Donald Trump used his first prime-time address to the nation to claim that a wall along the US-Mexico border must be built to end what he deems a "national security crisis." The speech was emblematic of his presidency.
Advertisement
Image: Getty Images/J.Sullivan
For his inaugural prime-time television address to the nation two years after taking office and during one of the longest government shutdowns in recent memory, President Donald Trump theoretically had two basic options.
He could have used the bully pulpit accorded to US presidents to present himself as the true leader of the country, one who will earnestly try to bridge the gaping divide that threatens to tear the nation apart.
He could have said that while he still holds true to his conviction that a wall is the best solution to remedy what he continues to view as a problematic and dangerous situation along the southern border, for the good of the country he is willing to work with Democrats and Republicans alike to reach a compromise that ends the partial government shutdown while at the same time protecting the US border.
Michael Knigge is DW's correspondent in Washington
The high road
Trump could have said something like: "My fellow Americans: Regardless of whether you are a Republican or a Democrat, regardless of whether you support or oppose me, tonight is the night to start afresh and work together in the interest of our country — which all of us, Republicans and Democrats, love — and end the shutdown."
He could, in other words, have wiped the slate clean and offered an outstretched hand to the newly elected Congress to find a compromise on the border security issue after backing himself into a corner.
And guess what, his base of supporters might still have backed him, because they trust him pretty much regardless of what he does or says. Sure, the usual right-wing pundits would accuse him of caving. And sure, Democrats, and many Republicans, rightfully would not believe him and would demand proof that he was serious. But by taking the high road and reinventing himself as the surprising unifier of a divided country, he could at least have tried to regain control over the train wreck that is the Trump-caused government shutdown.
Of course, Trump in his address on Tuesday night did none of that.
US government shutdown: The human cost
02:22
This browser does not support the video element.
Fearmongering rhetoric
Instead, Trump used the Oval Office address to once again double down on his demand for funding for a border wall, describing the situation at the border as a "national security crisis" using misleading claims. In other words, he continued to do what his presidency has been all about so far: dividing the country further than previously thought possible.
Trump spoke of the major problem of undocumented immigration at the southern border, a "security crisis" that most immigration experts say doesn't exist. And in a segment that sounded like it was written by his hard-line political adviser Stephen Miller, he stoked fears about undocumented immigrants by linking them with violent crimes, when studies show that crime rates for undocumented immigrants are generally not higher than those of American citizens.
US government shutdowns: A chronology
President Joe Biden's government is facing a shutdown if the Republican Congress doesn't approve the budget for the coming fiscal year. DW looks at how shutdowns started, when they became partisan and how much they cost.
Image: Getty Images/D. Angerer
Sundown shutdown
As midnight approaches on September 30, it's go time for Congress: Approve a budget before the start of the new fiscal year on October 1, or shut down the government. Originally, Article I, Section 9 of the Constitution required lawmakers to approve the budget. Honing it further in 1870, the Antideficiency Act targeted agencies that spent money without asking. But deadlines were often missed.
Image: picture-alliance/CNP/A. Edelma
No money, no pay, no work
At the behest of President Jimmy Carter, the US attorney general revisited the Antideficiency Act in 1980 to answer the question: "Without a budget, are government employees required to work?" According to his Attorney General's legal opinion, no money meant no work. Carter's presidency saw only small shutdowns, but the new interpretation of the law turned shutdowns into a negotiating tactic.
Image: picture alliance / Everett Collection
Ronald Reagan and the first shutdown
The first real shutdown — more than 240,000 workers furloughed, more than $80 million (€65 million) down the drain — occurred in November 1981. President Ronald Reagan refused to sign a budget without billions in tax cuts. The Republican-controlled Senate and the Democrat-controlled House found a solution the next day. This happened seven more times by his last year in 1989.
Image: AP
Bill Clinton and the rise of the partisan shutdown
Budget impasses were largely drama-free until 1995, when President Bill Clinton faced off against Senate Majority Leader Bob Dole and House Speaker Newt Gingrich (pictured left). The Republican-led Congress wanted a balanced budget within seven years, higher Medicare premiums and rollbacks on environment regulations. It took 27 days in total to strike a deal. The cost: at least $1 billion.
Image: POOL/AFP/Getty Images
A game for Congress, a headache for the agencies
Many departments such as the military, national security and any deemed essential to the protection of life continue working during shutdowns. But agencies such as the Internal Revenue Service, the Food and Drug Administration and the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention must cease operations. This results in delays on tax decisions, food inspection and disease research among other problems.
Image: picture-alliance/BSIP/B. Boissonet
Barack Obama and Congress on Cruz-control
The next major shutdown came in 2013 under President Barack Obama. His Affordable Health Care Act — or Obamacare — faced stark opposition from conservative House Republicans. Led by Senator Ted Cruz, the group pushed for drastic curbs on the health care act in exchange for raising the debt ceiling. The 18-day shutdown resulted in the furlough of some 850,000 workers. The cost: $24 billion.
Image: picture-alliance/AP Photo/C. Dharapak
Shutdown for a wall
The longest shutdown in US history so far lasted 35 days in December 2018 and January 2019. Hundreds of federal workers went without paychecks. Despite the disruption, then-President Donald Trump insisted that funding for his Mexico border wall be included in the budget. In fact, Trump had said he was prepared for the impasse to go on for years — before he gave in and reopened government.
Image: Doug Mills/UPI Photo/Imago Images
Cost of playing politics
The prohibitive cost of shutting down some government operations has not tamed the trend. Washington loses millions not just in revenue, but also in back pay, even though furloughed employees stay at home. So, time lost, work lost — and money lost. According to a 2019 estimate by ratings agency Standard and Poor's, a government shutdown costs the US roughly $6 billion per week.
Image: Imago
Shutdowns contributing to distrust?
The biggest loser is not the economy, or the party that makes the most concessions, it's the government itself. According to a Gallup poll in the aftermath of the 2013 shutdown, public dissatisfaction with the government in general rose to 33%. The previous all-time high regarding political dysfunction was 26% during the Watergate scandal.
Image: picture-alliance/dpa/C. Kaster
9 images1 | 9
Divider, not a unifier
But most importantly, Trump offered Democrats — the lawmakers he needs to end the shutdown he had previously boasted he would be proud to own — no credible incentives to help him untangle the standoff.
Instead, he simply implored them again to do the right thing and cough up more than $5 billion (€4.4 billion) for a border wall — which is precisely what Democrats have clearly said they will not do.
And so in this speech, just like in his tenure, Donald Trump has once again shown he is incapable or unwilling to fulfill a key requirement for a president: To unite, not divide the nation.
