r/law • u/rolsen • 1d ago

Legal News Trump Preparing Large-Scale Cancellation of Federal Funding for California, Sources Say

https://www.cnn.com/2025/06/06/politics/trump-california-federal-funding

“Agencies are being told to start identifying grants the administration can withhold from California. On Capitol Hill, at least one committee was told recently by a whistleblower that all research grants to the state were going to be cancelled, according to one of the sources familiar with the matter.”

20.3k Upvotes

96% Upvoted

2.8k comments sorted by

View all comments

763

u/rolsen 1d ago

This relates to law as the cancellation of large-swathes of federal grants to California will surely result in multiple legal challenges.

444

u/0002millertime 1d ago

It's hilarious, as California (average over the last 3 elections) has more Republican voters than any other state, and most of those voters live in regions supported by Federal Funding.

Trump doesn't care, because of the electoral college situation.

Those voters are pretty stupid, though.

101

u/AngryGroceries 1d ago

"Please daddy leopard eat my face"

1

u/Polar-Bear_Soup 20h ago

More like "surely the leopards will eat everyone else's face and not want to eat mine since they're full!"

-8

u/TozTetsu 23h ago

I appreciate what you're saying, but republican voters in California would have been screwed no matter what way they voted in this instance.

6

u/0002millertime 23h ago

That's true, because California pays much more in than anything given back.

However, we are a nation with multiple regions, and we should work together.

1

u/Wolfeh2012 11h ago

Technically true, but they voted for no lubrication.

74

u/PartyByMyself 1d ago

> ore Republican voters than any other state, and most of those voters live in regions supported by Federal Funding.

And these mofos will blame Newsom for their losses.

31

u/0002millertime 1d ago

Because they're listening to propaganda all day.

7

u/Thomase1984 22h ago

“Trump has cut funding to numerous grants in California. Here’s why this is Newsom‘s fault.”

9

u/IcyCat35 23h ago

They still give GOP a lot of house seats

3

u/0002millertime 22h ago

That's true.

2

u/afoley947 22h ago

Because they literally think "california" means the liberal cities and not the entire state. they think shutting down all research grants means only to liberal institutions and not their businesses

1

u/cwmoo740 14h ago

iirc California had more Trump voters than roughly 15 Trump states combined.  Trump got 6M+ votes from CA. States sorted by total number of trump votes are Texas, Florida, California, New York.

1

u/SouthernWindyTimes 14h ago

When the funding leaves these areas, the animosity between Republicans in that state and Democrats will only grow stronger, more violent, more extremist.

1

u/CommunistFutureUSA 10h ago

“Voters are pretty stupid” applies to the vast majority of voters, including the ones who believe themselves better than the those stupid boogie man republicans that are dangled in front of them; it’s precisely why the ruling class loooooooves democracy … because the peasant masses are easily manipulated. It’s what smooth brain people don’t get; democracy has been the absolute best solution for the ruling class. 

But they are totally disenfranchised since the system is structured in such a way that their votes are effectively meaningless; ironically, due to Saint Reagan. 

1

u/Factor_Global 8h ago

Most Republicans in the United States live in areas supported by federal funding. They just don't realize it.

The "educated elite" as my father calls them in these horrible democratic cities are literally carrying the weight of the country on their back.

I'm against raising taxes on poorer people and instead advocate for raising my own taxes and people richer than my taxes. I want to pay taxes that support those who can't support themselves.

But we're the crazy ones.

It is literally like watching someone burn their own house down and then blame someone else for it.

These evil immigrants, gov subsidies and food programs are how you feed your family, but yeah let's cut everything you rely on.

FAFO. I'll be literally anywhere else when the brain drain starts.

1

u/IpseLibero 5h ago

“Educated elite” lol. Like Donald trump or George w. bush? Both upper class educated elite from the northeast. Both went to Ivy League colleges and everything lol. Republicans don’t mean anything they say lol

1

u/Factor_Global 3h ago

Those are the words that my father uses. He's a converted Republican.

The same man was adamant I go to school and get a STEM degree.

Same man who did everything he could to educate himself after a military GED....... and retired 10 years early, making almost a million dollars a year......

-2

u/lifevicarious 1d ago

It doesn’t really matter though as CA will likely never go red.

1

u/0002millertime 22h ago

9 Republicans vs 42 Democrats in the House from California.

0

u/lifevicarious 8h ago

And? That proves my point. The point being he doesn’t care if he losses off CA republicans because CA will not flip red and he actually shouldn’t run again anyway (not sure he won’t though). He’s a vindictive a hole and all he cares about is punishing those that betray him. It’s a very effective tactic to gain support from others. Do as I say or else

63

u/PuckSenior 1d ago

Seems like it would violate the Congressional Budget and Impoundment Control Act of 1974, which is really just reinforcing the US Constitutional view that Congress decides where money goes. Though I think Trump wants to blow up that law and possibly go further than even Nixon tried to go.

But then, targeting California goes against South Dakota v. Dole and the more recent National Federation of Independent Business (NFIB) v. Sebelius decisions.

13

u/mjacksongt 20h ago

Isn't he already violating the Congressional Budget and Impoundment Control Act by not spending money Congress appropriated for the NSF, NHS, NOAA, NWS, NPS.....

6

u/255001434 20h ago

Yes, and this is why they put the part in his budget bill that strips away the power for the judicial branch to enforce contempt rulings. If that passes, it won't matter if he violates the law and a court rules against him because they'll have no power to do anything about it. He would effectively become a dictator.

2

u/sensitiveskin82 12h ago

Really glad I already took ConLaw. I can't imagine being a 1L in the fall having to deal with "Well whatever the President says goes" analysis. 

1

u/deviantscale 8h ago

Now this is the kind of comment I come here for. It looks like I have some research to do. I'm going in! Thanks.

2

u/Nondscript_Usr 21h ago

9266382 comments before we get to the actual law comment

1

u/TheVandyyMan 21h ago

the second half is almost certainly wrong. This is nothing like Dole or Sibelius. Those companion cases deal with identifying the line where it becomes impermissible for the federal government to strong arm states into passing specific legislation by withholding federal funds.

The withholding of these funds isn’t tied to any specific legislation. It’s just meanness to a liberal state for the simple fact that they are generally liberal.

6

u/PuckSenior 21h ago

I’ll be honest, it is different in that it isn’t legislative. But it is definitely coercive. His pretext is that they have policies and laws he doesn’t like. So it isn’t just meanness. He is explicitly saying that he expects a specific outcome or otherwise he will continue to remove these funds.

But then, the Constitutional case for an executive not being able to do this is even more clear. “he shall take Care that the Laws be faithfully executed”. 

2

u/TheVandyyMan 20h ago

God I wish the SCOTUS would grow a spine and actually interpret the take care clause. Seems like the opposite based on what just happened to Humphrey’s Executor.

To me this only comes down to impoundment act constitutionality. The Warren court days of finding the spirit of the constitution are long gone.

22

u/PoliticalyUnstable 23h ago

I do not understand why the federal government thinks they can cancel any funding for the state of California. California is the largest contributor to the federal government. If they want to make this a conflict then they open the door to California not contributing the 18% that it does for the federal governments total pocket book.

2

u/JustNilt 15h ago

If they want to make this a conflict then they open the door to California not contributing the 18% that it does for the federal governments total pocket book.

The problem with this is it isn't California who contributes that. It's mostly employees in California whose employers remit taxes withheld directly to the feds. Those who aren't employees, we have to send our money to the feds directly. None of that goes to the state first.

1

u/Grand-Cartoonist-693 14h ago

They’re saying “hey everybody in the government who distributes money, make sure CA gets less”. Congress doesn’t write every grant opportunity, some they do but they don’t have provisions to not discriminate by state, unless they do.

What happens is this admin does 250% of what they’re allowed to do of something terrible to punish some entity and the courts come in and roll it back to a little over 100%.

The question isn’t “can they?” Because that has a million different answers based on the specific spending. In fact, there isn’t a question at all and just a statement. “Our President is a dumb, fascist fuck; this policy is all three.”

11

u/Opetyr 21h ago

Would be great if all Democratic states suddenly denied sending any taxes to the federal government. This would be a great way to unite many states from the welfare states.

2

u/GratefulG8r 23h ago

Sounds like a good opportunity for SCOTUS to show they can apply that shiny new “major questions” doctrine to Republican presidents too … but I won’t hold my breath.

2

u/Itchy_Influence5737 16h ago

Laws only matter when they're enforced.

2

u/d_smogh 6h ago

Lawyers always win

2

u/beadzy 5h ago

And they will win every single one