Skip to main content

A section of newly replaced border wall separates Tijuana, Mexico, above left, from San Diego, Jan 15, 2019 image.

Gregory Bull/The Associated Press

Congressional bargainers traded offers Friday and worked toward a border security agreement that would give President Donald Trump a fraction of the money he’s demanded for his proposed southern border wall and avert a fresh federal shutdown next weekend.

Participants said they expect the pact to end up well below the $5.7 billion that Trump has sought to begin construction of the wall, which has attained iconic significance for him and his conservative supporters. Underscoring the clout he’s lost during a battle that’s dominated the opening weeks of divided government, the amount seems sure to fall much closer to $1.6 billion, a figure that was in a bipartisan Senate bill last year, they said.

“That’s what we’re working toward,” said Rep. Lucille Roybal-Allard, D-Calif., one bargainer.

Story continues below advertisement

Coupled with a widespread expectation that the accord would not use the term “wall,” the pact would represent a significant retreat for Trump, for whom “Build the wall!” has been a battle cry since his presidential campaign. It would also avert another partial federal shutdown, a Trump threat that has become toothless because of solid opposition from GOP lawmakers burned by the record 35-day closure that Trump initiated in December.

Democrats seemed to draw a firm line on spending.

“Throughout the talks, Democrats have insisted that a border security compromise not be overly reliant on physical barriers,” said Evan Hollander, spokesman for Democrats who control the House Appropriations Committee. “We will not agree to $2 billion in funding for barriers.”

In one signal that Trump was reluctantly preparing to give ground, the White House has been considering accepting the deal but also using executive action to secure additional barrier funding without lawmakers’ approval. That plan was described by two people familiar with White House thinking who spoke on condition of anonymity because they were not authorized to speak publicly. Depending on what Trump does, such an action could spark lawsuits or congressional votes of disapproval.

Sen. Lindsay Graham, R-S.C., appeared to gesture at that Thursday, saying an accord could be “a good down payment.” Graham, who is close to Trump, said that to make up the difference, “there are other ways to do it, and I expect the president to go it alone in some fashion.”

Trump supporters have said there are other executive powers Trump could use to divert money from the budget to wall construction, though it was unclear if they would face challenges in Congress or the courts. One provision of the law lets the Defence Department provide support for counter-drug activities.

Besides the dollar figure, talks were focusing on the type and location of barriers, participants said. Also in play were the number of beds the federal Immigration and Customs Enforcement agency could have for detained migrants and the amount of aid included for natural disaster relief.

Story continues below advertisement

Money for high-tech surveillance equipment and more personnel was also expected to be included.

No one ruled out last-minute problems, especially with Trump’s penchant for head-snapping turnabouts. But the momentum was clearly toward clinching an agreement that Congress could pass by next Friday. The next day, many government agencies would run out of money and have to close again without a deal.

Rep. Mark Meadows, R-N.C., who leads the hard-right House Freedom Caucus, said he spoke Thursday night to Trump, who he said was in “wait and see” mode. Meadows said he expects an agreement to provide an amount closer to $1.6 billion.

“I’m not optimistic it’ll be something the president can support,” Meadows said.

A conservative House GOP aide said Freedom Caucus members wanted at least $2 billion for barriers and no restrictions on new construction, land acquisition or new types of barriers that could be built.

The aide also said the agreement need not contain the term “wall,” a word that Trump has lately alternated between embracing and abandoning. The aide spoke on condition of anonymity to describe private talks.

Story continues below advertisement

If there is a bipartisan deal, there would likely be enough votes to pass it without the most conservative Republicans or the most liberal Democrats.

Meadows’ assessment of Trump’s view clashed with one expressed Thursday by Sen. Richard Shelby of Alabama, the chief GOP bargainer.

He described the emerging deal to Trump in the Oval Office and told reporters the session was “the most positive meeting I’ve had in a long time.” Shelby said that if the final agreement followed the outline currently under discussion, he believed Trump “would sign it.”

Besides a shutdown, Trump has threatened to bypass Congress and divert taxpayer money to wall construction by declaring a national emergency at the border.

Lawmakers of both parties oppose that move. It would be certain to produce lawsuits that could block the money. It would also spark likely votes by Congress to block him. Trump could veto it, but the veto would still inflict political damage.

Report an error
Due to technical reasons, we have temporarily removed commenting from our articles. We hope to have this fixed soon. Thank you for your patience. If you are looking to give feedback on our new site, please send it along to feedback@globeandmail.com. If you want to write a letter to the editor, please forward to letters@globeandmail.com.

Welcome to The Globe and Mail’s comment community. This is a space where subscribers can engage with each other and Globe staff. Non-subscribers can read and sort comments but will not be able to engage with them in any way. Click here to subscribe.

If you would like to write a letter to the editor, please forward it to letters@globeandmail.com. Readers can also interact with The Globe on Facebook and Twitter .

Welcome to The Globe and Mail’s comment community. This is a space where subscribers can engage with each other and Globe staff. Non-subscribers can read and sort comments but will not be able to engage with them in any way. Click here to subscribe.

If you would like to write a letter to the editor, please forward it to letters@globeandmail.com. Readers can also interact with The Globe on Facebook and Twitter .

Welcome to The Globe and Mail’s comment community. This is a space where subscribers can engage with each other and Globe staff.

We aim to create a safe and valuable space for discussion and debate. That means:

  • Treat others as you wish to be treated
  • Criticize ideas, not people
  • Stay on topic
  • Avoid the use of toxic and offensive language
  • Flag bad behaviour

Comments that violate our community guidelines will be removed.

Read our community guidelines here

Discussion loading ...

Cannabis pro newsletter
To view this site properly, enable cookies in your browser. Read our privacy policy to learn more.
How to enable cookies