On Friday, in a news conference from the White House Rose Garden, President Donald Trump declared the situation along the southern border a national emergency. The announcement came just three weeks after the longest government shutdown in U.S. history failed to give Trump the necessary funds for his highly coveted border wall. With pressure mounting from those in his own base to “build the wall” and the 2020 election quickly approaching, Trump's announcement of a national emergency seemed to be inevitable.

But calls for a national emergency hold no assurance of border funding. During his news conference, Trump conceded that his call for an emergency would be taken up with the Ninth  Circuit Court of Appeals, where it was most likely to be struck down, stating,

If Trump were to get the funding, it would have to come from a Supreme Court decision, where he feels he would get a fair shake. Upon approval, Trump would be looking at a budget of $8 billion in border wall funding. A significant increase from the original $5.7 billion that he originally asked for from Congress (but was denied).

There is no doubt that the president, by executive fiat, has moved one step closer to fulfilling his main campaign promise, but the underlying question remains, at what cost?

What is clear is that the declaration of a national emergency for the purpose of appropriating funds sets a dangerous legal precedent. In following through with his announcement, Trump would begin to normalize a concentration of power that was never designated to the president. In fact, with regard to the separation of powers, it is the legislative branch that controls the government purse, deciding where funds will go and for what purpose. This has never been a decision for the president to make alone. By circumventing Congress’ decision to not fund the wall, Trump is making it clear that if a president wants policy enacted, no one can stop him.

For even his most ardent supporters, this should be a red flag. As important as the border wall is, the problem of an overly powerful president is much worse. If conservatives recall, the issue of a president with too much power was a reality less than three years ago with Barrack Obama. Then, conservatives were heavily opposed to the notion that Obama could sidestep Congress when he issued executive orders regarding immigration reform, minimum wage increases, and student loan refinancing (that of which Congress initially denied). In each case conservatives rightfully complained that congressional approval was needed. What is the difference now?

Furthermore, the short term “victory” for Trump paves the way for the subsidization of future radical left-wing policies. Just last week, freshman Representative Alexandria Ocasio Cortez of New York proposed the Green New Deal which focuses on reconstructing the American way of life, in hopes of lowering carbon emission. The deal suggested making high-speed rails the main mode of transportation, providing jobs and healthcare to those “willing and unwilling to work,” updating all existing buildings to meet LEED standards, etc. All of this promoted under the banner of “saving” the planet. And if that’s not reality enough, all of the recently announced Democrat presidential contenders have thrown their support behind the proposed climate change solution. What will conservatives say then when the next president deems climate change the next national emergency?

Moreover, what will conservatives say then when the next president seeks to bypass Congress on the issue of gun control?

The decision by the president to call a national emergency does not only have ramifications for future presidencies but his own 2020 re-election campaign, that of which was a main reason for the national emergency. But contrary to what Trump may think, the 2016 presidential election was not so much won by him and his plans for a border wall as it was lost by Hillary Clinton and her ineptitude. If anything, the voter turnout for Hillary was comparable to that of Mitt Romney’s in 2012 - people believed Hillary would win so they didn’t show up. If Trump thinks that the funding of the wall will be a reason for moderate Republicans, and independents to turn out for him in 2020, he has another thing coming. A majority of Americans, minus his ardent supporters, see the use of a national emergency as a problematic move. Fox News released a poll showing that a majority of Americans opposed the use of a national emergency (56%) as well as 20% of Republicans.

And disagreement regarding the announcement did not stop with the American people. A number of Republican lawmakers have already come out against the President’s decision, with Senator Mike Lee stating on Twitter,

In a similar fashion, Senator Rand Paul tweeted,

If conservatives are truly interested in promoting limited government principles, they should support the handful of legislators they voted for to do just that, and oppose Trump’s decision. The fact that there is not even an assurance of funding is an obvious sign that this will be an all risk and zero reward situation, regardless of how the supreme court votes.

There is little doubt that President Trump has placed himself in a difficult situation. From his initial campaign promise that Mexico would pay for the wall, to his recent assertion that a deal would be made with Congress, Trump has, if nothing else, sorely reminded himself of the missed opportunity of having a Republican Congress.

Certainly, there are a significant number of problems that must be dealt with as it relates to the border, but centralizing power for present gain is not the answer.