Trump shouldn't sign it. Maybe they can override a pocket veto, maybe not, but Trump shouldn't sign it without the money for the wall. Without a doubt there's way more than $24 billion in pork and favors in that budget, so, if they won't negotiate away some of their own goodies to give Trump a wall, don't sign it.
I say pocket veto rather than outright veto because it's a better head exploder that way. The dims would all be like "see, that's why he has to be impeached !! He's starving chipmunks and won't pay for fire hydrant mounted toilet paper dispensers in our cities". Just more fun all the way round.
JMHo
“Trump shouldn’t sign it without the money for the wall”
I mentioned in a post after your’s (#15) that the backdoor for plentiful wall funding was left open in the Defense budget (NDAA). I think that is why the House had to vote out the Defense bill first - as a guarantee that the Dems could not double cross on the wall at the last minute.
So this is just Kabuki theater where the Dems are allowed to posture as if they stopped a bunch of wall funding as political cover, while the reality is that they knowingly left the door open for the President to get all the wall money he needs in 2020, in return for lots of pork barrel spending on their own pet projects.
Bottom Line: The needed barrier identified in the Comprehensive Plan (1,100 miles) for full operational control of the Southern border, is nearly completely funded with the appropriations bills going forward.
Essentially, the wall that was needed, is going to largely be finished, or funded and on contract, in President Trump’s first term.
It is a promise kept, despite incredible opposition.