Donald Trump’s struggle with the US Congress to get the support of Congressional leaders for funding a border wall with Mexico is not new. Once in June Trump had warned that he would shut down the government if the requested budget was not allocated by September.

Trump has demanded 25 billion dollars to complete the border wall but the Senate plans to allocate only 1.6 billion. However, preliminary estimates by US Border Guard Authorities show that 11 billion dollars are enough to build the 600 km wall, and despite Trump’s election campaign slogans, Mexico is not willing to take part in the funding. Trump’s declared policy for the need to erect the border wall is the US national security in terms of preventing human and drug trafficking which would also block the flood of immigrants entering the US from Mexico.

Currently, the funding of the construction of the US-Mexico border has become a bargaining chip between Trump and Congress. The result of this bargaining depends on the bargaining power of the parties; based on the logic of bargaining game, the bargaining power of Trump is equal to the cost of the Democrats and the Congress if they disagree with his demand in comparison to the cost of their agreement to the terms set by Trump.

In other words, if the cost difference between Congressional opposition to Trump and the cost of agreeing with Trump, is bigger than the difference between the opposition and approval of Trump with the Congressional funding, then the bargaining power will be in favour of Trump position. In order to show his bargaining power, Trump has shut down many federal government agencies and offices since Saturday and has warned that the shutdown may continue till January when the Democrats return to control the House of Representatives. Trump has exempted federal staff from work on Christmas day. Thus, nearly 800,000 federal employees must either go to work or stay home without being paid.

Now the cost of Congressional opposition to the Trump decision is equal to the loss sustained by the US economy and politics due to the shutdown of the federal government, which could even threaten its financial markets. The cost of their approval of the Trump scheme is a budget allocation to build the wall that would increase as high as Trump’s demand, and subsequently, the funding would put pressure on the value of the US dollar. The pressure is similar to the burden imposed on the US dollar and the government’s debts by Barrack Obama under a scheme whereby the government embarked on reforming the US financial structure after the 2009 crisis. 

What are the cost of Trump’s opposition and agreement with the Congress? Vice President Mike Pence offered the Senate a 1.2 billion dollars as an alternative to the 5 billion dollars initial funding, but the US Senate’s position is to allocate a maximum of 1.3 billion dollars to the border defence budget; therefore, the cost of the Trump opposition to the Congressional plan means continuation of the bargaining, which generates problems for the US economy. Meantime, non-realization of the Mexico wall scheme could deal another blow to Trump’s personality who has huge amounts of moral and financial scandals in his record. The cost of Trump’s agreement with the Congressional plan would mean his consent to minimal funding which is a very small token of ambition to show off as a job-creating hero and a person who builds walls around his country to boost the national economy. Perhaps we can sum up this cost difference in dissent and consensus in one phrase: Damaging the already tarnished credit of Trump!

Now you have to compare the cost difference! An important component of this comparison is the adoption of the Trump Plan counting on the Democrats’ credibility, and they need to be able to attract the trust of the public opinion for the 2020 election campaign. The response of public opinion and taxpayers to the consequences of both demands is decisive. A feeling of insecurity as a result of the continued government shutdown and worrying about the future of the US economy can end up in Trump’s favour. In other words, this favour originates from his position as the president of the United States, just like the case with Obama in the two previous terms! Hence, bargaining is expected to continue, and ultimately, public reaction to the bargaining positions of the two sides will determine the outcome of the dispute.