she would likely support the resolution.
More than a dozen GOP senators have previously expressed concerns, particularly on how the power may be used once Democrats control the White House. Sen. Marco Rubio (R-Fla.) said in a statement before Trump’s announcement that “a future president may use this exact same tactic to impose the Green New Deal.” Stopping short of clear opposition, Rubio added, “I will wait to see what statutory or constitutional power the President relies on to justify such a declaration before making any definitive statement.”
Republicans are also concerned the national emergency could spawn numerous court battles, which it already has, and a lengthy judicial review. “I would prefer we work together to find a legislative solution instead of declaring a national emergency that will likely be tied up in the courts,” Sen. Rob Portman (R-Ohio) said.
At least eleven GOP senators, including Graham and Rick Scott (R-Fla.), early proponents of the national emergency, have expressed support for the declaration, which they described as a necessary use of executive power and which some saw as a fulfillment of Trump’s campaign promise to build a wall.
Funding sources were an important factor for senators on both sides of the issue. Scott, of Florida, and Sen. Bill Cassidy (R-La.) were satisfied that funding in their states, for disaster relief and flood migration, were not used. The national emergency does use funds from military construction, which concerned Sen. James M. Inhofe (R-Okla.). “Military housing and all military installations are facing disrepair and poor conditions. We cannot afford to allow them to be further impacted.” It is unclear how military housing and installations would be affected.
A couple groups of Republicans may be under pressure to pick a side.
Republican senators up for reelection or retiring in 2020
Capito
Daines
Graham
McConnell
Cornyn
Roberts
Rounds
Sasse
Alexander
Collins
Tillis
Cassidy
Cotton
Enzi
Ernst
Gardner
Hyde-Smith
Inhofe
McSally
Perdue
Risch
Sullivan
Note: Alexander and Roberts have already announced they won’t seek reelection.
More than half of GOP senators up for reelection or who intend to retire in 2020 haven’t taken a definitive stance, higher than the rate of senators overall. Alexander, one of the few GOP senators to publicly oppose the national emergency, is not seeking reelection in 2020.
Several GOP senators face competitive races in 2020 in states that are considered battleground territory in a presidential election year. Sen. Cory Gardner (R-Colo.) has not taken a stance, but Collins has voiced opposition saying Trump “is usurping congressional authority.”
Sens. Shelley Moore Capito (R-W.Va.), Steve Daines (R-Mont.) and Graham, as well as Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.), all hail from conservative states and have come out in support. Others from conservative states may be worried about bucking the president and inviting a primary challenge from their right.
11 GOP senators closest to the political center
Capito
Cramer
Hoeven
Grassley
Portman
Rounds
Wicker
Alexander
Collins
Murkowski
McSally
These are the Senate Republicans with the most moderate voting records, according to the DW-Nominate index, which scores a lawmaker’s voting record between most liberal and most conservative. Scores for some freshmen senators are based on their record in the U.S. House, but insufficient data exists for the others.
Despite the moderate voting records among this group, stances for the national emergency vary widely, with three senators supporting, another three in opposition and five expressing concerns.
We’ll be tracking Senate Republicans’ positions on the national emergency below. See something we missed? Let us know!
Where every Republican senator stands
Supports 11
Expressed concerns 16
Opposes 6
No declared stance 20
Senators who have explicitly supported the national emergency declaration
Senators who have expressed concerns about the national emergency declaration but have not taken a firm stance on a resolution
Senators who have spoken in opposition to the national emergency declaration
Senators that have made no statement or have made an ambiguous statement since the declaration
“This legislation did not sufficiently address the humanitarian and security crisis on our southern border and left President Trump with no other option than to declare a national emergency, which I support.” Read more »
“Our agreement makes a significant down payment on the president’s ultimate border security goal, and to help further achieve that goal, I plan to support his national emergency declaration.” Read more »
“As he’s said from Day One, [Trump] will address the crisis at the southern border, whether or not Congress does. Today [Trump] fulfilled that promise and acted — not without precedent — to put national security first.” Read more »
“I believe there is a strong emergency there,” Crapo said, “and this is the correct process to follow to address it.” Read more »
“We need more force. We are understaffed in many places across our state whether it's at the county level, state level, federal level. This needs to be a full-court press, but that was also one of the outcomes of the portion just signed today. It has some additional resources for grants for communities to fight the meth problem. That's good news for Montana.” Read more »
“I stand firmly behind President Trump’s decision to use executive powers to build the wall-barriers we desperately need.” Read more »
“We support the President's efforts to strengthen border security and will continue working with him to secure additional funding needed to construct physical barriers at the southern border.” Read more »
“It’s not my preferred choice, but I’m going to support the president. He will be exercising powers that Congress has given him, so this business about, 'Well it’s unprecedented, and it circumvents Congress,' Congress gave him the power. The National Emergencies Act has been used 60 times by presidents since the mid-1970s.” Read more »
"I had an opportunity to speak with President Trump and he, I would say to all my colleagues, has indicated he's prepared to sign the bill. He also [will] be issuing a national emergency declaration at the same time. I indicated I'm going to support the national emergency declaration." Read more »
“I applaud the President’s decision to put the safety of our country first and use his authority to secure our border. This is a reasoned, measured approach to fulfill his duty as Commander in Chief and keep our country safe, and I appreciate that he kept his word to not repurpose funds designated for disaster relief funding for Florida or Puerto Rico, which I’ve discussed with him at length.” Read more »
“I’m pleased that [Trump] signed legislation today that makes a down payment on the border wall and avoids another shutdown. I also support his exercise of emergency authority to do even more to secure the border.” Read more »
“I would prefer we get it done through the legislative process rather than a presidential emergency because I just think that's not the path we want to do down, and the president or every president can decide if they want to use that or not. Presidents have used it in the past on things where there was complete bipartisan agreement. This is, at this point, disagreement on how to proceed so I think it would be the best for the President if he could get what we can get through this agreement, and then repurpose other money to accomplish every goal that he has lined out in terms of border security.” Read more »
"I don't like the process. I don't think that the emergency declaration law was written to deal with things that the president asked the Congress to do and then the Congress didn't do. It's never been used that way before. I want to look carefully at the law. I want to hear what the president's lawyers have to say about it." Read more »
“My concerns about an emergency declaration were the precedent that’s going to be established. I also thought it would not be a practical solution because there will be a lawsuit filed immediately.” Read more »
“As I’ve said many times, I have concerns about the precedent that could be set with the use of emergency action to re-appropriate funds. Accordingly, I will study the President’s declaration closely. The Constitution grants Congress the authority to appropriate federal dollars, so I’m sure such action will be litigated in the courts.” Read more »
“I have a lot of trouble with any one person having that much power without a check and a balance, even in a crisis. I’m not (universally) opposed (to) it, but I’m also not without reservation for it until I know how much power it’s going to grant. And if it’s solely one individual, I want to know how they’re going to execute it.” Read more »
“It’s not an ideal state. This is a pretty dramatic — it would be a pretty dramatic expansion of how this has been used in the past.” Read more »
"“If you get into a court case in declaring a national emergency, moving from one fund to another is going to get caught up in the courts for a couple of years and it doesn’t solve the problem.” Read more »
“Throughout my time in the Congress, particularly in the Senate, I have complained about administrations taking more and more of what is constitutionally the responsibility of the United States Congress. But I also complain that Congress allows it to happen.” Read more »
“I agree with the president that we have a crisis on our southern border and that we need additional barriers and fencing. As I have said before, I would prefer we work together to find a legislative solution instead of declaring a national emergency that will likely be tied up in the courts.” Read more »
Roberts has expressed concern that the declaration would lead to a government "by fiat." Read more »
“I will reserve judgment on any potential executive action by the president until I am able to fully evaluate it, but as I’ve said, I do not believe declaring a national emergency is the right approach.” Read more »
“If you get another President who believes that climate change is the crisis of the day, that means they could then funnel money out of ongoing programs into climate change...” Read more »
“We have a crisis at our southern border, but no crisis justifies violating the Constitution. Today’s national emergency is border security. But a future president may use this exact same tactic to impose the Green New Deal. I will wait to see what statutory or constitutional power the President relies on to justify such a declaration before making any definitive statement. But I am skeptical it will be something I can support.” Read more »
“We absolutely have a crisis at the border, but as a Constitutional conservative I don’t want a future Democratic President unilaterally rewriting gun laws or climate policy.” Read more »
Toomey stated the president shouldn't declare a national emergency. After the announcement Toomey said “my staff and I are reviewing the president’s declaration and its implications very closely.” Read more »
“The 99 percent likelihood is that a court would enjoin that emergency declaration and for the rest of the president’s first term the matter of the emergency would be tied up in the court and there would be no wall.” Read more »
“The president has made a strong case for increased border security, but declaring a national emergency is unnecessary, unwise and inconsistent with the U.S. Constitution.” Read more »
“I do support the lawsuit that was filed by the states. I think that may be the quickest way to get an injunction that would halt this transfer of funds.” Read more »
“My initial assessment is that what President Trump announced is legal. Whether or not it should be legal is a different matter. Congress has been ceding far too much power to the executive branch for decades. We should use this moment as an opportunity to start taking that power back.” Read more »
"If it's what I have seen right now, I will support the resolution to disapprove." Read more »
“I, too, want stronger border security, including a wall in some areas. But how we do things matters. Over 1,000 pages dropped in the middle of the night and extraconstitutional executive actions are wrong, no matter which party does them.” Read more »
In a Washington Post opinion piece Tillis wrote "s a U.S. senator, I cannot justify providing the executive with more ways to bypass Congress. As a conservative, I cannot endorse a precedent that I know future left-wing presidents will exploit to advance radical policies that will erode economic and individual freedoms...I would vote in favor of the resolution disapproving of the president’s national-emergency declaration, if and when it comes before the Senate." Read more »
"I understand completely the need to secure the southern border. But I'm also concerned about the precedent." Read more »
“Democrats’ intransigence has left the president with no other choice but to take executive action.” Read more »
In a statement to The Gazette, Sen. Ernst wrote the declaration “would not be my ideal course of action,” but blamed Democrats for refusing to work with Republicans on “desperately-needed comprehensive border security.” Read more »
"I appreciate the president’s commitment to addressing the crisis at our border and I agree that additional measures are necessary. I look forward to reviewing the executive action in greater detail." Read more »
“Congress needs to do its job, fund border security. I think that’s important. That’s where this discussion ought to be, but in terms of the national emergency, the legal authority, I’ve got to research and understand exactly what legal authority is.” Read more »
“The President is pursuing any steps he can to secure the border and build a wall. Democrats put us in this situation because they refused to secure the border and fund the wall.” Read more »
“We need to secure the border and Democrats refuse to acknowledge an ongoing crisis, so I believe the President was left with no choice but to declare a national emergency. I want to make sure this declaration has minimal, if any, impact on our military and reimburse all the necessary accounts affected by the decision. As I heard in a hearing yesterday, military housing and all military installations are facing disrepair and poor conditions. We cannot afford to allow them to be further impacted.” Read more »
"I support the President’s goal, which is to further fund border security. I will continue to study the emergency declaration and additional funding proposal to ensure it increases border security while not adversely impacting our military.” Read more »
"A spokesman for Sen. Dan Sullivan said he wants to review the details of the president’s emergency declaration before offering an opinion." Read more »
“It’s unfortunate that Democrats have done an about-face on policies they used to support — like building a wall on the southern border — largely because they do not like this president. Building additional physical barriers is important for securing our border. I look forward to reviewing the president’s declaration closely and continuing to have conversations with my colleagues on this issue.” Read more »
“I need to learn more about what statutory authority the president will be relying on for that.” Read more »
Supports 11
Expressed concerns 16
Opposes 6
No declared stance 20
Supports 11
Senators who have explicitly supported the national emergency declaration
“This legislation did not sufficiently address the humanitarian and security crisis on our southern border and left President Trump with no other option than to declare a national emergency, which I support.” Read more »
“Our agreement makes a significant down payment on the president’s ultimate border security goal, and to help further achieve that goal, I plan to support his national emergency declaration.” Read more »
“As he’s said from Day One, [Trump] will address the crisis at the southern border, whether or not Congress does. Today [Trump] fulfilled that promise and acted — not without precedent — to put national security first.” Read more »
“I believe there is a strong emergency there,” Crapo said, “and this is the correct process to follow to address it.” Read more »
“We need more force. We are understaffed in many places across our state whether it's at the county level, state level, federal level. This needs to be a full-court press, but that was also one of the outcomes of the portion just signed today. It has some additional resources for grants for communities to fight the meth problem. That's good news for Montana.” Read more »
“I stand firmly behind President Trump’s decision to use executive powers to build the wall-barriers we desperately need.” Read more »
“We support the President's efforts to strengthen border security and will continue working with him to secure additional funding needed to construct physical barriers at the southern border.” Read more »
“It’s not my preferred choice, but I’m going to support the president. He will be exercising powers that Congress has given him, so this business about, 'Well it’s unprecedented, and it circumvents Congress,' Congress gave him the power. The National Emergencies Act has been used 60 times by presidents since the mid-1970s.” Read more »
"I had an opportunity to speak with President Trump and he, I would say to all my colleagues, has indicated he's prepared to sign the bill. He also [will] be issuing a national emergency declaration at the same time. I indicated I'm going to support the national emergency declaration." Read more »
“I applaud the President’s decision to put the safety of our country first and use his authority to secure our border. This is a reasoned, measured approach to fulfill his duty as Commander in Chief and keep our country safe, and I appreciate that he kept his word to not repurpose funds designated for disaster relief funding for Florida or Puerto Rico, which I’ve discussed with him at length.” Read more »
“I’m pleased that [Trump] signed legislation today that makes a down payment on the border wall and avoids another shutdown. I also support his exercise of emergency authority to do even more to secure the border.” Read more »
Expressed concerns 16
Senators who have expressed concerns about the national emergency declaration but have not taken a firm stance on a resolution
“I would prefer we get it done through the legislative process rather than a presidential emergency because I just think that's not the path we want to do down, and the president or every president can decide if they want to use that or not. Presidents have used it in the past on things where there was complete bipartisan agreement. This is, at this point, disagreement on how to proceed so I think it would be the best for the President if he could get what we can get through this agreement, and then repurpose other money to accomplish every goal that he has lined out in terms of border security.” Read more »
"I don't like the process. I don't think that the emergency declaration law was written to deal with things that the president asked the Congress to do and then the Congress didn't do. It's never been used that way before. I want to look carefully at the law. I want to hear what the president's lawyers have to say about it." Read more »
“My concerns about an emergency declaration were the precedent that’s going to be established. I also thought it would not be a practical solution because there will be a lawsuit filed immediately.” Read more »
“As I’ve said many times, I have concerns about the precedent that could be set with the use of emergency action to re-appropriate funds. Accordingly, I will study the President’s declaration closely. The Constitution grants Congress the authority to appropriate federal dollars, so I’m sure such action will be litigated in the courts.” Read more »
“I have a lot of trouble with any one person having that much power without a check and a balance, even in a crisis. I’m not (universally) opposed (to) it, but I’m also not without reservation for it until I know how much power it’s going to grant. And if it’s solely one individual, I want to know how they’re going to execute it.” Read more »
“It’s not an ideal state. This is a pretty dramatic — it would be a pretty dramatic expansion of how this has been used in the past.” Read more »
"“If you get into a court case in declaring a national emergency, moving from one fund to another is going to get caught up in the courts for a couple of years and it doesn’t solve the problem.” Read more »
“Throughout my time in the Congress, particularly in the Senate, I have complained about administrations taking more and more of what is constitutionally the responsibility of the United States Congress. But I also complain that Congress allows it to happen.” Read more »
“I agree with the president that we have a crisis on our southern border and that we need additional barriers and fencing. As I have said before, I would prefer we work together to find a legislative solution instead of declaring a national emergency that will likely be tied up in the courts.” Read more »
Roberts has expressed concern that the declaration would lead to a government "by fiat." Read more »
“I will reserve judgment on any potential executive action by the president until I am able to fully evaluate it, but as I’ve said, I do not believe declaring a national emergency is the right approach.” Read more »
“If you get another President who believes that climate change is the crisis of the day, that means they could then funnel money out of ongoing programs into climate change...” Read more »
“We have a crisis at our southern border, but no crisis justifies violating the Constitution. Today’s national emergency is border security. But a future president may use this exact same tactic to impose the Green New Deal. I will wait to see what statutory or constitutional power the President relies on to justify such a declaration before making any definitive statement. But I am skeptical it will be something I can support.” Read more »
“We absolutely have a crisis at the border, but as a Constitutional conservative I don’t want a future Democratic President unilaterally rewriting gun laws or climate policy.” Read more »
Toomey stated the president shouldn't declare a national emergency. After the announcement Toomey said “my staff and I are reviewing the president’s declaration and its implications very closely.” Read more »
“The 99 percent likelihood is that a court would enjoin that emergency declaration and for the rest of the president’s first term the matter of the emergency would be tied up in the court and there would be no wall.” Read more »
Opposes 6
Senators who have spoken in opposition to the national emergency declaration
“The president has made a strong case for increased border security, but declaring a national emergency is unnecessary, unwise and inconsistent with the U.S. Constitution.” Read more »
“I do support the lawsuit that was filed by the states. I think that may be the quickest way to get an injunction that would halt this transfer of funds.” Read more »
“My initial assessment is that what President Trump announced is legal. Whether or not it should be legal is a different matter. Congress has been ceding far too much power to the executive branch for decades. We should use this moment as an opportunity to start taking that power back.” Read more »
"If it's what I have seen right now, I will support the resolution to disapprove." Read more »
“I, too, want stronger border security, including a wall in some areas. But how we do things matters. Over 1,000 pages dropped in the middle of the night and extraconstitutional executive actions are wrong, no matter which party does them.” Read more »
In a Washington Post opinion piece Tillis wrote "s a U.S. senator, I cannot justify providing the executive with more ways to bypass Congress. As a conservative, I cannot endorse a precedent that I know future left-wing presidents will exploit to advance radical policies that will erode economic and individual freedoms...I would vote in favor of the resolution disapproving of the president’s national-emergency declaration, if and when it comes before the Senate." Read more »
No declared stance 20
Senators that have made no statement or have made an ambiguous statement since the declaration
"I understand completely the need to secure the southern border. But I'm also concerned about the precedent." Read more »
“Democrats’ intransigence has left the president with no other choice but to take executive action.” Read more »
In a statement to The Gazette, Sen. Ernst wrote the declaration “would not be my ideal course of action,” but blamed Democrats for refusing to work with Republicans on “desperately-needed comprehensive border security.” Read more »
"I appreciate the president’s commitment to addressing the crisis at our border and I agree that additional measures are necessary. I look forward to reviewing the executive action in greater detail." Read more »
“Congress needs to do its job, fund border security. I think that’s important. That’s where this discussion ought to be, but in terms of the national emergency, the legal authority, I’ve got to research and understand exactly what legal authority is.” Read more »
“The President is pursuing any steps he can to secure the border and build a wall. Democrats put us in this situation because they refused to secure the border and fund the wall.” Read more »
“We need to secure the border and Democrats refuse to acknowledge an ongoing crisis, so I believe the President was left with no choice but to declare a national emergency. I want to make sure this declaration has minimal, if any, impact on our military and reimburse all the necessary accounts affected by the decision. As I heard in a hearing yesterday, military housing and all military installations are facing disrepair and poor conditions. We cannot afford to allow them to be further impacted.” Read more »
"I support the President’s goal, which is to further fund border security. I will continue to study the emergency declaration and additional funding proposal to ensure it increases border security while not adversely impacting our military.” Read more »
"A spokesman for Sen. Dan Sullivan said he wants to review the details of the president’s emergency declaration before offering an opinion." Read more »
“It’s unfortunate that Democrats have done an about-face on policies they used to support — like building a wall on the southern border — largely because they do not like this president. Building additional physical barriers is important for securing our border. I look forward to reviewing the president’s declaration closely and continuing to have conversations with my colleagues on this issue.” Read more »
“I need to learn more about what statutory authority the president will be relying on for that.” Read more »
About this story
Stances are sourced from lawmaker statements and news reports. Did we miss something? Let us know!
Legislator images via Government Printing Office.
Originally published Feb. 19, 2019.
More stories
Where the new law permits --and prevents -- border barriers
The 55 miles of new barriers authorized under the new spending law will be built in the easternmost section of the border, the Rio Grande Valley Sector. But there are some caveats.
How Trump’s border wall would fit with previous national emergency declarations
President Trump has decided to declare a national emergency to build a southern border wall. These emergency acts are more common than you might think – the United States is currently under 31 of them.
The types of border security used in addition to the wall
How drugs and people are stopped from illegally entering the country.
