Democratic lawmakers in several left-leaning states are advancing legislation aimed at hitting back at President Donald Trump’s repeated threats to cut federal funding—by withholding payments their states owe to the federal government.
This bold and largely untested legal maneuver has surfaced in Connecticut, Maryland, New York, and Wisconsin, with Washington state Democrats also preparing a similar proposal. If passed, the laws would allow states to pause payments to the federal government—such as payroll taxes or repayments of certain grants—if they determine that Washington is unlawfully withholding money that Congress has already allocated.
While these bills face significant legal and legislative hurdles, they reflect mounting frustration from blue states over what they see as politically motivated funding freezes from the Trump administration. These freezes have affected programs supporting everything from children’s mental health services to infrastructure projects.
“Trump is illegally withholding funds that were already approved,” said Maryland House Majority Leader David Moon. “We need more tools to protect our residents. These bills are one of them.”
Moon likened the legislation to a collections action taken against a “deadbeat debtor,” and noted that even if the bills don’t advance, they could still trigger a much-needed audit of federal-state financial dealings.
Trump’s Department of Government Efficiency has already halted billions in approved funding, often targeting states with policies he opposes—like sanctuary protections for undocumented immigrants. Some of these cuts have been blocked by courts, but many remain in limbo.
Wisconsin State Rep. Renuka Mayadev, who introduced two such bills, said the Trump administration’s “willful lawbreaking” has deprived her state of funding for agricultural and child care programs.
“This is about legal accountability,” she said. “The people of Wisconsin deserve what they’ve been promised.”
Under the proposed bills, states could delay payments to the federal government if agencies violate court orders or withhold funds appropriated by Congress. While the measures may advance in Democrat-led states like Maryland, New York, and Connecticut, they face little chance of passage in Republican-controlled legislatures like Wisconsin’s.
Washington State Sen. Manka Dhingra, who is helping draft her state’s version, called the effort “a novel concept” reflecting an unprecedented dynamic between the federal government and states.
“We’ve never had a president who so openly makes arbitrary decisions about funding, regardless of the law,” she said.
Still, legal experts caution the bills are on shaky ground. The U.S. Constitution’s supremacy clause gives federal law priority over state law, complicating the legal standing of any state-level effort to withhold payments.
Georgetown law professor David Super noted the practical limits too. Most money flows from Washington to the states—not the other way around—so states withholding relatively small payments may not carry much leverage. Moreover, it could backfire by jeopardizing a state’s participation in federal programs.
“There’s a real risk,” Super said. “If a state doesn’t make a required payment, the federal government might retaliate by cutting off that program entirely.”
Even so, some legal scholars believe these state-level actions could serve an important symbolic purpose.
“This is about sending a message,” said UCLA law professor Jon Michaels. “States need to be creative in asserting their power and challenging federal overreach—even if the financial impact is limited.”
Democratic lawmakers behind the bills acknowledge the danger of retaliation from the Trump White House.
“We know the federal government has more leverage,” Moon said. “There’s always a risk of backlash. But states can’t just sit back and accept unlawful behavior without a response.”
