Donald Trump has announced he will declare a national emergency to fulfil his pledge to construct a wall along the US-Mexico border.
The president said he will use executive powers to bypass Congress, which approved far less money for his proposed wall than he had sought.
Building the wall was a key pledge of Mr Trump's campaign, but Democrats have described the emergency as a "gross abuse of power".
READ MORE: US shutdown suspended without Trump getting wall money
He plans to syphon billions of dollars from federal military construction and counter-drug efforts for the wall.
The move is already drawing bipartisan criticism on Capitol Hill and is expected to face rounds of legal challenges.
"I am going to be signing a national emergency," Mr Trump said from the Rose Garden at the White House, as he claimed illegal immigration marked "an invasion of our country".
In a rare show of bipartisanship, legislators voted on Thursday to fund large swaths of the government and avoid a repeat of this winter's debilitating five-week government shutdown.
The money in the bill for border barriers, about 1.4 billion dollars (£1.1 billion), is far below the 5.7 billion dollars (£4.4 billion) Mr Trump insisted he needed and would finance just a quarter of the 200-plus miles he wanted this year.
To bridge the gap, he announced he will be spending roughly 8 billion dollars (£6.2 billion) on border barriers - combining the money approved by Congress with funding he plans to repurpose through executive actions, including the national emergency.
READ MORE: Donald Trump indicates he won’t declare emergency to pay for wall ‘so fast’
The money is expected to come from funds targeted for military construction and counter-drug efforts, but aides could not immediately specify which military projects would be affected.
Despite widespread opposition in Congress to proclaiming an emergency, including by some Republicans, Mr Trump was responding to pressure to act unilaterally to soothe his conservative base and avoid appearing like he has lost his wall battle.
.@PressSec: President Trump will sign the government funding bill, and as he has stated before, he will also take other executive action—including a national emergency—to ensure we stop the national security and humanitarian crisis at the border.
— The White House (@WhiteHouse) February 14, 2019
Word that he would declare the emergency prompted condemnations from Democrats and threats of lawsuits from states and others who might lose federal money or said the president was abusing his authority.
The top two Democrats in Congress, House speaker Nancy Pelosi and Senate minority leader Chuck Schumer, said they will use "every remedy available" to oppose Mr Trump.
They pledged to take action "in the Congress, in the Courts, and in the public", adding that Mr Trump's decision is unlawful and would "shred the constitution" by usurping Congress's power to control spending.
Democratic state attorney generals said they would consider legal action to block Mr Trump. Puerto Rico governor Ricardo Rossello told the president on Twitter "we'll see you in court" if he makes the declaration.
Even if his emergency declaration withstands challenge, Mr Trump is still billions of dollars short of his overall funding needed to build the wall as he promised in 2016.
After two years of effort, he has not added any new border mileage.
All construction so far has gone in replacing and repairing existing structures. Ground is expected to be broken in south Texas soon on the first new mileage.
The White House said Mr Trump would not try to redirect federal disaster aid to the wall, a proposal they had considered but rejected over fears of a political backlash.
Why are you making commenting on The Herald only available to subscribers?
It should have been a safe space for informed debate, somewhere for readers to discuss issues around the biggest stories of the day, but all too often the below the line comments on most websites have become bogged down by off-topic discussions and abuse.
heraldscotland.com is tackling this problem by allowing only subscribers to comment.
We are doing this to improve the experience for our loyal readers and we believe it will reduce the ability of trolls and troublemakers, who occasionally find their way onto our site, to abuse our journalists and readers. We also hope it will help the comments section fulfil its promise as a part of Scotland's conversation with itself.
We are lucky at The Herald. We are read by an informed, educated readership who can add their knowledge and insights to our stories.
That is invaluable.
We are making the subscriber-only change to support our valued readers, who tell us they don't want the site cluttered up with irrelevant comments, untruths and abuse.
In the past, the journalist’s job was to collect and distribute information to the audience. Technology means that readers can shape a discussion. We look forward to hearing from you on heraldscotland.com
Comments & Moderation
Readers’ comments: You are personally liable for the content of any comments you upload to this website, so please act responsibly. We do not pre-moderate or monitor readers’ comments appearing on our websites, but we do post-moderate in response to complaints we receive or otherwise when a potential problem comes to our attention. You can make a complaint by using the ‘report this post’ link . We may then apply our discretion under the user terms to amend or delete comments.
Post moderation is undertaken full-time 9am-6pm on weekdays, and on a part-time basis outwith those hours.
Read the rules hereComments are closed on this article