This could force the next administration to look at changes to NAFTA, which would have repercussions for America’s largest trading partners.” It was the most significant political clash in the country in recent weeks since the October debate over a potential government shutdown. The disagreement over whether to build the wall has put the Trump administration in the odd position of needing to find money for a border barrier, but not being willing to admit it. The administration has said it will not pass any legislation to give the president funding for the project, but it could find funding elsewhere. In an interview Thursday night on CBS’s “Face the Nation,” Mulvaney acknowledged that it would require “extra money” to do so. He said that “ultimately, Congress has to fund the construction of this wall.” He added that “Congress appropriated money for border security in 1990,” so it could do so again. The White House chief of staff did not provide details on how the government would pay for it. Asked specifically about whether the administration would use legal or illegal means to fund the wall, Mulvaney avoided a direct answer. “I’m not in the kick-the-can, we’ll-figure-it-out-in-a-month’s-time phase of this,” he said. “This is about getting something done in the short-term.” “I’m not going to do anything to give him an excuse to throw another temper tantrum because we’re not doing something he wanted. I’m not going to give him that excuse,” Mulvaney added. A White House spokesman declined to comment on whether the White House had discussed what legal authority Trump might invoke for the wall — such as the military spending in the National Emergencies Act that the president has suggested could be invoked to pay for his wall. Some lawmakers who supported Trump in 2016 are now making their displeasure with him known. In a private meeting of Senate Republicans on Thursday afternoon, Sen. Jeff Flake (R-Ariz.) warned his colleagues of Trump’s tendency to “lose it,” according to multiple senators and aides who attended. He urged them to rally to the president’s side in the days ahead to save his administration from potential disaster, said the people familiar with the meeting. In January, he became the first Republican senator to call for an end to a national emergency declaration, which he said “would set a precedent that is dangerous and would have unknown and potentially far-reaching implications.” For now, it is unclear how serious Trump is about pursuing his national emergency. In recent days, the president has not tweeted about the idea and has declined to voice his support or opposition in public. Yet the possibility that a second administration could seek to enforce its will through a declaration has alarmed lawmakers across the political spectrum. At least two Republican senators — Mitt Romney (Utah) and Susan Collins (Maine) — joined all Democrats in the Senate in voting against Trump’s national emergency earlier this year. If any more Republicans sign on to join them, it could spell the end for Trump’s ability to move forward on the wall. But that appears increasingly unlikely. Mulvaney predicted Trump would veto any legislation that contains wall funding in it, saying “I think the president is pretty well dug in on this issue.” But Collins said she had not changed her mind on the issue. “I’m going to leave that to the courts, I’m going to leave that to the lawyers,” she told reporters Friday. In other words, the president could use a national emergency declaration to secure the money he needs to build the wall — and force it to Congress for approval — but not if it is attached to any legislation that would get his signature on it. Sen. Lindsey Graham (R-S.C.) argued that even if the wall was never built, Trump could claim a win by showing he was willing to take a bold stand in favor of border security. “He’s done a political stunt — I don’t give a shit what he says, he never should have started this — and now he’s got to finish it. Let’s get it done,” he said. “Then, once we get done with the money, we could probably do something that we can’t do now and that is to make permanent the number of beds at the border.” But the prospect of starting the process of building the wall — or giving away the money that would be used to build it — has already drawn criticism from liberal activists. The largest immigration rights group in the country, United We Dream, is planning a nationwide “#TrumpIsNotAboveTheLaw Tour,” which will include a rally in San Francisco on Sunday. One of the organizers, Cristina Jimenez, said the group was launching the campaign after a recent effort to pressure senators to block funding for the wall fell short. “I think right now we’re here and we’re fighting because the courts put us here,” she said. “If this administration follows through with this plan and starts taking money for a wall without any congressional approval, we have to come out against it because that is a blatant abuse of power and will set a horrible precedent for our democracy.” Trump’s comments Friday could revive interest in a bipartisan plan to spend more money on border security that was introduced earlier this year by Sens. Patrick Leahy (D-Vt.) and John Cornyn (R-Tex.). The measure includes funding for fencing, but not the bollard fencing Trump envisions. The funding in the bill already exists; it’s merely a matter of directing it to pay for the wall. A handful of Senate Republicans appear open to the idea, but it is not yet clear how many others would sign on. Sen. Chuck Grassley (R-Iowa), who chairs the Senate Finance Committee, said in a speech Thursday morning that a “national emergency is an overreaction” to a “problematic law enforcement issue.” “The president has to deal with Congress,” he said. Grassley said he supported legislation that allows the executive branch to transfer money, but not without oversight. Trump’s former White House adviser Steve Bannon, speaking to Fox News earlier this year, said: “They have to declare an emergency.” “The courts will back you on this. I think you’re going to get a national emergency. … It's been done many times before,” he said. “There's an emergency at the border; they call it ‘the surge,’ or ‘the caravan.’” Asked about the comments, White House deputy press secretary Hogan Gidley said in an email that there was no “magic national emergency powers slush fund.” “We look forward to having this case decided by the U.S. Supreme Court,” he added. Trump has also suggested several times in recent weeks that he could build the wall by waiving other funds Congress has appropriated for various programs. Last week, he told reporters that “I hope” he could declare an emergency and then decide how to spend the money. And in an interview last month with conservative radio host Rush Limbaugh, Trump said that “you can call it whatever you want,” but added that he did not want to do anything to hurt farmers. “We want to help our farmers. We like our farmers. But we want to make sure that they have opportunities,” he said. “But we are talking about national emergency.” Trump has suggested that he could pay for the wall using money from the Treasury Department’s asset forfeiture fund, which comes from criminal investigations. But the idea was rejected by some lawmakers on Thursday. Sen. Ron Johnson (R-Wis.), chair of the Senate Homeland Security Committee, said he had “never heard of any appropriations from Treasury for a wall,” adding that “there would be a huge problem of separation of powers.” Mulvaney, the budget director, said on Thursday that he and other officials had been “talking about, how do we do this?” and that “there is probably, at the end of the day, some money that will go to it.” But Mulvaney said it would be “unlikely” the president would tap into a separate pot of money, citing concerns about a potential government shutdown in the spring. “That would be bad for the country,” he added. Trump has suggested that the border wall money could come from various pots of funds, including from Department of Homeland Security, the Department of Defense, and possibly from funds Congress has set aside for military construction projects. Democrats and outside groups immediately shot down the idea. “That money is not in the Defense Department,” said Sen. Robert Menendez (D-N.J.). An hour after Trump’s news conference, the Democratic chairs of six House committees wrote a letter to him asking that they meet with him to discuss funding the wall. And in the latest sign that they do not trust him to actually build it, both the Democratic chairmen of the House Armed Services Committee and Intelligence Committee wrote to Defense Secretary James Mattis Friday morning, urging him to consider turning down any Pentagon funding for the wall. “We would encourage you to reject this request and to ensure that any funds for the border wall that your department provides will not come from the military or defense budget,” said the letter to Mattis from R