To fight Trump's funding freezes, states propose a new gambit: Withholding federal payments

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?

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
- 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.
  https://www.politico.com/news/2024/07/04/leader-of-the-pro-trump-project-2025-suggests-there-will-be-a-new-american-revolution-00166583
  “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.
  https://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/americas/us-politics/trump-nyc-mayor-mamdani-funding-b2779141.html
- 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.
- 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.
- 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.
- 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
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.
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.
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

Let those welfare queen red states pull themselves up by their own bootstrap

Please do this.

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.

Secede. Whatever happens in the US after this administration, there is no repairing the damage that has been done without violence. There is no restoring the Constitution, no repairing the rule of law, no restoration of democracy, no restoring affordable living, no curbing the power of billionaire oligarchs, no path to freedom, liberty, or sanity.

Escape is the only option that has a chance at minimizing bloodshed. Individual escape by emigrating, but what countries would want American expats now? so many are following the US’c corrupt lead. Special privileges for the rich, slavery for the serfdom.

Collective escape via secession and the creation of new independent countries is the only sane path forward now. Alternatively annexation could work, but I don’t see Canada or Mexico going out of their way to save Americans, for reasons that should be obvious.

So you don’t see Canada putting any effort into saving… California or the north east coast?
Let the red states have their trumpistan, I’ll lobby my new Canadian representative to veto aid packages all day long eh.
- Canada is three mining companies in a trench coat.
  It's both not as liberal and not as nice as it has a reputation for being.
  If Cascadia has a chance, it isn't with Canada.
- No. Canada is a small country and can't actually absorb the millions of people that acquiring US states would entail. California alone has a population similar to that of all of Canada. The US West Coast, if it joined Canada, would suddenly represent the majority of the Canadian population. Canada could absorb a single low population state, like Alaska. But asking Canadians to absorb large chunks of the US is asking them to make existing Canadians a political minority in their own country. Is doesn't make sense. The US West Coast can simply be its own independent country.
- Lmao no and why would they? It's not canada.
🎵 CAS-CADIAAAAAAA 🎵
I guess a big difficulty in the way of secession could be that it was denied to Texas in the last 200 years. This attitude carries a certain momentum. That might hinder blue states from seceding as well. What do you think?
- What about the current administration gives you the impression historical precedent matters anymore?
- I'm sorry, but fuck Texas and it's "denied secession."
  The American South plays victim every chance it can in its lost cause mythos and "look at how poor picked on we are" when they spent years pushing federal requirements like the Fugitive Slave Act on the non-slave states and got pissy when they couldn't overtake the numbers of slave states over non-slave states so they wanted to take their ball and go home, but the North wouldn't let them lea... no... wait... they fucking shot first. "War of northern aggression" indeed.
  The mess we're in is the culture that created the civil war originally can't get over themselves and have mythologized themselves into the victims when they were the assholes causing the problem.
  -Signed a southerner who is FUCKING sick of hearing how Texas never signed to rejoin the union every time he's near at least three Texans.

Trump notoriously doesn't pay his bills after all.

This sounds like dissolving the union with extra steps ngl

And?
Blue states can only continue supporting red states that bite the hand that feeds for so long.
And in this case, biting the hand that feeds involves removing human rights.
So yeah. It's time to balkanize. Blue states will be fine. Red states can suffer and die for supporting a traitor and his treasonous party.
Honestly, we need to dissolve the union at this point. It's just common sense.
Look, it's time for a reality check. When a nation's political culture becomes this dysfunctional, there's no bringing it back, not without some massive bloody civil war that leaves millions dead. What they don't teach you in school is that every written law or constitution is ultimately meaningless. The Constitution does not enforce itself and neither does any law. They all require a certain amount of good-faith interpretation. It is always possible to come up with a strained bad-faith interpretation of any law that will allow you to do whatever you want. But in a healthy political system, this doesn't happen. Both sides practice restraint and realize that their overreach will be answered by overreach on the other side.
But if you lose that? The nation is effectively shattered. The United States, as a functioning democracy, is already dead. It's zombie corpse is just limping along. The president is openly defying the laws passed by Congress. The Supreme Court is openly corrupt, openly partisan, and ignoring the plain language of the constitution. It's all just might makes right now, and both parties view the other as fundamentally wicked and illegitimate.
Once your politics have decayed this much, there is no bringing it back. We need to peacefully dissolve the United States. Will it be easy? No. But we also shouldn't let one of our core national character flaws - American exceptionalism, blind us to the possibilities that exist. Plenty of nations have peacefully dissolved before. And they find ways to negotiate the hard issues like dividing assets, debts, obligations, military forces, etc. This has been done before, and it can be done again.
When this comes up, the "umm aktually" crowd also comes out of the woodwork. They'll point out that there's no actual constitutional mechanism to do this. These people are blind or have been asleep the last six months. You would think they would learn by now that all it takes to do something is that there not be anyone there to stop you.
We should grant all 50 states full independence. Just disband the existing federal government entirely. Let the states then come back together in whatever new nation or nations they want to form. How can this be done legally? Simple. Someone just needs to run for president on the platform of national dissolution, saying, "I'll grant all 50 states independence. I'll fire every federal employee, and I will not use any military force to stop all the states from seceding." And then they get elected and simply do that. Congress or SCOTUS can complain all they want; it won't matter. That candidate if elected would have an overwhelming political mandate, and there would be no way to stop them. Some may whine that it's unconstitutional, but who cares? It's pretty obvious by now that the Constitution is broken, obsolete, and no longer worth respecting. We're walking away from that broken obsolete piece of trash. We can do better.
- I'm in.
  Because you're right. Once Pandora's Box is open, that's it.
  The Constitution has been nullified by not being adhered to. Our branches and Congress have ceded their power to what is effectively a king. Our Supreme Court justices have been proven to have taken bribes and are passing rulings completely in opposition to the Constitution without providing reasoning. The bar for president has been lowered to gutter-level. And a significant portion of our populace has been radicalized by lies from propaganda networks.
  It's over. There is no coming back from this. You can't legislate your way back to reality because we'll never have the numbers necessary in Congress to make it happen and the president has been given the powers of a king.
  It's balkanization for the Un-united States or total collapse across the board as we all cling to each other as we drown. I'm voting for balkanization.
  I know it's something that's going to take people a lot of time to wrap their minds around, but the United States as we've always known it is over. This is what happens when you let conservatives have too much power.
- So true. What we are experiencing now is the "new normal", and electing Joe Biden proved that we can't restore sanity just by voting a democrat in office. Every time we get a conservative from now on, we should expect more of this wacky Trumpian bullshit, even if Trump isn't at the helm.
  There are, as you said, only two way of actually fixing the problem. All-out civil war, which nobody really wants and may not culminate in actually winning, or untethering ourselves from the minority party currently running the failed state by seceding, preferably peacefully. That presents it's own unique challenges and problems, but it's by far a better solution than continuing to course correct the sinking ship like we are now. We will only drown with the captain and his crew of morons who intend to go down with the ship.
I don’t want to be in a union ruled by a mad king. BTW, I joined the California National Party, check them out: Vote CNP.
They are running a candidate for the California governor’s election next year. California Democrats are weak AF, and have no idea that the mad king is about to rape them. CNP wants California to peacefully leave the union, but know that it may not be so peaceful.
- CNP wants California to peacefully leave the union, but know that it may not be so peaceful.
  California needs to create and fund a state militia. We need to convince Oregon and Washington to do the same and then have those militias train and work together.
  The Constitution allows for militias. Not that the Constitution matters anymore. So we should do it anyway.

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.

Sounds like the beginnings of a future civil war if those states actually follow through. It sounds like the right move though, I hope a bunch of blue states follow up on this!

I hope a bunch of fema deprived red states follow up on this!
- Virginia: We can play this game too, democrats! We're keeping our $100B to ourselves this year! Can we still get that $200B you send us each year though?
States rights have and always will be a double edged sword. Usually it's a non issue because at worst you have representation. Sadly it seems like ours has gone missing now and we all need to stop what we are doing and go find it. Violently if necessary but hopefully as a last resort. Or maybe just 2nd place.

Otherwise known as "The collapse of the USA".

Balkanization is probably the end result tbh
- I've been thinking more along the lines of NUSA like in cyberpunk. States with the largest cities such as california, illinois, and new york join together and the states in between follow because they need them for economic reasons. Then the south can be the decaying fascist shithole it so badly wants to be.
Inshallah
- Can’t wait to get imprisoned in a mental institution and Aktion-T4’d as a trans person in the wrong state!
- I think Canada is quite happy as it is.

I love it. We just had a Supreme Court ruling that further anointed Trump as a king that can do what he wants, and yet the first thing everybody goes to in one of these articles is that the states can just take it to the courts and this time, THIS TIME the courts will stop him! It's not fair! What Trump is doing is illegal and unconstitutional!

No fucking shit it's unconstitutional. But guess what? The Constitution is dead. The Supreme Court has already hand-waved away half of the amendments, and the people in charge of enforcing the rest have already repeatedly said they weren't going to. They have repeatedly said that Trump can basically do whatever he wants, and Congress has given him their blessing. So what the fuck do you think the courts are going to be able to do to stop this? And what the fuck makes you think the Supreme Court would even allow it?

If states started seriously threatening to withhold federal payments, Trump would just send in the National guard. Or the military. And before the "But that would trigger civil war!!!!!", it ain't triggering shit. Trump just rolled his troops into downtown LA and started yanking citizens off the streets while Stephen Miller literally went on Twitter and told Newsom "You have no say in this, we are in control, and federal law will be enforced". And Newsom stood there and took it like a cuck. There was no violent rebellion, no resistance to the military takeover of LA. They're still there.

The courts are not going to save us. They've just been stripped of whatever ability they had to even try. I mean, should the states at least try to go through the courts? Yeah. Not that it'll matter much because the Supreme Court will just overturn any lower court decision anyway and either order the states to pay or allow Trump to seize the funds. But in the long run, it'll be a symbolic gesture of resistance as they either bend the knee and make the payments or have the payments taken from them.

Until violent rebellion happens, this is the way it is now. Trump has closed off all other viable avenues. And good luck organizing any kind of rebellion without having your group be infiltrated and everyone shipped off to some 3rd world country on treason charges long before it hits critical mass or manages to accomplish anything.

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’ve been saying we need to do this since the ass won the election. Nice to see my state finally listened.

No taxation without representation.

We have plenty of representation, most just don't give a shit about their constituents wants and needs.
- So...not representation.

Honestly, that's probably the most effective thing that can be done.

In business, where it really hurts, is in the money. Hit them where it really matters.

If a company becomes too large to manage and kits subsidiaries make individual profits, some making profit and others at a loss, you divest. You sell off the crap companies. Makes sense to me. They say Trump wants to run the US like a business, right?
Does it really matter though?
Seems like the lost revenue would just be made up through borrowing / deficit spending. Worried this is another whiff of a move. Its not like I have a better solution; and I wish the states doing this the best of luck in addressing their finding issues, but I don't expect this to move the needle significantly.

Might be the only way to stop him/gop

I’m down for this all across the board. Anything to take his power away.

No taxation without something something

Just get divorced already.

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!
Nawh we're gonna do a Taiwan-style One America policy

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…

Good on them. Remind the federal government they get their power from the states and not the other way around. There is no point in paying for things like FEMA if FEMA is not going to pay out because of one idiot's stupid, greedy decisions.

Laws not mattering anymore works both ways.

Here. We. Go.

Yes, yes, please this. He's a rogue. He is not entitled to payments.

Please Oregon join in on this.

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?

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!
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

They need to stop being such little bitches and just do it.

California needs to get on 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.

Is it really doable? Federal income taxes go directly to the fed without state intervention

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.
As I read it: as a state employee my federal taxes would still come out of my paycheck, but the state would hold to the money. Sounds like it could get complicated for me come tax season.

What do you call US when it's no longer "U"?

The Balkanized States of America
The Nintendo DS (Divided States)

I don't understand why there needs to be laws here. Couldn't the Governor just unilaterally paused payments to the federal government? What's the point of needing a bill when they already have that ability

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.

I have no idea if this would even do anything.

The federal government prints money. If the states don't pay the federal government it doesn't actually mean the government will run out of money.

What will happen is the money supply will balloon, because federal payments are one of the ways the government controls the money supply. If those payments don't go back to the feds, the delayed payments will stay in circulation.

That might create inflation? Will it do anything else? Again, no idea.

Actually, no. What would happen is that the federal government would just intervene, contact the banks, and seize the funds.
But even in a situation where there's a fight over the money, that's not what would happen.
The Federal government is going to draw up and execute its budget as if they had the funds anyway. If any of the earmarked money is spent, it would just be added to the national debt until the federal government actually collects the state funds, through force if necessary. Then the seized funds would be applied accordingly.
In the meantime, the seized funds would just be frozen by court order in state bank accounts until the whole case is settled. And by "Settled", I mean that the SC would just rule that the states have to pay and order the banks to release the funds to the federal government.
This is what would happen regardless of who is President, regardless of who's on the SC bench. States don't have to like policies enacted by the federal government. There are deep red states like Florida and Tennessee that also give more federal funds than they receive, and they would not be allowed to withhold federal funding just because they don't like Democrat policies, either.
The courts aren't going to allow that, nor should they. Both red and blue states have multiple states that pay out more in federal funds than they receive. Allowing states to do this would only lead to a situation where blue states refuse to pay out whenever there's a Republican president and red states refusing to pay out when a Democrat is in charge.
- The Federal government is going to draw up and execute its budget as if they had the funds anyway.
  That's what I was getting at when I pointed out the fact that the feds print their own money. The federal government would be fine.
  I was just running the thought experiment of "would this even do anything" under the assumption that it was successful. And it's a fantasy on its face, even in the best case scenario it accomplishes nothing.
  And the best case isn't what would happen, because ultimately you're right and this won't be allowed. There are a lot of mechanisms the federal government has to compell the states to pay their dues.