The novel and untested approach has been introduced by Democratic lawmakers in at least four states.
Democratic legislators mostly in blue states are attempting to fight back against Donald Trump’s efforts to withhold funding from their states with bills that aim to give the federal government a taste of its own medicine.
The novel and untested approach — so far introduced in Connecticut, Maryland, New York and Wisconsin — would essentially allow states to withhold federal payments if lawmakers determine the federal government is delinquent in funding owed to them. Democrats in Washington state said they are in the process of drafting a similar measure.
These bills still have a long way to go before becoming law, and legal experts said they would face obstacles. But they mark the latest efforts by Democrats at the state level to counter what they say is a massive overreach by the Trump administration to cease providing federal funding for an array of programs that have helped states pay for health care, food assistance and environmental protections.
Bc that’s the difference between these groups. One believes in the law and what it means. The other doesnt
So while yes, it would be great to see the Dems play hardball they can’t without failing to uphold what they believe is right
Is it naive? Yeah probably. Will it be enough? Probably not
But going against the fed in a way that is considered “illegal” could be seen as declaring civil war. And while the fed can’t live without it’s taxes it can bomb you to hell if provoked
To anyone paying attention, we’ve been in a cold civil war since at least 2016, if not before that.
https://www.politico.com/news/2024/07/04/leader-of-the-pro-trump-project-2025-suggests-there-will-be-a-new-american-revolution-00166583
This is Kevin D. Roberts of the Heritage Foundation. Point one is that he promotes the idea that the second American Revolution will be “bloodless” only if the left allows it to be, and point two is he describes it as something that is in the process of happening. That means it has already started and has been in motion.
We didn’t fire the first shot of the war here and I’m sick and fucking tired of the people acting like us pushing back is “declaring civil war.” No the fuck it isn’t they declared war on us decades ago now. What a fucking joke. This is classic DARVO, Deny Attack Reverse Victim and Offender. It turns the victims of a cold civil war into the aggressors when the actual aggressors literally passing bills that will fucking cause institutional social murder at a grand scale. It’s abuser tactics, plain and simple, at a national level.
Please don’t play into this false narrative, the civil war is on, us fighting back isn’t declaring it. Please stop letting liars and abusers dictate the rules of reality and what we accept as truth. You’re letting their lies set the bounds for how we operate and it’s that kind of bullshit that got us here in the first place. Stop giving them deference and treating their falsehoods as truths.
EDIT: Trump literally just suggested if Zohran Mamdani becomes mayor of New York City that he will withhold federal funds. We didn’t start this war. Any suggestion otherwise is bullshit.
https://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/americas/us-politics/trump-nyc-mayor-mamdani-funding-b2779141.html
Fuck this asshole. “It won’t hurt if you don’t resist” isn’t a civil war, it’s a hostile coup led by jackboot-supported fascists.
It’s literally also how abusers speak to their abused spouses. “Look what you made me do to you.”
There are a lot of candidates, but he should be one of the first ones against the wall when the revolution comes.
I don’t know about you but I’m sick of being on the team that follows the rules and loses to the criminals that completely ignore the rules.
Not making a payment is seen as civil war? If its already at that point we’re already done.
However, realistically not making a payment won’t earn you bombs. It might earn guns though. What would that look like if a state withheld payment? Would a fed law enforcer with a gun go into an office, up to some state employee sitting an a cube responsible for making money transfers as part of their work, and have the gun in their face or threatening arrest if they don’t make the payment to the fed? Would it instead be indictments of state government officials, and perhaps jailing them? Who would they jail? The Governor that signed the bill into law? The state legislature for putting the measure forward?
When high level state officials or low level state office workers start getting arrested, that moves the game to a different level. That escalation may have knock on effects on the citizenry. This would be especially true if the reason the state would be withholding the payment from the fed would be for cutting of services from the fed.
deleted by creator
I feel like you’re missing a point here. It’s significant that this isn’t just
It’s that the federal government has made a commitment to provide funds to the state (e.g. the broadband construction funds, funds to build EV charging stations, etc.) and the federal government is now refusing to disburse those funds because the current administration has decided it doesn’t like paying the bills the previous administration incurred, at least to states Trump feels aren’t adequately supportive of his policies. The proposal in this case is to withhold delivery of funds the state is supposed to give the government in order to offset the funds the government is also contractually obligated to deliver.
I agree with you that this specific supreme court would definitely rule in favor of the feds, but I definitely don’t think the case is as absurdly one-sided as you seem to find it. I think a different court could probably find precedent for this kind of dispute if they were so inclined.
deleted by creator
Yeah, I think we just disagree about this. You’re implying that letting this go forward would be giving in to the state acting capriciously, but that’s really not what this is. The states have literally already started spending the money–hiring contractors and so forth to physically build things–based on the funds that the government had already decided to send them, but is now arbitrarily yanking back. Note that this is different from “we are accustomed to receiving funds for this”; instead it’s “you made a specific commitment to provide X funds for Y purpose, and are now suddenly stiffing us on the bill.” In that light, withholding a portion of the funds that the state ostensibly owes the government in order to make up that unexpected shortfall really isn’t that unreasonable. You keep portraying this as them withholding money “because they disagree with federal policies,” and saying “what those policies are and why is completely irrelevant,” but the policy they disagree with is the sudden and arbitrary withholding of previously-committed funds to the state, and they are withholding state funds to the feds as a direct way of offsetting that deficit. That makes it feel extremely relevant.
I just don’t think it absolutely has to be the slippery slope you’re portraying it as. I’m getting into technicalities because we’re discussing the law and precedent, and technicalities matter a whole freaking lot when you’re dealing with the law. There’s a reason descending into technicalities is referred to in roleplaying games as “rules lawyering”.
And as for highly populous states having a larger influence on federal policy…isn’t that just democracy? Power derives from the consent of the governed, and at the moment that consent is at a particularly low ebb.
In any case, yeah, I think we just disagree on this, and it’s all moot in the face of the specific court in power. I’ll let you get the last word if you want to reply, but I’ll probably drop it at this point.
It’s not saying the states are acting capriciously or even unreasonably, it’s just that the system would treat it as such
The system would declare the proper remediation is the states suing for their funds and having the justice system fix it. If the justice system so orders the dispersement and federal gov refuses to pay out, then I could imagine the settlement terms permitting the state to deduct owed funds from their payments. If the justice system fails to rule appropriately, then the state doesn’t have legal recourse, but it may still make sense to take their recourse anyway.
No, it would be blue states (not just California) setting aside in escrow money owed to the federal government, while pursuing a legal suit for the federal government to follow through on its commitments. This is a legit approach for an individual with a complaint against a business like a landlord, so it seems like you could pursue similar logic
deleted by creator
I think this is a discussion about what the hypothetical ‘legal’ way for this to go down would be. It’s not really an assertion that it would actually work, but just a description of what the process would be.
This has deviated from “would such a move be justified?” to “how could such a move be legally pursued?”. It may still end in the same place, but we can’t pretend the courts would treat the “just stop paying without a judgement” as “legal”. Might proceed in an illegal fashion as the only reasonable way through though.
Then the solution is for the blue states to establish their own banking systems that the fed has no control or influence over. When a court tells the California bank to transfer money, they’ll just send that email to the trash folder.
The supreme court has discretion to elevate a case to themselves immediately if they so want to. Just like they have the discretion to refuse to hear a case at all. They just rarely exercise that discretion and mostly take cases that come to them on appeals.
So really the moment it becomes a lawsuit, the SCOTUS could elevate it to themselves (given the severity of the situation and the need for immediate resolution) and make a ruling without waiting for it to come to them on appeals.
I would assume that ruling would go exactly how you expect tho, certainly
We need to just ignore the Supreme Court entirely. They’re a fundamentally illegitimate institution. Their opinions are worth less than soiled toilet paper. Ignore them.
You ignore the ways that the state can get around this. There are other legal constructions that can recategorize taxable income and any state that decides that new federal mandates are unconstitutional both nationwide and statewide can dedicate a good number of attorneys and judges to their cause. Additionally, those who live in the state can be recruited to change some of their buying habits, their earning paths… so that ultimately, there is much less that can be up for federal taxation as an individual (sharing economies, wellbeing metrics etc.).
The entire basis for the Constitution’s Bill of Rights, was to strike a balance between State and Federal power. It is a contract agreed to, by all parties. And contract law is very clear on what happens when one side breaches their contractual obligations.
These threats by Trump constitute a breach of that contract. If the States withholding tax revenue is considered illegal, then so is withholding Federal funding from the States. The State pays for those benefits, through their tax revenue. The Federal government has no right to withhold those benefits, without also voiding the contract that requires payment.
You don’t have to pay for services you did not receive.
Removed by mod
The law does allow you to withhold payments to someone who owes you. For example, it’s legitimate to withhold rent from your landlord as long as you are setting it aside and have a legitimate habitability case ongoing.
This should follow the same logic