Guest Commentary: Trump’s Attempt to Unilaterally Control State and Local Funding Is Dangerous, Dumb, and Undemocratic

By Cody Venzke,, Allegra HarpootlianFebruary 11, 202560 comments

Donald Trump’s attempts to withhold vital funding to bully and coerce states into compliance is plainly unconstitutional.

The Trump administration has not been subtle in its desire to use federal funding for political punishment. Whether threatening to cut off grants to sanctuary cities, to block financial assistance to states that push back against the president’s demands, or to freeze all federal grants and loans for social services across the country, Trump and his allies want us to believe they can wield the federal budget like a weapon. The reality is that the administration’s ability to withhold or condition funding is far more limited than they let on. The Constitution, Supreme Court precedent, and long-standing federal law stand firmly in the way of this brazen abuse of presidential power.

Trump’s Attempted Funding Freeze? Blocked Immediately

A week into his second administration, Trump attempted to freeze trillions of dollars in federal grants and loans that fund a vast array of critical services already approved by Congress. If allowed to go into effect, this unprecedented and far-reaching order would mean that seniors could go hungry, refugee resettlement agencies would close their doors, addiction treatment clinics would cancel appointments, and schools would need to freeze meal programs. It would also impact vital programs designated for disaster relief, public safety, public health, infrastructure, and even small business loans.

However, under both the Constitution and the Impoundment Control Act, the president cannot withhold congressionally-approved funding without congressional authorization. Previous administrations have tried and failed to push similar measures, and courts have repeatedly ruled that such attempts violate both statutory and constitutional principles. Despite what the president wants us to think, this attempt is no different.

Multiple courts have temporarily blocked Trump’s dangerous freeze from going into effect. Judge AliKhan wrote in a 30-page ruling that the Trump administration’s “actions in this case potentially run roughshod over a ‘bulwark of the Constitution’ by interfering with Congress’s appropriation of federal funds” and because “the funding freeze threatens the lifeline that keeps countless organizations operational, plaintiffs have met their burden of showing irreparable harm.”

Congress Has the “Power of the Purse,” Not the President

Federal funding to states and localities falls into two broad categories: mandatory spending—such as Medicaid and highway funding, that is required by law, and discretionary spending—such as education and community services grants, that is appropriated annually. The vast majority of federal grants to states are formula-based, meaning they are distributed according to statute rather than the whims of the executive branch. Competitive grants, where the administration has more discretion, account for only a small fraction of federal aid to state and local governments.

Under the Constitution, Congress—not the president—has the “power of the purse,” which means the legislature decides what funds should be spent and where, and the executive branch is bound by congressional appropriations. Unless Congress authorizes it, the executive branch cannot unilaterally withhold, alter, or add new conditions to funding.

Abusing Federal Funding Has Always Been Unlawful

The Trump administration has threatened to cut off funding to the states and cities that refuse to cooperate with its federal immigration enforcement agenda. This is not only legally dubious, but also unconstitutional.

Moreover, the Supreme Court has been clear: Under the 10th Amendment, the federal government cannot force states or cities to carry out federal immigration enforcement actions. In fact, the Trump administration previously attempted to challenge state and local laws limiting cooperation with ICE and completely failed. Courts across the country, including decisions by Trump-appointed judges, have upheld the right of states and localities to say no to participating in federal immigration enforcement.

Consequently, even when Congress does attach conditions on funding, they must respect states’ 10th Amendment rights and the conditions must be clear, directly related to the purpose of the funding, not coercive, and cannot override constitutional rights such as free speech or due process. For example, in National Federation of Independent Business v. Sebelius, the Supreme Court ruled that threatening to withhold all Medicaid funding unless states agreed to expand the program was unconstitutional coercion. In contrast, in South Dakota v. Dole, the court upheld a condition requiring states to raise their drinking age to receive 5 percent more in highway funds, because the court deemed the condition relevant and not coercive.

Similarly, while federal agencies may attempt to rewrite grant regulations, they are bound by the Administrative Procedure Act, which generally requires formal rulemaking and prohibits “arbitrary” or “capricious” changes or changes that exceed an agency’s legal authority. Multiple courts struck down the Trump administration’s prior efforts to add new conditions to state and local grants—such as requiring information sharing or cooperation with federal immigration enforcement—for exceeding statutory authority.

Standing Up to the Administration’s Threats

The Trump administration wants state and local leaders to panic at the idea of losing funding. But history, legal precedent, and constitutional law significantly limit the president’s authority over congressionally-appropriated funds. The courts have consistently ruled that the executive branch cannot strong-arm states and cities into compliance by weaponizing federal dollars.

Fearmongering over funds should not lead to fealty. Officials facing threats should carefully conduct legal reviews and push back against unlawful funding conditions. The administration is relying on fear to win. We won’t sit idly by. Take action now and remind Congress that the president doesn’t control what programs get funded — they do.

Cody Venzke, Senior Policy Counsel, ACLU National Political Advocacy Division
Allegra Harpootlian, Senior Communications Strategist, ACLU

Authors

Categories:

Breaking News Everyday Injustice Opinion

Tags:

60 comments

      1. The majority of voters gave Trump “permission” to do what he’s doing.

        Pretty sure I’ve seen polls which show the majority don’t regret their decision.

        2. Trump never even hinted at allowing this when he was running for President. I seriously doubt that many federal district court, appeals court and SCOTUS judges want Musk snooping around the tax returns of themselves, their family members and friends. You want Trump to be a king or dictator instead of the President. Trump did say he would be a dictator from Day One. That time he actually spoke the truth instead of lying.

          4. Good, go for it Musk. Purge out the waste. I also saw where Musk is looking at the rolls of who’s collecting SS. There are already some startling things coming out. Stay tuned…

          5. More like purging the most experienced and qualified government employees leaving behind mostly inexperienced and incompetent employees in the Federal Government. That’s one reason DOJ lawyers keep losing preliminary injunctions. Have it your way Keith.

          7. How do you know it’s waste? The people evaluating this have no particular expertise. Moreover, they don’t have legal authority to do it. That’s very dangerous. And while you maybe agree with it now, what happens when an administration comes in which you disagree? You’re great at pointing out the whatabouts when the shoe is on the other foot, but you’re weakness is failing to put yourself in the opposite situation. There is a reason the system was designed with checks and balances and a separation of powers, and now that’s been hollowed out and it’s unclear what will transpire going forward. Maybe you agree this time, but what happens next time you don’t?

          8. Yup, you’re right.

            Elections have consequences.

            I didn’t like what a lot of what Biden did but I had to deal with it for the last four years.

          9. I see you have chosen once again to duck the substantive questions in favor of repeating a failed line from 17 years ago.

          10. I just pointed out to you that I had to deal with the other side or direction for the last four years. Now it’s your turn to deal with the other direction. Maybe it’s you the needs to be more open minded and give Trump a chance. Your blog has almost daily articles critical of the Trump administration, how many articles did you post in the last four years critical of Biden? I don’t remember too many.

          12. You asked the question about the Vanguard’s criticism of Biden, if you go to davisvanguard.org/?s=biden you can see the search results. I then had AI analyze it and here’s what it came up with for the 12 most recent articles on Biden.

            Upon reviewing the search results from the Davis Vanguard website for articles related to President Biden, the following observations can be made:

            1. Native American Tribal Leaders Make Last Ditch Appeal for Peltier Clemency: This article discusses tribal leaders urging President Biden to grant clemency to Leonard Peltier. It presents the leaders’ perspective without direct criticism of Biden.

            2. Biden Commutes Native American Activist Peltier’s Life Sentence after 50 Years: This piece reports on President Biden commuting Peltier’s sentence, highlighting positive reactions from Peltier’s attorney. The article does not critique Biden’s actions.

            3. Sunday Commentary: Biden Commuted a Record Number of People – Did He Go Far Enough?: This commentary acknowledges Biden’s commutation of numerous sentences but questions whether his actions were sufficient, suggesting a critical viewpoint.

            4. Biden Awards Presidential Medal of Freedom to Political, Cultural, Sports, Philanthropic Figures: This article covers the awarding of the Presidential Medal of Freedom to various individuals by President Biden, presented in a neutral tone without criticism.

            5. Dr. Anthony Fauci Preemptively Pardoned by Biden During Last Hours of Presidency: This report details President Biden’s pardon of Dr. Fauci, aiming to protect him from potential future actions. The article does not critique Biden’s decision.

            6. Keeping Families Together Program Shut Downs Break the Hearts of Immigrants’ Families: This piece discusses the shutdown of a program initiated by President Biden, highlighting the negative impact on immigrant families, which implies criticism of the administration’s decision.

            7. Will California Governor Commute Death Sentences Like Biden?: This article references President Biden’s commutation of federal death sentences and discusses whether California’s governor will take similar actions. It does not critique Biden’s decisions.

            8. Justice, Faith Organizations Urge Biden to Grant Clemency for People Sentenced Under Discriminatory ‘Punitive Crack Cocaine Sentencing Guidelines’: This article highlights organizations urging President Biden to grant clemency to individuals sentenced under discriminatory guidelines, suggesting a call for more action from the administration.

            9. Letter: Democratic Party Leadership’s Posh Positions of Power and Their Lack of Constitutional Response: This letter criticizes Democratic Party leadership, including President Biden, for perceived inaction and missteps, presenting a critical perspective.

            10. FCI Englewood Prison Camp, Other Federal Prisons Deactivated: This article reports on the deactivation of federal prisons, noting unfulfilled promises by the Biden administration regarding facility repairs, which can be interpreted as critical.

            11. Two Californians Join Federal Bench, Expanding Representation: This piece discusses President Biden’s appointment of two judges to the federal bench, focusing on the expansion of representation without criticism.

            12. ICE Scales Back Detention Centers; Notes Abuse, Other Conditions – ACLU Applauds News: This article covers ICE scaling back detention centers, with the ACLU acknowledging the action but urging the Biden administration to do more, implying a call for further action.

            ****

            Based on this sample of 12 articles, approximately 5 contain critical perspectives or suggest areas where President Biden’s actions were insufficient. This represents about 42% of the articles reviewed.

          13. “your introspection is weak”

            David, do you honestly consider your introspection to be fair and strong?

          14. Do you ever take personal responsibility or do you always turn things back on others?

          15. These articles are hardly the same as the vitriolic articles that have been posted about Trump.

            I don’t have the time and I’m not going to do an AI search like you did but just going back a couple of months there are so many to draw from.

          16. The advantage of running them through an AI analysis (it wasn’t a search), is that it randomly samples them rather than cherry picks as you are describing.

            There is no reason why criticism of Biden would mirror criticism of Trump – FOR A LOT OF REASONS. The point is that Biden from the perspective of the Vanguard and the Vanguard’s contributing writers often fell short of if not outright opposed policy on issues that the Vanguard regularly covers.

          17. Here’s an example…

            Biden ran on a platform in 2020 of ending the death penalty. He not only didn’t do that, but he actually prosecuted some death penalty cases.

            He then followed through and commuted 37 of the 40 people on federal death row. That’s from my perspective a good thing, but not great because it fails to end the death penalty AND it says that the death penalty is okay in some respects.

            Trump comes in and reinstates the federal death penalty.

            Both are doing things I disagree with and have published and written critical articles about, but Trump takes a line that I much more strongly oppose. Given the mission of the Vanguard, why would you expect the two policies to be treated equally?

          18. “Do you ever take personal responsibility or do you always turn things back on others?”

            That’s rich, that’s appears to be exactly what you’re attempting to do to me here.

            I made a statement and you decided to turn it all against me and make it all about me.

          20. DG say: “nYou’re great at pointing out the whatabouts . . . ”

            The term “whatabout” is a term used when someone is pointing out hypocrisy, and rather than acknowledging the hypocrisy, throwing out a term that attempts to deflect the challenge.

            DG say: ” you’re weakness is failing to put yourself in the opposite situation. ”

            ‘I know you are but what am I?’-ism

    1. Hey Ron, I just read an article where Trump is helping relieve the housing crush in the D.C area, somewhat relieving the “crisis”. Of course it’s because people are being laid off and putting their houses on the market.

  3. Tens of thousands of federal employees have had their lives thrown into total turmoil. Fired for no reason, causing serious staffing shortages in important government agencies.
    Those who think this is a positive thing obviously have not considered the direct impact on the lives of those workers. Or worse, they don’t care.
    It has nothing to do with “waste” or “efficiency” or even performance. It’s just firing people that they can fire quickly. In some notable cases this is likely to lead to significant risk to the public.

    I agree that legal challenges are necessary. There is no reason for any state, local government, school district, or university or NGO to give in to ideological demands. There is no guarantee they will receive promised funding even if they do so. It will be necessary to revisit budgets and probably to consider further tax increases at the state and local levels to replace federal funds until the courts and Congress restore the rule of law.

    1. When Musk purchased Twitter he fired 80 to 90% of its staff in 2023. Naysayers said Twitter would cease to function in months. Here we are 2 years later and Twitter is still running strong.

    2. DS say, “Those who think this is a positive thing obviously have not considered the direct impact on the lives of those workers. Or worse, they don’t care.”

      Do you ‘consider the impact’ whenever a factory shuts down or a corporation lays off thousands? I don’t know why government employees should be any different, regarding how much I/you/we are supposed to ‘care’. No matter who one is or who one works for, losing work is very difficult.

      1. Since when is a government job a guaranteed life long position?

        We are almost $40 trillion on debt and heading for a fiscal cliff.

        It’s refreshing to see someone finally taking action.

        1. But you understand that there are laws that impact process? None of this will make a dent on the $40 trillion – for that you would have to go through the budget process and one of my complaints is that this whole thing is probably not only illegal, but backwards if your goal is actual deficit cutting.

        2. From the Economist:

          It all seems to add up to something big. On a daily, sometimes hourly, basis, Elon Musk claims that his team of fiscal commandos has found yet more government fraud, terminated another wasteful contract or even scrapped an entire agency. Mr Musk’s supporters believe that, through tech wizardry and sheer willpower, he is slashing the federal deficit in a way that has eluded politicians for years. But this narrative has a glaring flaw: our review of official data shows that Mr Musk’s efforts have scarcely made a dent in spending.

          2. You would suspect wrong. The problem is that the numbers are so large for overall spending and the deficit that you cannot possibly shirk them in any meaningful way along the margins.

          5. Or should we keep funding things like this?

            Here are only a few examples of the WASTE and ABUSE:
            $1.5 million to “advance diversity equity and inclusion in Serbia’s workplaces and business communities”
            $70,000 for production of a “DEI musical” in Ireland
            $2.5 million for electric vehicles for Vietnam
            $47,000 for a “transgender opera” in Colombia
            $32,000 for a “transgender comic book” in Peru
            $2 million for sex changes and “LGBT activism” in Guatemala
            $6 million to fund tourism in Egypt
            Hundreds of thousands of dollars for a non-profit linked to designated terrorist organizations — even AFTER an inspector general launched an investigation
            Millions to EcoHealth Alliance — which was involved in research at the Wuhan lab
            “Hundreds of thousands of meals that went to al Qaeda-affiliated fighters in Syria”
            Funding to print “personalized” contraceptives birth control devices in developing countries
            Hundreds of millions of dollars to fund “irrigation canals, farming equipment, and even fertilizer used to support the unprecedented poppy cultivation and heroin production in Afghanistan,” benefiting the Taliban

            https://www.whitehouse.gov/fact-sheets/2025/02/at-usaid-waste-and-abuse-runs-deep/

          7. I ran this through the whopper and came up with this:

            Key Claims and Findings:

            1. Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion (DEI) Initiatives:

            • Serbia: A claim was made about $1.5 million allocated to advance DEI in Serbia’s workplaces. This funding was intended to promote economic empowerment and opportunities for LGBTQI+ individuals in Serbia. However, the actual amount awarded was $500,000, not $1.5 million.

            • Ireland: Reports mentioned $70,000 for a DEI musical in Ireland. In reality, the U.S. State Department granted $70,884 to an Irish company in 2022 for a live musical event promoting shared values of diversity, equity, inclusion, and accessibility between the U.S. and Ireland.

            2. Artistic and Cultural Projects:

            • Colombia: It was alleged that $47,000 was spent on a “transgender opera” in Colombia. The project in question was a 2022 production of “As One,” an opera about a transgender woman’s journey. The funding was awarded by the State Department, not USAID, and the amount was $25,000, supplemented by $22,020 from non-federal sources.

            • Peru: Claims of $32,000 for a “transgender comic book” in Peru were also circulated. This funding was part of the Fulbright Program, an international educational exchange initiative by the State Department, aimed at increasing mutual understanding between the U.S. and other countries.

            3. Other Allegations:

            • Vietnam: A claim about $2.5 million for electric vehicles in Vietnam lacks substantiated evidence.

            • Guatemala: Allegations of $2 million for sex changes and “LGBT activism” in Guatemala are unverified and lack credible sourcing.

            • Egypt: The assertion of $6 million to fund tourism in Egypt is not supported by concrete evidence.

            • EcoHealth Alliance: While EcoHealth Alliance has received funding for research, including studies related to coronaviruses, the specifics of their involvement with the Wuhan lab are complex and have been the subject of extensive investigation.

            • Syria: Claims about “hundreds of thousands of meals” going to al Qaeda-affiliated fighters in Syria are serious but lack detailed evidence in the provided sources.

            • Afghanistan: Allegations of funding irrigation canals and farming equipment that inadvertently support poppy cultivation benefiting the Taliban are concerning but require more detailed substantiation.

          8. Another problem here is that Musk has no real expertise in running a government, and he’s wielding an incredibly blunt object.

            One way to look at this is through the lens of market failure. Getting rid of one market failure might be better than nothing, but sometimes the it actually makes things worse because of its side effects (or “external costs”). When you correct one failure of the market, you might just shift more pressure onto some other failure you didn’t correct, perhaps because you couldn’t or perhaps because he didn’t know to do so because he lacks such experience. We’re not going to know the impacts of much of this for a while – except perhaps the flight problems that are already evident.

          10. Yes, laws should be obeyed – ESPECIALLY BY THE GOVERNMENT – otherwise our system of governance falls apart.

          11. “I ran this through the whopper and came up with this”

            The whopper . . . are you just clowning us now ? I do prefer it to ‘the fact checker’

          12. Kind of, I was thinking about the movie War Games, and they had the machine that did all the war scenarios…

          13. “The whopper . . . are you just clowning us now ? I do prefer it to ‘the fact checker’”

            Maybe his “fact checker” comes up with whoppers?

          14. David says: “Guatemala: Allegations of $2 million for sex changes and “LGBT activism” in Guatemala are unverified and lack credible sourcing.”

            Add a “Q” back onto that “LGBT” and see what the “whopper” comes up with. (Or perhaps it got removed during the sex change surgery.)

          15. “ Yes, that specific claim lacks credible verification from reliable sources. Many of these types of allegations originate from partisan reports or mischaracterizations of foreign aid programs. U.S. funding for international programs is typically allocated through well-documented grants focused on human rights, public health, and economic development. Without clear evidence from reputable sources, such claims should be treated with skepticism.

            If you’re interested in fact-checking specific claims about U.S. foreign aid, you can look at reports from the Government Accountability Office (GAO), the Congressional Budget Justification for Foreign Operations, or independent watchdog organizations like FactCheck.org or PolitiFact.”

      2. Alan M. says: “No matter who one is or who one works for, losing work is very difficult.”

        But ultimately, as Don suggests – they don’t care.

        Or as Mel Brooks once said, “tragedy is when I cut my finger. Comedy is when you fall into an open sewer and die”.

        Of course, the REAL question regarding jobs is whether or not the services are needed by the one who signs the paychecks. (Can’t help but think of the situation with schools across California, as enrollment declines and as education is increasingly provided by artificial intelligence.)

        1. “Can’t help but think of the situation with schools across California, as enrollment declines ”

          While student enrollment has been declining in California the number of administrative and management personnel in schools has increased. Maybe time for a little Doge action in our schools?

          2. No, we should keep hiring even more management personnel for our dwindling student numbers.

  4. David says: “But you understand that there are laws that impact process?”

    And yet, it was carried-out. Do you think those people will get their jobs back (with back pay)?

    1. When I interviewed Professor Chin from UCD Law I asked him that question and the answer is, no one knows. This is uncharted and no one knows what the courts are likely to do. It’s entirely possible that he gets away with this. What that will mean for the future is hard to know.

Leave a Comment