~~ recommended by newestbeginning ~~
 |
Bottom Line Up Front for Hardcore Activists: I wanted to title this “Model Legislation to Defund the Federal Government When It Starts Bombing Sovereign Nations, Funding Genocide, and Abducting and Disappearing People” but it was too long of a title. You get the point. Things are bad and waiting for the next election is not enough. Go to BuyMeACoffee.com/TheER for free activist materials and TheExistentialistRepublic.com for the Intro to Soft Secession booklet. Find the full text of the model legislation to defund fascism by following this link https://buymeacoffee.com/
When someone you love tells you they need to set a boundary with an abusive person in their life, you do not ask them to justify the boundary. You do not ask whether the boundary is proportionate to the abuse. You understand that the boundary exists because the abuse exists, and that the person being abused gets to decide when enough is enough. Enough is enough for our nation.
The United States is now bombing Caracas, Venezuela.
For some of us, that is where the boundary gets drawn. For others, the line was earlier: the seizure of oil tankers in international waters, the killing of over a hundred people on boats in the Caribbean without evidence of drug trafficking, the deployment of the largest naval armada in South American history to threaten a sovereign nation. For others still, the line was domestic: federal agents conducting mass arrests of legal residents, alligator alcatraz, the defiance of federal court orders, the retaliatory withholding of congressionally appropriated funds and SCOTUS handing the power of the purse to the president.
The specific line matters less than the principle. Each of us gets to decide what we will and will not tolerate from our own government. And when that line is crossed, we get to decide what to do about it.
This article provides a tool. It is model legislation that any state can adopt, built from existing bills already moving through legislatures in New York, Maryland, and Connecticut, grounded in constitutional doctrine the Supreme Court has affirmed for nearly two centuries, and modeled on the same trigger-law structure Republicans used successfully to ban abortion the moment Roe fell. The bill creates a tax escrow mechanism that activates when your state determines that the federal government has crossed a defined line. It is legally defensible, operationally practical, and ready for your state legislator’s desk.
The bill does not tell you what your line should be. It gives you a menu. Pick yours.
Legislative staff will ask where this language originates. Here is the answer.
The core escrow mechanism draws from New York Senate Bill S6915, the RECOURSE Act, introduced in March 2025 by Senator Jessica Ramos.¹ That bill creates a state fund to withhold federal tax remittances when the federal government fails to pay court-ordered obligations to the state. Maryland Delegate David Moon introduced companion legislation in March 2025 authorizing the state comptroller to withhold equivalent funds and place liens on federal property.² Connecticut Senator Matt Lesser filed an amendment with a sequential trigger structure requiring presidential cuts, a federal court order to restore them, and administration defiance of that order.³
The trigger-law structure comes from Texas. House Bill 1280, the Human Life Protection Act, passed in 2021 and sat dormant until the Supreme Court issued its judgment in Dobbs.⁴ The law then activated automatically, thirty days after that judgment, with no certification required from any official. The Attorney General issued advisory letters but had no gatekeeping function. This self-executing design prevents political interference once the triggering condition occurs.
The non-cooperation framework comes from Massachusetts itself. Chapter 489 of 1855, the Personal Liberty Act, prohibited state officials from assisting federal fugitive slave enforcement, denied use of state jails for federal detention, created a state-funded legal defense system for anyone seized under federal authority, and imposed permanent disqualification from office on any state official who cooperated.⁵ Following enactment, the law blocked every attempt to return anyone from Massachusetts to slavery.
The constitutional foundation comes from three Supreme Court decisions spanning 180 years. In Prigg v. Pennsylvania (1842), Justice Story held that states cannot be required to assist federal enforcement and may prohibit their officers from doing so.⁶ In Printz v. United States (1997), Justice Scalia extended this principle, holding that Congress cannot conscript state officers to administer federal programs, and that this limitation applies categorically without case-by-case balancing.⁷ In Murphy v. NCAA (2018), Justice Alito confirmed that Congress cannot issue direct orders to state governments, period.⁸
This is not novel legal theory. It is established constitutional law, deployed through mechanisms Republicans themselves designed, which we now adapt for the current emergency.
It’s important to acknowledge what happens next.
Someone will say this is illegal. Someone will say states cannot do this. Someone will say the Supreme Court will strike it down.
They are probably right about the last part. The Supreme Court will probably say it is unconstitutional. The Supreme Court also said Trump is above the law, that racial profiling is fine, and precedent is null.
Here is the reality we need to stop pretending away. The Supreme Court is captured. Through October 2025, the Trump administration filed 26 emergency applications to the Court, nearly matching the combined emergency filings of the Bush, Obama, and Biden administrations over twenty-four years. The Court granted Trump's requests at an 83 percent success rate. The Biden administration, facing the identical 6-3 conservative supermajority, received approval on 53 percent of its emergency requests.
Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson called it Calvinball jurisprudence: the only consistent rule is that this administration wins. They love what Trump is doing and the appropriate response isn’t to “figure it out next election, if they let us have one.”
District courts rule against the administration constantly. The administration ignores roughly a third of those rulings. The Supreme Court stays the rest through the shadow docket, letting policies proceed while litigation crawls forward. By the time cases reach final judgment, the damage is done. Lower court wins do not translate to actual constraint on executive power. We are not playing in a system where following the rules produces legitimate outcomes. We are playing in a system where one side breaks the rules and the referee calls fouls only on the other team.
The Supreme Court has abandoned our constitution, everyone reading this knows that. Gavin Newsom, J.B. Pritzker, Kamala Harris all know this. So do your state representatives and city council and your state attorney general. So, what comes next?
The Supreme Court strikes this down, and states act in unison to refuse compliance. Let them enforce it... The Court has no army. The federal government would have to send agents into state treasury departments to seize money. It would have to prosecute state comptrollers. It would have to occupy state governments. Make them do that.
Don’t help bad people do bad things. Make it as difficult as possible at every stage. Do the right thing, always. Without exception or concession.
Authoritarians rely on opponents preemptively surrendering. They make accountability difficult and then weaponize our fear of consequences against us. Every time we hold back because courts might rule against us, they win without fighting. The math of “what if we lose” becomes a tool of control, freezing opposition before it starts. The correct response is to make it as difficult as possible. Make them stop us. Do not let the mere threat of their power do the work for them.
The Fugitive Slave Act was federal law. The Supreme Court upheld it. Northern states nullified it anyway, and that defiance was morally correct regardless of what courts said. Sometimes the law is wrong. Sometimes the courts are corrupt. Sometimes the only moral answer is to force the confrontation and make the enforcers show themselves.
We are at the stage where people are being disappeared into unmarked vans. We are at the stage of camps where detainees go missing. The administration has killed over a hundred people on boats in the Caribbean without evidence they were trafficking anything. It is now bombing a foreign capital without congressional authorization. Against that backdrop, saying “if you do these things, you will have to fight us for our tax dollars” is not radical. It is the minimum coherent response to what is happening.
So when someone says this will be struck down, ask them: what is your red line? What would the federal government have to do before you decided to stop funding it? Do we need another Iraq? Another Afghanistan? How many people disappeared into camps? How many court orders ignored? How many countries bombed? What is the number?
The best answer is the right answer. Second best is the wrong answer. The worst answer is no answer at all. And “pretending the system still functions” is no answer.
This bill is a line in the sand. Pick yours.
The model bill includes a modular trigger section. You can include or exclude each triggering event depending on what your state determines constitutes a red line worth defending. Some states may choose one trigger. Others may choose several. The constitutional analysis does not change based on which triggers a state selects, because the underlying mechanism remains the same: the state is declining to volunteer its resources for immoral purposes, which it has always had the right to do.
Here are the categories.
FEDERAL COURT ORDER DEFIANCE. The federal government receives a court order requiring it to take or refrain from some action, and the federal government refuses to comply. This is the most legally conservative trigger because it relies on judicial determination rather than legislative judgment about constitutionality. New York’s RECOURSE Act uses this approach. If a court says the federal government owes the state money and the federal government refuses to pay, the state withholds an equivalent amount.
FELONIES AGAINST STATE RESIDENTS. Federal agents commit acts within the state that would constitute felonies under state law: assault, kidnapping, unlawful imprisonment, murder. The state cannot prosecute federal agents for these acts without navigating Supremacy Clause obstacles, but it can condition its voluntary cooperation with federal programs on the federal government not committing felonies against its residents.
RETALIATORY FUND WITHHOLDING. The federal government withholds congressionally appropriated funds from the state as punishment for the state’s policy positions or refusal to cooperate with federal enforcement priorities. Congress appropriates money. The executive branch does not get to redirect it based on which states are politically compliant.
ELECTION INTERFERENCE. The federal government takes action to prevent, obstruct, or alter the conduct of elections within the state, or to prevent the certification of election results, or to substitute its preferred outcome for the outcome determined by voters.
MILITARY AGGRESSION WITHOUT CONGRESSIONAL AUTHORIZATION. The federal government initiates offensive military operations against a foreign nation without a declaration of war or authorization for use of military force from Congress.
MASS DETENTION OR DEPORTATION OF LEGAL RESIDENTS. Federal agents conduct mass arrests or deportations of persons lawfully present in the state, including citizens, permanent residents, visa holders, or persons with pending legal status.
Each of these represents a category of federal action that some portion of the public considers intolerable. The bill accommodates any combination. Delete the ones that do not apply to your state’s values. Keep the ones that do.
The menu above covers what triggers the mechanism. The bill also offers two levels of scope, and states choose based on how extreme they judge the circumstances to be. Level One covers state employees only: the state withholds federal income taxes and payroll taxes from state employee wages. This is the New York RECOURSE Act approach. It is defensible, contained, and still meaningful. California alone has over 200,000 state employees. That represents billions in federal payroll taxes annually. Real leverage. Minimal chaos. Level Two covers all employers in the state: the state directs all employers to deposit federal payroll taxes into a state escrow account instead of remitting them to the IRS. This is the approach Washington State Republicans introduced in 2010. It is full economic warfare. Yes, it is chaotic. That is the point. When the federal government is bombing sovereign nations to steal their resources, when the president is openly acting as a hostile foreign agent, when the Supreme Court lets one party do whatever it wants while the other does nothing, chaos is proportionate. The bill includes an Employer Indemnification Fund and criminal defense provisions specifically because we knew this level would draw federal retaliation. We built protections for businesses who comply.
Some states will start at Level One. If circumstances escalate, the legislation authorizes moving to Level Two without returning to the legislature. Other states may determine we are already at the “bombing Caracas and disappearing people into camps” stage and go straight to Level Two.
This also answers the “too extreme” criticism. You think Level Two is extreme? Fine. Here is Level One. Still too much? Then answer the question: what is your red line? Because Level One amounts to “stop ignoring court orders and we will resume normal payments.” If that is too extreme, you have answered the question. You do not have a line.
The full model legislation runs to eleven articles and addresses every operational question we could anticipate. Article I establishes findings grounded in constitutional law: Prigg, Printz, Murphy, and the anti-commandeering doctrine. It frames the bill as an exercise of state sovereignty, not obstruction of federal authority. Article II defines terms precisely: court order defiance, felonious conduct, retaliatory fund withholding, election interference, unauthorized military aggression, mass detention. Each definition is specific enough to be enforceable and general enough to cover the ways federal misconduct actually manifests. Article III establishes the Fiscal Sovereignty Reserve Fund and the Employer Indemnification Fund. The escrow account holds withheld taxes. The indemnification fund protects employers from federal penalties, interest, and charges arising from compliance with the Act. The state assumes the risk, not individual businesses.
Article IV creates the Interstate Fiscal Sovereignty Compact. This is critical. The bill does not go into effect until two conditions are met: at least ten states have enacted substantially similar legislation AND those states collectively represent at least thirty percent of federal tax revenue. No state acts alone. No state gets isolated and crushed. The activation threshold ensures collective action or nothing. Article V specifies triggering events and the certification process. The Attorney General investigates and certifies. The Governor concurs or declines. If the Governor declines, the Legislature can override by majority vote. This prevents a single official from blocking activation when circumstances warrant it. Article VI covers release conditions. The escrow ends when the triggering event is remedied. If the federal government comes into compliance with a court order, funds are released. Partial release is available for partial compliance. The bill is a boundary, not a punishment. Compliance ends it.
Article VII establishes resident protection provisions modeled on the Massachusetts Personal Liberty Act of 1855. State officials cannot assist federal actions that constitute triggering events. State facilities cannot be used for detention arising from such actions. The state provides legal defense for residents targeted by federal retaliation. Article VIII authorizes interstate coordination beyond the formal compact: mutual recognition of certifications, coordinated timing, shared legal resources, unified negotiating positions. Article IX covers employer compliance and protection. Employers who follow state law are indemnified against federal penalties. The state provides legal defense, including criminal defense, for employers facing federal prosecution for compliance. The bill acknowledges that an aggressive DOJ could bring criminal charges against compliant employers and builds protection for that scenario. Article X contains the savings clause and construction provisions. Nothing in the Act authorizes obstruction of lawful federal operations using federal resources. The withdrawal of state cooperation is not obstruction. This distinction is the constitutional core of the anti-commandeering doctrine. Article XI covers severability, appropriations, reporting requirements, and effective date. The severability clause is detailed and anticipates specific judicial attacks. If the escrow mechanism is struck down, the interstate compact remains. If the compact requires congressional consent, states can coordinate informally and resident protections remain. The bill is designed to survive partial invalidation.
The full text is available here: https://buymeacoffee.com/
Any state can adapt this legislation. The structure is sound. The constitutional grounding is established. The operational details are addressed. A legislative staffer can hand this to counsel and begin the adaptation process immediately.
If you are a constituent: contact your state legislators and ask them to introduce this bill. You can modify the triggers to match your own red lines. You can start at Level One or go straight to Level Two. Bring five other constituents with you. That number feels like an earthquake to a state legislator who usually hears from no one.
If you are a legislative staffer: the full bill is available at the link above. Delete triggers that do not fit your state’s priorities. Choose your scope level. Adjust the certification mechanism to match your state’s existing administrative procedures. The constitutional analysis does not depend on which options you select.
If you are in a state where this legislation is already moving: coordinate with legislators in other states. The interstate compact provision exists for a reason. The activation threshold exists for a reason. One state withholding funds is a lawsuit. Fifteen states withholding funds simultaneously is a constitutional crisis the federal government cannot ignore. No state should act alone. Build the coalition first.
The federal government cannot force states to cooperate. It cannot commandeer state employees to collect federal taxes. It cannot compel state officials to assist federal enforcement. The only leverage the federal government has is the threat of withholding federal funds from non-compliant states, and that leverage evaporates when states decide they would rather lose federal funds than continue funding a government that bombs foreign capitals, defies court orders, and commits felonies against their residents.
Draw your line. Write it into law. Make it stick.
REFERENCES
New York State Senate. (2025). S6915: Relates to authorizing the comptroller to withhold payments to the federal government. https://www.nysenate.gov/
legislation/bills/2025/S6915 Maryland General Assembly. (2025). HB1545: State Finance – Federal Funds Withholding. https://mgaleg.maryland.gov/
Haar, D. (2025, February). CT could fight Trump cuts by keeping federal payroll taxes, senator says. CT Insider. https://www.ctinsider.com/
politics/article/ct-lesser- bill-trump-payroll-taxes- 20331384.php Texas Legislature. (2021). HB 1280: Human Life Protection Act. Texas Health & Safety Code Chapter 170A.
Massachusetts General Court. (1855). Chapter 489: An Act to Protect the Rights and Liberties of the People of the Commonwealth of Massachusetts.
Prigg v. Pennsylvania, 41 U.S. 539 (1842).
Printz v. United States, 521 U.S. 898 (1997).
Murphy v. NCAA, 584 U.S. ___ (2018).
No comments:
Post a Comment