WASHINGTON _ Some in the president's party are wringing their hands about how the emergency declaration for a border wall might set a reckless precedent.
They wonder how a future Democratic president could circumvent Congress on liberal spending priorities like the Green New Deal _ the sprawling plan supported by Democratic progressives to address climate change by restructuring the economy and phasing out fossil fuels.
While Congressional Republicans have raised concerns, most held off on denouncing the president's radical maneuver to circumvent Article I of the Constitution and devote federal funds to a border wall without their approval.
Rep. Cathy McMorris Rodgers, R-Wash., former Republican conference chair, said the declaration could subvert the balance of powers between branches of government. She said she worries it could open the door to passing a Green New Deal by fiat.
"If elected president, how would Elizabeth Warren or Bernie Sanders use this precedent for a national disaster declaration to force the Green New Deal on the American people?" McMorris Rodgers said in a statement.
Sen. Marco Rubio, R-Fla., echoed that concern.
"Today's national emergency is border security. But a future president may use this exact same tactic to impose the Green New Deal," Rubio said in a statement.
Rubio did not say whether he supported or was oppososed to an emergency declaration, but instead said he would "wait to see what statutory or constitutional power the President relies on to justify such a declaration."
Sen. Chuck Grassley, R-Iowa, also held off on staking a position on the national emergency declaration, but underscored his support for the president's wall push.
"The Constitution grants Congress the authority to appropriate federal dollars, so I'm sure such action will be litigated in the courts," Grassley said in a statement. "What's clear, however, is that the president takes the situation at our border seriously and that Democrats do not."
White House Press Secretary Sarah Huckabee Sanders announced in a Thursday statement that the president will sign a budget deal to avert a government shutdown. In the same statement, she announced the president would "take other executive action _ including a national emergency."
According to White House aides, a national emergency declaration would grant Trump broad authority to redirect money appropriated to the Pentagon and U.S. Treasury in order to construct a border wall.
Sen. Susan Collins, R-Maine, said she was concerned about how an emergency declaration would weaken the power of Congress to appropriate federal funds.
It "strikes me as undermining the appropriations process, the will of Congress and of being of dubious constitutionality," Collins said in an interview with USA Today.
Here are some of the other Republicans who have raised concerns about an emergency declaration for a border wall:
Rep. Chris Stewart, R-Utah, said a Democratic president could deem climate change or gun violence a national emergency in order to outmaneuver Congress on appropriating tax dollars.
"Whether the president has the authority or not, it sets a dangerous precedent and places America on a path that we will regret," he said. "It deeply worries me that a future Democratic president may consider gun violence or climate change a 'national emergency' and what actions they may then take."
Sen. Mitt Romney, R-Utah, supported the budget deal but said an emergency declaration is not the "right approach."
Sen. Rand Paul, R-Ky., supports a border wall, but the libertarian senator said he opposes the emergency declaration, which he described as "extraconstitutional."
"I, too, want stronger border security, including a wall in some areas. But how we do things matters. Over 1,000 pages dropped in the middle of the night and extraconstitutional executive actions are wrong, no matter which party does them," Paul said.
