According to a recent court filing, the Department of Energy canceled 284 grants, and all but one were located in states Trump lost in 2024. The administration says the decisions reflected its policy priorities, while opponents argue they were politically motivated.
Should a president be able to use a state’s voting history when deciding which federally funded projects survive?
Would your answer be the same if a Democratic president did it to Republican states?
Poll
Now hold on, are these states in compliance with Federal Law?
No state should receive any Federal Funding until they’re in compliance. Minnesota, New Jersey, California, Oregon, New York, New Mexico, Virginia come to mind………….
……and I mean ZERO Federal Funding. It’s time for the complete Embargo of the new Confederate States.
If there are red states and blue states with the same problems, but only one of them is punished, that's obviously criminal. Unfortunately, most people care more about what makes them happy than they do anything else.
Easy one is medicaid fraud. Unless they go after Arizona and whatever other red states, it's all just pissing on the constitution.
You seriously think these "green" and "sanctuary" states don't have a correlation with voting Democrat?
The Shop
DeCal Works Huge Plastic Inventory of UFO and Polisport kits.
That's a separate issue, isn't it? The question is, "Should presidents be allowed to reward or penalize states based on election results?"
As to withholding funding from states that violate federal law, fair enough.
When the Biden administration argued Texas was violating federal authority at the border, would you have supported withholding federal funding from Texas?
Actually, I support “TEXIT”.
Texas would argue that the Biden Administration wasn’t in compliance with Federal Law. Allowing our State to be overrun by foreign invaders.
So in that same principle should California then pay the tax money to the federal government when they break the law and the constitution.
Please reference when, why, and where?
Just because it hurts your feelings, doesn’t make it illegal, nor unconstitutional, They/Them.
So that still didn't answer the original question of the thread, but I guess it 'sorta' answered the other question.
So who should decide whether a state is violating federal law, the President alone or the courts? If a president can simply declare a state non-compliant and cut off funding, that seems like a power that could/would be abused by either party, doesn't it?
Again, Texas was completely within their rights under the constitution and federal law to enforce border policy. Especially when the federal government refused to enforce the law.
Go see Article 1, section 10; Article IV, Section 4.
8 USC 1325 as well.
I have no problem discussing Article I, Article IV, or 8 USC 1325. But those are arguments about whether Texas was legally justified, not about who has the authority to make that determination. That's a different topic than what the thread is about.
So are we in agreement that it is or should be wrong for a President to withhold funding from a state based on their election history, specifically whether or not he won the electoral votes of the state in the last election? I think that we should be able to agree on that, right?
You are assuming, as usual, that it is political retribution. It is clearly a result of not being in compliance with federal law.
Kind of like all the Paki truck drivers. You keep issuing these people drivers licenses, you are not in compliance with Federal Law.
No Soup for You!
By your standard, Texas could claim that the illegal migrant invasion was political retribution for Texas being the largest conservative state.
C’mon, mutt, where has the administration said these grants were canceled because the recipient states were “not in compliance with federal law”?
Everything I’ve seen says the administration initially cited policy priorities, and the subsequent court filing (by the Trump administration!) says the grants were selected based on the political identity of the recipient states, not because the states were violating federal law.
Jeff Novak, Principal Deputy General Counsel for the DOE, submitted in a declaration that the cuts were made “based solely on the political identity of the grant recipient’s state” rather than on “programmatic, statutory, cost-reduction, or performance-based” factors.
That’s not editorial spin. That’s not simply an alternative interpretation. That’s a declaration to the court by the defendant’s own legal counsel.
Yeah, I just did some research. My apologies, it’s plainly nothing but political retribution. Can’t believe they just readily fucking admit it.
There ya go, I was wrong.
And if you’re going to commit political retribution, you probably shouldn’t just come right out and fucking tell everybody that’s what you’re doing.
California National Guard federalization
Birthright Citizenship Order
Just to start! But you will justify it, that’s a given.
Well, let’s start with your National Guard claim. We’ll unpack one at a time. Not to cloud the issue with insignificant facts and trivia, but……
”The federalization of the California National Guard is rooted in the U.S. Constitution's Militia Clauses and federal statutes like 10 U.S.C. § 12406, though its application remains heavily contested in federal courts. [1, 2, 3, 4, 5]
Pit Row
Oh and if you’re following along. I said the Supreme Court got birthright citizenship right.
While it was intended to ensure slaves were citizens, it’s been exploited. If the immigration laws were enforced, particularly at the border, “birthright citizenship” wouldn’t be an issue. So, the Bill of Rights needs to be amended.
Rewarding anyone for breaking the law is preposterous.
I know.
I’m still wondering how you got to the conclusion that “It is clearly a result of not being in compliance with federal law” in the first place….! What was so clear about it?
😎
If birthright citizenship were rescinded and it was enforced retroactively, we could deport Kash Patel!!!!
If only, I can not stand that clown, or Dan Mangina.
The statutory conditions in § 12406 were not met because there was no rebellion or inability to enforce federal law.
The deployment exceeded the President’s statutory authority and infringed on California’s authority over its National Guard.
Federalized Guard members were being used in ways that conflicted with laws limiting military involvement in civilian law enforcement.
Trump lost in court with these. But you will say it was by an Activist judges. Which is typical MAGA blame others for there incompetence.
Please allow me to extrapolate. “We’re getting Epstein”. “Epstein evidence is on my desk”. “They’re going down”.
To, “these are not the droids you’re looking for”.
Find it interesting that Pam Blondi and Kash “Klown Show” Patel came out of the same Florida Legal System that gave Epstein the sweet heart deal back in 2007.
Congress passed a law to require them to release “ALL” information. To date which they have not released half.
Citizenry, is starting to get suspect and angry. “Release the UFO files”! Yet, the majority of us didn’t quite fall for that shit either.
Next, it’s “War on Iran” alongside Israel. Yes, without a doubt Jeffrey was a Mossad agent. Who has the most to lose from the “Epstein Files” being released?
………and I don’t think Trump is directly culpable in Epstein, ie; not a child predator. Credible evidence could change my mind.
There ya’ go, now I’ll be labeled a “crazy conspiracist” and hated by both sides of the aisle. It’s ok, I’ve got big shoulders.
And I really don’t care that Biden didn’t release the files, never expected anything remotely resembling transparency out of his administration. Trump was going to tell us “the truth”.
So yeah, once again I feel over sold and under delivered.
By your standard, what’s going on now in Madison is not insurrection? Rebellion? Sedition? LA violent riots in the streets?
It’s clearly not peaceful assembly, nor redress of grievances.
It's ironic how people want to complain about federal debt and "affordability" while simultaneously claiming entitlement to every Biden grant program and USAID scam under the sun.
This was a primary campaign promise. Ending waste, fraud, and abuse.
Same as Epstein though, not one arrest related to USAID. Not even one.
When does the swamp draining start?
Never mind the “Mass Deportations”. Obama deported more illegals. Yes, you read that right.
I was able to find these four convictions related to USAID.
https://www.justice.gov/opa/pr/usaid-official-and-three-corporate-execu…
I don't assume that most of those programs were breaking laws but it's worth realizing the funding was cut and programs were ended. That still contributes to draining the swamp.
Deportations need to increase. The administration is dealing with states that don't follow federal supremacy laws and militants on the street but we still need results.
My apologies. I don’t mean private citizens, but the politicians who were enabling the fraud.
Se la gaer....
Post a reply to: Court filing: 284 DOE grants canceled, all but one were in states Trump lost. Fair or political?