The lead editorial in the New York Times on March 5 is entitled “Fix the National Emergencies Law.” The Times explains that the law – which is supposed to authorize a president to assume special powers during an emergency – is flawed because it “doesn’t define what an emergency is – a loophole that Mr. Trump took advantage of by declaring that there’s a crisis at the border, contrary to all evidence.”

It goes on to argue that “[s]trengthening the National Emergencies Act would erect a wall against any president, not just Mr. Trump, who insists on creating emergencies where none exist.”


The Times, thus, makes two points. First, the National Emergencies Law doesn’t define “emergency” and is thus subject to abuse. Okay, fair enough. But the Times then goes to state that the notion that “there’s a crisis at the border [is] contrary to all evidence” and that no emergency currently exists. Yet, a front-page story in The New York Times – on the very same day – carries the headline “Record Numbers Crossing to US , Deluging Agents” and reports that the number of migrant families crossing the southwest border “has once again broken records, with unauthorized entries nearly double what they were a year ago…”

Wait, there’s more. The article goes on to quote Kevin K. McAleenan, commissioner of Customs and Border Protection, who told reporters, “The system is well beyond capacity and remains at the breaking point.… This is clearly both a border security and a humanitarian crisis.”

The article states, “The nation’s top border enforcement officer painted a picture of processing centers filled to capacity, border agents struggling to meet medical needs and thousands of exhausted members of grant families crammed into a detention system that was not built to house them – all while newcomers continue to arrive, sometimes by the busload, at the rate of 2,200 a day.”

Now, we know the Times claims to go to great lengths to underscore what it says is its policy of keeping its news and editorial operations totally separate to ensure that opinions do not seep into its reportage – but this is quite ridiculous.