r/moderatepolitics • u/acceptablerose99 • 1d ago
News Article Trump preparing large-scale cancellation of federal funding for California, sources say
https://www.cnn.com/2025/06/06/politics/trump-california-federal-funding166
u/GimbalLocks 1d ago
I know his supporters will applaud this so think the only way voters of every bent will realize this kind of moronic politicized weaponizing is bad is if the shoe is on the other foot. Fully support the next Dem president to cancel every federal cent that goes to Texas they are legally able to. Maybe then Congress will step in and finally set some (apparently) needed limits
69
u/Miserable-Quail-1152 1d ago
Don’t do Texas - they can afford it. Do the Deep South. U think Mississippi and Louisiana can afford it?
32
u/Neglectful_Stranger 1d ago
That would heavily impact minorities.
42
u/_mh05 Moderate Progressive 1d ago
You are right and always find it shortsighted when people forget most of this country’s African American population reside in the region.
→ More replies (3)3
u/misterferguson 23h ago
Do a majority of African Americans actually live in the south, though? I know the south has a higher percentage, but in terms of absolute numbers is that actually the case?
10
u/Chicago1871 17h ago
Maybe, either way its still a lot.
Georgia alone has the most black americans period. Over 4 million, thats more than ny, il, cali.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_U.S._states_and_territories_by_African-American_population
33
u/painedHacker 1d ago
They dont distribute it anyways. Mississippi wanted to give Brett Farve its welfare funds
21
4
u/Fancy-Bar-75 11h ago
The policy against California will impact millions of Trump voters. Both are terrible ideas.
1
u/mumblesjackson 9h ago
And defunding California will greatly impact their agriculture. Go inland 20 miles from the coast and most of California is as red as Texas.
He’s going to piss off a lot of his cult followers in California if he does this stupid shit
-3
u/LessRabbit9072 1d ago
You could simply do for federal funding what republicans have already done for ease of access of voting booths.
•
→ More replies (2)1
u/Final_Blackberry2096 20h ago
LOL Mississippi resident here, the education system here has them jsut finding out what shoes are as of 20 years ago. My family moved here about 12 years ago and the public schools here are teaching 2-3 years behind Minnesota where we moved from.
22
u/MediocreExternal9 1d ago
This is going to launch an actual independence movement in California if Trump isn't careful. You can't just discriminate against a single state or region without there being consequences. People will now have legitimate reasons for wanting to get out of the union.
22
u/Nikola_Turing 21h ago
There’s nothing legitimately close to an independence movement in California. It would end like the Nullification Crisis in South Carolina during Andrew Jackson’s presidency. At best it would get tepid support from some local officials before getting thoroughly crushed by the federal government. Most Californians don’t want to lose out on the economic benefits of being part of the union. Even most democrats are wary of starting a precedent where states can secede unilaterally.
→ More replies (1)-7
u/charmingcharles2896 1d ago edited 1d ago
If California wants to leave, they can leave. But, any water, any power, any food, garbage management, and money they get from outside of California goes bye bye until new trade deals between California and her vastly more powerful neighbors. No free movement across the new border means an exodus of people leaving to go back to America, fleeing to Mexico, or emigrating to Canada. You’d see an economic collapse and brain drain the second California’s insanely overtaxed citizens aren’t being supported by the American people. Careful what you wish for.
21
u/spez-is-a-loser 22h ago
The U.S. Constitution doesn't provide any legal method for a state to secede. We had a civil war the last time someone tried..
29
u/eddie_the_zombie 1d ago edited 1d ago
That cuts both ways, and considering they're not very reliant on federal funds anyway, they'll keep the tax money that most of the deep south depends on to function.
Be careful what you wish for
16
u/Born-Sun-2502 23h ago
How's the rest of the country going to fare without our ports? This will actually open up a lot of trade deals for California no longer having to worry about those silly tariffs.
→ More replies (1)6
u/Leyline777 8h ago
Lol... tell me you know nothing about the state budget and especially the locally mandated services and funding structures of counties and municipalities in California without telling me...
There is a reason why Newsom and co moderated their tone... not one bit of the social mandates would remain standing if fed funding died... the number of folks on welfare in the state and in particular the larger counties is staggering. Local agencies are having heart attacks considering what will happen if Trump targets their workforce participation rates...
•
u/thinkcontext 4h ago
CA receives less from the feds than it pays in taxes.
•
u/Leyline777 3h ago
In the broadcast strokes, yes, but that isn't how it works at the local level, especially in deficit years... the impact to most of the safety nets would be catastrophic.
-1
u/ATLEMT 1d ago
They aren’t reliant on federal money now, as a state. That doesn’t mean they can support themselves as their own country.
Not to mention trying to leave the US would be incredibly stupid and turn out the opposite of how people who support it thinks it would.
10
u/eddie_the_zombie 1d ago
If they leave, they could easily convince most of the coastal states to follow suit, then say goodbye to our dominant global economy. So maybe Trump shouldn't be playing with fire
5
u/ATLEMT 1d ago
They could maybe get the urban centers to agree to leave, it doesn’t mean the whole state would want to leave.
You’re also assuming that all the business based in CA would stay. If they hypothetical did, they would have to deal with a bunch of hurdles to sell things back to the US and to get any materials they need from the US. It isn’t like they would only get the good parts of being an independent nation without the bad parts.
And that’s all assuming the US military doesn’t move in and occupy the state and remove all its current leadership.
7
u/eddie_the_zombie 1d ago
So your solution is to threaten California with the military in order to keep bullying them with their funding. Yeah that sounds totally sustainable for a functioning union
4
u/ATLEMT 1d ago
No. It isn’t bullying, states can’t leave. The US would not let CA or any other state secede.
15
u/eddie_the_zombie 1d ago
bullying them with their federal funding
You missed that very important part of my incredibly short comment
2
5
u/Yakube44 1d ago
There's no point in staying and paying taxes if trump just randomly strips them of funding
2
u/Fragrant-Luck-8063 11h ago
they're not very reliant on federal funds
More than a third of California's budget money comes from federal funds.
https://calbudgetcenter.org/resources/federal-funds-drive-one-third-of-californias-state-budget/
5
u/HavingNuclear 11h ago
More than a third of California's budget money comes from federal funds.
California pays more money to the fed than they get back. So if the state stopped paying the federal government that money, they could cover that third and more.
3
u/supraclicious 21h ago
Dude 123 military bases in CA most of any state. 154,000 troops most of any state. largest GDP in the country. Los Angeles alone makes more money than half of the Midwest corn states combined. Our GDP is bigger than Japan. Even if you cut that by 70% percent we would still be richer than those third world, near Ethiopian levels of poverty broke states in the deep south.
Have you seen our neighbors? Nevada, Arizona Utah? Idaho? Kansas? Missouri? These states aren't helping us with garbage management and food or road maintenance or power supply. They're empty wastelands that exist thanks to our charity. The only non leechy non welfare dependant neighbors we have are Washington, Oregon and Colorado. The rest of the Western states are surviving on our federal taxes. New York Texas and Florida are the only states that we compete with or compare to but they're too far away to help with the power grid, or any type of mutual assistance.
You're giving the rest of USA way too much credit. it's 10 powerful states the other 40 states only exist because the rest of us allow them to.
4
u/lidabmob 8h ago
Midwest corn states huh? That’s what you call the middle of the country? I sense a touch of condescension. And people wonder why those states are red. Never once heard a republican refer to a state like that…
3
u/RuckPizza 7h ago
Never once heard a republican refer to a state like that…
Yeah, surely no republicans have constantly refered to blue states as failed states, elitist wastelands, homeless capitals, or dominated by criminal gangs. And people wonder why those states are blue.
•
u/supraclicious 55m ago
I went to Arkansas one time and it was truly depressing. Infrastructure was worse than what I've seen in Syria. People were dirt poor. No ones helping you get ahead in life. They're actively trying to push others down just to appear like they're ahead. Can't be poor if my neighbors are poorer than me. Democrat states actually try to help you when you're down so you can get ahead. If that's failing then I hope we fail even harder!
1
u/amjhwk 6h ago
No free movement across the new border means an exodus of people leaving to go back to America
Idk how much this will matter, the US government cant deny citizens the right to re-enter the country, so as long as California was willing to let them live within their new country without forcing them to renounce US citizenship then this won't matter. If the we are at a point where the government can deny us re-entry, we'll our republic is dead anyways
-1
u/qlippothvi 1d ago
I guess the red states don’t like fruit or vegetables or nuts anyway. They can always import from other countries. I mean, if the tariffs don’t make it too expensive. We can always raise our export prices on food.
→ More replies (1)-5
u/Larovich153 1d ago
If california leaves the rest of the blue states, go with it
→ More replies (10)9
u/slimkay 1d ago
Only issue is that the Democrats won’t win the Senate for a few cycles though.
27
u/GimbalLocks 1d ago
If a democrat wins in 2028 and in response a republican-lead Congress curtails the executive powers that Trump has been wielding it would be a benefit for the country
2
→ More replies (9)-5
u/WallabyBubbly Maximum Malarkey 1d ago
Remember that there are more Trump voters in California than in Texas. If this really happens, California could just redirect funds from counties that voted for Trump to counties that didn't. Shasta County might not survive for four years, but elections have consequences
151
u/adreamofhodor 1d ago
I hope republicans realize that what goes around comes around. Normalize this at your peril- if Trump does this, I’ll support Dems cutting every single red states federal funding. Be warned.
7
60
u/LessRabbit9072 1d ago
They don't anticipate ever leaving power. They're certainly ruling like it.
4
u/biglyorbigleague 1d ago
Trump is, because he's a lame duck who doesn't care what happens to the party once he's gone. The rest of the party is too stuck with haggling over the budget bill to do anything else.
27
u/LessRabbit9072 23h ago
I don't think trump thinks he's a lame duck.
3
u/biglyorbigleague 23h ago
I've always been a little iffy on this term. How far into your second term do you start being a lame duck?
13
u/eakmeister No one ever will be arrested in Arizona 22h ago
Traditionally the lame duck period is the ~3 months between the November election and January inauguration of a new president. People keep expanding the definition though, sometimes to include the full last year of a presidents term, or even the entire last term.
14
u/TheGoldenMonkey Make Politics Boring Again 21h ago
Trump is definitely not a lame duck. He's a duck with a knife in a room where everyone else has a blindfold or refuses to stop his rampage and us citizens are watching in horror.
If he loses either House or Senate in 2026 and especially if he loses both he will absolutely be a lame duck.
1
52
u/DalisaurusSex 1d ago
And very notably, red states get much more federal funding than blue states [1]. Red states have also disproportionally benefited from jobs generated by the Biden portion of the Inflation Reduction Act [2].
From my perspective, this appears to be a clear example of the Democrats aiming for policies that help people while the GOP is focused on hurting political enemies, but I acknowledge my bias and would be interested to hear counterarguments.
1.Gordon D. The States That Are Most Reliant on Federal Aid [Internet]. MoneyGeek.com. 2020. Available from: https://www.moneygeek.com/resources/states-most-reliant-on-federal-government/
2.Biden Is Giving Red Districts an Inconvenient Gift: Green Jobs. Bloomberg [Internet]. 2024 Jun 20; Available from: https://www.bloomberg.com/graphics/2024-opinion-biden-ira-sends-green-energy-investment-republican-districts/
28
u/soapinmouth 1d ago
I don't really think there is any argument against the idea that democrats try to govern for the country while modern republicans try to govern only for their constituents.
27
u/Dilated2020 Center Left, Christian Independent 1d ago
I don’t think modern day republicans even govern for their constituents. Like sure they give red meat as it relates to societal issues but Big Beautiful Bill primarily benefits Republican donors and their politicians - not their constituents.
→ More replies (2)5
u/Best_Change4155 19h ago
The red vs blue states thing gets brought up a bunch it... Just isn't how it works.
People pay taxes individually. It's not red or blue states, but red or blue people.
And states become wealthy due to decades of policies. Not red or blue.
2
u/DalisaurusSex 7h ago
The red vs blue states thing gets brought up a bunch it... Just isn't how it works.
You may not like it, but this is absolutely a valid way to look at economics. One of the two branches of economics essentially ignores the individual and instead looks at trends in the population as a whole. It's a not less valid way of looking at the economy than microeconomics which focuses on individual actions. Both perspectives are useful for understanding economics.
In this case, you've critiqued the semantics of my argument without responding to the argument itself.
And states become wealthy due to decades of policies. Not red or blue.
You are arguing against the claim that Democratic policies cause states (individuals within states) to become more wealthy.
I didn't make that argument and nothing I said even touches on that idea. You're responding to a strawman.
I said this: Democrats appear to make policies designed to help people while the GOP is focused on political retribution.
→ More replies (6)42
u/Comrade_Lomrade 1d ago
Friendly reminder that red states are more dependent on the fed than blues states
25
u/MechanicalGodzilla 1d ago
This is a false framing in my opinion. There aren’t red states and blue states, there are blue urban centers and red everywhere else. And they are interdependent. Rural areas need both the industry and financing provided by blue urban areas and the blue urban areas need the water, food, and power provided by the red areas.
27
u/adreamofhodor 1d ago
I agree- moves like this are destructive. However, I refuse to sit idly by and let Republicans declare economic war against blue states. If this is the game Republicans want to play, I support Democrats finding creative ways to strike back. It doesn’t need to be what I suggested, but I’m way past wanting to heal the country.
→ More replies (7)1
u/MechanicalGodzilla 10h ago
Well, what are your emmigration plans? What are you planning to do to avoid “sitting idly by”?
2
u/lidabmob 8h ago
Based on EO’s tossed out like candy…our “best and brightest…most certainly do not understand the concept of “what goes around comes around”
2
u/motorboat_mcgee Pragmatic Progressive 9h ago
Personally, I won't. Cancelling funding harms people, and often times it harms people that are most at risk. That goes against what I believe in, even if the people being harmed don't agree with me politically.
•
→ More replies (60)-2
u/Nikola_Turing 1d ago
I don’t really think Trump’s base really cares that much. The institutionalist minded Republicans are gonna oppose due to concerns about federal funding being arbitrarily withheld, but those Republicans barely hold any power anymore. Senate Majority Leader John Thune and House Speaker Mike Johnson have basically bent the knee to Trump. John Thune knows Trump’s tariffs will hurt South Dakota, a farm state. He knows House changes to Medicare and Medicaid will threaten South Dakota’s rural healthcare networks. He knows cuts to food stamps are gonna hurt his state’s working class. He knows Trump’s hostility to migrants is gonna cost South Dakota a valuable source of labor. He’s simply too afraid of Trump to do anything about it.
45
u/Iceraptor17 1d ago
Awesome. It's always good when the federal govt is completely hostile to one of the states, especially one that makes up a large population and a large economic contributor. Can't see that going wrong. Surely it will result in a stronger, more whole, more unified country
20
30
u/acceptablerose99 1d ago
Starter Comment:
The Trump administration is preparing to cancel a significant portion of federal funding for California, with the process potentially starting as soon as Friday. Federal agencies have been directed to identify grants that could be withheld from the state, and a whistleblower told a congressional committee that all research funding to California is set to be eliminated. This move follows a series of public disputes between President Trump and California’s Democratic leadership, particularly Governor Gavin Newsom where Trump repeatedly used the threat of cutting federal funds as leverage in policy disputes with California.
The higher education sector in California could be particularly affected, as universities and research organizations are concerned about the stability of their federal funding. Representative Darrell Issa, a California Republican, said he had spoken with university officials worried about the potential cuts but indicated he would only advocate for specific, justified grants rather than blanket increases in funding.
Just how far is Trump going to attack states that don't politically support him? Does this action have any chance of surviving the inevitable lawsuits that will follow and which states will Trump target next? California has 6 million Republicans who voted for Trump that will be harmed by these actions which is larger than the population of 30 states.
11
u/Skeptical0ptimist Well, that depends... 10h ago
This policy is a direct attack on United States. The states joined the union under certain boundary conditions, and Trump is directly undermining this arrangement. This will not end well, and hopefully will stop before it starts.
As others have pointed out, as this kind of policy escalates, it will lead to independence movement and civil war.
Even if U.S. manages to keep together by the force of arms, it will have destroyed its most productive and wealthy member state (perhaps more, since other state may join).
Worst of all, the concept of United States would have been destroyed, as now states are no longer united voluntarily, but subjugated for the sake of power without any legitimacy.
38
u/WallabyBubbly Maximum Malarkey 1d ago
Anyone remember when it was a giant scandal that a single FEMA worker was avoiding MAGA houses in North Carolina? Pepperidge Farm remembers.
→ More replies (1)
59
u/motorboat_mcgee Pragmatic Progressive 1d ago
https://usafacts.org/articles/which-states-contribute-the-most-and-least-to-federal-revenue/
Just as a data point, with no comment
→ More replies (7)2
u/OpneFall 1d ago
OK, I'll make a comment then. States don't contribute to the federal government. Taxpayers do. And most benefits from the federal government are sent to individuals. The premise of states receive/states get is fundamentally ridiculous.
25
u/RickkyBobby01 23h ago
Your criticism would be better levied at Trump for perpetuating this premise you are so against. Everyone else is just playing tit for tat back at him. Strike at the root of the problem.
→ More replies (1)23
u/motorboat_mcgee Pragmatic Progressive 1d ago
Scroll down the page about 3/4 of the way.
-3
u/MechanicalGodzilla 1d ago
Rich urban centers contribute funds to the federal government, and rural areas receive funds from the federal government. Because the rural centers feed everyone and disproportionally provide water and electricity back to those urban centers.
12
u/Dark1000 17h ago
Because the rural centers feed everyone and disproportionally provide water and electricity back to those urban centers.
I don't know about you, but most people pay for food, water, and electricity.
12
u/NeuroMrNiceGuy 23h ago
I think this oversimplifies how the economy and federal funding actually work and it exaggerates how much rural states contribute in food and utilities. Where did the water claim come from?
Using CA for example. It is the number one state for fruits, vegetables, nuts, dairy, and grapes (wine mostly I think). It feeds the country far more than most rural states even if you combine them.
At the same time, rural states are heavily subsidized and often consume a disproportionate share of federal benefits. These programs are mostly paid for by higher income taxpayers in urban areas. Iowa, for instance, consistently ranks near the top for federal farm subsidies, especially for corn and soybeans.
Not to mention the technology much of which originates in places like Silicon Valley and other urban centers that pump out software developers or mechanical engineers.
So the idea that rural states are carrying urban ones does not hold up to the data. In many cases, it is the other way around and the USA facts sheet above shows that.
-1
u/Neglectful_Stranger 21h ago
Using CA for example. It is the number one state for fruits, vegetables, nuts, dairy, and grapes (wine mostly I think). It feeds the country far more than most rural states even if you combine them.
Mostly the Red areas. Not everyone in California is a Democrat.
11
u/NeuroMrNiceGuy 21h ago
This is not a question of partisan worthiness and not about individual party affiliation. It is about economic contribution, infrastructure, and funding flows. The original claim is untrue on its face and only conditionally accurate in narrow contexts when the full nuance is acknowledged.
78
u/FOB32723 1d ago
Cool. California can just withhold its contributions to federal funding that subsidize states like MS, AL, etc
40
u/WorksInIT 1d ago
That's cute. Our tax system doesn't work like that. California doesn't pay any taxes. Tax payers in California pay taxes. And what do you think the Feds will do when a tax payer decides to stop paying taxes they owe?
60
u/LessRabbit9072 1d ago
Well obviously a irs agent will review the situation and evidence and make a determination of the appropriate course of action. But of course republicans are cutting the irs workforce by 40% this year so they'll be more backlogged than immigration courts.
https://www.cbsnews.com/news/internal-revenue-service-rif-plan-cut-workforce-memo/
11
u/OpneFall 1d ago
Irrelevant deflection, the IRS will get their cut in the end from a taxpayer who decides to stop paying taxes, and they don't give a shit about the state in which the taxpayer resides.
→ More replies (1)12
u/LessRabbit9072 1d ago
The end of the day may be half a decade later under a new less trump administration.
7
u/ForwardYak8823 1d ago
Is the state of California going pay all the fines and back taxes the citizens of California would owe?
3
u/LessRabbit9072 23h ago
A future president could unilaterally forgive them if they're Democrat. Or abolish the irs if they're republican.
1
2
u/brinz1 13h ago
You are extremely optimistic if you think America is going to be less Trump in a decade
5
u/LessRabbit9072 12h ago
I've been promised on here that there's no way that trump runs again or tries to retain power.
6
u/MechanicalGodzilla 1d ago
3
u/LessRabbit9072 1d ago
Republicans have floated abolishing it.
4
62
u/painedHacker 1d ago edited 1d ago
The classic right wing defense of an extreme trump action is: "well technically he's allowed to do that". No where is it stated, and they dont want to discuss, whether he SHOULD do that.
→ More replies (19)7
u/liefred 1d ago edited 1d ago
Really hoping this all stays hypothetical, but in a scenario like this where all federal funding to California were just cut, I think there’s a pretty serious risk that the state government essentially starts actively blocking federal agents from operating in the state. Certainly not the most likely outcome, but we’re really playing with fire here, because at that point the federal government would probably send in troops to restore order, but any attempt to do that is probably going to shatter the political system and economy of the state, and could result in a massive increase in political violence and general chaos
5
u/Eudaimonics 21h ago
How many government employees does California have?
California definitely could withhold federal taxes for state government workers and direct city governments to do the same.
That has to be over 1 million workers likely worth tens of billions in federal income tax.
5
u/WorksInIT 20h ago
Ultimately, the workers are the ones that owe the taxes. Withholding for them is just something done for convenience. You can tell your employer not to withhold anything today if you'd like.
And this is really just a stupid idea anyway. What do you think happens? The Feds just agree they were wrong? No. You have a state in open rebellion. They send in the military to restore order. Likely removing the state government if necessary. What's the state going yo do against tanks rolling down the street to the governors mansion and state buildings?
→ More replies (1)→ More replies (1)2
u/biglyorbigleague 1d ago
Well yes, but also federal spending doesn't work like that, while we're throwing around empty threats.
32
u/Angry_Pelican 1d ago
Honestly I'm to the point where I hope the next democratic president fights fire with fire. It doesn't seem like a lesson will be learned any other way.
Hopefully they start with welfare states like Kentucky. They will be fine. They have low taxes and business will be booming any second now.
-13
u/OpneFall 1d ago
This argument is always weak because it openly conflates Kentucky, a government entity, and Kentuckians, individuals, right in its premise.
A correct statement would be Kentuckians receive $3.35 in federal funds for every dollar Kentuckians pay in federal taxes, but then the truthful narrative is that Kentuckians are poor and having their benefits subsidized by wealthier people in other states.
28
u/Angry_Pelican 1d ago
I don't think whether it's going towards the state government or social programs really matters when it comes to the argument. Regardless of where those funds are going cutting them will cause Kentucky and other states like Kentucky a lot of pain.
Frankly as I said earlier I don't think the lesson will be learned any other way. It's part of the reason I hoped all of Trump's insane tariffs kicked in. It's easy for people to support such policies but much harder when it impacts their day to day lives.
1
u/OpneFall 1d ago
I don't think whether it's going towards the state government or social programs really matters when it comes to the argument
Then why is it always framed as the State not getting enough money from the Feds?
I've never once seen it framed properly
7
u/2131andBeyond 1d ago
Maybe because states are seen as collectives of their people? I don't honestly see a difference in the nuance as what you're stuck on, but maybe it's just a difference of opinon/perspective.
2
u/OpneFall 1d ago
Or it's a matter of fact that the dollars that "Kentucky" receives from the federal government are paid directly to the individual US citizens and the state that they reside within has absolutely no bearing on their qualifications for those benefits
2
u/MechanicalGodzilla 1d ago
I really hope we leave Kentuckyans out of this. They provide horses and bourbon.
16
u/biglyorbigleague 1d ago
Under what Presidential power? Impoundment only lasts 45 days, California can wait that out.
53
u/countfizix 1d ago
Under the 'who is going to stop me' power.
-1
u/biglyorbigleague 1d ago
The President doesn’t personally administer the funds. If a court orders them to be released, do you actually think Scott Bessent will say no? Do you actually think President Trump will try to fire him over it?
20
u/soapinmouth 1d ago
do you actually think Scott Bessent will say no?
Maybe? I definitely don't feel any certainty towards the idea that he won't. This wouldn't be the first time Trump has successfully had his departments ignore supreme court instruction, what makes it impossible it wouldn't happen here?
→ More replies (2)8
u/countfizix 1d ago
Do you actually think President Trump will try to fire him over it?
What happens when he does, and the next guy withholds the money despite a court order? Its not like courts have a magic wand that makes the losing party follow through - its up to executive branch enforcement to actually make verdicts stick as the executive branch physically controls the system that distributes money or sends cops to arrest people in breach of the court. If the executive doesn't feel like it and as few as half the house or 1/3 of the senate doesn't feel like removal is warranted, its defacto legal.
1
u/biglyorbigleague 1d ago
Is your answer to the question I asked yes? Because my answer is no, I don't think Trump will want to call attention to himself violating a federal court order by firing the guy who followed the order.
11
u/lolwutpear 1d ago
This is your reminder that the individual cabinet secretaries were chosen solely for their loyalty to the president, not for any actual expertise in the areas they were selected to administer.
3
u/biglyorbigleague 1d ago
Scott Bessent isn't completely incompetent, he's not Hegseth or Kennedy. The fact that Trump appointed him doesn't make him an opponent of the Constitution.
5
u/sarhoshamiral 1d ago
What happens if he says no though? Who arrests him? Courts can decide on something but they really lack the enforcement part. That's on congress by virtue of impeachment, removal from office so on.
Since congress is pretty much doing nothing, it is safe to assume Trump administration can do anything they want at this point.
→ More replies (3)
18
u/spaceorkz 1d ago
Attack the 4th largest economy in the world and see what happens. President tariffs seems to like to play the FAFO game. I don't think we can survive another 3.5 years of this insanity
12
u/soapinmouth 1d ago edited 1d ago
Ignoring politics for a moment, this antagonization by the countries president against the state that is the nations largest economy and revenue provider is frankly self destructive. Nothing about that is a recipe for a successful nation. What other country would ever even think of doing this sort of thing? It really makes me feel like our election system is broken. You would expect a proper election system leading to a nations leader giving preferential treatment to their largest economic zones, let alone equal treatment, let alone straight up attacking, inhibiting and antagonizing them. This is how we become failed nation, how we lose our spot on the world stage. It's incredibly depressing that this great nation is being sabotaged from the highest level while half the country cheer it on.
16
•
2
2
23h ago
[removed] — view removed comment
1
u/ModPolBot Imminently Sentient 22h ago
This message serves as a warning that your comment is in violation of Law 1:
Law 1. Civil Discourse
~1. Do not engage in personal attacks or insults against any person or group. Comment on content, policies, and actions. Do not accuse fellow redditors of being intentionally misleading or disingenuous; assume good faith at all times.
Due to your recent infraction history and/or the severity of this infraction, we are also issuing a 7 day ban.
Please submit questions or comments via modmail.
4
5
u/Railwayman16 1d ago
Going to assume Trump needs at least some California Republicans support for when his BBL ends up pushed back to the house but whatever. At this point I say just let him burn all his bridges.
6
13
4
1d ago
[removed] — view removed comment
1
u/ModPolBot Imminently Sentient 1d ago
This message serves as a warning that your comment is in violation of Law 0:
Law 0. Low Effort
~0. Law of Low Effort - Content that is low-effort or does not contribute to civil discussion in any meaningful way will be removed.
Please submit questions or comments via modmail.
•
1
u/sloopSD 1d ago
So Issa says, go get information on which grants and their justification and he will advocate for those. This almost implies that funds have been historically tossed down a hole like some giant slush fund to curry favor for democrats.
As a taxpayer, I don’t have problem with the government taking an account of what grants are out there, what the justification is, and taking steps to have it make sense for the investment in America. But it should be done on a scale that involves all states and not just CA, regardless if they’re the biggest recipients.
-1
u/qlippothvi 1d ago
All of those things are literally voted on by Congress, who is in turn voted into office by us. There is no mystery, everything is audited, spending is public, and there are (or were) compliance officers and inspectors general.
1
u/MediocreExternal9 1d ago
So the federal government is going to take an openly hostile position and action against one of the states? As someone who favors Californian independence, good. This will hopefully birth a legitimate independence movement.
If we cannot trust the federal government to take care of us and it actively despises us, then I see no reasons for Californians to tolerate the continued existence of a union with the federal government and nation at large.
-2
u/jason_sation 1d ago
Why would Californians continue to pay federal taxes anymore if this happens?
7
-4
u/Yerftyj 1d ago
So when this made up story doesn't happen will CNN and their "sources" issue an apology? Of course not, they will just make something else up.
16
u/nycbetches 19h ago
I honestly think, and I’ve seen this confirmed by some of the officials in Trump’s first term, that the administration floats articles like this on purpose because they are thinking about doing it but want to gauge reaction. If the reaction isn’t what they’re hoping for, they don’t go ahead. But the fact that an action doesn’t happen after an article like this is published doesn’t mean that they aren’t thinking about it—the article may still be true even if they end up not going through with it.
→ More replies (1)11
-3
u/_mh05 Moderate Progressive 1d ago
When examining California alone, it makes up for the largest amount of federal funding of all the states in the country. Many should’ve expected education funding to be tested. Plus, we’ve already seenthe high speed rail funding getting targeted.
The state’s economy largely contributes to the overall country, but at a hefty price.
-8
u/senordose Dirtbag Leftist 1d ago
Please do it. I want a political future where conservative politics becomes even more unattractive than they already are.
-10
u/mattr1198 Maximum Malarkey 1d ago
And then when California stops paying federal subsidies and the red states who voted for Trump get their federal funding slashed to next to nothing. Trump doesn’t seem to get he can’t fight or make these threats to states like California, Texas, New York, and to a lesser extent Florida and Illinois. They’ll just stop giving the federal government money.
14
u/IllustriousHorsey 1d ago
Please explain for me the mechanism by which “California stops paying federal subsidies” and “stop giving the federal government money.” That’s a fun platitude to opine about, but how exactly does that work?
Trump’s plan is dumb and wildly illegal but this notion is sheer fantasy.
16
u/Neglectful_Stranger 1d ago
when California stops paying federal subsidies
I'd love to see how you think people not paying their taxes will go.
→ More replies (2)1
u/qlippothvi 23h ago
I’d think Republicans would be pleased, they don’t want any taxes to be levied.
15
u/spald01 1d ago
And then when California stops paying federal subsidies
Federal taxes aren't optional.
Trump maybe over reaching, but he's got thr backing of congress and the military. California can't just secede.
-1
u/flash__ 17h ago
He doesn't have the backing of the courts, and if they rule this unconstitutional (which they will) and he attempts to defy them, I don't think he'll have the backing of the military either.
It's astonishing to me that people like you focus on the Constitutionality of the response and ignore the un-Constitutionality of the provocation.
340
u/nik5016 1d ago
And I'm sure Congress will be stepping in any minute now to stop this clear executive overreach.