To fight Trump’s funding freezes, states try a new gambit: Withholding federal payments

https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/politics-news/trumps-funding-freezes-states-new-gambit-withholding-federal-money-rcna215212

48 comments

  3. And then the Trump admin gonna send ICE agents to arrest blue states officials, and then blue states gonna have a stand off with ICE agents, then 1860s here we go

  4. I mean, its justified when red states are no longer acting like a union anymore.

  5. It’s about time we stop enabling the red states’ toxic trailer trash boyfriend. 

    He’s not even pretending to be a president for all of us. The tap should have been turned off long ago. 

    If this leads to mindless violence against the blue states, so be it. We can defend ourselves. It’s better than throwing innocent lives away to feed a senile narcissist and his idiot neo-Nazi fanclub. 

  6. MAGAts like to pretend like Biden was the worst president. I won’t say he was “good” either, but at least his admin functioned.

  7. There’s an idea. The GOP is supposed to be about states’ rights. Let’s see how quickly they change their tune and expose themselves for their hypocrisy.

  10. He can negotiate with the 50 micro nations the Supreme Court just created.

  11. In Wisconsin, the bills are unlikely to move forward because Republicans control both chambers of the Legislature. But the trajectory of the bills in Maryland, New York and Connecticut — where Democrats control the legislatures and governorships — is an open question.

    The same is true in Washington, where Democratic lawmakers plan to introduce similar bills next session.

    “It’s a novel concept,” said Washington state Sen. Manka Dhingra. “I don’t think states have ever been in this position before … where there’s someone making arbitrary decisions on what to provide funding for and what not to provide funding for, contrary to current rules and laws and congressional allocation of funds.”

    Legal experts have raised substantial questions about the hurdles such bills would face if they were enacted.

    For one, they said, the U.S. Constitution’s supremacy clause clearly gives the federal government precedence over states, which could complicate legal arguments defending such laws — even though it remains an open legal question whether the executive branch has the power to single-handedly control funding.

    More immediate practical obstacles, they explained, stem from the fact that there’s vastly more money flowing from the federal government to the states than the other way around.

    “So withholding state payments to the federal government, even if there were no other obstacles, isn’t likely to change very much,” said David Super, a professor at the Georgetown University Law Center who specializes in administrative and constitutional law.

    Super added that states withholding money could potentially further worsen the status of programs affected by federal cuts.

    “There’s also the potential that some of the money going to the federal government has to be paid as a condition for the state receiving one or another kind of benefit for itself or for its people,” he said. “The federal government could say, ‘You didn’t make this payment, therefore you’re out of this program completely.’”

    But that doesn’t mean states, working in the current hostile political environment, shouldn’t try, said Jon Michaels, a professor at the UCLA School of Law who specializes in the separation of powers and presidential power.

    “Where can you try to claw back money in different ways? Not because it’s going to make a huge material difference for the state treasury or for the people of the state, but just to essentially show the federal government like, ‘Hey, we know what you’re doing and we don’t like it,’” he said. “States need to be enterprising and creative and somewhat feisty in figuring out their own scope of authority and the ways in which they can challenge the law.”

    But another potential drawback is one foreseen by the Democratic lawmakers themselves: further retribution from Trump.

    “We would all be foolish to not acknowledge that the feds hold more cards than states do with respect to the budget,” said Moon, the Maryland legislator. “There’s certainly a risk of retaliation by the White House.”

  12. Finally. Damn. We need to hit them where it hurts and that’s in the treasury, there is no reason the 4th largest economy in the world should be contributing to marines being deployed in its own streets. The parts of the world that drive this country want no part of this, and we need to be heard. Let the red states rot in their ignorant hubris or join, finally, civilized society in the modern age.

  13. Why are we paying the government to destroy us? Taco isn’t even representing his base letalone people who didnt vote for him.

  14. The union is dead. Civil War 2 everyone. There’s no united states anymore. Every state will have it’s own laws and rules and I agree why should my successful state fund your failed state because of the other people’s incompetence. It’s about time we stop funding the federal government that only objective is war and lining politicians pockets.

  15. The last time Americans faced tarrifs this high it was a tea tarrif and we were colonists.

    We wrote an entire declaration of Independence over it and fought a war.

    No Kings, No Tarrifs, No Tsars.

  17. Surprised PA hasn’t done this yet. Josh is an excellent governor who seems to actually give a shit.

  18. The GOP is wholly corrupt trash and they don’t deserve handouts from blue states that they’ll use to make the wealthy in red states more wealthy. That being said, I wonder if this doesn’t play into MAGA hands by defunding the federal government. They’ve wanted to do that since Reconstruction.

  19. Good. People in the red states should know who butters their bread.

  20. “In all four states, the bills direct state officials to withhold payments owed by the states to the federal government if federal agencies have acted in contravention of judicial orders or have taken unlawful actions to withhold funds previously appropriated by Congress.”

    So the supreme court says it legal and the states back down

  21. I only hope California jumps on this trend, cuz that would absolutely fuck over the federal government.

  22. I’ve been waiting so long for this. It’s one of the first things I expected after he started specifically attacking blue states.

  23. About time. Just do it for the sake of sanity in America.

  24. They’re gonna need those funds to wage lawsuits against the fascists

  26. If the federal laws of the United States aren’t binding to the President or Congress or the Supreme Court, then they are not binding to anybody.

  27. Change your withholding on your W-4 so the facist fed fucks don’t get your money. Put it in an interest bearing account and if we have a government in 2026 then perhaps they can get paid? Fucking facist fucks

  28. I’m all for blue withholding. Good. The red states will start to collapse and we can call it Donald’s 7th bankruptcy. It will have his name all over it, because he’s just a bully. When you stand up to him, he fails.

  29. What happens if a large percentage of us claim maximum dependents throughout all this as protest, and with a crippled IRS…

  30. Good.  The administration chose to be silent when two state level politicians were killed.  Treating this like normal politics is a surefire way to lose.

  31. You mean .. not pay federal taxes? Couldn’t the IRS arrest you or something if you haven’t paid federal taxes?

  32. On the positive side, the SC just ruled that some schmuck on the bench in Texas cant declare it illegal nationwide!

  33. I’ll gladly contribute and not pay my federal taxes

  34. Trump will invade rebellious Blue states and cities with the armed forces Americans placed at his disposal.

  35. I was really curious about the mechanics of this. It was always my impression that most money the feds get from the states is paid directly by individuals and businesses. How would the states withold it?

    There are a few sources that come directly from the states. I’m not sure what the total impact would be. I had to scroll way into the article to find this.

    >Payments available for withholding include the federal taxes collected from the paychecks of state employees, as well as grant payments owed back to the federal government.

  36. How will Alabama pay its bills if California doesn’t pay its taxes?

  37. Now if Newsom wasn’t full of hot air, California would be on this list too. That would cause some real pain.

  38. Do they even care? They are dismantling the federal government, and this would almost seem to help them.

  39. > 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.

    California: where are you?

  42. This will never work. Trump will go jail the people who are holding the money and bring in DOGE to hack it into flowing again.

  43. So I don’t have to pay federal taxes anymore either right?

  44. One of the founding principles of our country is no taxation without representation.

  45. I asked about this weeks ago and was laughed at? Why are we paying the federal government for access to programs we gave them money for. Just for them to cut funding and use the money for their pleasure?

  46. New Jersey has f*cking had it with subsidizing the Red states. Back in his first disastrous term, Trump and his Congressional sycophantic fellators killed the SALT deduction which cost Jersey a lot. Then came Jared and Trump’s FU to NJ during Covid (cuz our Governor wouldn’t kiss his ass). So, yeah, NJ should withhold federal payments until Trump, Tuberville and Johnson kiss our asses.

Comments are closed.