I agree fully with this—radical federalism may provoke knee-jerk reactions because of historical connotations regarding the civil war and modern rightwing libertarianism, but getting hamstrung by nomenclature is half of what has gotten the left so far into this mess. We’ve seen state’s rights action for a while, just under different names—states rushing to pass amendments protecting choice following Dobbs, asylum cities and local governance not complying with ICE orders, even states suing Trump over the funding freeze.
People talk about the three branches of the federal government like they’re the be-all and end all, and I think that contributes to a lot of the doomer sentiment we’re seeing among progressives. It’s, as you’ve stated well in this piece, not. State and local governance is far more accessible to the average person, and more equipped to make immediate impact. It was the whole point of the dual-power structure in the first place.
Absolutely—this is exactly the shift in mindset that needs to happen. Too many people are still trapped in the idea that power only flows from the top down, when in reality, the entire structure of government was designed to work the other way.
You’re also spot on about the defeatist mentality among progressives - which, as we saw in 2016, is sometimes countered in a self-aware manner by deliberate energy and optimism which the mainstream leaders too-often fail to direct and capitalize on towards strategic ends.
- To what extent do you think the states have the competencies and preparedness now?
- Where do the legal resources supporting the states come from? What is the risk that the DOJ can threaten or otherwise negatively influence those legal resources, similar to what we just saw in NY with Sassoon?
WellAreWe, these are exactly the right questions to be asking.
Warning, a long response follows.
1. State Competencies & Preparedness
The reality: state readiness is wildly uneven and, in many cases, dangerously behind where it needs to be. The strongest legal infrastructure for resisting federal overreach exists in states that have been at this game for a while—California, New York (outside of Adams), Illinois, Washington—where state attorneys general and regulatory agencies have successfully sued the federal government dozens of times in recent years. These states, whether you agree with their policies or not, have built the legal muscle memory to challenge federal directives on climate, immigration, and healthcare.
But for many others—particularly purple states with divided governments—the situation is far more precarious. State legal offices are often underfunded, reactive rather than proactive, and too reliant on federal court venues that may already be compromised. Even in deep-red states, where one might expect aggressive state autonomy efforts, the preparedness gap is enormous: many have passed sovereignty resolutions and grandstanding bills, but lack the legal infrastructure to actually defend them in court.
Even the most competent state legal teams are not yet operating with the assumption that they need to be structurally independent in key areas like law enforcement, economic regulation, and social policy. That has to change immediately—because state resistance efforts that hinge on federal courts will find themselves outmaneuvered.
What needs to happen now:
Parallel legal structures—State legal offices must function as if federal enforcement mechanisms are compromised. That means preparing legal alternatives for everything from financial regulation to civil rights enforcement.
Multi-state litigation networks—The best defense against DOJ targeting is a collective legal offense. California, New York, and Illinois have proven that when states coordinate lawsuits, they create legal safe zones that make federal retaliation riskier.
Aggressive use of state courts—The Supreme Court has made it clear: federal courts will not reliably act as a check on executive overreach. That means state courts must become the primary battleground.
2. Legal Resources & DOJ Threats
This is the single biggest vulnerability.
Right now, much of the legal resistance against federal overreach is coming from state attorneys general, city solicitors, and a handful of outside organizations (like the ACLU). But the Adams case should be a wake-up call. The DOJ under Trump has already weaponized prosecutorial discretion—not just in who it targets, but in who it protects. The Manhattan DA’s case against Trump? Gutted. The SDNY’s corruption case against Eric Adams? Erased. Meanwhile, the DOJ has turned its attention to state-level prosecutors and attorneys general who pose a threat to federal authority.
This is not theoretical. We are already seeing the early stages of a broad purge of independent legal offices—removing federal and state-aligned prosecutors who might resist DOJ directives. If federal agencies are no longer independent, and courts are unwilling or unable to intervene, then where does legal resistance come from?
The only viable solution: independent legal support structures that do not rely on federal courts or federal funding.
Three immediate steps states must take:
Interstate legal defense compacts—State attorneys general should be pooling resources into independent legal defense funds that operate outside of DOJ reach. California and New York have done this before, but it needs to scale up.
State courts as the primary battlefield—Federal courts are now an unreliable venue. That means states must prioritize legal challenges that can be adjudicated in state courts under state constitutional protections.
Preemptive legal strategies—If state legal offices wait until after DOJ interventions to act, it’s already too late. They need to be anticipating and blocking federal legal maneuvers before they happen.
3. The Bigger Picture: What Happens When States Don’t Act Fast Enough?
There is an accelerating trend here, and it’s one that state leaders need to recognize before they wake up one day and find that the window to act has closed:
DOJ intervention in state prosecutions is now a reality. If a legal case presents a serious threat to the administration, DOJ can step in and shut it down.
Funding as leverage. The federal government has already frozen federal grants in key areas—states that defy federal mandates risk budget crises overnight.
The death of legal independence. If state legal offices are compromised or lack resources, state resistance collapses entirely.
This is no longer about hypothetical constitutional debates. It is a practical question: Can states move fast enough to create alternative structures before federal control consolidates?
WellAreWe, the fact that you’re thinking about this now is a good sign—because the people who organize resistance early are the ones who set the terms of the fight.
No more waiting. State governments need to act like their independence is already under siege—because it is.
I find it difficult to demand action from my representatives when I’m ignorant of the action(s) that can be or should be taken. So your response is immensely helpful and it gives me hope.
Is the assumption that states are not already pursuing these parallel legal structures today?
WellAreWe, this is an excellent follow-up, and the short answer is: some states are moving, but nowhere near fast enough.
The assumption is not that states are doing nothing—some blue states, particularly California, New York, Illinois, and Washington, have laid the groundwork in a few areas (climate regulations, worker protections, even some financial autonomy moves). The problem is that these actions are piecemeal, defensive, and uncoordinated—not the kind of comprehensive parallel legal structures that could actually sustain state autonomy if federal institutions become fully compromised.
Where Blue States Are Moving (But Not Enough)
1. Legal Defense Infrastructure – Some states have strengthened their attorneys general networks for lawsuits against federal overreach. The multi-state legal offensives against Trump’s environmental and immigration policies in his first term were a prototype of what’s needed now. But these efforts are still reliant on federal courts, which are already shifting rightward. There is no fully independent legal architecture yet.
2. Financial Workarounds – States like California have experimented with state-funded alternatives to federal programs (e.g., covering healthcare funding if federal subsidies get cut). But this is still reactionary, not a full-scale strategy to replace federal economic dependencies.
3. Sanctuary State Laws & Anti-Commandeering Moves – This is where states have been most successful. Blue states on immigration, red states on guns. These laws make it impossible for state/local law enforcement to be conscripted into federal enforcement. But again, these are defensive measures—not a proactive legal framework that assumes the need for broader state sovereignty.
4. Regulatory Independence – California has tried to set national policy by default in areas like climate and tech regulation, using its economic weight to force compliance. This is a step toward parallel structures, but without coordinated economic networks across multiple states, the strategy remains fragile.
What States Are NOT Doing (And Must Do Now)
1. Interstate Legal Defense Alliances – No state has established a formal legal compact that ensures collective legal defense across state lines. This is crucial because DOJ targeting will pick off states one by one unless there’s a unified response.
2. State-Based Constitutional Safeguards – States should be codifying legal autonomy protections into their constitutions, ensuring that core state policies cannot be overridden by federal preemption. This could include explicit state constitutional amendments protecting independent courts, economic policies, and even civil rights standards from federal interference.
3. Independent Revenue & Banking Structures – Federal funding remains the Achilles’ heel. Right now, almost no state has a real financial structure that would allow it to operate independently if federal funds are cut off. Some blue states (California, New York) are rich enough to experiment with alternatives, but no state has taken the lead in establishing a public banking or financial insulation strategy that would prevent economic blackmail from Washington.
4. Proactive Economic Compacts – The biggest missing piece: states must stop assuming that they can litigate their way out of this crisis. They need economic leverage—which means forming interstate economic agreements that bind blue states together in a self-sustaining economic bloc. Think regional trade agreements, pooled state pension funds, cross-state energy infrastructure that bypasses federal control.
The Big Picture: Why This Can’t Stay Defensive
Even in blue states, there’s a dangerous assumption that federal institutions will remain functional—that legal challenges will work, that funding will keep flowing, that elections will correct the course. That assumption is already breaking down.
If states wait until full federal consolidation of power is complete, it will be too late to build parallel institutions. This is why the real question isn’t “Are states doing anything?” It’s “Are states doing enough to survive if federal power becomes unchecked?” Right now, the answer is no.
The fact that you’re thinking in these terms means you’re ahead of most elected officials. The next step is demanding that states move beyond lawsuits and start building structures that don’t need Washington’s permission to function.
No more waiting. The federal game is already rigged. It’s time for states to play a new one.
I think you may have an easier time persuading people to use this information if you do less axe-grinding against the federal government. It's certainly good information in a time of need.
I appreciate the feedback, I really do. The tone and rhetoric here is extreme because the situation is extreme - but this is also about usurping the language and rhetoric of state's rights - and even to leave room to redirect some of the momentum and sentiment that still propels that from the other side - leaving the current administration either fighting back against that and alienating a portion of their base while they reveal the authoritarians they are to that segment earlier than intended, or for them to walk it back. To create a no-win scenario for the admin while leaving room for unlikely coalitions.
This is a response to a belief that we really are seeing a collapse of American Democracy - if I'm wrong, if this isn't that, then we're all fortunate - but we've also seen that the centralization of power has left us incredibly vulnerable to it. That said, I don't believe we're going back.
EPA FDA and OSHA are public safety measures. They should have authority over court interpretations unless good cause is shown because they're the experts and policy makers charged with ensuring our common good and safety across the nation.
I absolutely agree—although a lot of criticism gets lobbed at the FDA (see, e.g., https://www.astralcodexten.com/p/beyond-abolish-the-fda), I believe that on net, agencies like the EPA, FDA, and OSHA have been an essential force for public health and safety. I would not call for their abolition. However, what we are seeing right now is the real-time weakening, subversion, and outright dismantling of regulatory enforcement at the federal level.
We need to recognize that centralized power presents a single point of failure. We are seeing the proof that it can be captured, weakened, and subverted. The assumption that federal agencies will always operate in the public interest is proving unreliable. If these institutions are being dismantled, what replaces them?
The best way to ensure public safety isn’t to abandon federal oversight, but to begin building parallel protections now so that states and local governments can step in where necessary. Rather than rejecting national coordination, we need to prepare for a reality where the federal government is no longer a reliable safeguard.
We need to be working now to make these federal agencies unnecessary as a single point of failure—so that when enforcement is compromised, states already have the regulatory structures in place to uphold high standards without disruption.
This is not about undermining the EPA, FDA, or OSHA—it’s about ensuring their mission continues even if Washington becomes incapable or unwilling to uphold it. If we want to maintain strong public protections, we should be thinking ahead to resilience and redundancy, not relying on a system that is proving increasingly fragile.
The states can't regulate air traffic via the FAA bc it's a national system that crosses state lines. Different regulations would lead to confusion and danger.
You bring up an interesting point—how do we coordinate without the organization of the executive branch? While I am by no means espousing that we abolish the entire federal government tomorrow, and I recognize the need and value for coordination, that does not mean that centralized federal control is the only—or even the best—way to achieve it.
Your argument assumes that a unified federal system is the only way to regulate air travel safely, but that simply isn’t true. Many international jurisdictions manage cross-border air travel with varying national regulations while maintaining safety, efficiency, and operational coherence.
Take Europe, for example. The EU does not have a single federal aviation authority like the FAA—instead, airspace is managed collaboratively through agreements between sovereign states. The European Union Aviation Safety Agency (EASA) sets baseline regulations, but each country retains control over its own aviation laws and standards. This doesn’t create “confusion and danger”—it simply means that regulatory coordination happens at the state level, rather than through a singular federal mandate.
Likewise, Canada and the U.S. do not have a single, shared federal aviation system, yet planes cross the border constantly with no issue. The two countries manage compatibility through bilateral agreements, not by imposing one country’s laws on the other. If independent nations can coordinate aviation without surrendering sovereignty, why is it necessary for U.S. states to do so?
The real issue isn’t logistics—it’s control. The FAA’s authority exists because Congress chose to centralize it, not because decentralized coordination would be impossible. If states had retained regulatory power, airlines and regional aviation authorities would have adapted accordingly, just as they do in the EU, between Canada and the U.S., and in other transnational systems.
This is exactly why federal preemption is a tool of consolidation, not necessity. The claim that states “can’t” regulate air traffic is a political choice, not a fundamental requirement for safety.
If independent countries can coordinate their airspace while maintaining sovereignty, why should U.S. states be uniquely incapable of doing the same?
The piecemeal system wasn't working and people were dying in plane crashes so we changed it. That's not to say we couldn't revisit it but it didn't and doesn't exist for the purposes of government overreach.
Your point about the Clean Air Act is a mischaracterization. States can enact stricter regulations as long as they dont conflict with the national act. California has a waiver clause from 1970 which allows California (and other any state) to follow California's stricter standards even where they conflict with federal guidelines.
Thanks for the comments. You're correct that California has a waiver under Section 209(b) of the Clean Air Act, allowing it to set stricter vehicle emissions standards, and that other states can adopt California's standards under Section 177. However, this does not contradict the broader reality that the Clean Air Act preempts state-level emissions standards unless an exemption is granted.
Our statement—that the CAA preempts state emissions standards unless the EPA grants an exemption—is a factual and accurate description of the law’s structure. The need for a waiver at all reinforces our argument: states are not inherently free to regulate emissions beyond federal standards. They are only allowed to do so at the discretion of the federal government.
Even California’s supposed “autonomy” is conditional. The EPA has the authority to deny, revoke, or delay waivers, as seen when the Trump administration attempted to revoke California’s stricter emissions rules in 2019 and has signaled its intent to do so again in 2025. This power dynamic highlights precisely why state environmental protections remain subordinate to federal approval, making preemption a very real constraint on state sovereignty.
So while you are correct about the existence of a waiver mechanism, this does not change the fundamental fact that states cannot set their own emissions standards unless explicitly allowed by the federal government. That is preemption in practice.
So while there is more complexity here, I stand by what was written a - the text captures the governing reality without unnecessary legal complexity. The broader argument—that state regulatory authority exists only at the pleasure of Washington—remains true.
Can you show me the language of the Clean Air Act necessitating a waiver? Because everything I've read and previously learned contradicts what you're saying.
To expand on what I said before, the Clean Air Act (CAA) includes a specific provision—Section 209(b)—that requires California to obtain a waiver from the EPA before it can implement its own vehicle emissions standards that differ from federal regulations. This is because the CAA explicitly preempts state-level emissions regulations for motor vehicles, except in cases where a waiver is granted.
Here’s the relevant statutory language from 42 U.S.C. § 7543(b) (Section 209(b) of the Clean Air Act):
(b) Waiver
The Administrator shall, after notice and opportunity for public hearing, waive application of this section to any State which has adopted standards (other than crankcase emission standards) for the control of emissions from new motor vehicles or new motor vehicle engines prior to March 30, 1966, if the State determines that such standards will be, in the aggregate, at least as protective of public health and welfare as applicable Federal standards.
This section applies exclusively to California, as it was the only state with pre-existing emissions standards before 1966. Other states, under Section 177 of the CAA, may choose to adopt California’s stricter standards but may not create their own independent regulations.
Without an EPA waiver, California cannot legally enforce its stricter emissions standards.
Other states cannot set their own emissions rules independently—they can only follow either federal standards or California’s if a waiver is granted.
Waivers have been denied before (e.g., under the Bush administration in 2008), illustrating that this is not an automatic right but a federally controlled approval process.
Thus, it is not a mischaracterization to say that federal regulators have the power to block state-level emissions standards. California's ability to enforce stronger rules is contingent on receiving EPA approval, making it a privilege granted by federal authorities, not an inherent state right.
If your reading contradicts this, I’d be happy to review the specific legal text you’re referring to—but the statutory requirement for a waiver is well established in both law and precedent.
I agree fully with this—radical federalism may provoke knee-jerk reactions because of historical connotations regarding the civil war and modern rightwing libertarianism, but getting hamstrung by nomenclature is half of what has gotten the left so far into this mess. We’ve seen state’s rights action for a while, just under different names—states rushing to pass amendments protecting choice following Dobbs, asylum cities and local governance not complying with ICE orders, even states suing Trump over the funding freeze.
People talk about the three branches of the federal government like they’re the be-all and end all, and I think that contributes to a lot of the doomer sentiment we’re seeing among progressives. It’s, as you’ve stated well in this piece, not. State and local governance is far more accessible to the average person, and more equipped to make immediate impact. It was the whole point of the dual-power structure in the first place.
Absolutely—this is exactly the shift in mindset that needs to happen. Too many people are still trapped in the idea that power only flows from the top down, when in reality, the entire structure of government was designed to work the other way.
You’re also spot on about the defeatist mentality among progressives - which, as we saw in 2016, is sometimes countered in a self-aware manner by deliberate energy and optimism which the mainstream leaders too-often fail to direct and capitalize on towards strategic ends.
This is so helpful.
Thank you for making this post.
- To what extent do you think the states have the competencies and preparedness now?
- Where do the legal resources supporting the states come from? What is the risk that the DOJ can threaten or otherwise negatively influence those legal resources, similar to what we just saw in NY with Sassoon?
WellAreWe, these are exactly the right questions to be asking.
Warning, a long response follows.
1. State Competencies & Preparedness
The reality: state readiness is wildly uneven and, in many cases, dangerously behind where it needs to be. The strongest legal infrastructure for resisting federal overreach exists in states that have been at this game for a while—California, New York (outside of Adams), Illinois, Washington—where state attorneys general and regulatory agencies have successfully sued the federal government dozens of times in recent years. These states, whether you agree with their policies or not, have built the legal muscle memory to challenge federal directives on climate, immigration, and healthcare.
But for many others—particularly purple states with divided governments—the situation is far more precarious. State legal offices are often underfunded, reactive rather than proactive, and too reliant on federal court venues that may already be compromised. Even in deep-red states, where one might expect aggressive state autonomy efforts, the preparedness gap is enormous: many have passed sovereignty resolutions and grandstanding bills, but lack the legal infrastructure to actually defend them in court.
Even the most competent state legal teams are not yet operating with the assumption that they need to be structurally independent in key areas like law enforcement, economic regulation, and social policy. That has to change immediately—because state resistance efforts that hinge on federal courts will find themselves outmaneuvered.
What needs to happen now:
Parallel legal structures—State legal offices must function as if federal enforcement mechanisms are compromised. That means preparing legal alternatives for everything from financial regulation to civil rights enforcement.
Multi-state litigation networks—The best defense against DOJ targeting is a collective legal offense. California, New York, and Illinois have proven that when states coordinate lawsuits, they create legal safe zones that make federal retaliation riskier.
Aggressive use of state courts—The Supreme Court has made it clear: federal courts will not reliably act as a check on executive overreach. That means state courts must become the primary battleground.
2. Legal Resources & DOJ Threats
This is the single biggest vulnerability.
Right now, much of the legal resistance against federal overreach is coming from state attorneys general, city solicitors, and a handful of outside organizations (like the ACLU). But the Adams case should be a wake-up call. The DOJ under Trump has already weaponized prosecutorial discretion—not just in who it targets, but in who it protects. The Manhattan DA’s case against Trump? Gutted. The SDNY’s corruption case against Eric Adams? Erased. Meanwhile, the DOJ has turned its attention to state-level prosecutors and attorneys general who pose a threat to federal authority.
This is not theoretical. We are already seeing the early stages of a broad purge of independent legal offices—removing federal and state-aligned prosecutors who might resist DOJ directives. If federal agencies are no longer independent, and courts are unwilling or unable to intervene, then where does legal resistance come from?
The only viable solution: independent legal support structures that do not rely on federal courts or federal funding.
Three immediate steps states must take:
Interstate legal defense compacts—State attorneys general should be pooling resources into independent legal defense funds that operate outside of DOJ reach. California and New York have done this before, but it needs to scale up.
State courts as the primary battlefield—Federal courts are now an unreliable venue. That means states must prioritize legal challenges that can be adjudicated in state courts under state constitutional protections.
Preemptive legal strategies—If state legal offices wait until after DOJ interventions to act, it’s already too late. They need to be anticipating and blocking federal legal maneuvers before they happen.
3. The Bigger Picture: What Happens When States Don’t Act Fast Enough?
There is an accelerating trend here, and it’s one that state leaders need to recognize before they wake up one day and find that the window to act has closed:
DOJ intervention in state prosecutions is now a reality. If a legal case presents a serious threat to the administration, DOJ can step in and shut it down.
Funding as leverage. The federal government has already frozen federal grants in key areas—states that defy federal mandates risk budget crises overnight.
The death of legal independence. If state legal offices are compromised or lack resources, state resistance collapses entirely.
This is no longer about hypothetical constitutional debates. It is a practical question: Can states move fast enough to create alternative structures before federal control consolidates?
WellAreWe, the fact that you’re thinking about this now is a good sign—because the people who organize resistance early are the ones who set the terms of the fight.
No more waiting. State governments need to act like their independence is already under siege—because it is.
I find it difficult to demand action from my representatives when I’m ignorant of the action(s) that can be or should be taken. So your response is immensely helpful and it gives me hope.
Is the assumption that states are not already pursuing these parallel legal structures today?
Even amongst blue states?
WellAreWe, this is an excellent follow-up, and the short answer is: some states are moving, but nowhere near fast enough.
The assumption is not that states are doing nothing—some blue states, particularly California, New York, Illinois, and Washington, have laid the groundwork in a few areas (climate regulations, worker protections, even some financial autonomy moves). The problem is that these actions are piecemeal, defensive, and uncoordinated—not the kind of comprehensive parallel legal structures that could actually sustain state autonomy if federal institutions become fully compromised.
Where Blue States Are Moving (But Not Enough)
1. Legal Defense Infrastructure – Some states have strengthened their attorneys general networks for lawsuits against federal overreach. The multi-state legal offensives against Trump’s environmental and immigration policies in his first term were a prototype of what’s needed now. But these efforts are still reliant on federal courts, which are already shifting rightward. There is no fully independent legal architecture yet.
2. Financial Workarounds – States like California have experimented with state-funded alternatives to federal programs (e.g., covering healthcare funding if federal subsidies get cut). But this is still reactionary, not a full-scale strategy to replace federal economic dependencies.
3. Sanctuary State Laws & Anti-Commandeering Moves – This is where states have been most successful. Blue states on immigration, red states on guns. These laws make it impossible for state/local law enforcement to be conscripted into federal enforcement. But again, these are defensive measures—not a proactive legal framework that assumes the need for broader state sovereignty.
4. Regulatory Independence – California has tried to set national policy by default in areas like climate and tech regulation, using its economic weight to force compliance. This is a step toward parallel structures, but without coordinated economic networks across multiple states, the strategy remains fragile.
What States Are NOT Doing (And Must Do Now)
1. Interstate Legal Defense Alliances – No state has established a formal legal compact that ensures collective legal defense across state lines. This is crucial because DOJ targeting will pick off states one by one unless there’s a unified response.
2. State-Based Constitutional Safeguards – States should be codifying legal autonomy protections into their constitutions, ensuring that core state policies cannot be overridden by federal preemption. This could include explicit state constitutional amendments protecting independent courts, economic policies, and even civil rights standards from federal interference.
3. Independent Revenue & Banking Structures – Federal funding remains the Achilles’ heel. Right now, almost no state has a real financial structure that would allow it to operate independently if federal funds are cut off. Some blue states (California, New York) are rich enough to experiment with alternatives, but no state has taken the lead in establishing a public banking or financial insulation strategy that would prevent economic blackmail from Washington.
4. Proactive Economic Compacts – The biggest missing piece: states must stop assuming that they can litigate their way out of this crisis. They need economic leverage—which means forming interstate economic agreements that bind blue states together in a self-sustaining economic bloc. Think regional trade agreements, pooled state pension funds, cross-state energy infrastructure that bypasses federal control.
The Big Picture: Why This Can’t Stay Defensive
Even in blue states, there’s a dangerous assumption that federal institutions will remain functional—that legal challenges will work, that funding will keep flowing, that elections will correct the course. That assumption is already breaking down.
If states wait until full federal consolidation of power is complete, it will be too late to build parallel institutions. This is why the real question isn’t “Are states doing anything?” It’s “Are states doing enough to survive if federal power becomes unchecked?” Right now, the answer is no.
The fact that you’re thinking in these terms means you’re ahead of most elected officials. The next step is demanding that states move beyond lawsuits and start building structures that don’t need Washington’s permission to function.
No more waiting. The federal game is already rigged. It’s time for states to play a new one.
I think you may have an easier time persuading people to use this information if you do less axe-grinding against the federal government. It's certainly good information in a time of need.
I appreciate the feedback, I really do. The tone and rhetoric here is extreme because the situation is extreme - but this is also about usurping the language and rhetoric of state's rights - and even to leave room to redirect some of the momentum and sentiment that still propels that from the other side - leaving the current administration either fighting back against that and alienating a portion of their base while they reveal the authoritarians they are to that segment earlier than intended, or for them to walk it back. To create a no-win scenario for the admin while leaving room for unlikely coalitions.
This is a response to a belief that we really are seeing a collapse of American Democracy - if I'm wrong, if this isn't that, then we're all fortunate - but we've also seen that the centralization of power has left us incredibly vulnerable to it. That said, I don't believe we're going back.
EPA FDA and OSHA are public safety measures. They should have authority over court interpretations unless good cause is shown because they're the experts and policy makers charged with ensuring our common good and safety across the nation.
I absolutely agree—although a lot of criticism gets lobbed at the FDA (see, e.g., https://www.astralcodexten.com/p/beyond-abolish-the-fda), I believe that on net, agencies like the EPA, FDA, and OSHA have been an essential force for public health and safety. I would not call for their abolition. However, what we are seeing right now is the real-time weakening, subversion, and outright dismantling of regulatory enforcement at the federal level.
We need to recognize that centralized power presents a single point of failure. We are seeing the proof that it can be captured, weakened, and subverted. The assumption that federal agencies will always operate in the public interest is proving unreliable. If these institutions are being dismantled, what replaces them?
The best way to ensure public safety isn’t to abandon federal oversight, but to begin building parallel protections now so that states and local governments can step in where necessary. Rather than rejecting national coordination, we need to prepare for a reality where the federal government is no longer a reliable safeguard.
We need to be working now to make these federal agencies unnecessary as a single point of failure—so that when enforcement is compromised, states already have the regulatory structures in place to uphold high standards without disruption.
This is not about undermining the EPA, FDA, or OSHA—it’s about ensuring their mission continues even if Washington becomes incapable or unwilling to uphold it. If we want to maintain strong public protections, we should be thinking ahead to resilience and redundancy, not relying on a system that is proving increasingly fragile.
The states can't regulate air traffic via the FAA bc it's a national system that crosses state lines. Different regulations would lead to confusion and danger.
You bring up an interesting point—how do we coordinate without the organization of the executive branch? While I am by no means espousing that we abolish the entire federal government tomorrow, and I recognize the need and value for coordination, that does not mean that centralized federal control is the only—or even the best—way to achieve it.
Your argument assumes that a unified federal system is the only way to regulate air travel safely, but that simply isn’t true. Many international jurisdictions manage cross-border air travel with varying national regulations while maintaining safety, efficiency, and operational coherence.
Take Europe, for example. The EU does not have a single federal aviation authority like the FAA—instead, airspace is managed collaboratively through agreements between sovereign states. The European Union Aviation Safety Agency (EASA) sets baseline regulations, but each country retains control over its own aviation laws and standards. This doesn’t create “confusion and danger”—it simply means that regulatory coordination happens at the state level, rather than through a singular federal mandate.
Likewise, Canada and the U.S. do not have a single, shared federal aviation system, yet planes cross the border constantly with no issue. The two countries manage compatibility through bilateral agreements, not by imposing one country’s laws on the other. If independent nations can coordinate aviation without surrendering sovereignty, why is it necessary for U.S. states to do so?
The real issue isn’t logistics—it’s control. The FAA’s authority exists because Congress chose to centralize it, not because decentralized coordination would be impossible. If states had retained regulatory power, airlines and regional aviation authorities would have adapted accordingly, just as they do in the EU, between Canada and the U.S., and in other transnational systems.
This is exactly why federal preemption is a tool of consolidation, not necessity. The claim that states “can’t” regulate air traffic is a political choice, not a fundamental requirement for safety.
If independent countries can coordinate their airspace while maintaining sovereignty, why should U.S. states be uniquely incapable of doing the same?
The piecemeal system wasn't working and people were dying in plane crashes so we changed it. That's not to say we couldn't revisit it but it didn't and doesn't exist for the purposes of government overreach.
Your point about the Clean Air Act is a mischaracterization. States can enact stricter regulations as long as they dont conflict with the national act. California has a waiver clause from 1970 which allows California (and other any state) to follow California's stricter standards even where they conflict with federal guidelines.
Thanks for the comments. You're correct that California has a waiver under Section 209(b) of the Clean Air Act, allowing it to set stricter vehicle emissions standards, and that other states can adopt California's standards under Section 177. However, this does not contradict the broader reality that the Clean Air Act preempts state-level emissions standards unless an exemption is granted.
Our statement—that the CAA preempts state emissions standards unless the EPA grants an exemption—is a factual and accurate description of the law’s structure. The need for a waiver at all reinforces our argument: states are not inherently free to regulate emissions beyond federal standards. They are only allowed to do so at the discretion of the federal government.
Even California’s supposed “autonomy” is conditional. The EPA has the authority to deny, revoke, or delay waivers, as seen when the Trump administration attempted to revoke California’s stricter emissions rules in 2019 and has signaled its intent to do so again in 2025. This power dynamic highlights precisely why state environmental protections remain subordinate to federal approval, making preemption a very real constraint on state sovereignty.
So while you are correct about the existence of a waiver mechanism, this does not change the fundamental fact that states cannot set their own emissions standards unless explicitly allowed by the federal government. That is preemption in practice.
So while there is more complexity here, I stand by what was written a - the text captures the governing reality without unnecessary legal complexity. The broader argument—that state regulatory authority exists only at the pleasure of Washington—remains true.
Can you show me the language of the Clean Air Act necessitating a waiver? Because everything I've read and previously learned contradicts what you're saying.
To expand on what I said before, the Clean Air Act (CAA) includes a specific provision—Section 209(b)—that requires California to obtain a waiver from the EPA before it can implement its own vehicle emissions standards that differ from federal regulations. This is because the CAA explicitly preempts state-level emissions regulations for motor vehicles, except in cases where a waiver is granted.
Here’s the relevant statutory language from 42 U.S.C. § 7543(b) (Section 209(b) of the Clean Air Act):
(b) Waiver
The Administrator shall, after notice and opportunity for public hearing, waive application of this section to any State which has adopted standards (other than crankcase emission standards) for the control of emissions from new motor vehicles or new motor vehicle engines prior to March 30, 1966, if the State determines that such standards will be, in the aggregate, at least as protective of public health and welfare as applicable Federal standards.
This section applies exclusively to California, as it was the only state with pre-existing emissions standards before 1966. Other states, under Section 177 of the CAA, may choose to adopt California’s stricter standards but may not create their own independent regulations.
Without an EPA waiver, California cannot legally enforce its stricter emissions standards.
Other states cannot set their own emissions rules independently—they can only follow either federal standards or California’s if a waiver is granted.
Waivers have been denied before (e.g., under the Bush administration in 2008), illustrating that this is not an automatic right but a federally controlled approval process.
Thus, it is not a mischaracterization to say that federal regulators have the power to block state-level emissions standards. California's ability to enforce stronger rules is contingent on receiving EPA approval, making it a privilege granted by federal authorities, not an inherent state right.
If your reading contradicts this, I’d be happy to review the specific legal text you’re referring to—but the statutory requirement for a waiver is well established in both law and precedent.