Which specific Republican senators voted to block Trump’s 2019 border emergency and what reasons did each give?
Executive summary
Twelve Republican senators joined every Democratic senator in 2019 to pass a resolution terminating President Trump’s national emergency declaration on the southern border, arguing variously that the move violated the Constitution, usurped Congress’s power of the purse, set a dangerous precedent for future presidents, or was simply unnecessary to secure the border [1] [2] [3]. Those senators framed their objections as either institutional—defending separation of powers—or pragmatic—concerned about legal exposure of military construction funds and the political precedent of unilateral emergency spending [2] [3] [4].
1. Who the 12 were — the roll call and the record
The Senate’s 59–41 vote included a dozen Republicans who crossed the aisle: Lamar Alexander (R‑Tenn.), Roy Blunt (R‑Mo.), Susan Collins (R‑Maine), Cory Gardner (R‑Colo.), Mike Lee (R‑Utah), Jerry Moran (R‑Kan.), Rob Portman (R‑Ohio), Marco Rubio (R‑Fla.), Mitt Romney (R‑Utah), Pat Toomey (R‑Pa.), Thom Tillis (R‑N.C.), and (in contemporaneous lists) Senators whose votes were reported as among the group that joined Democrats to terminate the emergency; multiple outlets compiled the full list at the time (see CNN and Roll Call for the full roll call and names) [1] [2]. News organizations and the AP summarized the bipartisan rebuke of the president in near‑identical terms [5] [3].
2. Constitutional/Institutional objections — “separation of powers” as the core argument
Several of the Republicans emphasized constitutional limits on executive power, arguing that Congress—not the White House—must control appropriations and that declaring an emergency to reprogram funds undercuts that principle; Mitt Romney and Susan Collins framed their votes explicitly as defending the Constitution and the Senate’s institutional prerogatives [3] [2]. Pat Toomey likewise described the action as a separation‑of‑powers issue, saying the declaration “set a troubling precedent” by letting the president redirect funds that Congress had allocated [2] [3].
3. Precedent and political liability — worries about future presidents
Some senators cited the danger that the emergency power could be used by future presidents for policy goals Congress rejected, a recurring theme in contemporaneous reporting; Roger Wicker’s warning that a future president could declare emergencies to pursue gun control or “climate emergencies” encapsulated that concern, echoed by other GOP holdouts who feared empowering successors [6] [3]. This logic drove votes from Republicans who otherwise supported tougher border policy but balked at unmooring spending from congressional approval [6] [2].
4. Practical and legal concerns — protecting military construction and avoiding costly litigation
Several Republicans on the Appropriations side or with oversight interests objected on narrower grounds: that diverting military construction funds threatened projects for service members and risked protracted legal battles that would tie up funds and delay border work [2] [7]. Senator Rob Portman articulated this pragmatic view, supporting border security in principle but calling the emergency unnecessary for securing funds and risky for military projects [2].
5. Alternatives and legislative fixes — not necessarily opposing border security
A number of the GOP defectors insisted their vote was not opposition to stronger border enforcement but a push for proper procedure: Mike Lee, for example, was working on legislation to limit emergency powers and proposed a 30‑day congressional approval window for future emergencies—an effort framed as preserving the president’s ability to act in true emergencies while preventing circumvention of Congress [4]. Rubio and others stressed that the vote was about institutional process even while supporting border security measures elected through Congress [6] [2].
6. Political context and consequences — risk, re‑election and party pressure
News coverage at the time highlighted the political peril for Republicans who crossed the president—some senators faced pressure from the White House and Republican base—and commentators warned of primary risk for defectors, illustrating that constitutional and pragmatic messages were often delivered inside an overtly political environment (p1