No country for blue states: Trump is using federal power to pressure democratic governors

Доступно на русском языке

In late February, Washington hosted the annual meeting between the U.S. president and state governors after Donald Trump nearly derailed the event by refusing to invite Democrats. Oklahoma governor Kevin Stitt, a Republican and chair of the National Governors Association, had even announced the cancellation — to which Trump responded by calling Stitt a “RINO” (Republican in name only). Eventually, a compromise was reached and all governors except for Maryland’s Wes Moore and Colorado’s Jared Polis — two Democrats whom Trump declared “unworthy” of such an honor — were invited to Washington.

As the press noted, Moore is the only Black state leader in the country, while Polis is the only openly gay one. In response to Trump’s initiative to exclude them from the gathering, 18 Democratic governors said they would boycott the meeting with the president. The event ultimately went ahead, albeit with only 12 Republicans and 10 Democrats opting to attend (notably, Moore was among them after making the short trip down from Annapolis). In any case, the meeting had to be cut short when Trump was informed that the Supreme Court had ruled most of his trade tariffs unconstitutional. At the formal dinner the following day, only the leaders of Republican states showed up.

A similar meeting in 2025 also ended in scandal. At the time, Trump threatened Democratic governors that he would cut off their federal funding if they did not ban transgender athletes from participating in school and university competitions. He singled out the state of Maine in particular, prompting its governor, Democrat Janet Mills, to respond: “See you in court.”

Several weeks later, the Department of Agriculture announced a freeze on grants to the University of Maine, and schools in the state were stripped of a $3 million federal subsidy intended to pay for student meals. In April 2025, state authorities filed a lawsuit against the department, which soon agreed to restore the funding in exchange for the withdrawal of the case.

Budgetary stranglehold

This is just one example of how Trump’s executive branch has used the federal budget to pressure states run by Democratic governors. In the first days of the new administration, the White House issued a memorandum suspending the distribution of grants, loans, and other financial assistance provided by the federal government (Social Security and Medicare excepted). The document stated that all payments would be frozen until officials in Washington determined which programs were connected to “Marxism, the transgender agenda, and the Green New Deal.”

Numerous programs in the areas of health care, education, and social assistance were put at risk — subsidies for school lunches, grants to pay for daycare, and funds earmarked for road and water infrastructure repairs. Within a few days, courts in various parts of the United States demanded that funding be restored while the lawsuits were being considered. In one case, a judge accused the Trump administration of having “put itself above Congress” by deciding on its own how to distribute money allocated by lawmakers as part of the federal budget. As a result, the White House was forced to back down, rescinding the memorandum.

Washington also canceled research grants worth billions of dollars that had been awarded to leading American universities, demanding that the institutions accept federal conditions governing campus life and protests. Some of the grants were eventually restored by the courts, but the Justice Department filed counterclaims against the universities. One Justice Department employee who participated in the proceedings (and later resigned) called administration’s actions politically motivated: “We were only told to investigate cases that were in blue states, and cases or investigations involving red states or that didn’t involve perceived political enemies of the administration never moved forward.” Some universities reached settlements with the Justice Department, but Harvard chose to go to court, where it secured the restoration of its funding.

In April 2025, cuts at the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) led to the closure of the Building Resilient Infrastructure and Communities (BRIC) program, which financed state preparations for floods, hurricanes, and other natural disasters. BRIC was launched in 2020 during Trump’s first term and, according to some estimates, could have reduced the costs of dealing with natural disasters sixfold. Instead, $4.5 billion that had been pledged for the restoration of more than two thousand facilities across the country was blocked. In July, the authorities of 22 states filed a lawsuit demanding payment, and in December a court ruled the cancellation of the grants unlawful. FEMA could have appealed the decision within two months but did not do so — but it still failed to pay the states the funds they were owed.

In October, amid an extended federal government shutdown, the Department of Energy canceled funding for 223 projects in the areas of renewable energy, hydrogen power plants, the construction of new transmission lines, and the modernization of facilities for cleaner use of fossil fuels. In total, about $7.5 billion allocated to projects in 16 states was frozen — not by coincidence, all of them had voted for Kamala Harris in the 2024 presidential election. In January 2026, a court ruled the cancellation of the grants to be unlawful, stating that the government had effectively punished Democratic states for the results of the election.

At the initiative of the White House, $2.1 billion in funding for the expansion of the public transportation system in Illinois was also suspended, as was financing for infrastructure projects in New York and New Jersey totaling $16 billion. In February, Trump said he was ready to restore the funding provided New York’s Penn Station and Washington’s Dulles International Airport were renamed in his honor. However, following a court order, the White House ultimately had to return the money.

In early January 2026, the White House announced a freeze on funding for social support programs for low-income families in California, Illinois, New York, Minnesota, and Colorado totaling more than $10 billion. The pretext was a federal investigation into several members of Minnesota’s Somali community suspected of fraud involving budget funds allocated for children’s meals during the COVID-19 pandemic. The Department of Health demanded a full accounting of spending under these programs and threatened to impose a similar freeze on funds in another ten Democratic states. The measure was immediately challenged in court, which ordered the federal government to continue the funding.

War on sanctuary jurisdictions

The Trump administration has resorted to similar measures when it comes to migration. In January 2026, the president announced that starting in early February he would cut off federal funding to states and municipalities that have sanctuary status. In 2025, the White House had already tried to strip 34 such cities of funding, but the measure was ruled unlawful. Jurisdictions with this status have laws that bar local police from asking about people’s immigration status when they interact with municipal institutions and prevent them from handing migrants over to federal authorities. Critics insist that such laws lead to higher crime, although research does not confirm this hypothesis.

In addition to financial pressure, in 2025 the federal government sent immigration police from ICE on mass raids in large cities run by Democratic mayors — including Los Angeles, Portland, and Chicago. In each case, the actions of federal agents were accompanied by protests from local residents. In response, the White House accused the local authorities of rebellion and deployed National Guard units — and even Marines — to the cities.

However, the Trump administration faced resistance from the courts in this area as well. In late December, the Supreme Court handed down a six to three decision ruling that the federalization of the Illinois National Guard was unlawful. A few days later, the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals ordered that control over National Guard units in Los Angeles be returned to the governor of California. The deployment of troops in Portland was blocked by a judge appointed by Trump himself. As a result, the White House had to back down.

In early 2026, Minnesota became the new center of confrontation when around three thousand federal agents were sent to carry out an operation called Metro Surge. Over the course of a few weeks, federal agents detained more than three thousand people, whom they insisted were among the “worst of the worst” — this despite the fact that only 14% of those held in migrant detention centers have a criminal conviction or had even been accused of committing violent crimes.

At the same time, agents repeatedly stopped and arrested U.S. citizens, demanding that they prove their legal status. Among those detained were municipal workers, members of Indigenous communities, and even local police officers dressed in plain clothes. The only thing the “suspects” had in common was that they were not white. During hearings attended by members of Congress, St. Paul mayor Kaohly Her said that while going door to door in local neighborhoods, ICE agents asked residents “where the Asians live.” In their search for migrants, the agents even triggered a diplomatic incident by trying to enter the Ecuadorian consulate.

ICE officers detained people who filmed their actions on their phones or followed them in cars. At the same time, a memo circulated by the Department of Homeland Security explicitly stated that such actions do not violate the law. Several cases were recorded in which agents entered homes without a search warrant. One widely publicized incident involved officers detaining a man and his five-year-old son, then sending the child back home as bait to find out whether anyone else was there.

Legal immigrants whose applications for asylum or permanent residency had already been approved were also arrested. Some were transferred to detention centers in Texas before being released after their status was clarified. Federal judge Patrick Schiltz, appointed by George W. Bush, stated that ICE had violated 96 court orders in 74 cases. “By January 2026, ICE had violated more court rulings than some federal agencies in their entire history,” he wrote. In total, since early October 2025, courts have ruled migrant arrests unlawful in more than 4,400 cases.

The conflict between local authorities and the federal center escalated further after the killings of protesters Rene Good and Alex Pretti. In both cases, local police said they were not allowed onto the scene despite having a court warrant, and that the FBI refused to share information with them.

Minnesota authorities tried to secure a halt to immigration raids in the state, but the court rejected their demands. In some cases, after lawsuits by local authorities were filed, courts agreed to prohibit officers from using special equipment or from arresting protesters who posed no threat. However, the states proved powerless to stop the raids by immigration agencies: they have no jurisdiction over federal officers, who possess broad immunity both from lawsuits brought by citizens and from possible criminal charges brought by state authorities (provided that the alleged offense is connected with the performance of their official duties).

Despite this, some states are still trying to push back against the White House’s policies. In recent months, New Mexico, Virginia, and Maryland have terminated their agreements with ICE on assisting with the deportation of migrants. In Illinois and California, laws have been adopted allowing residents to sue immigration officers who violate their constitutional rights, and similar bills are being considered in New Jersey and Colorado.

Proposals to ban federal law enforcement officers from wearing masks within state territory have been introduced in the legislatures of Virginia, Maryland, Washington, and Minnesota. However, a similar law recently adopted in California was temporarily blocked by a court, which found it discriminatory toward federal officers.

The «right» people vote

In addition to protecting undocumented migrants from deportation, Trump has repeatedly accused Democratic states of allowing them to participate in elections on a massive scale. However, statistics do not support these claims.

According to a report by the Democratic nonprofit Brennan Center, in 42 municipalities where a combined 23 million people voted in the 2016 elections, only around 30 cases of voter fraud involving non-citizens were even alleged. In the database of the conservative Heritage Foundation, only 68 cases of noncitizen voting have been recorded stretching all the way back to the 1980s, and only ten of those involved undocumented immigrants.

After the 2024 elections, a number of states conducted additional audits of voter rolls in search of undocumented migrants. In Utah, out of 2.1 million voters, authorities found just one noncitizen. The administration of Idaho managed to identify 36 voters who “likely” are not citizens. In Montana there were 23 such cases, and in Georgia there were 20. In Louisiana, authorities identified 390 voters without citizenship, but only 79 of them had taken part in elections over the past 20 years.

Despite this, the Justice Department demanded that all states turn over their voter rolls. Under the U.S. Constitution, responsibility for voter registration and for organizing and conducting elections lies with the states rather than the federal government, but under a new document, local authorities would submit rolls to the Justice Department for review and commit to removing those names that the department identifies as invalid. This requirement violates not only the laws of many states but also the federal National Voter Registration Act.

In the end, only 11 Republican states responded to the Justice Department’s request, while another seven simply provided information about publicly available voter lists that contain no personal data. All Democratic states, as well as five Republican ones, refused to provide the lists. In response, the Justice Department filed lawsuits — but only against Democrats. Three such cases have already been dismissed.

In response, Trump called on his fellow Republicans to “nationalize” the system for administering federal elections: “Republicans should say, ‘We want to take over.’ We should take over the voting in at least 15 places. A state is an agent for the federal government in elections The states represent the federal government and are responsible for counting the votes. If they can’t count the votes legally and honestly, then somebody else should take over.”

In addition to voter rolls, the Justice Department also demanded access to ballot-counting machines in Colorado and Missouri. In both cases, local authorities refused.

Meanwhile, in Fulton County, Georgia, the FBI carried out searches at the election commission. According to a copy of the search warrant, law enforcement officers were authorized to seize all ballots from the 2020 election, the data from the machines used to count them, and voter rolls. Present during the search were FBI Deputy Director Andrew Bailey and, for some reason, Director of National Intelligence Tulsi Gabbard. Her office later said that she “plays a key role in ensuring election security” and was acting in accordance with a presidential directive.

Former Trump adviser Steve Bannon, on his podcast, suggested stationing ICE officers near polling places during the congressional midterm elections in November 2026 in order to identify any undocumented migrants who come to vote. The recently fired Homeland Security Secretary Kristi Noem, whose former department oversees ICE and other immigration agencies, said that she herself would be responsible for administering the vote: “Elections are another critically important responsibility that rests with me. Many people believe it is the most important one. So as the election approaches, we are working to ensure that the right people vote and choose the right candidates to lead the country.”