this post was submitted on 29 Jun 2025
903 points (99.5% liked)

politics

24592 readers
2722 users here now

Welcome to the discussion of US Politics!

Rules:

  1. 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:

  1. 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.
  2. 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.
  3. 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.
  4. 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.
  5. 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

Register To Vote

Citizenship Resource Center

Congressional Awards Program

Federal Government Agencies

Library of Congress Legislative Resources

The White House

U.S. House of Representatives

U.S. Senate

Partnered Communities:

News

World News

Business News

Political Discussion

Ask Politics

Military News

Global Politics

Moderate Politics

Progressive Politics

UK Politics

Canadian Politics

Australian Politics

New Zealand Politics

founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
 

The novel and untested approach has been introduced by Democratic lawmakers in at least four states.

Democratic legislators mostly in blue states are attempting to fight back against Donald Trump’s efforts to withhold funding from their states with bills that aim to give the federal government a taste of its own medicine.

The novel and untested approach — so far introduced in Connecticut, Maryland, New York and Wisconsin — would essentially allow states to withhold federal payments if lawmakers determine the federal government is delinquent in funding owed to them. Democrats in Washington state said they are in the process of drafting 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 by Democrats at the state level to counter what they say is a massive overreach by the Trump administration to cease providing federal funding for an array of programs that have helped states pay for health care, food assistance and environmental protections.

top 50 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] samus12345@sh.itjust.works 12 points 6 days ago

Laws not mattering anymore works both ways.

[–] AngryCommieKender@lemmy.world 8 points 6 days ago

California needs to get on this

[–] Lucelu2@lemmy.zip 7 points 6 days ago

Honestly, states can change their rules... and enshrine and encourage/incentivise communal ownerships... like Co-ops, B-Corps, etc. in which there is not actual US currency involved but state sponsored services provided with credits (like HC, Agriculture) -- people could exchanged things and labor for those credits. Those who are disabled would fall under a social safety net and do some things that they are able to do to acquire credits but on a different level and our collective labor should cover our vulnerable and disabled of every age.

[–] nonentity@sh.itjust.works -1 points 6 days ago (1 children)

The states are currency users, and as such are intrinsically subservient to the currency issuer, namely the federal government.

The US federal government doesn’t need whatever money the states, or anyone else, pays it. Every cent a currency issuer receives is instantly obliterated from the economy, and conversely the origin of every cent is conjured out of thin air by their budget.

That said, the states withholding federal payments could work on the chucklefucks currently in charge, because many of them are likely to believe strongly in the fiction of zero-sum economics, but I’d hazard a critical mass hold a world view built on some other fantastical hallucination from hotboxing their collective farts.

[–] Dogyote@slrpnk.net 1 points 6 days ago (1 children)

That's literally how it works, dunno why you're getting downvoted

[–] nonentity@sh.itjust.works 2 points 6 days ago

¯\_(ツ)_/¯

I’ve found the most difficult concept to dislodge from the terminally disengaged is that there’s no such thing as taxpayer money at the federal level.

It’s a tremendously useful weapon for those in power to wield when they need to convince the poor to vote against their interests.

[–] partial_accumen@lemmy.world 210 points 1 week ago (6 children)

and legal experts said they would face obstacles.

Do they? Those at the top of government aren't following the rules anymore. Why should states still be bound to do so?

[–] tdawg@lemmy.world 56 points 1 week ago (6 children)

Bc that's the difference between these groups. One believes in the law and what it means. The other doesnt

So while yes, it would be great to see the Dems play hardball they can't without failing to uphold what they believe is right

Is it naive? Yeah probably. Will it be enough? Probably not

But going against the fed in a way that is considered "illegal" could be seen as declaring civil war. And while the fed can't live without it's taxes it can bomb you to hell if provoked

[–] SnotFlickerman@lemmy.blahaj.zone 102 points 1 week ago* (last edited 1 week ago) (1 children)

could be seen as declaring civil war.

To anyone paying attention, we've been in a cold civil war since at least 2016, if not before that.

https://www.politico.com/news/2024/07/04/leader-of-the-pro-trump-project-2025-suggests-there-will-be-a-new-american-revolution-00166583

“We ought to be really encouraged by what happened yesterday, and in spite of all of the injustice — which of course friends and audience of this show, of our friend Steve, know — we are going to prevail,” Mr. Roberts said, alluding to Mr. Bannon’s imprisonment.

He went on to say that “the radical left” was “apoplectic” because “our side is winning” and said, “And so I come full circle in this response and just want to encourage you with some substance that we are in the process of the second American Revolution, which will remain bloodless if the left allows it to be.

This is Kevin D. Roberts of the Heritage Foundation. Point one is that he promotes the idea that the second American Revolution will be "bloodless" only if the left allows it to be, and point two is he describes it as something that is in the process of happening. That means it has already started and has been in motion.

We didn't fire the first shot of the war here and I'm sick and fucking tired of the people acting like us pushing back is "declaring civil war." No the fuck it isn't they declared war on us decades ago now. What a fucking joke. This is classic DARVO, Deny Attack Reverse Victim and Offender. It turns the victims of a cold civil war into the aggressors when the actual aggressors literally passing bills that will fucking cause institutional social murder at a grand scale. It's abuser tactics, plain and simple, at a national level.

Please don't play into this false narrative, the civil war is on, us fighting back isn't declaring it. Please stop letting liars and abusers dictate the rules of reality and what we accept as truth. You're letting their lies set the bounds for how we operate and it's that kind of bullshit that got us here in the first place. Stop giving them deference and treating their falsehoods as truths.

EDIT: Trump literally just suggested if Zohran Mamdani becomes mayor of New York City that he will withhold federal funds. We didn't start this war. Any suggestion otherwise is bullshit.

https://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/americas/us-politics/trump-nyc-mayor-mamdani-funding-b2779141.html

[–] pivot_root@lemmy.world 50 points 1 week ago (2 children)

Point one is that he promotes the idea that the second American Revolution will be "bloodless" only if the left allows it to be

Fuck this asshole. "It won't hurt if you don't resist" isn't a civil war, it's a hostile coup led by jackboot-supported fascists.

It's literally also how abusers speak to their abused spouses. "Look what you made me do to you."

load more comments (1 replies)
[–] CosmicTurtle0@lemmy.dbzer0.com 30 points 1 week ago

I don't know about you but I'm sick of being on the team that follows the rules and loses to the criminals that completely ignore the rules.

[–] partial_accumen@lemmy.world 24 points 1 week ago* (last edited 1 week ago) (12 children)

But going against the fed in a way that is considered “illegal” could be seen as declaring civil war. And while the fed can’t live without it’s taxes it can bomb you to hell if provoked

Not making a payment is seen as civil war? If its already at that point we're already done.

However, realistically not making a payment won't earn you bombs. It might earn guns though. What would that look like if a state withheld payment? Would a fed law enforcer with a gun go into an office, up to some state employee sitting an a cube responsible for making money transfers as part of their work, and have the gun in their face or threatening arrest if they don't make the payment to the fed? Would it instead be indictments of state government officials, and perhaps jailing them? Who would they jail? The Governor that signed the bill into law? The state legislature for putting the measure forward?

When high level state officials or low level state office workers start getting arrested, that moves the game to a different level. That escalation may have knock on effects on the citizenry. This would be especially true if the reason the state would be withholding the payment from the fed would be for cutting of services from the fed.

load more comments (12 replies)
load more comments (3 replies)
load more comments (5 replies)
[–] VetOfTheSeas@discuss.online 103 points 1 week ago

Let those welfare queen red states pull themselves up by their own bootstrap

[–] JiveTurkey@lemmy.world 95 points 1 week ago

Please do this.

[–] frazw@lemmy.world 75 points 1 week ago (2 children)

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?

[–] Dragomus@lemmy.world 36 points 1 week ago

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.

load more comments (1 replies)
[–] BlameTheAntifa@lemmy.world 47 points 1 week ago* (last edited 1 week ago) (11 children)

Secede. Whatever happens in the US after this administration, there is no repairing the damage that has been done without violence. There is no restoring the Constitution, no repairing the rule of law, no restoration of democracy, no restoring affordable living, no curbing the power of billionaire oligarchs, no path to freedom, liberty, or sanity.

Escape is the only option that has a chance at minimizing bloodshed. Individual escape by emigrating, but what countries would want American expats now? so many are following the US’c corrupt lead. Special privileges for the rich, slavery for the serfdom.

Collective escape via secession and the creation of new independent countries is the only sane path forward now. Alternatively annexation could work, but I don’t see Canada or Mexico going out of their way to save Americans, for reasons that should be obvious.

load more comments (11 replies)
[–] DaddleDew@lemmy.world 43 points 1 week ago

Trump notoriously doesn't pay his bills after all.

[–] Randomgal@lemmy.ca 42 points 1 week ago (9 children)

This sounds like dissolving the union with extra steps ngl

[–] DarkFuture@lemmy.world 38 points 1 week ago

And?

Blue states can only continue supporting red states that bite the hand that feeds for so long.

And in this case, biting the hand that feeds involves removing human rights.

So yeah. It's time to balkanize. Blue states will be fine. Red states can suffer and die for supporting a traitor and his treasonous party.

[–] WoodScientist@sh.itjust.works 29 points 1 week ago (5 children)

Honestly, we need to dissolve the union at this point. It's just common sense.

Look, it's time for a reality check. When a nation's political culture becomes this dysfunctional, there's no bringing it back, not without some massive bloody civil war that leaves millions dead. What they don't teach you in school is that every written law or constitution is ultimately meaningless. The Constitution does not enforce itself and neither does any law. They all require a certain amount of good-faith interpretation. It is always possible to come up with a strained bad-faith interpretation of any law that will allow you to do whatever you want. But in a healthy political system, this doesn't happen. Both sides practice restraint and realize that their overreach will be answered by overreach on the other side.

But if you lose that? The nation is effectively shattered. The United States, as a functioning democracy, is already dead. It's zombie corpse is just limping along. The president is openly defying the laws passed by Congress. The Supreme Court is openly corrupt, openly partisan, and ignoring the plain language of the constitution. It's all just might makes right now, and both parties view the other as fundamentally wicked and illegitimate.

Once your politics have decayed this much, there is no bringing it back. We need to peacefully dissolve the United States. Will it be easy? No. But we also shouldn't let one of our core national character flaws - American exceptionalism, blind us to the possibilities that exist. Plenty of nations have peacefully dissolved before. And they find ways to negotiate the hard issues like dividing assets, debts, obligations, military forces, etc. This has been done before, and it can be done again.

When this comes up, the "umm aktually" crowd also comes out of the woodwork. They'll point out that there's no actual constitutional mechanism to do this. These people are blind or have been asleep the last six months. You would think they would learn by now that all it takes to do something is that there not be anyone there to stop you.

We should grant all 50 states full independence. Just disband the existing federal government entirely. Let the states then come back together in whatever new nation or nations they want to form. How can this be done legally? Simple. Someone just needs to run for president on the platform of national dissolution, saying, "I'll grant all 50 states independence. I'll fire every federal employee, and I will not use any military force to stop all the states from seceding." And then they get elected and simply do that. Congress or SCOTUS can complain all they want; it won't matter. That candidate if elected would have an overwhelming political mandate, and there would be no way to stop them. Some may whine that it's unconstitutional, but who cares? It's pretty obvious by now that the Constitution is broken, obsolete, and no longer worth respecting. We're walking away from that broken obsolete piece of trash. We can do better.

[–] Furbag@lemmy.world 2 points 6 days ago

So true. What we are experiencing now is the "new normal", and electing Joe Biden proved that we can't restore sanity just by voting a democrat in office. Every time we get a conservative from now on, we should expect more of this wacky Trumpian bullshit, even if Trump isn't at the helm.

There are, as you said, only two way of actually fixing the problem. All-out civil war, which nobody really wants and may not culminate in actually winning, or untethering ourselves from the minority party currently running the failed state by seceding, preferably peacefully. That presents it's own unique challenges and problems, but it's by far a better solution than continuing to course correct the sinking ship like we are now. We will only drown with the captain and his crew of morons who intend to go down with the ship.

load more comments (4 replies)
load more comments (7 replies)
[–] Karrion409@lemmy.world 40 points 1 week ago (1 children)

I would be interested in seeing if this is actually a viable strategy for more wealthy states such as illinois and california because I'm getting tired of the borderline suicidal "they go low, we go high" rhetoric. I know theres things in place to make sure it can't be done but the current admin isn't playing by the rules and we can't win if we keep trying to follow them. We need to start playing hardball with these clowns.

[–] criss_cross@lemmy.world 21 points 1 week ago (3 children)

I’m sure Cali is getting sick of paying 80 billion more than they’re supposed to get back, only to have what you get back not even come to you.

load more comments (3 replies)
[–] ansiz@lemmy.world 38 points 1 week ago (3 children)

Sounds like the beginnings of a future civil war if those states actually follow through. It sounds like the right move though, I hope a bunch of blue states follow up on this!

load more comments (3 replies)
[–] wewbull@feddit.uk 33 points 1 week ago (8 children)

Otherwise known as "The collapse of the USA".

[–] MolecularCactus1324@lemmy.world 2 points 1 week ago* (last edited 6 days ago) (1 children)

We just need to join Canada. California alone will double the size of Canada. New York is another 25M. You have a new country that is ~140M. Add Michigan, Illinois, and Minnesota and it’s even bigger.

Now factor in that most GDP is generated in these states and you’ve got a kick ass new country. California grows a lot of food too, but you’ll be missing some from the Midwest unfortunately. At least we won’t have their toxic politics.

[–] wewbull@feddit.uk 1 points 6 days ago

I think Canada is quite happy as it is.

load more comments (7 replies)
[–] Nightwingdragon@lemmy.world 33 points 1 week ago

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.

[–] BadmanDan@lemmy.world 26 points 1 week ago (1 children)

This is an economic nightmare

[–] zalgotext@sh.itjust.works 35 points 1 week ago

That's usually what happens when a political nightmare assumes one of the most powerful offices on the planet

[–] Kalysta@lemm.ee 24 points 1 week ago

I’ve been saying we need to do this since the ass won the election. Nice to see my state finally listened.

[–] SeeMarkFly@lemmy.ml 23 points 1 week ago (2 children)

No taxation without representation.

load more comments (2 replies)
[–] gandalf_der_12te@discuss.tchncs.de 22 points 1 week ago (2 children)

Honestly, that's probably the most effective thing that can be done.

In business, where it really hurts, is in the money. Hit them where it really matters.

load more comments (2 replies)
[–] lorski@sopuli.xyz 21 points 1 week ago

Might be the only way to stop him/gop

[–] pinheadednightmare@lemmy.world 18 points 1 week ago

I’m down for this all across the board. Anything to take his power away.

load more comments
view more: next ›