Trenton Metcalf

ENG 101-24

Crystal Matey

21 March 2019

Trump’s Emergency Declaration

President Trump is well known for his distaste for immigration since he took the

presidency of the United States. Recently, Trump has dealt with some pushback from the United

States congress about his proposed border wall. He formulated a plan that would allow him to

circumvent congress. He would do this by declaring the migrant caravan approaching the

southern border a national emergency, and securing the border using military resources, such as

funding, troops, etc. Naturally congress has taken issue with this, and so a vote in the house was

introduced to override the emergency declaration. Congress believes that Trump has overreached

his constitutional powers by fabricating an emergency because he has denied the will of

congress. The media outlets quickly covered this vote that set a precedent for the power of the

presidency. While the left sources lean into the problem itself, the neutral source simply gives a

breakdown of the situation, and the right source reprimand the Republicans who voted in favor

of the override.

The left leaning source, The Washington Post, showed little bias in their article about the

vote. The article delved into the problem of constitutionality of Trump’s declaration. The Post

wrote of the various Senators position on the subject with an emphasis on why the Republicans

who voted for the resolution went against the president. In doing this, they utilized an ethos

appeal by using the credibility of the powerful position of legislators. The article writes about

other approaches Trump had suggested to him, but ultimately he refused. It is possible the author
was using pathos to appeal to readers. Knowing that Trump had other options that did not require

a national emergency might upset some readers. Especially those who lean left, which is likely

considering The Washington Post is a left leaning source. The article does not openly disapprove

of Trump, but it certainly does not give any validity to his claims about the migrant caravan at

the southern border being an emergency. In fact most of it is dedicated to reasoning for voting

against it, which is not surprising. The Post is likely employing a tactic of convincing the reader

that Trump is in the wrong without blatantly being bias. They do this by choosing quotes that

make the Republicans against the resolution seem bitter, and remarking upon how one Senator,

Thom Thillis of North Carolina, contradicted himself and changed his position.

NPR has always been an reliably unbiased news source. Rather than give a skewed story

about an issue, NPR only gives facts about the situation with political commentary about the

issue without opinion. This story is no different. The article is a dictation of a dialogue between

two NPR Journalists. One of them specifically a political reporter. They speak of the practical

implications of the resolution, in an appeal to logos. In particular, Trump’s ability to veto it. As

the vote stands Congress does not have the two-thirds majority it would need to override

President Trump’s veto, and they comment on how if congress is unable to muster two-thirds

majority then the resolution would be useless. The article comments on how the powers are

shared between the executive and legislative branch in Government, stating that in many cases

congress simply makes suggestions that the president can accept or ignore. This statement is an

appeal to logos as he uses logic to speak on the powers of the government and what the

practicality of the situation is. Overall the article is very logical and well thought.

The third article is by a media outlet known as RedState. The publisher is not quite what

one might call an extremist, but their bias is certainly not subtle. RedState holds no punches as
the author berates the Republicans who voted against Trump. Going so far as to call them “self-

righteous.” The entire article is a clear use of pathos. As with most Trump supporting

propaganda, the article attempts to stir up the emotions of the reader with intense language. The

author states that the resolution is a clear undermining of Trump’s authority, and that the whole

issue is congress’s fault because they did not give Trump, what the author considers, adequate

funding. The entire piece reads like a rant from an angry deeply conservative person, constantly

trying to stir up emotions from the audience. It contains no information about why this happened

or what the opposing Republicans had to say for themselves. The piece is mostly about Trump

prevailing in the endgame. It states that no matter what “leftists” do, they will lose. The author

even goes so far as to say that the only way the left would win in a legal battle is if the Chief

Justice of the Supreme Court gets blackmailed. The article shows a lot of hatred, and it is not so

much of a dialogue as it is a rant. The author is obviously wrapped up in party affiliation and

emotion and it shows in the piece. Even more worrisome is how effective the emotional

approach to policy is to voters and an audience. This article paints liberal people as an enemy to

the United States and impassions conservative to close their minds to differing opinions. While

this approach is effective, it is not necessarily productive to the national cause.

In conclusion, the constitutionality of Trump’s national emergency declaration is being

brought into question by congress. Congress has overwhelmingly voted against Trump in this

case, but it is unlikely to have an effect considering Trump’s vetoing abilities. The media has

reported on this landmark vote in different ways. The Post used the ethos of the senators who

voted for the congressional resolution. NPR simply commentated on the facts of the situation at

hand. RedState used sharp, bitter language to inflame the emotions of the intended audience. As

of current predictions, the emergency declaration is likely to stand.

 Works Cited

Werner, Erica, et al. “Senate Votes to Reject Trump's Emergency Declaration, Setting up

President's First Veto.” The Washington Post, WP Company, 14 Mar. 2019,

www.washingtonpost.com/politics/trump-renews-veto-threat-as-senate-prepares-to-rebuke-him-

on-national-emergency/2019/03/14/2efbea36-4647-11e9-aaf8-

4512a6fe3439_story.html?noredirect=on&utm_term=.95450d3389f8.

Mak, Tim. “Senate Expected To Vote Against Trump's Emergency Declaration.” NPR,

NPR, 14 Mar. 2019, www.npr.org/2019/03/14/703287522/senate-expected-to-vote-against-

trumps-emergency-declaration.

Ford, Mike. “BREAKING. Senate Votes To Overturn President Trump's Emergency

Declaration.” RedState, 14 Mar. 2019, www.redstate.com/darth641/2019/03/14/breaking.-senate-

votes-overturn-president-trumps-emergency-declaration.