As the White House tightens its grip on independent federal agencies, fires swaths of federal workers, and issues a range of executive orders, it is also making moves against some of the states. How the states react in this moment—whether they accede and enforce or impede and resist—and the alliances those actions involve, could reshape the nature of our democracy.
How the states react in this moment could reshape the nature of our democracy.
States have long challenged federal authority in American history and not always in ways aligned with the arc of justice. But the balance of power between the states and the federal government is a critical part of the design of our representative democracy, as important as the division of power and checks and balances between the judicial, legislative and executive branches of the federal government.
The Trump administration’s actions might open a space for a new “coalition” among unlikely partners with possible long-term implications for our federal system. To understand the relationship between the states and federal government, one can turn to The Federalist Papers, written in the late 18th century, and which remain the best articulation of the principles and institutions in the U.S. Constitution, the basis of our system of government.
One objection to the proposed constitution that Alexander Hamilton considered in Federalist No. 9 was the proposed federal government was simply too large for popular government. But for Hamilton, the “enlargement of the orbit” of the American republic had its advantages: including the states under one government would not only bolster their ability to defend themselves from external foes, but also provide an internal system, “an association of states,” that would reduce the spread of corruption and limit the exercise of arbitrary political power in the name of securing freedom.
States could correct the actions of each other and prevent corruption or usurpations from spreading within the whole. It was also the case that states retained important powers alongside those of the federal government. “The definition of a confederate republic seems to simply be ‘an assemblage of societies,’” Hamilton said, that are part of the larger union.
“The definition of a confederate republic seems to simply be ‘an assemblage of societies,’” Hamilton said.
“The proposed Constitution, so far from implying an abolition of the State governments, makes them constituent parts of the national sovereignty,” including “leav[ing] in their possession certain exclusive and very important portions of sovereign power.”
The corollary is that our federal structure allows for states to suppress factions within and usurpations by the federal government. From town halls in Georgia to national polls—many Americans are suggesting discomfort with the increasing scope of presidential power.
According to a new survey from the Pew Research Center, 65 percent of respondents said it would be “too risky” to give Trump more power to deal directly with the nation’s problems. Seventy-eight percent surveyed said that shifting more power to any U.S. president would be “too risky.” In CNN’s latest poll, 52% of Americans said they think Trump has overstepped his powers as president.
As the White House takes actions impacting the federal government, the president is also promulgating policy positions directed at the states. This week he signaled his intention to put an end to a congestion pricing program in New York City. New York Governor Kathy Hochul rejected the president’s plan, and the state’s Metropolitan Transportation Authority filed a lawsuit to stop the federal order.
As the White House takes actions impacting the federal government, the president is also promulgating policy positions directed at the states.
Already coalitions of state attorneys general have challenged the president’s executive orders, from the authority of DOGE to access sensitive federal data to biomedical research cuts. Several governors have signaled legal resistance on a range of issues from environmental regulations to public health funding.
While Republican-led states might enforce the president’s policies and several Democratic governors are signaling opposition, the Trump administration’s actions could call into being a new and unlikely coalition. Small state progressives who see states as sites for community-informed interventions and local innovation and limited government conservatives worried about federal overreach might find they have similar interests that conflict with state interference by the White House.
Working together, progressives and conservatives could constrain federal intervention, if not shift the balance of power toward the states. The key questions now are how the states will position themselves to the federal government and will there be a longer-term readjustment in the power dynamic between them.
Will a Republican president increase federal authority over the states by means of the states themselves implementing or enforcing his actions or will the states aim to challenge or block executive orders and policy orders that are viewed as an overreach of authority or inconsistent with their own constitutions and policies?
Disruption in our national politics will shift allegiances among unlikely partners, and the band Radiohead’s “Electioneering” lyrics capture this moment that could produce new alliances:
"When I go forwards, you go backwards
And somewhere we will meet.”
Reprinted from an op-ed originally published in the Shenandoah Valley's Daily News-Record on March 7, 2025.
