Trump Diverting $3.6 Billion from Military to Build Border Wall

The Department of Defense has approved a plan to divert $3.6 billion to pay for the construction of parts of President Trump’s border wall, Defense Secretary Mark Esper said Tuesday. The money will be shifted from more than 100 construction projects focused on upgrading military bases in the U.S. and overseas, which will be suspended until Congress provides additional funds.
In a letter addressed to Senator James Inhofe, chair of the Armed Services Committee, Esper said that in response to the national emergency declared by Trump earlier this year, he was approving work on 11 military construction projects “to support the use of armed forces” on the border with Mexico.
The $3.6 billion will fund about 175 miles of new and refurbished barriers (Esper’s letter does not use the term “wall”).
Esper described the projects, which include new and replacement barriers in San Diego, El Paso and Laredo, Texas, as “force multipliers” that, once completed, will allow the Pentagon to redeploy troops to high-traffic sections of the border that lack barriers. About 5,000 active duty and National Guard troops are currently deployed on the border.
Months in the making: Trump’s declaration of a national emergency on the southern border on February 15, 2019, came in the wake of a showdown with Congress over funding for the border wall. The president’s demand for $5.7 billion for the wall sparked a 35-day government shutdown, which ended when Trump reluctantly agreed to a deal that provided $1.375 billion for border security. By declaring a national emergency, Trump gave the Pentagon the legal authority to move billions of dollars around in its budget to address the purported crisis. Legal challenges to the emergency declaration are ongoing.
Conflict with lawmakers: Congress passed a resolution opposing the national emergency declaration in March, prompting Trump to issue the first veto of his presidency. Democrats on the House Appropriations Committee reiterated their opposition to Trump’s move Tuesday, saying in a letter, “As we have previously written, the decision to take funds from critical military construction projects is unjustified and will have lasting impacts on our military.”
Majority Leader Steny H. Hoyer was more forceful, saying in a statement, "It is abhorrent that the Trump Administration is choosing to defund 127 critical military construction projects all over the country … and on U.S. bases overseas to pay for an ineffective and expensive wall the Congress has refused to fund. This is a subversion of the will of the American people and their representatives. It is an attack on our military and its effectiveness to keep Americans safe. Moreover, it is a political ploy aimed at satisfying President Trump's base, to whom he falsely promised that Mexico would pay for the construction of an unnecessary wall, which taxpayers and our military are now being forced to fund at a cost of $3.6 billion.”
A group of 10 Democratic Senators said in a letter to Esper that they “are opposed to this decision and the damage it will cause to our military and the relationship between Congress and the Department of Defense.” They said they also “expect a full justification of how the decision to cancel was made for each project selected and why a border wall is more important to our national security and the well-being of our service members and their families than these projects.”
Politico’s John Bresnahan, Connor O'Brien and Marianne LeVine said the diversion will likely be unpopular with Republican lawmakers as well. Republican Senators Mike Lee and Mitt Romney expressed concerns Wednesday about funds being diverted from their home state of Utah. "Funding the border wall is an important priority, and the Executive Branch should use the appropriate channels in Congress, rather than divert already appropriated funding away from military construction projects and therefore undermining military readiness," Romney said.
The Pentagon released a list of construction projects that will be affected late on Wednesday (you can review a screenshot tweeted by NBC News’ Alex Moe here).
An $8 billion effort: In addition to the military construction funds and the money provided by Congress, the Trump administration is using $2.5 billion in drug interdiction money and $600 million in Treasury forfeiture funds to support the construction of barriers on the southern border, for a total of approximately $8 billion. (More on that here.)
The administration reportedly has characterized the suspended military construction projects as being delayed, but to be revived, those projects would require Congress approving new funding. House Democrats have vowed they won’t “backfill” the money.
The politics of the wall: Trump has reportedly been intensely focused on making progress on the border wall, amid news that virtually no new wall has been built during the first two and a half years of his presidency. Speaking to reporters at the White House Wednesday, Trump said that construction on the wall is moving ahead “rapidly” and that hundreds of miles will be “almost complete if not complete by the end of next year … just after the election.”
Hoping for a Raise? Here’s How Much Most People Are Getting

Nearly all companies plan to give raises to their employees next year, with an average salary bump of 3 percent, the same increase workers received this year, according to a new survey released Monday by Towers Watson.
Raises for executives and management will be 3.1 percent.
“To a large extent, 3 percent pay raises have become the new norm in corporate America,” Sandra McLEllan, North American Practice Leader for Towers Watson said in a statement. “We haven’t seen variation from this level for many years.”
Related: The Real Root of America’s Wage Problem
While the average raise is 3 percent, companies plan to tie the amount of individual raises to worker performance. Employees with the best reviews will receive an average 4.6 percent increase in salary, while workers with below-average ratings will get less than 1 percent.
The survey also found that companies are shifting their compensation packages to include more short-term incentives and bonuses. Eighty-five percent of workers took home a bonus this year, up from 81 percent this year. Nearly 90 percent of exempt employees were eligible for an annual or short-term bonus.
Even as unemployment has finally fallen, wage growth since the Great Recession remains largely stalled. Last month, wages for civilian workers grew just 2.1 percent, according to the Employment Cost Index.
Fed Chair Janet Yellen, who is looking for economic growth before instituting a rate hike, has said that stagnant wages are one factor hampering such growth. After all, consumers can’t increase the amount of goods and services they can purchase if they aren’t increasing their pay.
Top Reads from the Fiscal Times:
- Fiorina Takes on Trump in a Brave Battle of the Sexes
- When Buying Car Insurance, Young Drivers Should Stick with Mom and Dad
- Trump’s Campaign, Leaking Oil, Rumbles Onward
When Buying Car Insurance, Young Drivers Should Stick with Mom and Dad

The parents of young drivers have enough to worry about, but a new study from insuranceQuotes.com finds that those who add coverage for an 18-to-24-year-old can expect to see an average annual premium increase of 80 percent on their existing car insurance. The good news: That’s still cheaper than if the young drivers bought insurance on their own. If those young drivers were to buy individual plans of their own, they’d pay 8 percent more on average — and in some cases, over 50 percent more — than their coverage costs on a parental plan.
Related: The Shocking Secret About How Your Car Insurance Rate Gets Set
Premiums can vary widely depending on the driver’s age and state. An 18-year-old can expect to pay an average of 18 percent more for an individual policy than he or she would if added to an existing policy. But in Rhode Island, an 18-year-old will pay an average of 53 percent more for an individual policy. In Connecticut and Oregon, the difference is 47 percent.
In states such as Arizona, Hawaii, and Illinois, it actually becomes cheaper, on average, for a young driver to get his or her own policy after turning 19. When it comes to determining premiums, Hawaii is the only state that doesn’t allow insurance providers to consider age, gender, or length of driving experience.
These are the five states with the greatest difference in premiums for young drivers buying their own coverage.
1. Rhode Island: 19 percent
2. Connecticut: 16 percent
3. North Carolina: 14 percent
4. Vermont: 14 percent
5. Maine: 14 percent
Related: Now 16-Year-Olds Can Double Your Car Insurance
And these five states have the smallest difference:
1. Hawaii: No difference
2. Illinois: No difference
3. Arizona: 2 percent
4. Mississippi: 5 percent
5. South Carolina: 5 percent.
Top Reads from The Fiscal Times:
- As Politicians Bicker Over Funding, Military Families Cut Back on Vacations
- Why We’re Wasting Billions on Teacher Development
- The Future of War Belongs to the Bots
Vladimir Putin’s Cheesy Act of Defiance

The United States and European Union have been squeezing Russia with sanctions since it annexed Crimea, a territory that previously belonged to Ukraine, in March 2014. In response, Russian President Vladimir Putin established a ban on U.S. and EU foodstuffs a few months later as a snub to the West.
On Thursday, Russia commemorated a tightening of that year-old ban on Western agricultural products by bulldozing bright yellow blocks of cheese. The country also streamrolled fruit and set piles of bacon ablaze. By midday, 28 metric tons of apples and tomatoes from Poland had been demolished, as well as 40 tons of apricots from an unknown country, according to The Wall Street Journal.
Related: Move Over, Santa: Putin Claims the North Pole
The Western sanctions and a plunging ruble have caused Russian food prices to spike this year. Some politicians, religious leaders and other Russian citizens denounced the destruction of the food, noting that millions of Russians are living in poverty. More than 285,000 people signed an online petition that asked Putin to distribute the food rather than destroy it.
The Kremlin has promised to help develop Russia’s own agricultural industries and to promote domestic food products that the middle-class generally ignore in supermarkets in favor of status symbols like French cheese and Italian meat. In addition, the Kremlin announced that any contraband foodstuffs found would be destroyed. Russia’s Agricultural Minister Alexander Tkachyov said on state TV that the quality of Western food products could no longer be guaranteed.
Top Reads from The Fiscal Times:
- Vladimir Putin’s Spokesman Wears a Golden Skull Watch Worth $620K
- The Pentagon’s Next-Generation Budget Busting Bomber
- Born in the USA: 24 Iconic American Foods
This May Be the Best Frequent Flier Perk Ever

Forget about getting bumped up to first class. Delta Airlines is now bumping its best customers off commercial flights entirely -- and onto private jets.
The program got off the ground last week, according to Bloomberg, with its first flight traveling from Cincinnati to Atlanta.
To be eligible for the upgrade, fliers must have at least 125,000 miles in travel and $15,000 in annual spending with the airline. The bump costs an extra $300 to $800.
In addition to improving the loyalty among some of Delta’s best customers, the program has a side benefit for Delta, allowing it to get some value from positioning flights, known as “empty legs,” which make up about 30 percent of industry flying.
Delta and other airlines have been shifting their loyalty programs in ways that make it easier for elite flyers to earn rewards and more difficult for more irregular customers.
Related: Rethinking airline points strategy with the Points Guy
Starting in June 2016, Delta will issue rewards based on the amount of money spent rather than miles traveled, and the airline may change the number of miles necessary to book a flight based on demand and other factors.
Analysts say that other airlines may follow suit. Airline reward programs have been unsuccessful in fostering loyalty among patrons, many of whom book flights based on cost and convenience rather than brand preference. Only 44 percent of travelers and 40 percent of business travelers fly at least three-quarters of their miles on their preferred airline, reports Deloitte.
Delta’s reward program ranked 9th on U.S. News’ annual ranking of the best airline rewards programs, released this week, receiving 3.1 stars out of 5. Alaska Airlines was ranked first.
You’ve Got to See This GOP Hawk’s Grisly Ad Opposing the Iran Deal

A group led by John Bolton, the aggressively hawkish Republican insider who served as George W. Bush's ambassador to the United Nations, has released an unusually grisly ad that vividly portrays a nuclear attack on the United States.
The 30-second video was produced by the Foundation for American Security and Freedom, which Bolton leads. It shows an all-American family of four sitting down to a dinner of pasta and red sauce. The father kindly asks, “How was your day?” As his wife and children enthusiastically reply, a blinding flash rips through the scene to the sound of burning and destruction. The screen fades to black, and then we see and hear Sen. Rand Paul speaking, with his words also written on the screen: “Rand Paul: ‘our national security is not threatened by Iran having one nuclear weapon’.” The screen fades to black again, and then we see a nuclear explosion, with the words: “It only takes one.” As the nuclear cloud boils up into the sky, we see the final message: “A nuclear threat is a threat to our national security.”
The 30-second video seems to consciously mimic Lyndon Johnson's infamous "Daisy" ad from the 1964 presidential election. That ad was widely criticized for using a nuclear explosion to frighten the audience into believing that, if elected, Republican nominee Barry Goldwater would risk all-out war with the Soviet Union. The ad was shown only once (on September 7, 1964) but that proved to be enough.
Several differences between the Bolton group’s ad and “Daisy” stand out. For one, the new ad shows a family being destroyed by a nuclear blast. By contrast, the Johnson ad implied the death of a small girl and many others, but without showing the blast and its victims together.
Another difference is the target. The “Daisy” ad took aim at a hawkish Republican candidate for president, implying that an aggressive attitude toward a major enemy could lead to the destruction of the world. The Bolton group’s ad takes aim at a dovish Republican candidate — and, by implication, a dovish American president — while suggesting that a diplomatic approach toward a major enemy could lead to war on American soil.
A final difference: The Johnson campaign withdrew the “Daisy” ad as the criticism poured in. The Bolton group’s ad is on the Internet, where it can be seen over and over again. And thanks to the dynamics of social media, it will likely reach a larger audience than “Daisy” ever did — though to what effect, it remains to be seen.
Here’s the Daisy ad: