Trump and His National Emergency

What happens if Trump declares border crisis a national emergency? | Fox News [2019-01-05]

President Donald Trump: ‘I Could’ Declare National Emergency For Border Wall Funding | NBC News [2019-01-04]

With the U.S. government’s partial shutdown now in its third week, Donald Trump says he is considering declaring a national emergency in order to build the U.S.-Mexico border wall he campaigned on. Trump met on Friday, January 4, with senior Democrats, who continued to refuse his demand for federal funding for the wall, which, according to Trump, is a condition for Trump’s supporting funding to re-open the government. The government shutdown occurred as a result of the failure of lawmakers and Trump to reach an agreement in December on a budget bill.

When asked whether he had considered using his presidential authority to declare a state of national emergency in order to bypass Congress’ approval for funding a border wall, Trump said, “I may do it. We can call a national emergency and build it very quickly. That’s another way of doing it.”

Budget experts, however, say that Trump would still need for funds to be allocated by Congress, even if he could declare a national emergency.

Though a bill for funds to re-open the government passed the House on Thursday, January 3, it can’t take effect unless the GOP-controlled Senate also passes it. Senate leader Mitch McConnell has said that Republicans will not back a bill without Trump’s support.

Meanwhile, roughly 25 percent of federal government operations remain un-funded. The departments of Justice, Housing, Homeland Security, Commerce, Agriculture, the Interior, and the Treasury are heavily impacted, and national parks, left unstaffed, have begun to be hazardous to visitors. Approximately 800,000 federal employees are either furloughed, or continue to work without pay.

Many lawmakers and legal experts say that Trump does not have the authority to declare a state of national emergency in order to build a border wall.

Representative Adam Schiff (D-Calif), said, “Look, if Harry Truman couldn’t nationalize the steel industry during wartime, this president doesn’t have the power to declare an emergency and build a multibillion-dollar wall on the border.”

Adam Smith, incoming House Armed Services Committee chair, said Trump may have the authority, but that it would be challenged. “In this case, I think the president would be wide open to a court challenge saying, ‘Where is the emergency?’ …You have to establish that in order to do this.”

On the other hand, Trump has said the partial government shutdown could go on “for a very long time,” perhaps even years.

“If we don’t find a solution,” said Trump, “It’s going to go on for a long time. There’s not going to be any bend right here.”

With that said, if Trump has the authority to declare a state of national emergency in order to fund and build his border wall, one might wonder why he doesn’t just go ahead and do it.

Trump Plans to Roll Back Mercury Emissions Regulation

The Trump administration’s latest reversal of Obama-era environmental regulations is a partial rollback of the rule on mercury emissions from coal-fired power plants. In 2011, under President Obama, the EPA required power plants to reduce the amount of mercury and other pollutants coming out of their smokestacks by 90 percent over five years. By 2016, the industry was fully compliant, and mercury emissions were significantly reduced. The Trump administration, however, says the cost of enforcing the regulation on mercury emissions far outweighs any health benefits.

Mercury is a potent neurotoxin that can cause birth defects, learning disabilities, brain damage, and death. It can accumulate over time, contaminating such things as the fish we eat. Some of the other pollutants emitted with mercury, including soot and nitrogen oxide, can cause heart and lung disease.

The Obama administration calculated that the installation of pollution controls would cost the industry approximately $9.6 billion a year, and would amount to about $6 million a year in health benefits associated with reduced mercury emissions. Factoring in the reduction of the pollutants that accompany mercury emissions, however, they calculated that the public health benefits would be between $37 billion to $90 billion a year.

Trump’s EPA, however, disputes those calculations, calling them “fuzzy math.”

Acting EPA administrator Andrew Wheeler calls the health benefits associated with reducing the other pollutants “co-benefits.” “…They are incidental, and they’re not directly tied to mercury. And so we should exclude those altogether” from the calculations.

This, then, changes the math, and reduces the apparent health benefit of the mercury emission regulation. As a result, Trump’s EPA says utilities will no longer have to comply with it in the future.

The industry itself, however, has expressed the desire to keep the mercury emission policy in place. They have already spent the money on the equipment to reduce emissions, and “would consider it a competitive disadvantage if suddenly things were reversed and they take those scrubbers off,” according to Juliet Eilperin of PBS NewsHour.

It appears that even though the Trump administration continues to chip away at Obama-era environmental regulations, coal-fired power plants will continue to comply with the mercury emissions regulation, even if it is overturned.

How Trump’s EPA is changing the public health benefits around mercury |
PBS NewsHour  [2018-12-28]

Trump Administration Wants To Roll Back Mercury Emissions Limit |
Wochit Politics [2018-12-28]