Sunday Bonus (2/16/25): What Transpired Over the Past Week—The Growing Resistance and Radical Federalism’s Role
The week of February 9–16, 2025, saw a sharp escalation in state-led resistance to the Trump administration. What began as legal pushback through lawsuits has evolved into a full-spectrum resistance strategy:
States are openly defying federal orders by refusing to cooperate with mandates.
Judges are issuing emergency injunctions against sweeping executive actions.
Legislatures are passing “Trump-proof” laws to shield their states from federal overreach.
Interstate coalitions are forming to coordinate long-term resistance.
The Democratic-led states’ strategy is clear—weaponize federalism, fight Trump’s agenda through the courts, and preemptively codify protections before his policies can take hold.
But here’s the problem: they are still playing defense.
Their approach relies on the old system working as expected—on courts enforcing injunctions, on Congress reining in executive power, on regulatory challenges delaying policy changes.
Radical Federalism rejects this passive framework. Instead of merely obstructing federal authority, we replace it, ensuring that states don’t just “resist” Washington but render it irrelevant.
This week has been a case study in why the old strategy is failing—and why our approach is the only viable path forward.
I. The Legal Battles: States Are Winning Court Fights—For Now
The first front of resistance this week was in the courts. States rushed to file lawsuits against Trump’s policies, scoring early victories through temporary restraining orders (TROs) and emergency injunctions.
Key Legal Wins This Week
A coalition of 22 state attorneys general won a court order forcing the administration to release funds that had been illegally frozen, after the administration ignored an earlier ruling, prompting judges in Rhode Island and D.C. to issue stricter orders (ProPublica).
State attorneys general successfully halted Trump’s attempt to slash $4 billion from NIH research grants, preventing universities from losing crucial funding (Reuters).
A multistate coalition blocked Trump’s executive order denying U.S. citizenship to certain U.S.-born children, with courts ruling it blatantly unconstitutional (ACLU).
San Francisco, Illinois, and other local governments sued to protect their sanctuary laws, arguing that Trump’s new threats to defund cities that refuse to help with immigration enforcement violate the Tenth Amendment (Politico).
What This Means
The courts are still willing to check executive overreach—but these orders only buy time. The administration continues to look for ways around them, and in some cases, agencies outright ignore judicial rulings.
States must prepare for the moment when legal resistance is no longer enough—when the courts are overruled, ignored, or captured.
This is why Radical Federalism doesn’t just resist federal mandates—it builds alternatives that survive regardless of federal rulings.
Read the full legal roadmap for Radical Federalism.
II. State Legislatures Are “Trump-Proofing” Their Laws
Beyond lawsuits, states have begun using their legislatures to shield against federal intervention.
Key Legislative Actions This Week
California allocated $50M to fight Trump’s policies—$25M dedicated to lawsuits against the administration, and another $25M to provide legal services for immigrants facing deportation (News.Law).
In direct defiance of Trump’s federal ban on DEI programs, several states passed laws requiring DEI efforts in state agencies and universities (Hunton).
Illinois and Colorado reaffirmed their sanctuary laws, while other states codified protections for abortion access and gender-affirming care, explicitly stating that they will not comply with federal crackdowns (Politico).
What This Means
These laws are a step in the right direction—but they rely on the assumption that federal power still operates within predictable limits.
If Washington decides to escalate enforcement, laws alone will not protect these states.
This is why Radical Federalism moves beyond mere legislative resistance to building fully independent governance structures.
III. The Public Messaging Failure: Resistance Without Strategy?
Despite the legal victories, state legislative action, and economic pushback, the public-facing resistance is fragmented, reactionary, and lacks a coherent vision.
Mainstream Democratic leadership has no unified public strategy beyond opposition.
Activist protests are happening, but they are largely ignored by the media and fail to generate sustained pressure on federal decision-making.
The assumption that courts and Congress will “hold” still dominates discourse, even though Trump is proving those assumptions false in real time.
The Problem with Current Public Messaging
Right now, public messaging around resistance to Trump is muddled:
Liberal media’s focus is on outrage and legal battles, with little discussion of actual alternatives.
Activist energy is disorganized, focusing on sporadic protests rather than a long-term vision of power redistribution.
Democratic leaders offer weak messaging, relying on traditional norms that no longer apply.
The leftist media ecosystem has identified this issue as well. Current Affairs editor Nathan J. Robinson called Democratic leadership “feckless” for their lack of vision, arguing that resisting Trump’s policies is not enough without a counter-strategy (Current Affairs).
Radical Federalism provides what the current opposition lacks: a strategic, long-term vision that does not just defend against federal overreach but replaces it with something stronger.
VII. The Path Forward: From Resistance to Radical Federalism
This past week proved that states can fight back.
But it also revealed that resistance alone is not enough.
The courts may block federal overreach—but only for now.
State legislatures may pass protective laws—but enforcement remains uncertain.
Interstate alliances may coordinate opposition—but without permanence, they remain fragile.
There is no going back to normal. The old system is gone.
The question is whether states will simply delay federal overreach—or whether they will actively replace Washington’s failing governance.
Radical Federalism is the only viable path forward.
Read the full plan here: The Legal Blueprint for Radical Federalism.