Sunday Bonus (2/23/25)—What Transpired Over the Past Week: The First States Have Drawn Their Line
The Week That the First States Defied Authoritarianism
The battle for state sovereignty has begun. The states which resist now may be the last ones able to.
This past week, the Trump administration escalated its war on constitutional limits and the systematic dismantling of America’s capacity to resist his will—purging military leadership, stacking federal agencies with loyalists, weaponizing the Justice Department, and threatening governors with economic blackmail.
But this is not just a war on states. Trump has turned his sights on the cities.
The Eric Adams scandal (detailed below) has exposed how Washington is leveraging the DOJ to coerce urban leadership into compliance. And now, a new executive order targets so-called “Anarchist Cities”—municipalities that refuse to kneel.
Cities that will not be ruled by Washington are a core part of Radical Federalist resistance. Their legal shields, obstruction tactics, and sheer economic and demographic weight make them blue bastions even in purple and red states. And the oligarchs-who-would-be-kings know this. State leaders must act now—before federal pressure turns into federal rule.
Those who comply with the regime will be reduced to vassals. Those who resist must prepare for a long fight.
Some states have drawn their line.
I. Trump Redraws the Lines Around Executive Power
1. The “Unitary Executive” Order: Trump Seizes Control of Federal Agencies
On February 18, President Trump signed an executive order bringing independent regulatory agencies under direct White House control—an unprecedented assertion of presidential authority over agencies like the FTC, FCC, SEC, and Federal Reserve (Politico).
The order:
Requires independent agencies to submit all regulations for White House approval (Reuters).
Mandates White House liaisons within agencies to oversee policy changes (Reuters).
Asserts that only the President (or an Attorney General under his control) may interpret the law for the executive branch—blocking agencies from contradicting Trump’s legal positions (Reuters).
This is the strongest move yet toward implementing the once-fringe “unitary executive” theory, which argues that all executive power must flow directly from the President (Politico). Legal experts immediately called it “a blatant power grab”, predicting court challenges (Reuters).
█ Further commentary:
Trump’s agency power grab will likely be tested in court. Legal experts note that his firing of independent agency officials—like members of the National Labor Relations Board (NLRB)—violates Supreme Court precedent (Humphrey’s Executor v. U.S.), which bars the removal of independent agency heads without cause (Reuters).
The administration also bypassed congressional confirmation processes by appointing Elon Musk to head a new "Department of Government Efficiency (DOGE)"—an agency with no statutory basis, now overseeing deregulation efforts across multiple departments (Politico).
State attorneys general have filed a lawsuit arguing that Musk’s position is unconstitutional, asserting that the Appointments Clause of the Constitution requires Senate approval for such powers (OAG California).
The waffling over whether or not Musk adtually runs DOGE (Fortune) highlights how the chaotic barrage from the WH leaves analysis in constant flux—which might just be the intention.
2. The DOJ Purge & Eric Adams Quid Pro Quo Scandal
On February 18, Trump’s DOJ ordered all remaining Biden-appointed U.S. Attorneys to be fired, eliminating independent prosecutorial oversight (Reuters). But the most blatant case of federal coercion came in New York City.
The Eric Adams bribery case was abruptly dismissed in a DOJ-engineered quid pro quo aimed at giving the Trump administration direct control of local affairs in NYC through the instrument of NYC Mayor Eric Adams.
Feb. 10: Acting Deputy Attorney General Emil Bove orders SDNY prosecutors to drop all bribery charges against NYC Mayor Eric Adams (ABC7NY).
Feb. 12–16: Internal DOJ memos reveal that Trump’s Acting Deputy AG Emil Bove explicitly cited Adams’ re-election as a factor in dropping the case. The motion to dismiss was “without prejudice”—ensuring the charges could be reinstated if Adams stopped cooperating (Reuters).
Feb. 14: Manhattan U.S. Attorney Danielle Sassoon resigns in protest, calling the dismissal a “political blackmail scheme.” Within hours, top DOJ corruption prosecutors resigned en masse (American Oversight).
3. The Pentagon Purge: Trump Fires the Nation’s Top Military Leaders
On February 21, Trump executed an unprecedented military shakeup, firing Joint Chiefs Chairman Gen. CQ Brown and removing five other top-ranking military officials (Reuters).
Installed Lt. Gen. Dan Caine, a hedge-fund-connected loyalist with deep ties to private military contractors, as Chairman of the Joint Chiefs (Reuters).
Removed the Chief of Naval Operations, the Air Force Vice Chief of Staff, and three Judge Advocate Generals, eliminating military legal oversight (Reuters).
█ With this move, Trump is no longer just “purging the deep state.” He is installing an entirely new military chain of command, one loyal to him personally.
II. The State Resistance Begins
Not every governor was intimidated.
This week, two states—Maine and Illinois—became the first to directly and publicly defy Trump’s orders.
1. Maine Governor Janet Mills Stands Her Ground
At the National Governors Association meeting, Trump directly threatened to cut all federal funding to Maine unless it enforced his transgender sports ban (NewsCenterMaine).
Mills refused. “See you in court.”
Within hours, Maine filed legal action to block any funding freeze (MainePublic).
█ Further commentary:
Legal experts say Trump’s threat to cut Maine’s federal funding is legally dubious. The Supreme Court has ruled in past cases (e.g., NFIB v. Sebelius) that the federal government cannot coerce states by withholding funding for unrelated issues (ACLU).
Maine’s lawsuit against Trump’s funding freeze will serve as a crucial test case for whether the courts will uphold these legal protections for states (MainePublic).
2. Illinois Governor JB Pritzker’s Full-Scale Confrontation
During his State of the State address, Pritzker compared Trump’s actions to the rise of Nazi Germany (Forward).
█ The first states have drawn their line. Now, the question is: Who will follow?
If governors do not act now, they may not have the power to act later.
III. Other Key Developments This Week
Trump revoked federal approval for New York City’s congestion pricing plan, overriding a state initiative (Reuters).
Federal judges have begun blocking Trump’s funding freezes, immigration orders, and executive overreach in multiple cases. Courts in New Jersey, Massachusetts, and Washington State have issued temporary injunctions against the administration’s attempt to halt state funding (NJOAG).
Trump signaled he may openly defy certain court rulings. In a Presidents’ Day post, Trump quoted Napoleon: “He who saves his country does not violate any law.” (Brennan Center).
A bipartisan group of state attorneys general is suing to halt Musk’s control over federal regulatory oversight. (OAG California).
Trump’s proposed “anarchist cities” order would punish municipalities that defy federal law enforcement priorities. The new executive order, modeled after Trump’s first-term attempt to cut funding to sanctuary cities, would allow the DOJ to strip law enforcement grants from cities that “refuse to enforce the law”—a designation that the White House could apply at will (Politico).
█ See this footnote1 for an even more complete list of developments this week.
IV. The Stakes: Act Now—Or Be Powerless to Act at All
This week made one thing clear: The fight for state sovereignty has begun.
**The governors who would resist must act now—**or be powerless to act at all.
More developments this week:
Trump floated the idea of a federal takeover of Washington, D.C., calling it “an embarrassment” under local control (AP).
A federal judge ruled Trump cannot unilaterally end birthright citizenship, setting up a Supreme Court battle (CNN).
The Ninth Circuit blocked Trump’s attempt to strip citizenship from U.S.-born children of undocumented immigrants (Courthouse News).
California quietly set aside $50 million for legal defenses against Trump’s policies, including immigration raids and federal funding freezes (CalMatters).
Trump revoked federal approval for New York City’s congestion pricing plan, overriding a state initiative (Reuters).
Congressional Democrats launched an investigation into Trump’s DOJ purges and interference in corruption cases (House Oversight).
Federal judges have begun blocking Trump’s funding freezes, immigration orders, and executive overreach in multiple cases. Courts in New Jersey, Massachusetts, and Washington State have issued temporary injunctions against the administration’s attempt to halt state funding, arguing that Trump is exceeding his budgetary authority (NJOAG).
Trump signaled he may openly defy certain court rulings. In a Presidents’ Day post, Trump quoted Napoleon: “He who saves his country does not violate any law.” Legal analysts view this as a test balloon for ignoring judicial injunctions (Brennan Center).
Congressional Democrats are investigating whether Trump’s unitary executive order violates separation of powers. House Oversight Chair Jamie Raskin stated that subpoenas will be issued to examine Trump’s takeover of independent agencies (House Oversight).
A bipartisan group of state attorneys general is suing to halt Musk’s control over federal regulatory oversight. The case argues that no single unelected individual should have such broad control over federal data and budget decisions (OAG California).
The Biden-appointed Chair of the Federal Trade Commission (FTC) was fired by Trump on Feb. 19, violating legal protections for independent agencies. This sets up a potential Supreme Court battle over whether Trump can remove independent regulators at will (Reuters).
Trump’s allies in Congress introduced legislation to “discipline” judges who rule against the administration. The proposal, backed by Sen. Josh Hawley and Rep. Jim Jordan, would create a mechanism for reviewing and potentially removing federal judges based on their rulings (Politico).
Governors in Democratic-led states are discussing an interstate “Democracy Compact” to pool legal resources against Trump’s federal overreach. This effort, led by California, New York, and Illinois, would create a joint litigation fund to counter federal threats to state sovereignty (NJOAG).
Trump’s proposed “anarchist cities” order would punish municipalities that defy federal law enforcement priorities. The new executive order, modeled after Trump’s first-term attempt to cut funding to sanctuary cities, would allow the DOJ to strip law enforcement grants from cities that “refuse to enforce the law”—a designation that the White House could apply at will (Politico).
Can I ask.. wouldn't the anti- federalist papers be more in line with these ideas?