Gordon L. Weil
Donald Trump promised that, if elected president, he would
make big changes. He claims to keep his
promises, and he surely is keeping that one – and fast. He interprets his win as the nation’s endorsement
of massive change. The speed and scope
of his moves have stunned the country.
Among his lightning moves is one meant to reshape the
relationship between his federal government and the states. This could be huge, though it was not a
prominent part of his package of promises.
Beyond using almost unlimited presidential power to remake the federal
government in his own image, he also wants to bring the states into line.
Trump can pressure states, whether Democratic or Republican,
to accept his priorities by using the power of the purse. If a state,
especially one that has not backed him, wants federal funds that are doled out
by his executive branch agencies, it might have to meet his conditions.
Federal funds, appropriated by Congress for many programs,
flow to all states. Decisions on
specific outlays under a federal program are left to individual states. Each state can deal with its own problems in
its own way and can be held responsible by its own voters.
Congress gives the president and executive agencies wide
discretion in distributing the funds. The
agencies and their inspectors general are expected to make sure states spend
the money as intended by Congress. But
last week Trump, jumping legal procedures, fired 18 independent, departmental
inspectors general.
Visiting North Carolina, Trump promised federal aid to deal
with hurricane impacts and extensive federal involvement in the recovery. Then, in fire-stricken California, he
conditioned federal emergency funds on changes to the state’s voter identification
system and water management policies.
North Carolina backed him for president, while California
remained loyally Democratic. It looks
like he rewarded one and punished the other.
About 42 percent of the American
population lives in Democratic states. While those states might resist Trump’s
domestic policies, his administration could force them to follow his policies
or lose federal funding.
Consistent with that approach, he proposed eliminating the
Federal Emergency Management Agency and replacing it with direct grants to the
states. That way, states would assume
lead responsibility for disasters. They
already have that role and FEMA supplements them, but his moves could give him
political power over the states that FEMA can’t exercise.
Favored states might gain considerable freedom in spending
federal aid. To receive urgently needed
support, Democratic states could be forced to adopt Trump’s policies, even if far
removed from the intent of the funding, or lose out.
Kristi Noem, then governor of South Dakota and now Trump’s Homeland
Security Secretary, provided the model. She
used a small part of Covid relief funds for state government costs and applied
the balance at her discretion rather than helping people and companies that had
suffered losses from the pandemic.
She also refused federal funds, when she disagreed with
Biden’s policies. While Democratic
states might similarly refuse Trump, they can’t afford to decline the massive
aid necessary to meet enormous disasters.
California faces the choice between either accepting the president’s
conditions or paying overwhelming emergency costs.
The problem with refusing the money is that California’s
federal government contribution could go to other states, while it gets little. It may have to raise state taxes for
emergencies, while Trump’s elimination of FEMA may provide him with money he
needs to extend costly federal tax cuts.
That’s how Congress does business. States vie for as much money as they can get
at the expense of other states. After
Sen. Susan Collins became the chair of the Senate Appropriations Committee,
attention in Maine focused more on the added dollars she can bring home than on
her increased ability to influence national priorities.
Maine gains large federal subsidies, being a winner like almost
all small states. Most small states are
Republican, so that could work for Trump. Collins is the sole GOP member of Congress
from New England, so Republicans might want to help her with the state’s voters
by meeting Maine’s needs with other people’s money.
Making states more dependent on the president and less able
to act independently steps away from the original constitutional formula. The states intended to cede limited powers to
the federal government, but they have become its dependents. This change plus the fading role of Congress,
has increased presidential power. Checks
and balances don’t matter.
As much as Trump may wish that he could serve a third term,
his use of presidential power and his reshaping the ways the federal government
adopts and executes policies could extend his reach well beyond his current term. Change has come. His successors in either party are likely to
accept and continue many precedents he is creating in the name of MAGA.
