Keep Factually independent
Whether you agree or disagree with our analysis, these conversations matter for democracy. We don't take money from political groups - even a $5 donation helps us keep it that way.
Fact check: What actions did President Donald J. Trump take during the 2018-2019 shutdown and what legal challenges followed?
Executive Summary
President Donald J. Trump ended the December 2018 partial government shutdown by signing a short-term funding bill on January 25, 2019, then declared a national emergency on February 15, 2019 to redirect executive and Defense funds toward his proposed border wall. The emergency declaration and subsequent transfers of military construction and other DoD funds produced a cascade of legal challenges from states, environmental groups and advocacy organizations culminating in litigation in the federal courts, Ninth Circuit rulings and a Supreme Court stay while appeals proceeded [1] [2] [3] [4].
1. How Trump closed the shutdown — and then changed tactics
President Trump signed a continuing resolution on January 25, 2019 to re-open government functions temporarily without wall funding, providing retroactive pay and a 21-day window for negotiations on border security, but shortly afterward invoked broader executive authority by declaring a national emergency at the southern border on February 15, 2019 to secure additional funds for barrier construction. The administration framed the emergency as necessary to address a humanitarian and security crisis at the border and expected litigation; Democrats and many stakeholders immediately warned the move would bypass Congress’s appropriations power [1] [2] [5] [6].
2. The funding shuffle: Pentagon transfers and construction starts
Following the emergency, the administration redirected Defense Department money to border construction, with the Pentagon shifting and diverting hundreds of millions to billions for multiple projects. Early transfers included about $1.5 billion and later moves encompassed roughly $3.6 billion in military construction funds to build hundreds of miles of barrier and associated infrastructure, pausing or canceling many military projects to free funds. The DoD-authorized transfers and later contracts and construction work—documented years later with new projects along ranges and sectors—show that the emergency produced sustained procurement and construction activity paid in part by reallocated defense funds [7] [8] [9] [10] [11] [12].
3. Lawsuits follow: who sued and on what grounds
Multiple plaintiffs challenged the emergency and transfers on constitutional and statutory grounds. Environmental groups, states and nonprofit organizations argued the administration violated the Appropriations Clause by reallocating funds Congress had withheld for the wall, and claimed ultra vires action and harms to environmental and property interests. California, New York and others promised litigation, and groups such as the Sierra Club pursued suits asserting standing and alleging unlawful transfers under Section 8005 and other authorities. Courts grappled with whether plaintiffs had cognizable causes of action and whether the executive’s statutory authority had been exceeded [6] [4] [3].
4. The federal courts and Supreme Court interventions that changed the timetable
District courts issued injunctions blocking some transfers and projects; the Ninth Circuit affirmed standing and held certain transfers unlawful under the Appropriations Clause. The administration sought relief at the Supreme Court; the high court granted stays in some contexts and considered questions about Article III standing, statutory authority and separation of powers. The litigation record shows split outcomes: judicial orders sometimes paused construction or fund use, while stays and appeals kept key issues alive and meant the dispute proceeded through the appellate process toward final resolution [3] [4].
5. Settlements, environmental remediation and state victories downstream
Some legal fights produced settlements and remedial requirements. California secured a settlement addressing unlawful construction and environmental harms that resulted from projects advanced under the emergency, including commitments to halt construction with challenged funds and fund habitat remediation. Other rulings temporarily blocked redirections of homeland security funds to certain states, reflecting judicial concerns about politicized reallocation and public-safety implications. These outcomes illustrate that litigation produced both injunctive relief and negotiated remediation even as other projects continued under alternate authorizations [13] [14].
6. Competing legal and political narratives and the larger constitutional question
The administration consistently defended the emergency as within the president’s statutory emergency powers to address border crises and to use executive authorities to expedite infrastructure. Opponents stressed Congress’s plenary appropriations authority over spending and argued judicial review was necessary to prevent executive overreach. Legal routes raised doctrinal questions about Article I appropriation power, agency transfer authorities like Section 8005, and standing to sue—issues appellate courts and the Supreme Court confronted in opinions and stays that shaped outcomes and set precedents for executive use of funds in national-security or border contexts [2] [15] [16].