Another GOP Retreat From States’ Rights
The party that once invoked states’ rights once again turns to the heavy hand of federal power to stamp out any deviation from its own orthodoxy.
Once again, President Trump and his Republican allies have shown that, despite their rhetoric, they have little real regard for freedom or states’ rights. Their governing philosophy has become blunt: if you don’t implement their priorities, expect retribution. So much for letting federalism serve as an engine for liberty and creative policy experimentation
In a new executive order, Trump declares: “It is the policy of my Administration that Federal policies and resources should not be used to support jurisdictions with cashless bail policies, to the maximum extent permitted by law.” The order goes further, directing federal agencies to “identify Federal funds, including grants and contracts, currently provided to cashless bail jurisdictions … that may be suspended or terminated.”
What is striking here is not simply the policy preference but the mechanism of enforcement. Perhaps I am misreading the order, but it does not appear limited to punishing alleged criminals in violation of federal law. Instead, it casts a wider net: the federal government is positioning itself to discipline entire state and local jurisdictions for pursuing a policy that, on its face, not only lies within state and local discretion but also explicitly covers state and local violations. In effect, Trump is telling states what kind of bail policies they must have with respect to its own laws.
I am no expert on crime policy. But as I understand it, cashless bail does not eliminate judicial discretion. Judges still assess whether an accused person presents a flight risk or a danger to the community. Those deemed high risk may still be incarcerated; others may be subject to electronic monitoring. The central justification for cashless bail is that it reduces inequities tied to poverty—keeping people out of jail simply because they cannot afford to pay. It also reinforces a core constitutional principle: innocent until proven guilty. Critics may reasonably argue that cashless bail is flawed, or even dangerous. But in our federal system, the point of state and local experimentation is precisely to test whether such policies prove workable in practice.
Trump’s order cuts that process off at the knees. It prevents communities from experimenting with reforms and instead seeks to impose (or at least moves toward) a single national standard through coercion. That move runs counter not only to the idea of states as “laboratories of democracy” but also to the GOP’s long-professed commitment to federalism and local autonomy.
More than a crime policy initiative, this executive order appears as yet another attempt by the Trump administration to ratchet up the misery on already vulnerable communities—especially the poor. At a deeper level, however, it signals a profound shift in the meaning of conservative governance. The party that once invoked states’ rights and the virtues of decentralization once again turns to the heavy hand of federal power to stamp out any deviation from its own orthodoxy.
********************@
I am not sure what states other than Illinois even have cashless bail. It is not without its complications and its critics here, but for the most part has been a non-issue, especially in regards crimes committed while out on bail. Going back to bail is a system where the wealthy can presumptively run free while awaiting trial.
Trump’s EO is another solution in search of a problem.
Sooo… this is Trump’s pretext for invading Chicago, then?
Looks like Illinois, NY, NJ. And DC.
Trump’s petty political retribution campaign continues.
Oh the irony! The first guy ever to run for president *while out on bail* wants his fellow incarcerati to come up with hard cash if they want to roam the streets with charges – or their sentencing – pending. And once again, here’s another attempt to rule by executive order – Congress, the states, and the Constitution be damned.
This Republican Congress is going to do NOTHING about this, because:
(1) most fear Trump,
(2) some, like Susan Collins or Lisa Murkowski, profess to be VERY CONCERNED, yet vote with Trump anyway (see (1))
(3) most actually love the fact he’s ‘owning the libs’
(4) electorally most are counting on voter amnesia, and the mid term season is a few months away, Trump owns/changes the news cycle EVERY DAY, and do not believe that they will pay a price in the mid terms, no matter how CONCERNED some might be.
I have said repeatedly that the EOs make some strange sort of sense if you assume the underlying goal is Donald, First of His Name, High Lord Emperor of North America. If you were setting out with that goal, who are the groups that would be high on your list to break to your will? The military. Law enforcement. The bureaucracy. The universities. Blue states and cities. You’d want an internal “other” group that you could persecute. You’d want to isolate yourself from foreign affairs at least initially.
It reminds me of tying highway funds to the state’s maximum speed limit. That was done through congressional acts, rather than executive fiat, which is another set of issues, but you have the Federal government using funding to try to coerce state and local behavior.
Or requiring ratification of the reconstruction amendments before the confederate states could be readmitted to the Union.
If this was a law passed through Congress, rather than just an executive order, I would be opposed, but not consider it a travesty.
(But, I hate states — they do more harm than good, especially in an environment where it’s pretty easy to just go to another state. We fought a civil war over states’ rights, and the states lost.)
As it is, I would like jurisdictions to require a minimum bail of $0.75 to comply in the most technical sense. And pursue similar strategies to just annoy the administration, in addition to going to court to fight this EO. The more time they spend redrafting their terrible EO means they have less time to do draft the next terrible EO.
Part of resistance is just adding friction.
… not to mention that he’s intentionally throwing a giant monkey wrench into the places in this country that generate the lion’s share of the GDP. All this chaos can’t be good for businesses. I fear that we are about to see what happens when supply chains built up over years start to unravel.
Hope I’m wrong.
States Rights, one of the eternal, unchangeable, carved in stone conservative principles. A quick Google finds many lists of conservative principles. Here’s Reverend Johnson’s list from 2018 (https://www.thethinkingconservative.com/congressman-mike-johnson-the-7-core-principles-of-conservatism/):
1 Individual Freedom
2 Limited Government
3 The Rule of Law
4 Peace through Strength
5 Fiscal Responsibility
6 Free Markets
7 Human Dignity
Can anyone here read that list in 2025 without laughing?
As it was in the beginning, is now, and ever shall be, conservatism is about protecting the wealth and power of the currently wealthy and powerful. There is no other principle.
@Charley in Cleveland:
Felons of a feather flock together.
@Gustopher:
“We fought a civil war over states’ rights, and the states lost”
Counterpoint: Former Confederate general James Longstreet “I never heard of any other cause of the quarrel than slavery.”
States’ rights has always been the fallback argument when their party is out of power in Washington. They never actually meant it.