To combat Trump funding, states are trying a new gambit: retain federal payments

Democratic legislators, mainly in the blue states, try to ride President Donald Trump’s efforts to retain the financing of their States with bills which aim to give the federal government a taste of its own medicine.

The new and not tested approach – so far introduced in Connecticut, Maryland,, new York And Wisconsin – would essentially allow states to retain federal payments if the legislators determine that the federal government is sheltered from funding due to them. Washington’s state democrats said they were writing a similar measure.

These bills still have a long way to go before becoming law, and legal experts said they would face obstacles. But they mark the latest efforts of democrats at the level of the state to counter what they say to be a massive overcoming of the Trump administration to stop providing federal funding for a range of programs that have helped states to pay health care, food assistance and environmental protections.

“Trump illegally retains funds that have previously been approved,” said David Moon, the head of the Democratic majority of the Maryland delegates’ Chamber of delegates. “Without these funds, we will see the residents of Maryland seriously injured – we needed more options on the table for how Maryland could react and protect its residents.”

Moon said that the two bills are in response to various Trump actions that have retained federal funding for programs paying to help the mental health of children and the protections of flood walls. He compared the bills he presented to the traditional actions of “collections” that we would take against a “dead debtor”. Even if they should not go ahead, Moon said that invoices would help cause audit and federal money accounting to the state.

At the start of its second term, the Ministry of Efficiency of the Government of Trump unilaterally billions of dollars dollars in funding For programs that states rely on on. He also threatened to retain the federal funding of the States which implement policies with which he does not agree, including the policies of “sanctuary” for undocumented immigrants, although some frosts have been interrupted by the courts.

A spokesperson for Trump’s White House did not answer questions from this story.

The representative of the state of the Wisconsin, Renuka Mayadev, Democrat, presented two almost identical bills which, according to her, would seek to force the federal government to release the money which he refused which had already paid for the programs of the Ministry of Agriculture which help farmers and for childcare services who mainly serve low -income families.

“We have seen that the Trump administration voluntarily breaks the law by retaining the federal funds to which Wisconsinites are legally entitled. These bills therefore aim to provide legal needs and protect Wisconsinites,” she said.

In the four states, the bills allow state officials to retain payments due by states to the federal government if federal agencies acted in violation of judicial orders or have taken illegal measures to refuse funds previously appropriate by the Congress. The payments available for retained include federal taxes received from the pay checks of state employees, as well as subsidy payments due to the federal government.

In Wisconsin, it is unlikely that bills will advance because the Republicans will control the two chambers of the Legislative Assembly. But the trajectory of bills of Maryland, New York and Connecticut – where Democrats control the legislatures and governors – is an open question.

The same goes for Washington, where democratic legislators plan to introduce bills similar to the next session.

“It’s a new concept,” said Washington’s state senator Manka Dhingra. “I do not think that the States have never been in this position before … where there is someone who makes arbitrary decisions on what to provide funding and what does not provide funding, unlike the current rules and laws and the allocation of the Congress of Funds.”

Legal experts have raised substantial issues about the obstacles to which these bills would have been confronted if they were promulgated.

On the one hand, they declared, the supremacy clause of the American Constitution clearly gives the federal government the priority on the States, which could complicate the legal arguments defending such laws – even if it remains an open legal question if the executive power has the power to control the funding alone.

The more immediate practical obstacles, they explain, arise from the fact that there is much more money flowing from the federal government to the states than the reverse.

“So, retain the payments of states in the federal government, even if there were no other obstacles, it is not likely to change a lot,” said David Super, professor at the Georgetown University Law Center who specializes in administrative and constitutional law.

Super added that the retained states of money could potentially worsen the status of programs affected by federal cuts.

“There is also the potential that part of the money going to the federal government must be paid as a condition for the State to receive one or the other type of advantage for itself or for its people,” he said. “The federal government could say:” You have not made this payment, so you are completely out of this program. “”

But that does not mean that states, working in the current hostile political environment, should not try, said Jon Michaels, professor at the UCLA School of Law who specializes in the separation of powers and presidential power.

“Where can you try to recover money in different ways? Not because it will make a huge material difference for the Treasury of the State or for the inhabitants of the State, but just to show essentially the federal government as:” Hey, we know what you do and we do not like, “he said.” States must be enterprising and creative and somewhat fiery to find their own extent and the ways that they can dispute. “

But another potential drawback is provided by the Democratic legislators themselves: additional Trump reprisals.

“We would all be stupid not to recognize that federals have more cards than states with regard to the budget,” said Moon, the legislator of Maryland. “There is certainly a risk of reprisals in the White House.”