To fight Trump’s funding freezes, states try a new gambit: Withholding federal payments
Democratic lawmakers are often tried in the blue states Fighting against President Donald Trump’s efforts to take funding from their states with bills aimed at giving the federal government the taste of its medicine.
Novel and non -tested approach – it has been presented so far in the state of Contecticut, Marylandfor New York and Weskonsen – It would basically allow the states to block federal payments if legislators decide that the federal government is late in the financing due to them. The Democrats in Washington State said they are in the process of formulating a similar procedure.
These bills still have a long way before the law became, and legal experts said they would face obstacles. But they represent the latest efforts made by Democrats at the state level to counter what they say is a significant transgression by the Trump administration to stop providing federal funding for a group of programs that helped countries to pay health care costs, food assistance and environmental protection.
“Trump blocks the money illegally was previously approved,” said David Moon, the leader of the Democratic majority of the Maryiland Council of Maryland. “Without this money, we will see the residents of Maryland’s state hurting severely – we needed more options on the table for how Maryland responds and protects its residents.”
Moon said that the two draft laws respond to many Trump’s business that blocked federal funding for programs that drive to help with mental health for children and protect the flood wall. He compared the bills he presented to the traditional “groups” that one takes against the “deadly debtor”. Even if they did not go forward, Moon said that the bills will help achieve the audit and accountability of the state’s federal funds.
Early of his second term, the Ministry of Government Efficiency Trump from one side Billions From dollars Financing to Programs that States He depends on. It is also threatened with blocking federal financing from the states that implement policies that are not approved by politically, including “resort” policies for illegal immigrants, although some of this freezing was. It was stopped by the courts.
Trump’s spokesman for the White House did not answer questions for this story.
The deputy in the state of Wisconsin Renoka Mayadif, a democracy, presented two almost identical draft laws that he would seek to force the federal government to launch the money that was previously paid for the Ministry of Agriculture’s programs that help farmers, and to the centers that the child’s care is often served.
She said: “We have seen that the Trump administration deliberately destroyed the law by curbing the federal funds entitled Winchonsen legally. So these bills revolve around providing legal treatment and protection and Wisconsin.”
In all four states, direct state officials who direct the payments due by the states to the federal government if the federal agencies have acted in violation of judicial orders or have taken illegal measures to block the funds previously allocated by Congress. The available payments for blocking include federal taxes collected from state staff checks, as well as grant payments due to the federal government.
In Wisconsin, the bills are unlikely to submit because the Republicans control the two chambers of the Legislative Authority. But the path of bills in Maryland, New York and Contecticut – where Democrats control legislative and governments – is an open question.
The same applies in Washington, where Democratic lawmakers are planning to submit similar bills in the next session.
“It is a new concept.” ))
Legal experts raised great questions about the obstacles that such bills will face if enact.
They said that the American constitution is clearly granted the precedence of the federal government over the states, which may complicate the legal arguments that defend these laws-although it is still an open legal issue whether the executive branch has the authority to control funding on its own.
They explained that the most urgent practical obstacles stem from the fact that there is more money than the money flowing from the federal government to the states more than vice versa.
“Therefore, withholding government payments to the federal government, even if there are no other obstacles, it is unlikely to change a lot,” said David Super, a professor at the Jur -Town University Center, who specializes in administrative and constitutional law.
Super added that the countries that block money can lead to an increase in the development of programs affected by federal discounts.
He said: “There is also the possibility of paying some money that goes to the federal government as a condition for a state that receives a kind or another of the benefits for itself or its people.” “The federal government can say,” You did not pay this batch, so you are completely out of this program. “
This does not mean that the countries that operate in the current hostile political environment should not try, said John Michaels, a professor at the University of California Law in Los Angeles in the separation of powers and the presidential authority.
He said: “Where can you try to review the money in different ways? Not because it will make a big financial difference for the state treasury or members of the state, but only to show the federal government like,” hey, we know what it does and we do not love it. “The countries must be adventure, creative and somewhat feelings in discovering their own scope of their authority and the ways through which they can challenge the law.”
But another possible disadvantage is one that Democratic lawmakers themselves expect: more revenge on Trump.
“We will all be foolish not to admit that the Federal Reserve retains more cards than countries with regard to the budget,” said Moon, the legislator at Maryland. “There is definitely the risk of taking revenge on the White House.”
