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.
Laws not mattering anymore works both ways.
I’m down for this all across the board. Anything to take his power away.
They need to stop being such little bitches and just do it.
California needs to get on this
Just get divorced already.
Nawh we’re gonna do a Taiwan-style One America policy
Wait wait wait! Lemme get on to the other side of the line so I can live in a blue state. Just 3 more months!
Yeah keep attacking CA, NY, MA, shithead.
Without their money you’re literally fucked.
Trump will be fine.
The US government will be fucked.
There is, a difference.
That comma is making my balls itch…
Is it not simply a matter of contract anyway? The states agree to pay the federal government in exchange for the security and cooperation that the federation brings. If the federal government is no longer holding up it’s end of that agreement no matter the reason, why should the States be obligated to remain in that agreement?
I also see it as an honest matter of balance … what they’re budgettary short on from not receiving anymore from the government they must fill from own means that will be deducted from outgoing federal contributions.
For example Fema is to be dismantled and states need to make their own local disaster funds, meaning less budget to go to the federal government…
Ofcourse this will be a sour pill for the maga government and they’ll use the SC to thwart it and enforce full payments to the federal government if they can get away with it.
Well legally, because that agreement simply declared the new situation. There’s no exit clause, it’s just how things are now.
Morally, nothing. Fuck the federal government. We technically deleted the first, the articles of confederation, we can delete this one.
and legal experts said they would face obstacles.
Do they? Those at the top of government aren’t following the rules anymore. Why should states still be bound to do so?
Those at the top of government aren’t following the rules anymore. Why should states still be bound to do so?
Republicans are ignoring the laws applied to themselves, but not the ones applied to other groups, and they’re in control. They will for sure use the law against states that do this. That doesn’t mean they shouldn’t do it though.
Why should states still be bound to do so?
That’s going to depend on who whatever law enforcement agency the feds sic on the state leaders are loyal to.
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
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
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.
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.
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
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
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.).
I feel like you’re missing a point here. It’s significant that this isn’t just
they disagree with federal policies that are affecting them.
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
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
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.
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.
could be seen as declaring civil war.
To anyone paying attention, we’ve been in a cold civil war since at least 2016, if not before that.
“We ought to be really encouraged by what happened yesterday, and in spite of all of the injustice — which of course friends and audience of this show, of our friend Steve, know — we are going to prevail,” Mr. Roberts said, alluding to Mr. Bannon’s imprisonment.
He went on to say that “the radical left” was “apoplectic” because “our side is winning” and said, “And so I come full circle in this response and just want to encourage you with some substance that we are in the process of the second American Revolution, which will remain bloodless if the left allows it to be.”
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.
Point one is that he promotes the idea that the second American Revolution will be “bloodless” only if the left allows it to be
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.
There are a lot of candidates, but he should be one of the first ones against the wall when the revolution comes.
It’s literally also how abusers speak to their abused spouses. “Look what you made me do to you.”
Removed by mod
If we become the people we’re fighting, then victories become losses and our motivations die.
Downvotes? No one reads Animal Farm in secondary school anymore?
wE gO hIgH
Fuck off with supplicant nonsense. This form of “resistance” is largely what got us here in the first place.
What a bunch of liberal nonsense
I keep seeing this idea, and I keep asking how is could even be mechanically accomplished, but so far no answers found. My understanding is most of the money simply flows directly to the Fed via our income taxes. Where in the process can the State interrupt that process?
Wouldn’t basically everyone have to manually go adjust their W2 withholdings in order to stop paying the Fed?
I was wondering about that, too. The article says
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.
I have no idea how much that would add up to, and I wonder if the Feds would be able to go after individual employees for not having received the federal taxes they owe, leaving it to the employees to sue the State to reimburse them for the amount that was withheld.
The second one, grant payments owed back, would be a limited amount since the Feds would probably retaliate by cutting off future grant funding. Overall it doesn’t seem like a workable strategy.
No, none of this is possible because it violates supremacy law in every way imaginable (unfortunately). Even if the states withheld or delayed payments, the courts will almost always side with the federal government when it comes to taxes, even if said federal government is LITERALLY trying to do the same to the states.
We’d need rogue courts too
I mean, rule of law doesn’t matter anymore anyways.
So… The states could just … Ignore it? Just like the fed has been.
Yeah that’s true, let the chaos begin then
This is the truth. The executive is already choosing when they want to ignore courts, meaning the rule of law is already compromised. It’s only a matter of time before everyone takes the stance that laws are merely optional.
No, none of this is possible because it violates supremacy law in every way imaginable (unfortunately).
So? The Constitution is dead. Stop fellating its corpse.
States would need to set up special funds and force companies in their states to pay all withholding s into those funds, creating a middleman between tax payers and the federal government. Honestly, it’s a good idea even aside from present circumstances since it gives states additional options against the abuses of federal government.
Oooh, yes, a middleman system would be brilliant for this!
Honestly, states can change their rules… and enshrine and encourage/incentivise communal ownerships… like Co-ops, B-Corps, etc. in which there is not actual US currency involved but state sponsored services provided with credits (like HC, Agriculture) – people could exchanged things and labor for those credits. Those who are disabled would fall under a social safety net and do some things that they are able to do to acquire credits but on a different level and our collective labor should cover our vulnerable and disabled of every age.
deleted by creator
Please do this.
The states are currency users, and as such are intrinsically subservient to the currency issuer, namely the federal government.
The US federal government doesn’t need whatever money the states, or anyone else, pays it. Every cent a currency issuer receives is instantly obliterated from the economy, and conversely the origin of every cent is conjured out of thin air by their budget.
That said, the states withholding federal payments could work on the chucklefucks currently in charge, because many of them are likely to believe strongly in the fiction of zero-sum economics, but I’d hazard a critical mass hold a world view built on some other fantastical hallucination from hotboxing their collective farts.
That’s literally how it works, dunno why you’re getting downvoted
¯\_(ツ)_/¯
I’ve found the most difficult concept to dislodge from the terminally disengaged is that there’s no such thing as taxpayer money at the federal level.
It’s a tremendously useful weapon for those in power to wield when they need to convince the poor to vote against their interests.
This is an economic nightmare
That’s usually what happens when a political nightmare assumes one of the most powerful offices on the planet
I would be interested in seeing if this is actually a viable strategy for more wealthy states such as illinois and california because I’m getting tired of the borderline suicidal “they go low, we go high” rhetoric. I know theres things in place to make sure it can’t be done but the current admin isn’t playing by the rules and we can’t win if we keep trying to follow them. We need to start playing hardball with these clowns.
I’m sure Cali is getting sick of paying 80 billion more than they’re supposed to get back, only to have what you get back not even come to you.
I’m honestly surprised that newsom and pritzker haven’t talked about this. Illinois alone is 4% of what the government collects yearly. I think I’m gonna do some more digging into this.
Newsom has mentioned it. https://www.politico.com/news/2025/06/06/newsom-floats-withholding-federal-taxes-00393386
Oh he has ? Thanks for the link I’ll fs check it out
