As President Trump looks set to declare a national emergency in an attempt to fund his proposed border wall, the question on everyone's mind is: Can he get away with that? Two legal experts from Fox News and CNN have some opinions on the matter — and they're the opposite of what you might expect from each network.

First up is Fox News' Andrew Napolitano, who argued both on-air and in an op-ed that Trump's attempt to get around Congress to fund the wall by diverting funds set aside for other purposes won't fly.

"The Supreme Court has made it very clear, even in times of emergency, the president of the United States of America cannot spend money unless it has been authorized by the Congress," Napolitano said. He compared the situation to President Harry Truman trying to seize steel mills without the authorization of Congress in 1952, which the Supreme Court ruled he lacked the authority to do. Napolitano suggested Trump won't even go through with this and that it's just a "bargaining technique," adding, "This 'declaring an emergency and spending money however I want' is not going to happen."

But over on CNN, legal analyst Jeffrey Toobin argued Trump diverting money toward the wall after declaring a national emergency is "probably" legal, or at least "unlikely to be stopped by the court," per HuffPost. He had two main reasons, one being that the president's emergency powers are fairly broad. But the other is that he doesn't see the courts finding a plaintiff who'd have standing to sue over it "at any early point in the process." Therefore, even though Toobin made clear both on air and in a New Yorker op-ed that Trump shouldn't circumvent Congress in this way, he said that "at least in the short-term, I think that if President Trump wanted to do this, the courts would let him." Brendan Morrow

Saturday's third annual Women's March is expected to draw smaller crowds than in previous years thanks to accusations of anti-Semitism among national organizers.

Former Democratic National Committee chair Rep. Debbie Wasserman-Schultz (D-Fla.) formally withdrew her participation Friday, saying she "cannot associate with the national march's leaders and principles, which refuse to completely repudiate anti-Semitism and all forms of bigotry."

Other prominent speakers and sponsors from past years — including Sen. Kamala Harris (D-Calif.), Sen. Kirsten Gillibrand (D-N.Y.), the Democratic National Committee, the Southern Poverty Law Center, and NARAL — have cut ties as well. Most did not issue specific statements explaining their decision.

For those who do participate, events are organized in Washington, D.C., as well as hundreds of other cities nationwide and around the world. Policy focuses this year include the minimum wage, health care, and opposition to President Trump.

Read The Week's Shikha Dalmia here on the controversy and divisions within the march's ranks. Bonnie Kristian

President Trump on Twitter Friday evening announced plans for a Saturday afternoon statement on his proposed border wall construction and the partial government shutdown:

Trump did not offer any further details on the nature of his announcement, nor did the White House press team respond to inquiries on the subject. "I'm not going to get ahead of the president, but I can assure he's going to continue fighting for border security. He's going to continue looking for the solution to end the humanitarian and national security crisis at the border," said White House Press Secretary Sarah Huckabee Sanders.

CNN reported Friday night an unnamed senior administration official said the president plans to offer a deal to congressional Democrats and will not make at this point an emergency declaration so he can use military funding for wall construction. Bonnie Kristian

President Trump may not be the only one in legal jeopardy after BuzzFeed News' bombshell report.

In Friday's report, sources told BuzzFeed News that Trump directed his former lawyer Michael Cohen to lie to Congress about the Moscow Trump Tower project. But before that, the report says Trump's children "Ivanka and Donald Trump Jr. received regular, detailed updates about the real estate development from Cohen" — something Donald Trump Jr. has denied to Congress.

Cohen — who was reportedly in charge of the Trump Tower project — once said discussions with Russia about the project stopped in January 2016. He took that back in a guilty plea last November, saying he lied to Congress and affirming that discussions actually continued beyond January. That statement contradicted Trump Jr.'s insistence that discussions ended earlier, though as Trump Jr. claimed to the Senate Intelligence Committee in September 2017, he knew "very little" about what was happening with the project anyway.

BuzzFeed News' Friday report explicitly contradicts that statement, meaning Trump Jr. would've lied to Congress just like Cohen has admitted to doing. It also provides a potential explanation for a smattering of contacts Trump Jr. has had with various Russians, as pointed out by Axios. And it all helps solidify an August 2018 report from The Washington Post, which says the president worried Trump Jr. "inadvertently may have wandered into legal ­jeopardy."

Read more about the BuzzFeed News report's consequences for Trump Jr. at Axios. Kathryn Krawczyk

Less than a year ago, all but three Senate Democrats were willing to give President Trump $25 billion for his border wall. But what looked like an inconsequential "no" vote at the time could drive a winning campaign in 2020, Bloomberg reports.

It seems almost unthinkable that in February 2018, 44 out of 47 Senate Democrats said they'd give Trump wall funding in exchange for citizenship for the undocumented Dreamers. The government is currently shut down over one-fifth of the money Democrats were once willing to relinquish, and party leaders are now uniformly opposed to funding more than $2.7 billion of it.

But Democrat weren't so united a year ago. Potential 2020 candidate Sen. Amy Klobuchar (D-Minn.) co-sponsored the 2018 border compromise, and nearly every other senator rumored to be or officially running in 2020 backed it. Sen. Kamala Harris (D-Calif), though, voted against the failed 2018 bill, saying she wouldn't use "taxpayer money ...to implement this administration's anti-immigrant agenda." Immigration activist Frank Sharry thinks Harris was thinking about 2020 when she made the choice. It would make for a perfect "30-second ad coming in the primary" to say all these other Democrats "voted for" a wall, Sharry told Bloomberg.

Even Sen. Bernie Sanders' (I-Vt.) former campaign press secretary, Symone Sanders, conceded to Harris' "winning message," telling Bloomberg she "was on the right side of history when it came to that vote." After all, in this ongoing shutdown squabble, Democrats don't want to be seen "giv[ing Trump] the money to make him stop hurting people," as MSNBC's Joy-Ann Reid puts it.

Harris isn't officially running yet, but has reportedly decided to announce her decision soon — perhaps around Martin Luther King Jr. Day. Read more about Harris' advantage at Bloomberg. Kathryn Krawczyk

The White House may not be worried about climate change, but the Pentagon sure is.

About two-thirds of the U.S. military's priority installations are vulnerable to current or future effects of climate change, a report from the Department of Defense found.

The report warned about rising sea levels flooding coastal bases and the dangers of drought-fueled wildfires spreading to bases inland, Bloomberg reports. Coastal bases on the East Coast and in Hawaii are in the most jeopardy, but drought vulnerabilities are widespread across the U.S., per the report.

The Pentagon's findings contradict President Trump's previous denial of climate change's devastating effects. Former Defense Secretary Jim Mattis recognized the importance of evaluating climate change, saying during his confirmation hearings that "the Department of Defense must pay attention to potential adverse impacts generated by this phenomenon."

The report says the Pentagon now plans on incorporating climate resilience in all future decision-making processes regarding resources, rather than making climate a separate program. Marianne Dodson

Immigrant detainees have to use three days worth of wages to purchase tuna or a miniature deodorant at a California immigrant detention center, Reuters reports.

Daily wages may be as little as a few cents an hour at the Adelanto Detention Facility in California, and a can of commissary tuna costs $3.25 — more than four times the price at a nearby Target, per Reuters.

Immigration activists say facilities like Adelanto intentionally limit access to essentials like toothpaste and even food in an effort to force or coerce inmates into cheap labor. The paltry wages are then redirected back into commissaries where detainees buy ramen noodles and soap. A spokesman for the Geo Group, which owns the Adelanto facility and is the nation's largest for-profit prison operator, denied these allegations, saying the meals served are approved by dieticians, the labor program is strictly voluntary and wage rates are federally mandated, Reuters reports.

Concerns about commissary in U.S. immigration lockups aren't new — a 2017 report from the U.S. Office of the Inspector General documented problems at ICE lockups, finding spoiled, moldy and expired food at some, per Reuters.

Eleven U.S. senators sent letters last November to Geo Group and CoreCivic, the nation's second-largest for-profit prison operator, calling out the "perverse profit incentive at the core of the private prison business," Reuters reports. Marianne Dodson