President Trump engages with governors at the White House last week, challenging Maine Gov. Janet Mills on her state’s transgender student athlete policy, prompting her to say, “See you in court.”
Pool/AP
hide caption
toggle caption
Pool/AP
Many of President Trump’s objectives depend on collaboration with state leaders, who possess the authority to advance or obstruct White House initiatives.
An example is Trump’s deportation strategy, which Florida Gov. Ron DeSantis described as the potential “largest mass deportation program in American history.”
According to DeSantis, “That cannot be accomplished unless states like Florida actively cooperate in facilitating federal operations,” a statement he made during the announcement of an agreement allowing the Florida Highway Patrol to perform immigration enforcement.
It’s not merely a question of manpower; authority plays a crucial role. Although the federal government wields significant power, states maintain jurisdiction over cities, counties, police, schools, and health departments. Reflect on how governors directed their states along divergent paths regarding COVID-19 restrictions and vaccine mandates a few years ago.
In stark contrast to DeSantis’ endorsement, Trump recently had a public disagreement with Maine’s Democratic Gov. Janet Mills over the adoption of Trump’s policies regarding transgender students in sports. “See you in court,” Mills addressed the president during their White House meeting with governors.
The United States was founded under the principle that states possess power, except in areas explicitly defined by the U.S. Constitution. Local officials, including police and sheriffs, are primarily governed by state and local regulations, not federal directives.
The political landscape is also complex. Presently, Trump and his supporters enjoy political momentum, claiming that the election result legitimized their agenda. However, Democratic-led states have contested several policies in court. Ultimately, the outcome will largely depend on the decisions made by governors and state legislatures. Here’s a glimpse of some key issues at play.
States can direct police to support deportations in ways federal officials cannot
The federal government is responsible for safeguarding U.S. borders, but this does not equate to the ability to compel local law enforcement to participate.
“The federal government is quite restricted in mandating states and localities to act,” states Rick Su, law professor at the University of North Carolina. However, state legislators can indeed empower police and sheriffs to engage in immigration enforcement, which can include detaining individuals for immigration violations.
To facilitate this, Florida, along with several other states, recently enacted a law making it a state crime for individuals to reside in Florida without legal status. This allows local police to charge first-time offenders with a misdemeanor and repeat offenders with a felony.
State Troopers remove a protestor during a special session of the Tennessee Legislature last month when it moved forward with an extensive immigration bill.
George Walker IV/AP
hide caption
toggle caption
George Walker IV/AP
Tennessee lawmakers, motivated by Republican Gov. Bill Lee, recently made it a felony for local officials to advocate for sanctuary policies, which are now illegal in the state. In Alabama, one proposal would criminalize the act of shielding or harboring individuals lacking legal immigration status.
Conversely, Democratic-led states have exerted their authority to oppose deportations dating back to the initial Trump administration. Cities have established sanctuary policies, while state lawmakers can prevent police from detaining individuals based on federal immigration charges.
However, they cannot impede the operations of U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) as it performs its federal responsibilities. The political dynamic presents challenges for Democrats currently. National surveys indicate that a substantial segment of the public endorses the notion of deportations, rendering “sanctuary” policies generally unpopular.
Trump wants to reform American schools, but this remains largely a local matter
Trump enacted a directive encouraging the allocation of tax funds for covering tuition for children attending private schools—a concept broadly termed school vouchers or, as proponents call it, school choice.
“The administration indicates a desire to bring educational freedom and choice closer to each student,” explains Lee Schalk, senior vice president of policy at the American Legislative Exchange Council, which advises lawmakers on legislation that limits government intervention and advances “education freedom.”
Nevertheless, much of Trump’s educational plan is contingent upon state actions. Legislators, predominantly in Republican-controlled states, have already instituted various forms of vouchers or school choice initiatives in numerous locales. Texas Gov. Greg Abbott is pushing for a voucher program that could allocate $1 billion annually to private schools.
Many states led by Democrats have curtailed voucher initiatives, and the concept has typically faltered at the ballot box, as both Democrats and Republicans express concerns that it will siphon funds from public education.
An avenue Trump might pursue is convincing Congress to endorse tax incentives for organizations aimed at subsidizing tuition. A proposal from his previous administration was projected to result in approximately $5 billion in lost tax revenue, yet it could offer tuition support for hundreds of thousands of students (around one million of the nation’s 50 million schoolchildren currently receive vouchers).
Trump has also threatened reductions in funding to combat “radical indoctrination” within schools. However, state and local governments control educational curricula, raising over 80% of their own finances.
In the meantime, certain Trump allies advocate for the dissolution of the U.S. Department of Education, a move that would likely result in diminished supervision of areas where federal authority prevails—particularly in safeguarding against discrimination—while granting state leaders even greater authority over educational matters.
Trump gained backing due to crime-related concerns, but law enforcement primarily operates at the local level
Crime surged during the COVID pandemic, yet most areas have witnessed a decrease in crime rates since then. Nevertheless, this topic was a persistent theme throughout Trump’s campaign, which criticized the Biden administration and local officials for criminal justice policies perceived as overly lenient.
“Currently, the pendulum is swinging back to normal. Thankfully. Because individuals, particularly in blue cities, have come to realize this isn’t what they voted for,” asserts Charles “Cully” Stimson, senior legal fellow at the Heritage Foundation, the research organization that compiled the Project 2025 government overhaul plan, partly authored by individuals later associated with the Trump administration.
However, as Stimson emphasizes, the vast majority of crimes are prosecuted at the local level by county prosecutors and courts across the fifty states. State lawmakers establish the regulations governing them.
States governed by both political parties—and their constituents through referendums—have already been toughening crime legislation. California enhanced penalties for drug offenses and shoplifting. States led by Republicans have explored methods to increase execution rates. While some states and localities have eliminated cash bail obligations for certain offenses, others have sought to impose stricter bail criteria.
Decisions on abortion rights, vaccinations, and fluoride occur at the state and city level
Trump has claimed credit for the U.S. Supreme Court’s 2022 decision to revoke the federal right to abortion, attributing it to his judicial appointments during his first term. Reproductive rights exemplify an issue that falls under state legislative control, reflected in the constantly shifting array of abortion laws nationwide.
Moreover, states are extending their interpretations of powers concerning other medical treatments, from banning medications used for abortions to regulating transgender health care. Nicole Huberfeld, law professor at Boston University’s law school and co-director of the school’s Program on Reproductive Justice, notes that she is monitoring legal cases “where states are asserting their authority over which types of medical care are permissible without federal interference.”
Following Trump’s executive order threatening to withhold federal funds from hospitals providing transgender care, Democratic state attorney generals in New York and California reminded hospitals that they are still bound by state law to continue these treatments.
In addition, public health topics, such as vaccine mandates for schoolchildren and workplaces, are being debated in legislatures across the country.
The routine practice of adding fluoride to drinking water to enhance dental health—an idea criticized by new Secretary of Health and Human Services Robert F. Kennedy Jr.—is overseen by state and municipal governments. Several state legislatures are contemplating proposals to ban its usage.
