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?
this post was submitted on 29 Jun 2025
847 points (100.0% liked)
politics
24484 readers
2546 users here now
Welcome to the discussion of US Politics!
Rules:
- Post only links to articles, Title must fairly describe link contents. If your title differs from the site’s, it should only be to add context or be more descriptive. Do not post entire articles in the body or in the comments.
Links must be to the original source, not an aggregator like Google Amp, MSN, or Yahoo.
Example:
- Articles must be relevant to politics. Links must be to quality and original content. Articles should be worth reading. Clickbait, stub articles, and rehosted or stolen content are not allowed. Check your source for Reliability and Bias here.
- Be civil, No violations of TOS. It’s OK to say the subject of an article is behaving like a (pejorative, pejorative). It’s NOT OK to say another USER is (pejorative). Strong language is fine, just not directed at other members. Engage in good-faith and with respect! This includes accusing another user of being a bot or paid actor. Trolling is uncivil and is grounds for removal and/or a community ban.
- No memes, trolling, or low-effort comments. Reposts, misinformation, off-topic, trolling, or offensive. Similarly, if you see posts along these lines, do not engage. Report them, block them, and live a happier life than they do. We see too many slapfights that boil down to "Mom! He's bugging me!" and "I'm not touching you!" Going forward, slapfights will result in removed comments and temp bans to cool off.
- Vote based on comment quality, not agreement. This community aims to foster discussion; please reward people for putting effort into articulating their viewpoint, even if you disagree with it.
- No hate speech, slurs, celebrating death, advocating violence, or abusive language. This will result in a ban. Usernames containing racist, or inappropriate slurs will be banned without warning
We ask that the users report any comment or post that violate the rules, to use critical thinking when reading, posting or commenting. Users that post off-topic spam, advocate violence, have multiple comments or posts removed, weaponize reports or violate the code of conduct will be banned.
All posts and comments will be reviewed on a case-by-case basis. This means that some content that violates the rules may be allowed, while other content that does not violate the rules may be removed. The moderators retain the right to remove any content and ban users.
That's all the rules!
Civic Links
• Congressional Awards Program
• Library of Congress Legislative Resources
• U.S. House of Representatives
Partnered Communities:
• News
founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
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.
I’ve been saying we need to do this since the ass won the election. Nice to see my state finally listened.
I’m down for this all across the board. Anything to take his power away.
Trump notoriously doesn't pay his bills after all.
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.
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.
load more comments
(1 replies)
Not taxation without something something
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…
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.
load more comments
(1 replies)
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.
load more comments
(5 replies)
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.
Yes, yes, please this. He's a rogue. He is not entitled to payments.
They need to stop being such little bitches and just do it.
Is it really doable? Federal income taxes go directly to the fed without state intervention
load more comments
(1 replies)