Opinion - States should cut the federal cord and end dependency on Washington
In most blue states at least, President Trump's second term is creating a battle over how the states can use federal money. Many Democratic governors are suddenly defending state control and pushing back against Washington's influence.
But the reality is that too many states resemble satellites orbiting Washington rather than sovereign governments charting their own course.
In 2022, more than half of Louisiana and Alaska's budget came from federal funds. Twenty states receive more than 40 percent of their dollars from Washington. North Dakota is the supposed bright light at just over 22 percent.
To regain federalism's footing, states need to reassert more political courage and financial independence from Washington's tentacles.
Trump, who found a winning electoral issue on opposing transgender ideology, threatens to pull education funds from states that fail to comply. Trump quickly repositioned the intent of the Title IX law back to its original purpose, calling for only biological females to compete against biological females in athletics. States like Maine strongly oppose the requirement. Rather than reform their reliance on federal dollars, however, states typically respond by suing to keep the federal spigot flowing, reinforcing perpetual dependence over fiscal disentanglement.
Some states use federal dollars to mask over budget shortfalls, even using money to indirectly subsidize state tax cuts. Federal aid too often lets states avoid the hard budgeting and governance decisions that should fall to lawmakers.
The most obvious example is the Medicaid expansion under the Affordable Care Act, where the federal government sweetened the pot for states by covering 100 and then 90 percent of the cost for able-bodied, working-age, childless adults.
It's important to remember that while states were receiving these 90 percent reimbursement rates from the Feds for this population, another group of Americans were being pushed to the back. The disabled, pregnant women, and children — those for whom Medicaid was originally designed — have had to fight for healthcare access as the result of federal interference. Some states even enshrined expansion into their state constitutions while looking the other way when it comes to unsustainable federal spending levels.
It remains unclear whether the federal government will make a serious effort to achieve meaningful Medicaid savings — even if it means limiting coverage for able-bodied but nonworking childless adults.
Medicaid expansion has become an elaborate money-making endeavor for states to harness more and more from taxpayers with no skin in the game. 'All these tactics let states rake in massive federal dollars without any state cost and reduce the pressure on state policymakers to responsibly govern and weigh tradeoffs between spending and tax policies,' wrote Brian Blase, president of Paragon Health Institute.
Although fraud and abuse under expansion is too lengthy to document, a 2019 Pelican Institute report after expansion in Louisiana noted that 1,672 Medicaid recipients had incomes over $100,000, and at least one household had an income higher than then-Gov. John Bel Edwards (D). A 2025 report from the Foundation for Government Accountability reveals how California exploits funding loopholes to cover illegal immigrants under Medicaid, costing federal taxpayers nearly $10 billion in clear violation of federal law.
Disaster relief is another example. So much aid comes from the federal government, often 75 percent when an emergency declaration is made, that it can heavily disincentivize states from building their own rainy-day funds. It also reduces the incentive to invest in infrastructure resilience or take proactive steps to mitigate risk. The result is greater dependence on Washington, rather than increased responsibility.
After Hurricane Helene, some federal lawmakers tried to deregulate disaster relief, but as North Carolina's John Locke Foundation warns, 'the fiscally unstable federal government cannot be counted on to be a reliable partner in disaster relief efforts.'
Ultimately, given Washington's dysfunction and inability to prioritize spending, the political environment provides not just an opportunity to question federal funds, but lower the political temperature by making more decisions at the state and local level.
Federalism is more than a dusty concept to admire from afar. It's a set of common-sense principles to restore trust in government and give people real power over their communities and destiny. The alternative is for Americans to continue watching their states orbit as satellites of expanding federal power, letting Washington's dysfunction pull us further away from self-government.
Ray Nothstine is a senior writer and editor and a Future of Freedom Fellow at the State Policy Network. He manages and edits American Habits.
Copyright 2025 Nexstar Media, Inc. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten, or redistributed.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
USA Today
7 minutes ago
- USA Today
Supreme Court sides against disabled firefighter suing for health benefits discrimination
WASHINGTON – The Supreme Court on June 20 ruled against a retired firefighter who wants to sue her former employer for reducing health care benefits for disabled retirees, a decision that failed to give the same ADA protections to retirees that current employees have. The court ruled that Karyn Stanley can't sue the city of Sanford, Florida, under the Americans with Disabilities Act. That upheld a lower court's ruling that the ADA didn't apply to Stanley because she no longer worked for the city when she filed her challenge. Writing for the majority, Justice Neil Gorsuch wrote that someone claiming discrimination under the ADA must prove that she held, or wanted, a job that she was able to perform at the time of the alleged discrimination. "In other words, the statute protects people, not benefits, from discrimination," he wrote. "And the statute tells us who those people are: qualified individuals, those who hold or seek a job at the time of the defendant's alleged discrimination." If Congress wants to expand the law to protect retirees like Stanley, it can, he continued. "But the decision whether to do so lies with that body, not this one," he wrote. 'Essential building blocks of the American dream' In a dissent, Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson said retirement benefits are 'essential building blocks of the American dream.' 'Disabled Americans who have retired from the workforce simply want to enjoy the fruits of their labor free from discrimination,' she wrote in the dissent that was joined in part by Justice Sonia Sotomayor. 'It is lamentable that this Court so diminishes disability rights that the People (through their elected representatives) established more than three decades ago.' Jackson said Congress could step in 'to fix the mistake the Court has made.' The Americans with Disabilities Act was designed to protect active employees and job applicants from discrimination. It was not intended as a law that extended to employers' relationships with former employees, the business groups and associations representing cities and counties against Stanley's allegations argued. The law covers someone who 'with or without reasonable accommodation, can perform the essential functions of the employment position that such individual holds or desires.' Stanley's lawyers argued she was employed – and thus covered by the law − when her future benefits were curtailed in 2003. When Stanley became a firefighter in 1999, the city paid for $1,000 of her approximately $1,300 monthly premium for health insurance. Anyone retiring after 25 years of service or because of a disability would continue to receive the benefit until age 65. After Stanley left the department in 2018 at 47 due to Parkinson's disease, she discovered that benefits for disabled retirees were reduced in 2003. The city covered $1,000 of her $1,300 monthly health insurance premium for only two years, after which she was required to pay the whole premium herself. Arguing that the city discriminated against her because of her disability, Stanley sued, asking the city to continue to pay $1,000 of her monthly insurance premium until she turns 65. The city countered that even though Stanley's benefits were reduced, the company treated her better – not worse – than non-disabled employees who retired with less than 25 years of service because those employees get no subsidy while she retained it for two years. The case is Stanley v. City of Stanford.
Los Angeles Times
7 minutes ago
- Los Angeles Times
Judge rules Trump administration can't require states to help on immigration to get transport money
BOSTON — A federal judge on Thursday blocked the Trump administration from withholding billions of dollars in transportation funds from states that don't agree to participate in some immigration enforcement actions. Twenty states sued after they said Transportation Secretary Sean Duffy threatened to cut off funding to states that refused to comply with President Trump's immigration agenda. U.S. District Judge John McConnell Jr. barred federal transportation officials from carrying out that threat before the lawsuit is fully resolved. 'The Court finds that the States have demonstrated they will face irreparable and continuing harm if forced to agree to Defendants' unlawful and unconstitutional immigration conditions imposed in order to receive federal transportation grant funds,' wrote McConnell, the chief judge for the federal district of Rhode island. 'The States face losing billions of dollars in federal funding, are being put in a position of relinquishing their sovereign right to decide how to use their own police officers, are at risk of losing the trust built between local law enforcement and immigrant communities, and will have to scale back, reconsider, or cancel ongoing transportation projects.' Massachusetts Attorney General Andrea Campbell, in a statement posted on Bluesky, welcomed the ruling. 'The court granted a temporary order halting the Trump administration's attempt to hold critical funding for states if they don't comply with their cruel immigration policies,' Campbell said. This would have put critical funding for transportation in MA at risk. It's not just wrong – it's illegal.' In statement posted on X, Secretary of Transportation Sean Duffy said the ruling wasn't surprising. 'I directed states who want federal DOT money to comply with federal immigration laws,' Duffy said. 'But, no surprise, an Obama-appointed judge has ruled that states can openly defy our federal immigration laws. This is judicial activism pure and simple and I will continue to fight in the courts.' On April 24, states received letters from the Department of Transportation stating that they must cooperate on immigration efforts or risk losing the congressionally appropriated funds. No funding was immediately withheld, but some of the states feared the move was imminent. Attorneys general from California, Colorado, Connecticut, Delaware, Hawaii, Illinois, Maine, Maryland, Massachusetts, Michigan, Minnesota, Nevada, New Jersey, New Mexico, New York, Oregon, Rhode Island, Washington, Wisconsin and Vermont filed the lawsuit in May, saying the new so-called 'Duffy Directive' put them in an impossible position. 'The States can either attempt to comply with an unlawful and unconstitutional condition that would surrender their sovereign control over their own law enforcement officers and reduce immigrants' willingness to report crimes and participate in public health programs — or they can forfeit tens of billions of dollars of funds they rely on regularly to support the roads, highways, railways, airways, ferries, and bridges that connect their communities and homes,' the attorneys general wrote in court documents. But acting Rhode Island U.S. Attorney Sara Miron Bloom told the judge that Congress has given the Department of Transportation the legal right to set conditions for the grant money it administers to states, and that requiring compliance and cooperation with federal law enforcement is a reasonable exercise of that discretion. Allowing the federal government to withhold the funds while the lawsuit moves forward doesn't cause any lasting harm, Bloom wrote in court documents, because that money can always be disbursed later if needed. But requiring the federal government to release the money to uncooperative states will likely make it impossible to recoup later, if the Department of Transportation wins the case, Bloom said. Casey and Boone write for the Associated Press.
The Hill
8 minutes ago
- The Hill
Man charged with attempted kidnapping of Memphis mayor
A Memphis man was charged on Wednesday for attempted kidnapping after allegedly stalking Mayor Paul Young (D). Police said Trenton Abston, 25, has also been charged for criminal trespassing after visiting Young's home on Sunday. Investigators said at the time of Abston's arrest, officers recovered a taser, gloves, rope, and duct tape from his vehicle. 'Upon further review of both public and private security camera footage, we have determined that the suspect did not approach multiple homes, as initially reported,' the Memphis Police Department said in a Wednesday statement. 'Instead, after scaling a wall, the individual went directly to the Mayor's residence,' they added. Abston is scheduled to appear in court on Monday morning. Young addressed the incident in a Facebook post on Wednesday, thanking officers for apprehending Abston while citing a growing concern for targeted political violence after two Democratic lawmakers in Minnesota were shot over the weekend along with their spouses. 'In today's climate, especially after the tragic events in Minnesota and the threats my wife and I often receive online, none of us can be too careful. The link between angry online rhetoric and real-life violence is becoming undeniable,' Young wrote. 'What starts as reckless words online can all too quickly become something much more dangerous. The angry rhetoric, the hateful speech, and the heated threats create a culture where violence feels like a next step instead of a red line,' he added. 'We cannot allow that line to be crossed.'
