111
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?
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
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.
“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.
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."
There are a lot of candidates, but he should be one of the first ones against the wall when the revolution comes.
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.
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.
What would that look like if a state withheld payment?
Very simple.
-
The federal government would file a lawsuit asking the courts to freeze the bank accounts that contain the federal funds. The courts would most certainly grant such a motion.
-
While the court case played out, the federal government would continue on with business as usual. The federal government would earmark and spend the frozen funds as if it were already in their possession, simply adding the spending to the deficit/debt until the case is settled and the funds are released. The funds would then be retroactively applied to bring our debt down to where it should have been in the first place.
-
Whether it's a lower court or the Supreme Court after all the appeals, the courts would eventually rule that states cannot withhold federal payments just because they disagree with federal policies that are affecting them. The only question that would exist would be how long would it take to get to this point, because there's no way the Supreme Court would or even could rule any other way.
-
Upon receipt of the court order, some bank executive in a corporate office somewhere would access the accounts and release the funds to the federal government. That corporate office and the officer that ultimately releases the funds may or may not even physically be in the affected state, rendering it impossible for state officials to even try to prevent the bank from executing the court order and releasing the funds.
There would be no standoff. There would be no bloodshed. No civil war. It wouldn't be done through shows of force, it would simply be a few clicks on the keyboard. It would be decided in courthouses and lawyers' offices, not on the streets.
And notice how I didn't mention Trump or California, because it would play out the same no matter who was President, or on the Supreme Court, or what state was withholding payment. And it should. Imagine if Alabama threatened to withhold federal payouts because desegregation was being forced upon them and they were against the Civil Rights act. That would never have been allowed to happen. If any state were ultimately allowed to just withhold funding that way, all it would do is lead to red states refusing to pay out whenever there's a Democrat president, and blue states refusing to pay out when there's a Republican in charge.
(And yes, there are just as many red states that pay out significantly more in federal funding than they receive. Democrats have California, New York, and MA for example. Republicans have states like Florida, Texas, and Tennessee.)
I feel like you're missing a point here. It's significant that this isn't just
they disagree with federal policies that are affecting them.
It's that the federal government has made a commitment to provide funds to the state (e.g. the broadband construction funds, funds to build EV charging stations, etc.) and the federal government is now refusing to disburse those funds because the current administration has decided it doesn't like paying the bills the previous administration incurred, at least to states Trump feels aren't adequately supportive of his policies. The proposal in this case is to withhold delivery of funds the state is supposed to give the government in order to offset the funds the government is also contractually obligated to deliver.
I agree with you that this specific supreme court would definitely rule in favor of the feds, but I definitely don't think the case is as absurdly one-sided as you seem to find it. I think a different court could probably find precedent for this kind of dispute if they were so inclined.
load more comments
(1 replies)
load more comments
(3 replies)
Let those welfare queen red states pull themselves up by their own bootstrap
This is an economic nightmare
That's usually what happens when a political nightmare assumes one of the most powerful offices on the planet
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.
So you don’t see Canada putting any effort into saving… California or the north east coast?
Let the red states have their trumpistan, I’ll lobby my new Canadian representative to veto aid packages all day long eh.
Lmao no and why would they? It's not canada.
No. Canada is a small country and can't actually absorb the millions of people that acquiring US states would entail. California alone has a population similar to that of all of Canada. The US West Coast, if it joined Canada, would suddenly represent the majority of the Canadian population. Canada could absorb a single low population state, like Alaska. But asking Canadians to absorb large chunks of the US is asking them to make existing Canadians a political minority in their own country. Is doesn't make sense. The US West Coast can simply be its own independent country.
load more comments
(1 replies)
load more comments
(2 replies)
Might be the only way to stop him/gop
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!
I hope a bunch of fema deprived red states follow up on this!
States rights have and always will be a double edged sword. Usually it's a non issue because at worst you have representation. Sadly it seems like ours has gone missing now and we all need to stop what we are doing and go find it. Violently if necessary but hopefully as a last resort. Or maybe just 2nd place.
Please Oregon join in on this.
Please do this.
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.
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.
I'm honestly surprised that newsom and pritzker haven't talked about this. Illinois alone is 4% of what the government collects yearly. I think I'm gonna do some more digging into this.
Newsom has mentioned it. https://www.politico.com/news/2025/06/06/newsom-floats-withholding-federal-taxes-00393386
Oh he has ? Thanks for the link I'll fs check it out
Here. We. Go.
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?
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.
Well legally, because that agreement simply declared the new situation. There's no exit clause, it's just how things are now.
Morally, nothing. Fuck the federal government. We technically deleted the first, the articles of confederation, we can delete this one.
I’m down for this all across the board. Anything to take his power away.
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.
California needs to get on this
I keep seeing this idea, and I keep asking how is could even be mechanically accomplished, but so far no answers found. My understanding is most of the money simply flows directly to the Fed via our income taxes. Where in the process can the State interrupt that process?
Wouldn't basically everyone have to manually go adjust their W2 withholdings in order to stop paying the Fed?
States would need to set up special funds and force companies in their states to pay all withholding s into those funds, creating a middleman between tax payers and the federal government. Honestly, it’s a good idea even aside from present circumstances since it gives states additional options against the abuses of federal government.
load more comments
(5 replies)
Otherwise known as "The collapse of the USA".
Balkanization is probably the end result tbh
I've been thinking more along the lines of NUSA like in cyberpunk. States with the largest cities such as california, illinois, and new york join together and the states in between follow because they need them for economic reasons. Then the south can be the decaying fascist shithole it so badly wants to be.
load more comments
(5 replies)
They need to stop being such little bitches and just do it.
Trump notoriously doesn't pay his bills after all.
view more: next ›
this post was submitted on 29 Jun 2025
111 points (100.0% liked)
politics
24664 readers
1185 users here now
Welcome to the discussion of US Politics!
Rules:
- 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:
- 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.
- 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.
- 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.
- 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.
- 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
• Congressional Awards Program
• Library of Congress Legislative Resources
• U.S. House of Representatives
Partnered Communities:
• News
founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS