Trump’s Washington Is Ghosting States and Cities 

The long-standing, stable partnership among local, state, and federal governments is dead. From withholding  funding from states to deploying troops to cities over the objections of mayors and governors, the unpredictability of Donald Trump’s administration didn’t help the GOP in this month’s off-year elections. And looming cuts to Medicaid and Head Start, along with the deliberate refusal to fund SNAP benefits during the government shutdown, suggest that the administration will continue to abandon traditional federal partnerships. While Democratic states and municipalities clearly bear the brunt of federal lapses, recent decisions to auction oil leases in Alaska and Florida over the objections of Republican lawmakers from those places demonstrate the broad ways in which Washington is now ingraining capriciousness into many federal policies.  

So, the newly elected leaders of New Jersey, Virginia, New York City, and others face a frayed relationship with the federal government—and need a blueprint for moving forward. The urgency of the moment was on full display in the extraordinary meeting between Zohran Mamdani, New York City’s mayor-elect, and the 47^th president last week, in which the 34-year-old democratic socialist was eager to make sure the 79-year-old Republican president kept the federal spigot open to the president’s hometown.  

Until now, state and local leaders have often faced a false choice when navigating the unreliable federal partnership that marks the Trump era. On one hand, they can “cut a deal,” a euphemism for capitulating to the president. Alternatively, they can litigate and hope for a favorable ruling, or at least a stay that buys some time to evaluate options. The Supreme Court’s frequent rulings in favor of the administration, especially in cases on the Court’s shadow docket, highlight the limits of this approach.  

As researchers studying American federalism and intergovernmental relations, we believe there is a better way forward for states and local governments. While there is no reason to let the feds off the hook, governors and mayors can build partnerships to provide mutual aid and penalize the federal government for shirking its commitments.  

Already, state and local authorities are innovating and experimenting, developing new playbooks to stand up for their constituents. LA County’s Board of Supervisors declared a local emergency due to ICE activity, allowing it to seek state funding to help families and businesses in neighborhoods affected by raids. Delaware’s governor has used the same tactic to redirect state funds to fill the SNAP gap. In the Washington Monthly, Markos Kounalakis recently recommended that California, where he is Second Gentleman, try to join the G-7, the COP 30 climate summit, and other fora where the world’s fourth-largest economy could reestablish American leadership. 

Meanwhile, the gutting of many federal agencies has left states searching for new ways to deliver crucial services. Several states have united to fill the void left by a depleted CDC, such as the Northeast Public Health Collaborative and the West Coast Health Alliance. Legal scholars like Aziz Huq and Zachary Clopton have also catalogued numerous ways states might collaborate, from a mutual aid pact to allow for interstate borrowing to regional weather services to compensate for dramatic cuts at the National Weather Service (NWS) and the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA).  

If handling a president weren’t enough of a challenge, congressional Republicans present another. The Republican budget, signed on July 4 at a ceremony for the One Big Beautiful Bill, is proving a disaster for state budgets. As a result, Massachusetts is exploring opting out of federal corporate tax changes in the bill. And New York has announced changes to state healthcare programs to preserve coverage.  

These examples highlight a range of pathways. But there are others. From the creation of the Uniform Commercial Code, which standardized commercial transactions in a fragmented country, to the 1998 Tobacco Master Settlement Agreement forged between states and the big cigarette companies and which revolutionized tobacco-industry regulation, history abounds with examples of interstate collaborations that shape the policy agenda. By looking to the past, states and local governments can re-learn how to use federalism when the federal government reneges on its commitments.  

To succeed, local and state leaders must discuss the importance of these partnerships in terms that citizens can understand, emphasizing that cooperation is necessary to address many of the nation’s most pressing problems, from affordable housing to food insecurity to environmental issues. And while any intervention to these pressing problems will face significant practical and political hurdles, they nevertheless merit serious attention.  

Still, running a nation through redundant coalitions of states and territories is not sustainable. Washington must provide rigorous, uniformly collected employment statistics, public health data, and necessary information to support interstate commerce—something that was never really questioned until the administration began eliminating federal repositories of climate data, firing the commissioner of the Bureau of Labor Statistics, and delaying or redacting key reports that present inconvenient truths for the administration. 

An unpredictable federal government will leave officials at the state and local levels holding the bag. This has ramifications for the next presidential administration, no matter which party holds the White House. For instance, a Trump-proposed evisceration of HUD’s Continuum of Care, run by the Department of Housing and Urban Development, would drastically redistribute $3.5 billion that state and local governments use to serve the homeless. The next presidential administration could reverse these moves or take a whole different direction; lurching back and forth requires states and local governments to invest more in operational agility rather than the services taxpayers expect. Relatively few states presently invest staff, time, and resources in plans to handle federal funding interruptions, but this will certainly exacerbate government dysfunction.  

As the shape of American federalism remains uncertain, state and local officials should constantly innovate, boldly interpret their powers, and learn from peers to stand firm against a federal government that increasingly exhibits arbitrary rule.