Sharing the Facts About Coercive Funding Demands

The partnership between the federal government and states is a staple of our democratic system. States rely on promised federal funds, in addition to state funds, to deliver critical services to their residents. This funding—which has been debated, allocated, and approved by Congress—goes to programs that support things like public health, child nutrition, and roads and bridges. States budget with it in mind.

But instead of honoring the funding Congress already decided to set aside, the Trump administration has withheld or frozen billions of dollars from the states. In some cases, it has set arbitrary and burdensome terms and conditions states must meet to get funding.

These conditions often include broad, unrelated demands aimed at forcing states to cooperate with the president’s policy priorities, and threats to take legal action against states and state employees that don’t comply with those demands. States that don’t meet the president’s preferences risk losing out on billions of dollars of funding.

The executive branch has attached these arbitrary conditions to disaster relief, transportation projects, and vital community programs. In one instance, the administration attempted to force states to comply with new rules to access funding for early education programs such as Head Start. In another, the administration attached onerous conditions to funding domestic violence programs that a court later found “could result in the disruption of important and, in some cases, lifesaving services to victims.”

The president has even broadened and escalated this tactic through executive action. On Aug. 7, he signed an executive order that seeks to centralize the review process of federal grants and align funding decisions with the administration’s policy preferences. Political appointees—rather than career, nonpartisan staff who traditionally do this work—will now be inserted into the review process for new funding opportunities. The executive order also seeks to give federal agencies the power to cancel grants at any time.

But states are fighting back. A broad coalition of attorneys general have taken the Trump administration to court to challenge conditions the administration has tagged onto billions of dollars of funding for emergency preparedness and response, roads, highways, and bridges, and vital social service programs, like domestic violence shelters, senior nutrition programs, crisis counseling centers, and soup kitchens. And, so far, courts have agreed with states and blocked conditions to money previously allocated by Congress.

Other plaintiffs, including local governments, are fighting back too. In April, in a suit brought by more than 30 local governments, a federal judge blocked conditions the administration attached to an estimated $4 billion in federal grants. The judge found they violated the Constitution’s separation of powers and spending principles.

Here are some key takeaways about the Trump administration’s coercive demands for states to access federal funds:

• This is an unconstitutional overstep.
  • In the American system, Congress allocates money to the states. The president cannot take that money away by himself.
  • We are a nation governed by the rule of law, and our system of government only works when people in authority follow the law.
• The president is stripping Americans of their voice in government.
  • The American people elect Congress to represent them, and work in their interest. Congress determines which programs to fund.
  • States have the power to set their own priorities. State and local officials know what policies work best for their residents, not the president.
• States are not allowing this power grab to happen without a fight.
  • They’re meeting the administration in court and have been successful at checking this abuse of power and having funds restored. But the fight is not over. Funding for vital programs remains in limbo and the administration is only stepping up their coercive and unlawful tactics.
• This is not the normal way the government sets funding priorities.
  • This is coercion. Plain and simple.
  • As administrations change, policies change, and the use of federal funds can change with them. But what is different here is the executive branch making unilateral decisions to take away state funds despite congressional approval, the massive scale, the coercive tactics being used to manipulate and target states, and the total disregard for the American people who relying on this funding for survival.
  • The president is weaponizing the executive branch by withholding money based on retribution against officials or policies he dislikes.
  • The political whims of the president should not take away money from critical programs that our states and legislative branch funded to help Americans.
  • States and their residents rely on federal funding. To change the terms for that funding midstream, with no regard for checks and balances, goes against our country’s principles.
• These funding cuts are hurting Americans.
  • This impacts all Americans, regardless of where they live or how they vote.
  • These cuts have gone after programs that prevent injuries and deaths in transportation, find cures and treatments for diseases, and provide disaster relief for our communities in their most pressing time of need.
• States have the power to set their policies without these threats.
  • The president is making demands that are completely unrelated to the funding in question, and then holding services and support for the people of those states hostage unless they comply.
  • The Constitution allows states to govern themselves and enact policies that fit their communities. The president cannot unilaterally force states to change their laws and practices.