Would you be willing to do a follow up to this article and explain in more detail the last sentence? What exactly could the president do to states? Thank you for all you do!
I think the main one is denying funding. Lots of ways the federal government can deny funding for basic things (infrastructure, education), but even scarier is failing to provide emergency funding/FEMA resources during a natural disaster.
Yes, exactly. For my state, California, being denied emergency funding for wildfires (thinking back to the pandemic when the sky was orange) would be in retaliation for going against an abortion ban, for example...especially considering we just codified it. Really hoping Trump sticks to letting states govern themselves. Maybe I shouldn't get my hopes up.
Trump would not sign for FEMA funding for Washington State town, Malden, which burned to the ground. It wasn’t until Biden took office- five months later- that FEMA aid was granted.
Thank you for bringing attention to this! I'm sure I'm not the only one who had forgotten (or not learned) about this situation:
"President Trump refused to approve a routine disaster declaration for Malden because he was feuding with Washington's Governor Jay Inslee, a Democrat. So that federal aid didn't start arriving until after President Biden took office and he finally signed the order. The irony for Hokonson is that most of his neighbors along this burnt out dirt road were Trump supporters. 'We suffered from that, if its intent was to harm us, it was effective'."
The Republican governors and AGS fought back against Obama's policies and likewise the Democratic anne fought against Trump's policies previously. How successful were they? And with this new supreme Court makeup since the last time, how likely do you think they will be to be successful now as the cases appeals themselves UPS the system?
Biden efforts for student loan forgiveness were overturned based on similar lawsuits. These kinds of suits can definitely be successful, but I think it's probably important for Governors and AGs to pick their battles - which is hard to do when a president like Trump is constantly pushing against the boundaries of law. Since SCOTUS is currently very conservative, the cases appealed to them will need to be water-tight.
As a Californian, I’m particularly curious if the federal government under Trump will resist sending federal disaster relief aid to California should we need it (such as for wildfires). Can he realistically withhold federal funds from any state? Thanks for this round-up. Feels like Democrats and Republicans are switching policy stances on the importance of “states’ rights.” I find the split-ticket voting very interesting and heartening in some ways.
Governors need to request that the president declare a state of emergency. So Trump could fail to declare a state of emergency. And then, even if a state of emergency is declared, presumably they could drag their feet in actually deploying the resources. (Somebody please correct me if I'm wrong on this).
I'm curious about this too, because it sounds like he was successful in delaying some funds the last time he was in office (and might have been successful in withholding them completely had he not been convinced by his staff that he'd be hurting his own voters).
This happened with Trump with Malden, a tiny town in Washington, that burned to the ground. Trump would not provide aid. It was over five months later that Biden took office and got them the aid.
Could you please talk more in depth regarding your point on the supremacy clause and abortion? While the Supreme Court overturned Roe based on a revocation of the privacy right they stated wasn’t in the Constitution, states are free to establish rights under their own constitutions that exceed those under the U.S. Constitution. The U.S Constitutional sets the floor, not the ceiling. Moreover, criminal law, except in a few areas (drug trafficking across borders, terrorism, etc.) is a matter of state law. Why is there an assumption that a national abortion ban would successfully preempt state laws and constitutions that protect abortion rights? Preemption only works if Congress has the right to act and not if any area of legislation is reserved to the states via the 10th amendment, no? I don’t want to see a national ban, but even if it passed would it not most likely be overturned by the courts?
This is very helpful. I listened to my attorney general give a briefing and press conference a few days ago where she addressed much of this. It will be interesting because AZ, where I live, has a Democratic governor, attorney general, Secretary of State and senators that represent us in Washington but the state legislature is pretty Republican. If anything the last 8 years and the next 4 has given me the opportunity to learn way more about how our government works.
Here's what I don't get. Regardless if you believe or not in climate change, or that it's altered by humans, don't most people want clean air? I have asthma and would absolutely love more regulations for clean air. It's unfortunate that climate change has not only been turned into a partisan issue, but that the "deniers" choose conflict on the issue over basic needs that they surely agree with. Clean air versus pollution -- who wants to breathe sludge every day?
YES!! Let’s say you don’t “believe” in climate change, what’s the worst that would happen? We have clean air and water and multiple energy sources?! What a nightmare 🙄🙄
Honestly, I’m ready to try pretty much anything at this point. The past five years (including the Covid year) has been horrible. I’m tired of the legal abuse, financial abuse, media lies, and wars, just to mention the first things that come to mind. Clean house and fix this mess. Nothing will be engraved in stone. If it doesn’t work, we can fix it.
I find that last paragraph chilling and discouraging. I would appreciate learning more about what a president could do, outside of withholding federal funding to individual states, to get back at those who dare to stand up to him.
Trump seems to be filling positions in his administration with such unqualified people. There must be a team making suggestions to him. JD Vance is no more qualified than trump to be president, but he’s not nearly as crass. Do you think his advisors are guiding trump to make such questionable choices because they want to use the 25th amendment and remove him so Vance becomes president?
I'm interested to hear other opinions, but IMO nothing about Trump or his entourage suggests they're operating under highly-organized political machinations: he said he wanted folks who were loyal, and he is nominating exactly those folks. There was so much turmoil in his last administration with a rotating door of staff and appointees and Trump's main takeaway from that seems to have been that those people just weren't dedicated enough to *him*, because some of the qualified folks he hired last time gave him real pushback and were not always prepared to bend the rules to make him happy. This is exactly how he promised to staff his administration this time around and he's just...going for it.
At best, he likely does understand that some of his wildest picks may not get confirmed, and if that happens then it won't be his fault (Trump can just blame it on the "deep state" or the "RINOs" in the Senate).
I appreciate your education on this subject. I look forward to seeing future articles from you as this all plays out. It's going to be a busy four years keeping up with our government: state and federal.
Would you be willing to do a follow up to this article and explain in more detail the last sentence? What exactly could the president do to states? Thank you for all you do!
I think the main one is denying funding. Lots of ways the federal government can deny funding for basic things (infrastructure, education), but even scarier is failing to provide emergency funding/FEMA resources during a natural disaster.
Yes, exactly. For my state, California, being denied emergency funding for wildfires (thinking back to the pandemic when the sky was orange) would be in retaliation for going against an abortion ban, for example...especially considering we just codified it. Really hoping Trump sticks to letting states govern themselves. Maybe I shouldn't get my hopes up.
Trump would not sign for FEMA funding for Washington State town, Malden, which burned to the ground. It wasn’t until Biden took office- five months later- that FEMA aid was granted.
Thank you for bringing attention to this! I'm sure I'm not the only one who had forgotten (or not learned) about this situation:
"President Trump refused to approve a routine disaster declaration for Malden because he was feuding with Washington's Governor Jay Inslee, a Democrat. So that federal aid didn't start arriving until after President Biden took office and he finally signed the order. The irony for Hokonson is that most of his neighbors along this burnt out dirt road were Trump supporters. 'We suffered from that, if its intent was to harm us, it was effective'."
https://www.npr.org/2021/05/18/997690599/a-destroyed-town-denied-aid-by-trump-braces-for-more-wildfires
I would be interested to hear more about this also!
I’d be interested in that, too
I was going to ask the same question!
Maybe the first thing he should do is change the name of the country since the United States of America doesn’t seem very descriptive anymore.
This is so helpful to read. Keep sharing ways states are holding the line. It's helps my stress levels.
Yes, thank you. In MO, every statewide elected office is R. It’s like having Trump in every position of power here.
And we’ve had R supermajorities in our state legislature for 20 years. Thank you for letting us see how the other half lives.
The Republican governors and AGS fought back against Obama's policies and likewise the Democratic anne fought against Trump's policies previously. How successful were they? And with this new supreme Court makeup since the last time, how likely do you think they will be to be successful now as the cases appeals themselves UPS the system?
Biden efforts for student loan forgiveness were overturned based on similar lawsuits. These kinds of suits can definitely be successful, but I think it's probably important for Governors and AGs to pick their battles - which is hard to do when a president like Trump is constantly pushing against the boundaries of law. Since SCOTUS is currently very conservative, the cases appealed to them will need to be water-tight.
“I think it's probably important for Governors and AGs to pick their battles” - Agreed! Obstructing for obstructing’s sake doesn't help anyone.
As a Californian, I’m particularly curious if the federal government under Trump will resist sending federal disaster relief aid to California should we need it (such as for wildfires). Can he realistically withhold federal funds from any state? Thanks for this round-up. Feels like Democrats and Republicans are switching policy stances on the importance of “states’ rights.” I find the split-ticket voting very interesting and heartening in some ways.
Governors need to request that the president declare a state of emergency. So Trump could fail to declare a state of emergency. And then, even if a state of emergency is declared, presumably they could drag their feet in actually deploying the resources. (Somebody please correct me if I'm wrong on this).
I'm curious about this too, because it sounds like he was successful in delaying some funds the last time he was in office (and might have been successful in withholding them completely had he not been convinced by his staff that he'd be hurting his own voters).
This happened with Trump with Malden, a tiny town in Washington, that burned to the ground. Trump would not provide aid. It was over five months later that Biden took office and got them the aid.
Thanks for your reply! Really appreciate it. During his last term, he seemed to believe he could withhold aid but I wasn’t sure if that was accurate.
Could you please talk more in depth regarding your point on the supremacy clause and abortion? While the Supreme Court overturned Roe based on a revocation of the privacy right they stated wasn’t in the Constitution, states are free to establish rights under their own constitutions that exceed those under the U.S. Constitution. The U.S Constitutional sets the floor, not the ceiling. Moreover, criminal law, except in a few areas (drug trafficking across borders, terrorism, etc.) is a matter of state law. Why is there an assumption that a national abortion ban would successfully preempt state laws and constitutions that protect abortion rights? Preemption only works if Congress has the right to act and not if any area of legislation is reserved to the states via the 10th amendment, no? I don’t want to see a national ban, but even if it passed would it not most likely be overturned by the courts?
This is very helpful. I listened to my attorney general give a briefing and press conference a few days ago where she addressed much of this. It will be interesting because AZ, where I live, has a Democratic governor, attorney general, Secretary of State and senators that represent us in Washington but the state legislature is pretty Republican. If anything the last 8 years and the next 4 has given me the opportunity to learn way more about how our government works.
Here's what I don't get. Regardless if you believe or not in climate change, or that it's altered by humans, don't most people want clean air? I have asthma and would absolutely love more regulations for clean air. It's unfortunate that climate change has not only been turned into a partisan issue, but that the "deniers" choose conflict on the issue over basic needs that they surely agree with. Clean air versus pollution -- who wants to breathe sludge every day?
YES!! Let’s say you don’t “believe” in climate change, what’s the worst that would happen? We have clean air and water and multiple energy sources?! What a nightmare 🙄🙄
Honestly, I’m ready to try pretty much anything at this point. The past five years (including the Covid year) has been horrible. I’m tired of the legal abuse, financial abuse, media lies, and wars, just to mention the first things that come to mind. Clean house and fix this mess. Nothing will be engraved in stone. If it doesn’t work, we can fix it.
I find that last paragraph chilling and discouraging. I would appreciate learning more about what a president could do, outside of withholding federal funding to individual states, to get back at those who dare to stand up to him.
Who's paying for all of this?
This was making me feel better until I got to the last paragraph.
Trump seems to be filling positions in his administration with such unqualified people. There must be a team making suggestions to him. JD Vance is no more qualified than trump to be president, but he’s not nearly as crass. Do you think his advisors are guiding trump to make such questionable choices because they want to use the 25th amendment and remove him so Vance becomes president?
I'm interested to hear other opinions, but IMO nothing about Trump or his entourage suggests they're operating under highly-organized political machinations: he said he wanted folks who were loyal, and he is nominating exactly those folks. There was so much turmoil in his last administration with a rotating door of staff and appointees and Trump's main takeaway from that seems to have been that those people just weren't dedicated enough to *him*, because some of the qualified folks he hired last time gave him real pushback and were not always prepared to bend the rules to make him happy. This is exactly how he promised to staff his administration this time around and he's just...going for it.
At best, he likely does understand that some of his wildest picks may not get confirmed, and if that happens then it won't be his fault (Trump can just blame it on the "deep state" or the "RINOs" in the Senate).
I appreciate your education on this subject. I look forward to seeing future articles from you as this all plays out. It's going to be a busy four years keeping up with our government: state and federal.
Why is Trump against fighting climate change? That seems like a no brainer to me.