Can Trump Cut Off Blue States? Federal Funding as a Political Weapon

00:00
Good Tuesday morning, Patriots, and welcome back to O'Connor's Right Stand. I'm your host, John O'Connor, software programmer by day, conservative truth seeker by night. January 6th, the Trump administration freezes $10 billion in federal funding to five states. California, Colorado, Illinois, Minnesota, New York, all blue states, all with Democratic governors. The reason? Fraud in childcare programs. Three days later.

00:29
A federal judge blocks it. Now, here's what nobody's talking about. This isn't the first time we've seen this playbook. Obama did it with Obamacare. Trump did it with sanctuary cities in his first term. Biden did it with COVID mandates. But this time, this might be the most extreme version yet. And here's the question that should terrify every conservative. If we cheer when Trump does this to blue states, what happens when a progressive president does it to red states?

00:59
because the powers we hand over today will be used against us tomorrow. Today, we are exposing how this actually works. Who has the power? What the Constitution says? And why conservatives need to be very, very careful about what we are celebrating. The right stand starts now.

01:33
Let me walk you through exactly what happened because the details matter. The morning of January 6th, 2026, the Department of Health and Human Services sends letters to five states, California, Colorado, Illinois, Minnesota, and New York. The letter says, federal funding is frozen. Three programs specifically, Child Care and Development Fund, Temporary Assistance for Needy Families, and Social Services Block Grant. The reason?

02:01
widespread fraud and misuse of taxpayer dollars. They point to Minnesota, feed our future scandal, $250 million meant for feeding children got funneled into luxury cars and real estate, smally linked daycare centers, dozens of convictions, real fraud, it's documented. But here's where it gets interesting. Trump froze funding to five states, but so far only one state, Minnesota, had the documented fraud case.

02:30
What about California, Colorado, Illinois, New York? The administration says they are investigating concerns that benefits might be going to undocumented immigrants. But they haven't provided evidence, haven't filed charges, haven't completed investigations. They froze a billion dollars to Illinois based on concerns. Think about that standard for a second.

02:55
If that's acceptable, what stops any administration from freezing funds to any state just by claiming they are concerned? So three days later, January 9th, 2026, federal judge Arun Subramanian, probably said that way wrong, in New York issues a temporary restraining order. His ruling? You can't freeze congressionally approved funding without following constitutional rules. And that's when the question becomes critical.

03:25
Who actually controls federal money? Congress or the President? The Constitution is clear. Article 1, Section 8. Congress has the power to tax and spend, not the President. Congress. The Founders designed it this way on purpose. They just fought a war against a king who controlled the purse. They wanted the people's representatives, Congress, to control money, not one person in the executive branch. Here's how the system works.

03:54
Congress passes a law creating a program, let's say the Child Care and Development Block Grant Act. The law says how much money goes to states and what states have to do to get it. Congress then appropriates the money, that means they authorize the Treasury to actually release the funds. Then the executive branch, the President and federal agencies, administers the program according to what Congress wrote in the law. Key point.

04:22
The president can't just add new conditions or withhold money that Congress already approved. Unless that law specifically gives him that authority. Think of it like this. Your boss approves your paycheck. But the guy down in the mailroom can't decide whether you actually get it based on whether he likes your politics. The mailroom guy doesn't have that power, even though he's the one handling the check. It's sort of the same principle.

04:50
Now, Congress can attach conditions to funding. When they say states get highway money, but only if they set the drinking age to 21. That's constitutional. The Supreme Court said that's fine because the conditions are in the law. States know what they are agreeing to before they take the money. The Supreme Court set four rules for when funding conditions are constitutional. First, conditions must be clearly stated in the law. Second,

05:20
Conditions must relate to the federal program. You can't say, take highway money, but also ban abortion. The condition has to connect to the purpose of the program. Third, conditions can't be so coercive that states have no real choice. There's a difference between offering a deal and holding a gun to someone's head. And finally, fourth, conditions can't violate other parts of the Constitution. Can't force states to violate free speech rights, for example.

05:50
Federal agencies do have enforcement discretion. If a state violates rules that Congress established, the agency can investigate. They can withhold payments. They can require additional documentation. But here's what they can't do. Invent new conditions. Punish states for things that aren't in the law. So with Trump's HHS freeze, the legal question becomes, are they enforcing conditions Congress created or...

06:18
Are they adding new requirements Congress never authorized? If uh HHS is saying, you violated the program rules Congress wrote, that's enforcement. But if they are saying, the President wants to punish sanctuary cities, so cooperate with immigration enforcement or we freeze your funding, that's a constitutional problem. Because the President doesn't get to rewrite laws, Congress passed. And here's why conservatives should care.

06:47
The powers we give to presidents we like will be used by presidents we don't like. If Trump can freeze funding to blue states over fraud concerns without providing evidence or completing investigations, what stops a future president, say, God forbid, Gavin Newsom, from freezing agriculture subsidies to red states over environmental violations? What stops President Gavin Newsom from cutting disaster relief to Texas over abortion laws?

07:17
That's not federalism. That's not limited government. That's consolidating power in Washington. And patriots, once we cross that line, there is no going back. Here's what the media won't tell you. This isn't new, and it's not partisan. Presidents from both parties have tried using federal funding as a weapon. The question is how far they take it and whether courts will let them get away with it. Let me show you the pattern. Let's start with Obama.

07:46
The original Affordable Care Act said states had to expand Medicaid. And if they didn't, they'd all their existing Medicaid funding. Not just the new expansion money. Everything. We are talking about programs that made up 10 % or more of state budgets. States couldn't run their governments without that money. 26 states sued. They said this is coercion. And the Supreme Court agreed.

08:11
In 2012, Chief Justice Roberts wrote that threatening states with the loss of their entire Medicaid program was economic dragooning, coercion so extreme that states had no real choice. The court ruled, Congress can offer new money for expansion, but they can't threaten to take away existing funding if states decline. That crosses the line from encouragement to coercion. Was that the right call?

08:36
Depends on whether you think the federal government should be able to force states to expand programs by threatening to bankrupt them. But here's what's interesting. Obama's administration also used grant conditions aggressively in other ways. They threatened to pull education funding from North Carolina over bathroom policies. They used Justice Department grants to pressure police departments on consent decrees. Each time the administration argued they were enforcing civil rights laws, Congress passed.

09:06
Critics said they were stretching those laws beyond what Congress intended. Sound familiar? Trump's first term. 2017, President Trump issues an executive order. Any city with sanctuary policies, policies that limit cooperation with federal immigration enforcement, could lose federal grants. The order was broad, vague, and any sanctuary city could potentially lose funding. San Francisco and Santa Clara County sued, and they won.

09:36
The federal judge William Orrick in California ruled the executive order violated separation of powers. Trump couldn't withhold congressionally appropriated funds without congressional authorization. And the Ninth Circuit upheld that ruling. But wait, it gets more complicated. A different court circuit, the Seventh Circuit, ruled Trump could withhold specific Justice Department grants to sanctuary cities, as long as the conditions related to the specific grant program.

10:06
So we had a split. Broad funding cuts across all programs unconstitutional. Narrow conditions on specific law enforcement grants may be constitutional. The Supreme Court was going to settle it in 2021, but Biden took office and dropped the appeal. Notice a pattern here? When conditions are narrow and tied to the specific program, courts give more leeway. When they are broad and punitive, courts shut them down.

10:34
Let's now turn our attention to Biden. September, 2021, Biden announces any healthcare facility receiving Medicare or Medicaid funds must require employee vaccination. 17 million workers at 76,000 facilities. No testing option. Get this shot or lose your job. And if the facility doesn't comply, they lose federal funding. Multiple states sued. They said this is unconstitutional coercion.

11:03
But in January, 2022, the Supreme Court upheld the mandate. 7-2 vote. Why? The court said conditioning Medicare and Medicaid funding on health and safety requirements was exactly what Congress authorized. The law specifically gave the agency authority to set conditions protecting patient safety. But, and this is a critical but, that same day, the court struck down Biden's OSHA mandate for private businesses

11:31
with over 100 employees. Why the different result? Because OSHA's authority came from workplace safety laws, not from voluntary federal grant programs. The court said regulating COVID in the general population exceeded OSHA's specific statutory authority. See what's happening here? When conditions are tied to voluntary federal programs and relate to the program's purpose and Congress authorized them, courts defer to the agency.

12:01
When agencies try to regulate beyond their specific statutory authority, courts shut them down. The pattern is clear. Presidents from both parties try using federal funding as leverage. Courts sometimes allow it, sometimes don't. It depends on whether Congress authorized it, whether it's clearly stated in law, and whether it's proportional to the program. So where does Trump's current action fit? Is it within normal bounds or did he cross a line?

12:31
Well, let's look at the specifics. Investigating fraud in federal programs. That's absolutely within executive authority. The Inspector General is supposed to do that. Requiring states to document how they spend federal money. Normal and appropriate. Every federal grant program has reporting requirements. But here's where Trump's action goes beyond anything we've seen before. The administration froze

12:59
all funding for three major programs across five entire states based on one state's documented fraud case. That's not targeted enforcement, that's collective punishment. Imagine your neighbor commits insurance fraud, so the insurance company freezes coverage for your entire zip code until everyone proves they are innocent. Does that seem proportional? Second, they did this with no advance notice and no specific charges against four of the five states.

13:29
Letters went out on January 6 saying, we are investigating and immediately that same day they froze billions in funding. So due process typically requires telling someone what they are accused of, give them a chance to respond, then impose penalties if warranted. This was shoot first, ask questions later. Third, here's the part that should concern every conservative who believes in the rule of law. All five states are blue states with democratic governors.

13:58
Trump posted on Truth Social calling these governors corrupt and dishonest. He specifically named Tim Walls, Gavin Newsom, JB Pritzker, Kathy Hochul. He accused them of stealing tens of billions, called them slimeballs. During the government shutdown last year, Trump's administration cut energy grants to states, and federal lawyers admitted in court that consideration of partisan politics is constitutionally permissible. They said the quiet part out loud.

14:28
Does fraud exist in some of these programs? Almost certainly. Minnesota's case proves it. Should states be held accountable for how they spend taxpayer money? Absolutely. But should the president be able to freeze funding to states he doesn't like based on unspecified concerns before any investigation completes? That's where this crosses from legitimate oversight into potential abuse of power. Let me show you the difference.

14:56
Biden's healthcare worker vaccine mandate that the Supreme Court upheld applied to all states equally, red and blue, had a specific articulated public health rationale, had clear statutory authority from Congress, conditions related directly to program purpose, keeping patients safe. The court could point to the law and say, yes, Congress gave this agency authority to set health and safety standards for Medicare and Medicaid facilities.

15:25
The line from congressional authorization to agency action was clear. Now, Trump's funding freeze applies only to blue states. Based on vague allegations without specific charges, unclear whether HHS has statutory authority to freeze all funding for entire programs based on unproven concerns. Connection to the stated reason is questionable. If fraud exists in Minnesota daycare centers,

15:53
How does that justify freezing funds in Colorado? Show me the statute. Where in the law did Congress say, if you suspect fraud in one program in one state, you can freeze funding for multiple programs in multiple states? I don't think it exists. And here's what should terrify conservatives. If Trump succeeds with this, every future president, Democrat or Republican, will use it as precedent. The next progressive president will say, well,

16:21
Trump froze funding to five states over fraud concerns without specific charges. So I'm freezing funding to 10 states over climate concerns without an investigation. And courts might let them because we established the precedent. Is that the world we want to live in? We have to answer that. Here's what's likely to happen. The case works its way through the courts. The judge's restraining order only lasts two weeks while both sides prepare arguments. Trump's administration will appeal

16:51
This will end up in the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals, the same court that ruled against Trump's sanctuary city funding cuts in his first term. Based on that precedent, the administration faces an uphill battle. But even if they lose in the Ninth Circuit, they could appeal to the Supreme Court. The current court has shown deference to executive action in some areas, but they have also been very strict about agencies staying within their statutory authority.

17:19
The court's 2022 decision striking down Biden's OSHA mandate while upholding the healthcare worker mandate shows they are willing to draw lines based on whether Congress actually authorized what the executive branch is doing. My prediction? The administration loses on the broad funding freeze, but wins limited authority to conduct audits, require additional documentation, and withhold payments to specific providers where fraud is actually proven.

17:47
That's consistent with both Supreme Court precedent and basic administrative law. But here's what should happen and won't. Congress should step in. They could pass legislation either explicitly authorizing what Trump is doing or explicitly prohibiting it. They could hold hearings on fraud in federal programs, create new oversight mechanisms. That's what's supposed to happen in a constitutional system. Congress identifies a problem, debates solutions,

18:16
passes laws to address it. But Congress doesn't have the spine to do their job. So they let the executive branch keep expanding its power through executive orders and agency action while, hmm, they avoid taking tough votes. All right, here's the uncomfortable conversation we need to have. Some of you are thinking, but John, these blue states are corrupt. They do protect illegal immigrants. They do waste taxpayer money. Why shouldn't Trump crack down? I get it.

18:46
I'm frustrated too. I'm tired of sanctuary cities releasing criminal illegal aliens, tired of fraud in government programs, tired of progressive governors thumbing their noses at federal law. But here's the question. Do we believe in the Constitution? Or do we just believe in winning? Because lately I'm seeing too many conservatives abandon principles the moment a Republican president wields power.

19:12
We cheered when Trump cut funding to sanctuary cities in 2017, but we screamed when Biden used funding conditions for COVID mandates. We complained when Obama tried to coerce states on Medicaid expansion, but we are defending Trump for freezing childcare funds to blue states. That's not principle, that's tribalism. And tribalism is how we lose the Republic. So what should conservatives demand?

19:39
Five principles that apply to any president, regardless of party. First, congressional authorization matters. If the president wants to attach new conditions to federal funding, go through Congress. That's how the system works. Don't like how states administer child care programs? Pass a law with specific requirements and enforcement mechanisms. Get it through both chambers. Make it transparent. Don't have executive agencies invent conditions Congress never authorized.

20:09
Second, due process isn't optional. If you are accusing states of fraud and cutting funding, provide specific charges, give them a chance to respond, follow established procedures. Don't freeze billions based on vague suspicions and political grudges. That's not law enforcement, that's intimidation. Third, enforcement must be equal, not political. If fraud is the concern, investigate all states equally.

20:37
Don't just target states with governors from the opposing party. This freeze hits five blue states and zero red states, despite fraud existing in programs across the country. That should concern every conservative who believes in the rule of law. Fourth, proportionality matters. The punishment should fit the crime. Fraud in specific daycare centers, investigate and prosecute those centers. States not following federal reporting requirements,

21:06
Impose specific penalties related to the violation. But don't use fraud in one program as an excuse to freeze funding for three programs across five states. That's not targeted law enforcement. That's a weapon of mass destruction. Fifth, think long term. The presidents we set today will be used against us tomorrow. If Trump can freeze childcare funding to blue states over fraud allegations, a future progressive president can freeze agricultural subsidies to red states over

21:36
environmental violations, cut highway funding over abortion laws, withhold disaster relief over voting rules. Every power you give a president you like will be inherited by a president you don't like. Before you cheer, ask yourself, am I okay with President, say, Newsom having this power? Because he will use it, and he won't hesitate. Here's what principled conservatism looks like.

22:02
We support aggressive investigation and prosecution of fraud in federal programs, regardless of which states are involved. We support clear, congressionally authorized conditions on federal funding that apply equally to all states. We support holding states accountable when they generally violate federal law. But we oppose politically motivated funding freezes. We oppose circumventing Congress through executive action. And we oppose weaponizing federal money against disfavored states.

22:32
Because we are conservatives. We believe in limited government, constitutional constraints, the rule of law. Not just when the other side is in power all the time. That's what separates us from progressives who believe the ends justify the means. So, patriots, here's where we land. Can Trump cut off federal funding to blue states? Legally, sometimes yes, sometimes no. Depends on whether he's enforcing conditions Congress authorized or

23:02
inventing new ones. The current funding freeze, based on President, he probably loses in court. But here's the more important answer. Just because a President can do something doesn't mean he should. And just because we like the policy goal doesn't mean we should support unconstitutional means. We need to decide what we actually believe in. Limited government or unlimited government, as long as our guy's in charge. Separation of powers?

23:30
or executive unilateralism when it achieves our goals. Rule of law or rule by whichever party holds power. Because the precedents we cheer today will haunt us tomorrow, the powers we grant will be inherited by people who hate everything we stand for. And if we abandon constitutional principles for short-term political wins, we will wake up one day and discover we have built the very tyranny we claim to oppose.

23:58
This is not about Trump, this is not about these five states. This is about what kind of country we are going to be. Constitutional republic with limited government or elective dictatorship where presidents financially coerce states into compliance. I know which one I'm fighting for, how about you? So go ahead and hit that subscribe, follow and or like button. Check out O'Connor's Quick Strike Monday, Wednesdays and Fridays. This podcast drops Tuesdays and Thursdays.

24:27
Find me on X at O'Connor Podcasts, share this episode, and have a great rest of your day, Patriots. Until Thursday, hold the line unapologetically. This is John O'Connor, signing off.