By John Q. Hosedrinker 
In response to President Trump’s efforts to withhold federal funding, Democratic legislators in several states are introducing bills that would allow them to withhold state payments to the federal government. The proposed legislation, introduced in states like Connecticut, Maryland, New York, and Wisconsin, aims to counter the administration’s actions, which have frozen funds for various programs. While these bills face legal challenges and are unlikely to significantly impact the flow of funds, they represent a symbolic effort to challenge the federal government’s actions and protect state residents. Legal experts point out that the U.S. Constitution’s supremacy clause gives precedence to the federal government, but also recognize the potential for retaliation from the Trump administration.
Read the original article here
To fight Trump’s funding freezes, states try a new gambit: Withholding federal payments. The idea, it seems, is simple: if the federal government, under a perceived hostile administration, is withholding funds, states can retaliate by withholding payments they owe to the feds. It’s a move that, if successful, could send a powerful message, but also one fraught with legal and practical challenges. The concept has gained traction, particularly among states where the current administration’s actions are viewed with suspicion or outright opposition.
The impetus for this approach stems from a growing frustration. The feeling is that the federal government is not only failing to uphold its financial commitments but is actively weaponizing funding to punish states with opposing political views. This perception has driven lawmakers in several states to explore ways to push back. The states are essentially saying, “If you’re not going to play by the rules, we won’t either.” It’s a bold strategy, and it shows a clear escalation in the political tensions.
The states currently considering these measures – Connecticut, Maryland, New York, Wisconsin, and Washington – all share one thing in common: Democratic control in their legislatures. This suggests that the move is not merely a policy decision but a calculated political response to the current administration. The states see the need to push back. The political landscape is seen as one where the federal government is willing to use its financial power to punish dissent and reward political alignment.
However, the legal hurdles are significant. The supremacy clause of the U.S. Constitution clearly establishes the federal government’s precedence over states. This means that any state law that directly conflicts with federal law is likely to be struck down in court. And even if the administration is overstepping its bounds, it doesn’t change the legal order. While the executive branch’s power to unilaterally control funding is an open legal question, the states will be fighting from a position of disadvantage.
Moreover, the financial realities favor the federal government. Far more money flows from the federal government to the states than the other way around. States withholding payments, even if legally permissible, won’t have a huge impact on the federal budget.
The practical implications extend further. Some federal funds are tied to state payments. Withholding these payments could, ironically, worsen the very programs the states are trying to protect. The federal government could retaliate by pulling funding from the states, further damaging state-run programs.
Despite these challenges, some legal experts believe the states should at least attempt to use this tactic. It’s about demonstrating to the federal government that the states know what it is doing and disapprove of it. It is about showing that the states are unwilling to be bullied and that they are ready to fight back. While the states might not cause a financial crisis, they might force some changes.
Of course, there’s the very real risk of retaliation. The administration holds most of the financial cards, and it could choose to punish states that defy it. But states are already aware of the threat. They recognize that they could face further cuts in funding or even legal action.
The motivation is clear and stems from a growing sentiment of injustice. The states believe the federal government is overstepping its authority, violating judicial orders, and manipulating funds. They perceive a need to defend their interests. They’re essentially saying that the federal government can’t expect to get paid when it’s not playing fair. It’s a shot across the bow, a warning that these states will not passively accept what they perceive as an abuse of power.
The long-term impact of this strategy is uncertain. But it reflects the deep divisions within the country and the growing animosity between the states and the federal government. The situation may very well be resolved in court. It’s a high-stakes game with consequences that could reshape the relationship between the states and the federal government for years to come.