Donald Trump

It Looks Like Trump Won't Shut Down the Government Over Border Wall Money

It sounds like Trump is folding, which is probably for the best.


Olivier Douliery/CNP/AdMedia/Newscom

With a little over three days to go before a partial government shutdown, White House Press Secretary Sarah Huckabee Sanders suggested the Trump administration is willing to compromise.

President Donald Trump has demanded that a spending package to keep the federal government fully funded after Friday include $5 billion for construction of his proposed wall on the U.S.-Mexico border. "I am proud to shut down the government for border security," he said last week during a televised Oval Office meeting with Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer (D–N.Y.) and House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi (D–Calif.), who generally oppose the wall funding.

But today, Sanders appeared to reverse course. "We have other ways that we can get to that $5 billion," she said on Fox News. "We will work with Congress if they will make sure we get a bill passed that provides not just the funding for the wall, but there's a piece of legislation that's been pushed around…that provides roughly $26 billion for border security including $1.6 billion for the wall," she said.

As Politico notes, Sanders was likely referring to a compromise bill pushed for by Senate Democrats but rejected by Republicans who wanted the full $5 billion. Democrats no longer support that deal, instead proposing $1.3 billion. However, it's conceivable they could reconsider.

"That's something that we would be able to support as a long as we can couple that with other funding resources," Sanders said regarding $1.6 billion in wall funding. "At the end of the day, we don't want to shut down the government, we want to shut down the border."

Of course, it's not exactly clear what those "other funding sources" would be. A person briefed on talks between congressional Republicans and the White House suggested to The Washington Post that reallocating money that's already been approved could be one option. According to Politico, the money could come from the Pentagon's budget.

The New York Times, meanwhile, reported that Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell (R–Ky.) met with Schumer today and proposed setting aside $1.6 billion for non-wall-related border security, in addition to $1 billion that Trump could spend however he likes on immigration. However, congressional Democrats have said they won't support that plan.

Clearly, things are still up in the air when it comes to a spending package that would keep the government fully funded. Different numbers are being thrown around as both parties in Congress and Trump try to come to an agreement. What does seem clear, however, is that the Trump administration wants to avoid a shutdown.

This is significant, especially in light of Trump's previous declaration that he would be "proud" to let a shutdown happen. As recently as Sunday, White House senior adviser Stephen Miller was saying publicly that his boss would "absolutely" shut down the government over border wall funding.

The fact that negotiations are happening at all is a sign that Trump is folding. His previous position was that any sort of deal would have to include $5 billion in border funding. Now he appears to be backing off, with Sanders talking very generally about "other funding sources."

This is a positive development. As I wrote on Friday, both building Trump's border wall and shutting down the government are bad ideas. Ideally, Trump would give in completely, thus stopping a shutdown and preventing money from going to the border wall. In the end, Trump may get some money for the wall, but it probably won't be $5 billion. And as long as a deal can be reached before midnight on Friday, the shutdown will be a crisis averted.

This post has been updated to note that congressional Democrats have rejected a plan that would set aside $1 billion for Trump to spend however he likes on immigration.

NEXT: Texas Woman, 61, Dies in Jail After Sitting There for Months over $300 Bail Order

Editor's Note: We invite comments and request that they be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment for any reason at any time. Report abuses.

  1. This is a positive development.

    Yeah, we really dodged a bullet there.

    1. Cannot imagine the sheer horror that would grip society if the government shut down and only curbed spending by less than 15%.

    2. Yeah, we really dodged a bullet there.

      5 billion bullets, actually. Which 'Mexico' wasn't going to pay.

      1. Quit being such a racist piece of shit Old Mexican.

        As somebody who is of partial Mexican descent, there is no LOGICAL reason to be in favor of endless hordes of net negative tax payer illegal immigrants streaming into the country... Other than an ethnic affinity you have for them because they're tan like you are.

        The pro illegal immigration argument is an inherently racialist argument, because there is no intelligent reason to be in favor of large numbers of low skilled immigrants into a heavily socialized, post industrial economy in the 21st century. So piss off.

  2. old ladies read HnR? nobody believes the government shuts down.

  3. Master. Negotiator.

    1. However, a senior Democratic aide told the Times that Democrats probably won't support this plan.

      Probably shouldn't have published all your big, beautiful negotiating secrets there, Donny.

  4. "At the end of the day, we don't want to shut down the government, we want to shut down the border."

    I see your true colors, shining through.

    1. If only it could actually happen!

  5. What a pity since, as everyone knows, shit is free when Republicans are in charge. Trillion dollar war based on lies? $5 billion for a giant racist virtue signal? $100 million to investigate the Clintons and find absolutely nothing? All Hanukkah miracles. President Warren will be here soon enough and then we'll all have to go back to caring about our money being spent by government.

    1. It's kinda stupid of you to rag on the Republicans about the stupid things rather than the important things.

      1. Not getting around to screwing something up is not the same as being smart about it.

    2. Tony, your fake Princess won't even be close to being president.

      Lastest poll from Democrats

      Biden 30%
      Sanders 13%
      Beto 11%
      Klobuchar 10%
      Warren 9%
      Harris 7%
      Sparatus 6%

      My guess you'll nominate Hillary again because it's her turn. Why is your party racist with a bunch of white guys first?

  6. I'm confused. I was led to believe Mexico is paying for the wall. Is that not happening? Are you suggesting the president, our president, was lying about that?

    1. No he wasn't lying. Deluded people don't really lie. He really believed that delusion and so did the millions of deluded idiots who voted for the guy to get that wall that Mexico was supposed to pay, because such things happen by wishing them.

    2. Well if they are talking about other funding sources, one has to assume that either:

      Mexico is going to pay for it or

      Trump is going to have a yuuge bake sale to pay for a big byootiful wall

      1. Or that Trump is still a fucking psycho.
        With a cult of bobble heads.

      2. I actually do still wonder about something:

        You can donate to the government. You can even donate to at least some particular departments I believe, without it going to others.

        I wonder if one could allow donations to a particular agency... With a particular project in mind?

        I would GLADLY, for the first time in my life, actually give the government money if it was going to go towards the wall. I know a shit ton of other people would as well. So I really wonder about that tactic...

    3. Illegals pay more in taxes than they receive, evidently.

      Mexicans are paying for the wall that has already been up for decades.

      1. "Illegals pay more in taxes than they receive, evidently."

        Hmm, alright then let em all in? I only have experience with a small handful of people that look suspicious for being undocumented. They don't speak any english, keep to themselves outside of their jobs, and do the all the landscaping / pool cleaning in the area. They certainly aren't committing any crimes, much less doing anything that would involve them encountering the police.

        If these folks are a net tax payer as you say, paying the boomers SS/medicare and for the big man's wall, then why not open the doors and let every single one in?

  7. I'm watching the press conference givrn by White House spokesliar, Sarah Sanders. Someone asked her if the president is backing out of the promise that the wall was going to be paid by 'Mexico' and instead put taxpayer money to pay the wall and she said no, because the president will be scrounging the money from other departments. When the journalist pointed out that money taken from other agencies is still taxpayer money, she responded with the lie that the new Mexico-US-Canada trade deal would bring in additional revenue that would be the equivalent of Mexico paying for the wall... When ask if that "revenue" came from new taxes, since trade benefits go to private individuals, she said no, that it's the increased revenue from an improved trade deal that'll pay for the wall. That is, she was going in circles and just lying through her very teeth.

    I hope Trumpistas still have a sense of shame and call out that woman for the peddler of lies that she is.

    1. Trump's same dumbass confusion on trade balances. He only spews this stuff to program the "minds" of his subservient puppets-on-a-string.

    2. News flash: Trumpsters never cared about Mexico paying for the wall. It was a cool metaphoric rallying line and everyone understood that. It's very much like when someone says, "We're going to kick ass and take names!" Everyone who hears it knows there will be no actual ass kicking nor name taking, but it sounds tough and rallies the people who hear it.

      1. @NAL Exactly. Well said and very succinctly puts into words my own erratic thoughts on the subject.

      2. Yes, it rallied Trump's goobers, who are the first proof that Artificial Intelligence can fail tragically,

      3. Mexican illegals pay more in taxes than they receive.

        Mexicans are paying for the wall expansion and have paid for the wall that stood pre-Trump.

        1. Yeah... Not so much. A small sub set that have no kids and decent jobs, that pay into SS might... But not on the whole.

    3. If you're imbecile enough to believe in supply-side economic's magic purple unicorns, you might just buy into this.
      Let's follow the "logic" :

      (1) Start by exaggerating trade benefits from NAFTA's tweaking many, many times larger than any prediction.
      (2) Then translate those (small) benefits into greater economy activity.
      (3) Then translate that (slight) amount of greater economic activity into five billion in additional tax revenues.

      It would be interested to see an economist-type work the equation backwards, and see how much of a trade delta would be required to make this little fairy tale work out. All of which leads to a more general point : Since Reagan, supply-side blather has been the core belief of today's Right. Image : The crudest possible lie - invented as a political tactic to promise free stuff to voters - is now enshrined as the first principle of conservatism. Every time the GOP gains power, they trash the nation's finances. Every time their candidates seek presidential nomination, they vie to out-promise each other in multi-trillion tax cuts. Every projection they make is a lie. Every number they use is a lie. Their justifications are so absurd even a child couldn't believe them.

      And yet this fraud now lies at the heart of conservatism. Ever wonder if the moral rot of today's Right might be partially cause by this?

      1. It's kooky. It's almost as kooky as government spending "multipliers", "jobs created or saved", and "animal spirits".

      2. Trump is economically illiterate, but spouting Keynesian nonsense puts you squarely in the boat with him.

        1. Pay attention, goober. The documented truth about Reagan's tax cuts.
          Also ignorant that Keynesianism has ANYTHING to do with this. (smirk)
          Any more delusions from the wacky (not all) right?

          1. Dumbfuck Hihnsano's back with another sockpuppet.

    4. Those aren't Sarah's partner in press, Kellyanne says they're "alternative facts."

    1. Great poll writing there, including a sales pitch for the thing its supposed to be measuring public opinion of

      1. And the scientific sample of unemployed 20 somethings at the local organic fair trade coffee house planning their next trip to Europe is pretty representative as well.

    2. She's not horsing around. Or is she?

  8. A border wall or fence doesn't have to stop 100% of border crossers to be effective. Israel implemented an effective border fence that has diminished its suicide bomber infiltration to almost zero. Link:

    It is difficult to smuggle human beings compared to drugs, guns or contraband. They require food, water, air to breathe, have to relieve themselves periodically, can't be kept in hidden compartments for days on end, weigh 130 lbs or more and take up a lot of space.

    There are many ways in which illegals get taxpayer support. As just one example, every illegal alien's child is entitled to a public school education (even if the child is also illegal) and the average cost of this education is $11,000 per year (2014 figures). An illegal alien's child enrolled in first grade will cost the taxpayer $132,000 to graduate from high school. This $132,000 of course becomes unavailable to educate the children of citizens and legal immigrants.

    So a $25 billion wall will pay for itself if it deters just 190,000 illegal aliens of child-bearing age from crossing the border illegally.

    If we can reduce the 500,00 illegal border crossers by 95% to (say) 25,000 per year, then the illegal immigration problem is greatly reduced. At that point, the public will be willing to be more generous with the illegals already in the country, especially if criminal aliens are deported.

      1. ^ Manipulated! ^

        1. ^ NPC! ^

    1. I don't see educating children as lost money. It is an investment in the future.

      1. Sexual Chocolate!

      2. Yeah... But why are we obligated to invest in foreigners futures? Foreigners who are almost 100% net negative tax contributors?

        If we allow in an educated Indian or Chinese immigrant (heck, even an educated Mexican immigrant!), they will not only pay for their own kids schooling, but they can be high enough income to where they're effectively subsidizing current US citizens kids too.

        This EASES the burden on US citizens. Bringing in people who make $20-30K a year, which is typical for illegal immigrants, leaves a huge net negative drain on native born people. Keep in mind every household that earns less than $50-60K a year is a net negative tax payer in the US.

        So why let in those that increase the burden on native born... When we can choose to only allow in those that EASE the burden on native born?

        Other than some bullshit sense of altruism, there is simply not a good reason. My morals don't require I prostrate myself for foreigners. Sorry.

    2. "If we can reduce the 500,00 illegal border crossers by 95% to (say) 25,000 per year, then the illegal immigration problem is greatly reduced."

      To cherry pick only one your ridiculous claims, it is well known that about half of all people here illegally came over legally and simply over-stayed their visas. Good luck reducing 95% of illegal border crossers with your wall. Why not put that 5B of tax payer money to reforming the welfare state? Seems like it could be a more productive use of that money.

      1. The myth that anybody in power has an interest in reforming or reducing the welfare state is sillier than building a wall and believing Mexico will pay for it.

        1. Do you have anything even remotely relevant?

        2. "The myth that anybody in power has an interest in reforming or reducing the welfare state is sillier than building a wall and believing Mexico will pay for it."

          I'm afraid you're correct. Might as well add 'believing a border wall will prevent people from illegally living in this country' to your list of myths as well.

      2. 95% ain't gonna happen... But even if it's 5-10% it can be rather beneficial for US born tax payers.

        You guys seem to be suffering from the idea that perfection is the only acceptable outcome.

        Nobody expects we will ever have zero illegal immigration... That's fantasy. But reducing it to the point of not being as big a deal? That's easily doable via stronger enforcement of just current on the books laws. A wall might help by a few percent a year, maybe more. That's all one can really expect, but it might be enough.

    3. If nothing else, libertarians should be concerned about the eminent domain real estate seizures that will be necessary to erect a border wall.

      1. Serious question - how much would that be?

        I have no idea and have seen no coverage on how much of the border is privately owned vs. publicly owned land.

        1. WIDELY reported by REAL news media. About 30%. You think it's all public lands? And you VOTE?

    4. If we can reduce the 500,00 illegal border crossers by 95% to (say) 25,000 per year, then the illegal immigration problem is greatly reduced. At that point, the public will be willing to be more generous with the illegals already in the country, especially if criminal aliens are deported.

      Just bullshit from start to finish.

      There aren't 500k successful illegal border crossers now. There are probably 150k - maybe 200k max. The lower that number goes, the more wound up R's get about it. Because the more successful CBP is at catching them, the more those morons convince themselves that those increased catches are a sign of a bigger invasion.

      That 200k is along a 2000 mile border - so 100 people per mile per YEAR. At this point, the twits want to build a wall - that has to be backed up by what 2-3 soldiers/cops /mile? With a defense in depth of what another 2-3 cops/mile back to 40 miles or so from border. Or if that's too expensive - perhaps we can just lay minefields behind the wall to a half mile or so to ensure no one can tunnel through. To avoid Americans wandering around too close to that minefield - perhaps a second wall.

      But hey visa overstayers is now quite a bit larger than border crossers. Of course that can't be solved at the border. It requires a police state throughout the US. Roadblocks, passes bitte

      Tell me when we get to your ideal of the US.

      1. Tell us when we get to your ideal of Nazi Germany.
        Or any other right-wing totalitarianism.

        1. God, you're fucking dense. Do you even read what people post before you respond?

          1. The hihnsane one reads the posts, but they are filtered through his hihnsanity.

      2. That's all nonsense dude.

        We definitely have more than 200K a year coming over. One can pretty easily reverse out math for how many illegals there are in various states etc, and see that 200K hasn't happened since god only knows how many decades back.

        Additionally... 100 PEOPLE per mile... Per YEAR. You don't see that as a big deal? Dozens of kids needing publicly funded school, dozens of people visiting ERs, using roads they don't pay for, on and on. Add that up over a decade. Now 2. Etc.

        And you don't need multiple people per mile or any such nonsense. We have these things called "cameras" nowadays. And just the wall itself will deter some people, whatever percentage. Dispatching people to snag the others from spots strewn about... Not a big deal.

        If we can stop a small fraction a year, it will more than pay for itself.

    5. There are many ways in which illegals get taxpayer support. As just one example, every illegal alien's child is entitled to a public school education (even if the child is also illegal)

      They pay taxes, goober.

      NO taxation without representation?

      Trumpsters be bonkers

      1. Yeah, they pay in less than they use in services... As do damn near half the people in the country.

        The thing is, we're stuck with native born blow it cases... But why import more?

        1. Also, they're not citizens... And thus are not entitled to representation in any sane world. Should a Japanese tourist have representation because they might pay some sales tax, or a hotel tax, while visiting the US? Piss off with your nonsense prog tarded feelz based arguments Hihn.

    6. Yup Ken.

      1. Kevin. Sorry.

  9. As a libertarian, if there's one thing I can't abide, it's a government shutdown.

  10. Many a government employee will be sad because they won't get a free vacation for Christmas.

  11. US pledges $10.6B aid for Central America, southern Mexico

    SEE?! Since the US could have given more foreign aid, Mexico *is* paying for the wall!

  12. I see the building of a border wall the same way I see Drumpf's business dealings, eventually the bad swamp hombres will find a way in!

  13. I'm just waiting for someone -anyone- to suggest that tariffs on imports can pay for the wall and it would be the moral, patriotic thing to do!

    Hey, Im looking at you, LC1789!

    1. Weather is bad in Moscow today so he couldn't make into the office.

  14. Art of the deal people!!!!!

    It's totally normal to come in with a firm position, make your demands and give every indication you will shut things down if you don't get your way... then sadly crawl back to the negotiating table hoping to get a fraction of your demands while giving your opponents what they want.

    His knight just 32 dimension-checked the dems king, and they don't even know!

    Sad thing is, a shutdown would be nice. Useless bureaucrats

    1. Everyone knows that Democrats and democratic party supporting bureaucrats dont want the shutdown.

    2. What he REALLY needs to do is tell them that he WON'T sign off on retroactive pay for employees over the shutdown! This would put a LOT more pressure on the Dems to NOT shot things down. He'd take more heat too, but the thing is his base would be STOKED to pay out less to federal employees... Whereas Dems would freak about fed employees not getting paid.

  15. I don't understand why Trump keeping making threats and then backing down. It sure doesn't look good when he keeps doing that. A gubmint "shutdown" wouldn't even be noticed by 99% of the population. 5Billion is a drop in the bucket and would at least help to solve a huge problem for this country, so what is the problem here?

  16. Are you nuts Setyon???? ANY reason to shut down the government is ALWAYS a GOOD reason!!!

    1. What kinda wacko believes there would be a government shutdown?

  17. Good move on Trump's part! He now has the democrats between a rock and a hard place. Now if they approve the bill and next fall when the budget has to again be passed if Trump does not get what he wants he can point to what he has just done as proof that he is willing that he is willing to compromise. Then the government shut down at the end of 2019 and just before the presidential elections will fall upon the democrats.
    It will be an interesting year and an interesting election.

  18. Trump really needs to stop cucking.

    The truth is most people who support him WANT him to hold the line on all the shit he said he would do. He could threaten to veto any retroactive pay to government employees too, hence saving billions and billions. His supporters would love that too.

    In short, the only people who would get pissed off would be his enemies... Who already irrationally hate him even when he does things they should like. So who cares that the leftist loons think?

    If anything, Trump needs to become the hardcore zealot the MSM makes him out to be. Most people on the right, and many centrists, would love it! And everybody who would hate it already hates him anyway. So he has nothing to lose, and everything to gain.

    America is in a period where radical politics are the order of the day... The left is sure going all in. It's high time the right starts actually being assertive back, instead of cucking on everything because they're afraid of what CNN might say about them.

  19. It would probably be cheaper in the long run to purchase Mexico, give it territory status, and have a tiny border to patrol.

    1. Uhhh... But then we'd have all the Mexicans with the legal ability to just move here. The problem with letting in endless Mexicans is that their education level is very low on average, and in a post industrial economy we don't have the jobs to support that many unskilled people. Not without lowering our wages to the standards they have in Mexico anyway... And not at US levels of government spending per capita either.

      In short, if 100 million Mexicans were in the USA, we would become Mexico. That is the big problem with open borders in general. The PEOPLE make the nation. There is no magic dirt. This is why letting in educated people doesn't degrade the standard of living in a 1st world nation, but letting in large numbers of low skill people does. Even in a magical scenario where everybody can EVENTUALLY work their way up the totem pole, this takes generations... Generations where the new immigrants are a burden on the natives in the 1st world nation. Hence low skill immigration needs to be metered out a bit, if allowed to happen at all.

  20. I essentially started three weeks past and that i makes $385 benefit $135 to $a hundred and fifty consistently simply by working at the internet from domestic. I made ina long term! "a great deal obliged to you for giving American explicit this remarkable opportunity to earn more money from domestic. This in addition coins has adjusted my lifestyles in such quite a few manners by which, supply you!". go to this website online domestic media tech tab for extra element thank you .

  21. Here's my amendment to the spending bill: "The President is authorized to expend $5 billion to build a wall along the US-Mexican border, effective when the President certifies to Congress that the US Treasury has received funds for that purpose from the government of Mexico."

  22. Even if you hate Nancy Pelosi and Chuck Schumer you have to admit that Trump looked really, really stupid in that interview. Trump was conducting that "negotiation" as if he had *all* the power. That was just not the case. He's not King.

  23. Do you have locks on your doors? If you do, are you racist? You have locks on your doors to regulate who can enter your home and when they may enter it. Simple, sane and logical.

    The border wall is necessary because of so many entries outside of the entry ports we no longer are regulating who is entering the country.

    it's not racist to require this. Every nation on the planet does so. If the wall was built and no one could enter that would be a different story.

    That's not what's happening or what most people want a wall for. Let's remember that the media has framed the argument falsely and labeled the proponents of the wall incorrectly. Sometimes with malice and to make their agenda or narrative seem logical and appealing.

    When all of you remove your locks from your doors, I will stop demanding a border wall so as to channel those who desire entry through the legal entry points so that we can regulate who enters our country(home).

Please to post comments

Comments are closed.