Trump's signature bills could redefine balance of federal and state power

The 'One Big Beautiful Bill Act, H.R. 1,' was passed by both Chambers of the 119^th United State Congress on July 3, and signed into law the next day by President Trump on the 249^th Anniversary of the birth of our nation, while the 'Rescissions Act of 2025, H.R. 4' was passed by both chambers on July 18, and signed into law by Trump on July 24. I contend that these bills manifest Trump's ultimate goal of reforming our government by forming the "less perfect union" envisioned by and articulated in his and his acolytes' governance manifesto known as the Project 2025 Mandate for Leadership that was conceived with the primary goal of dismantling the "Administrative State," (see my July 19, 2024 article, The Project 2025 mandate: Implications for the administrative state and the U.S. Constitution). 

H.R. 1 presents significant challenges to the principles of federalism by proposing the elimination of several key federal agencies and programs, particularly those related to governance infrastructure, public safety, and healthcare, by undermining the division of powers and responsibilities between the federal and state governments.

H.R. 1 also provides the illusion of additional tax deductions purportedly designed to increase the take-home incomes of low-to-moderate income taxpayers, including those who rely heavily on tips and/or overtime pay, as well as seniors. However, these new deductions are by design only temporary in nature, as they will disappear into the mist at the end of tax year 2028. On the other hand, H.R. 1's extensions of the deductions contained in the Tax Cuts and Jobs Act of 2017, designed for upper income, high net worth individuals and corporations, originally set to expire on Dec. 31, 2025, are now made permanent. (https://www.irs.gov/newsroom/tax-cuts-and-jobs-act-a-comparison-for-businesses.)

H.R. 4 advances the goals of H.R. 1 by rescinding some "$9.4 billion in unobligated funds that were provided to the Department of State, the U.S. Agency for International Development (USAID), various independent and related agencies, and the Corporation for Public Broadcasting." H.R. 4's defunding of our internationally facing agencies will hamstring our nation's "soft power" and leadership on the world stage, while allowing our adversaries, especially China, to take up the slack via its "Belt and Road Initiative."

This column examines the implications of H.R. 1's and H.R. 4's impact on the balance of power between federal and state governments and the broader impact on federalism.

But first, let's level set by distinguishing the concepts of federalism versus that of a unitary executive form of governance, as they represent two distinct approaches to the distribution of power within our government.

What is federalism?

Definition: Federalism is a system of governance where power is divided between a central authority and constituent political units, such as states or provinces. In the United States, this means a division of powers between the federal government and the individual state governments via the 10^th Amendment.

Characteristics:

• Shared powers: Both the federal and state governments have their own areas of authority, with some powers shared and others reserved to each level.

• Checks and balances: Federalism provides a system of checks and balances, preventing any one level of government from becoming too powerful.

• Local autonomy: States have the ability to govern themselves in certain areas, allowing for policies that reflect local preferences and needs.

What is a unitary executive form of governance?

Definition: A unitary executive form of governance centralizes power in a single executive leader, often with significant control over the entire government.

Characteristics:

• Centralized authority: The chief executive holds significant power, often with the ability to make decisions without extensive consultation with other branches or levels of government.

• Limited local autonomy: Local or regional governments have less power and autonomy, with the central government making most key decisions.

• Efficiency and uniformity: Proponents argue that a unitary system can lead to more efficient decision-making and uniform policies across the nation.

Comparison between federalism and a unitary form of governance:

• Power distribution: Federalism divides power between national and state governments, while a unitary executive centralizes power in the hands of the chief executive.

• Local vs. central control: Federalism allows for local control and diversity in policy, whereas a unitary system emphasizes uniformity and central control.

•  Checks and balances: Federalism inherently includes checks and balances through the division of powers, while a unitary executive may reduce these checks, concentrating power in one leader.

Contrast with Trump's approach to governance:

President Donald Trump's approach has been characterized by a strong emphasis on executive power, often advocating and even demanding centralized decision-making. This contrasts with our traditional form of federalism, which values the balance and distribution of power across different levels of government. While Trump's style may align with a unitary executive model in terms of centralizing authority, the U.S. system of federalism inherently limits the extent to which such centralization can occur, maintaining a balance between federal and state powers. As such, I submit that Trump's approach of governance, as expressed through his acts, is inherently antithetical to federalism.

The key components of H.R. 1 and its impact:

Infrastructure

The bill's provisions on infrastructure, particularly those under Title IX, Subtitle A - Homeland Security Provisions, focus on border infrastructure and the wall system, U.S. Customs and Border Protection personnel, fleet vehicles and facilities, as well as state and local assistance. These provisions suggest a centralization of control at the federal level, potentially diminishing state autonomy in managing local infrastructure projects. By allocating significant resources and decision-making power to federal agencies, the bill may limit the ability of states to tailor infrastructure projects to their specific needs and priorities. This shift could be seen as a move away from the principles of federalism, which traditionally emphasize the importance of state and local control over such matters.

Public safety

In the realm of public safety, the bill includes sections on border security, technology and screening, along with Department of Homeland Security appropriations for border support. These provisions further centralize authority at the federal level, particularly affecting border states that have historically played a significant role in managing public safety issues related to border security. By consolidating control over border security measures and appropriations, the bill potentially reduces state influence and flexibility in addressing public safety concerns. This centralization may undermine the federalist principle of allowing states to act as laboratories of democracy, experimenting with different approaches to public safety.

Healthcare funding

Healthcare provisions under Title VIII, Subtitle B - Health, focus on Medicaid and Medicare, specifically addressing eligibility, enrollment and payment adjustments. These changes could significantly impact state-managed healthcare programs, potentially reducing state flexibility in administering these programs. By imposing federal standards and adjustments, the bill may limit states' ability to innovate and respond to the unique healthcare needs of their populations. This shift towards federal control in healthcare administration could be seen as a departure from the federalist model, which traditionally allows states significant leeway in managing healthcare services.

Public health concerns

Another concerning aspect of the bill is the Department of Health and Human Services' attempt to eliminate vaccines that have kept the nation healthy for over 60 years. Vaccines are a cornerstone of public health, preventing the spread of infectious diseases and reducing healthcare costs. The elimination of vaccines could lead to a resurgence of preventable diseases, placing a significant burden on state healthcare systems. This proposal raises questions about the federal government's responsibility to protect public health and the potential consequences of shifting this responsibility to the states.

Elimination of FEMA and NOAA

The bill proposes to eliminate the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) and the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA). These agencies play a crucial role in providing weather-related warnings and remediation functions to the states. FEMA is instrumental in coordinating disaster response and recovery efforts, while NOAA provides essential data and forecasts that help mitigate the impact of natural disasters. The recent increase in firestorms and rain events underscores the need for federal support in disaster management. Without FEMA and NOAA, states may struggle to respond effectively to such events, potentially leading to greater loss of life and property. This shift in responsibility from the federal government to the states could disrupt the balance of power, as states may lack the resources and expertise to manage large-scale disasters independently.

Impact on education and workforce development

The bill also seeks to eliminate the Department of Education and limit access to federal student loans. This proposal could significantly limit the number of next-generation professionals, particularly in critical fields such as healthcare. As society ages, the demand for doctors and nurses is expected to rise. Federal student loans have historically enabled many individuals to pursue higher education and enter these professions. By limiting access to these loans, the bill could hinder the development of a skilled workforce, placing additional strain on state education systems and potentially exacerbating workforce shortages. This shift could lead to disparities in educational opportunities across states, challenging the federal government's role in ensuring equal access to education.

The impact on federal-state balance

The 'One Big Beautiful Bill Act' outlines extensive federal appropriations and program expansions, which may shift the balance of power towards the federal government in areas traditionally managed by states, such as infrastructure and healthcare. The centralization of control in these areas could undermine the federalist structure by reducing state autonomy and flexibility. While the bill aims to address national concerns, such as border security and healthcare reform, it does so at the potential cost of diminishing the role of states in these critical areas.

Conclusion:

The One Big Beautiful Bill Act challenges the principles of federalism by centralizing control over infrastructure, public safety, and healthcare at the federal level. And by eliminating key federal agencies and programs, the bill also shifts significant responsibilities to the states, potentially disrupting the balance of power between federal and state governments. This shift could lead to increased disparities in disaster management, education, and public health across states, challenging the federal government's role in ensuring equitable access to essential services.

While the One Big Beautiful Bill Act addresses important national issues, its approach undermines the intentionally designed delicate balance of power between federal and state governments, reducing state autonomy and flexibility in managing these areas. As such, the act raises important questions about the future of federalism in the United States and the appropriate division of powers and responsibilities between federal and state governments. As the nation grapples with these changes, it is crucial to consider the long-term impact on federalism and the ability of states to meet the needs of their citizens without federal support.