Why It Matters
State leaders across party lines are intensifying efforts to reclaim authority from the federal government over elections, energy, education, and disaster relief. The push comes as governors and lawmakers argue the balance of power has shifted too far toward Washington, a tension that has sharpened during President Donald Trump’s second term.
What Happened
Bipartisan groups of governors and state lawmakers gathered at major conferences to coordinate a federalism agenda focused on reducing federal overreach. At the National Governors Association summer meeting in Oklahoma City, state leaders emphasized that both Republican and Democratic administrations have accumulated excessive power that should be returned to the states.
Utah Governor Spencer Cox articulated a core concern: that too many policy disputes have become nationalized, fueling political polarization that could be addressed through state-level decision-making. Cox stressed the importance of maintaining state authority regardless of which party controls the presidency. “And that’s why I’m proud to have Republicans who still believe it even when the president is doing things that they want,” he told the gathering, as reported by the Pennsylvania Capital-Star.
Oklahoma Governor Kevin Stitt emphasized the diversity of American needs across regions. “When states lead, America succeeds. There’s not a one-size-fits-all for a country as diverse as America,” Stitt said at the meeting, held at the National Cowboy & Western Heritage Museum.
The National Governors Association is updating its internal federalism policies to address contemporary challenges including artificial intelligence regulation and state control of the National Guard. Previous NGA federalism work had focused primarily on unfunded federal mandates.
North Carolina Governor Josh Stein and Vermont Governor Phil Scott are working together to revise the updated federalism policies. The two governors, whose states have sued the federal government over federal disaster aid conditions, represent a growing coalition of states challenging federal authority.
By the Numbers
More than $1 billion in federal disaster aid — the amount Trump officials sought to condition on states moving away from electronic ballot counting ahead of the November midterm elections
Zoom Out
The federalism debate reflects a longstanding tension in American governance. John Dinan, a federalism scholar consulting with the National Governors Association, noted that both political parties have selectively invoked federalism principles when convenient—Republicans when Democratic presidents expand federal reach, Democrats when Republican administrations do the same.
Recent U.S. Supreme Court decisions have tilted the balance toward state authority on issues including environmental regulation and healthcare policy, creating openings for governors to assert greater control. The court’s jurisprudence has encouraged states to view themselves as co-equal sovereigns rather than administrative subordinates of federal agencies.
The current push differs from previous federalism movements in its explicit bipartisan framing. While state leaders have always championed state power when their party was out of power in Washington, the current coalition includes governors whose own party controls the presidency, signaling deeper concerns about institutional centralization than typical partisan positioning.
What’s Next
The National Governors Association is expected to adopt revised federalism policies addressing AI regulation and National Guard authority. State coalitions are likely to continue challenging federal conditions on disaster aid and other federal funding mechanisms. The dynamics of this renewed federalism push will test whether bipartisan state cooperation can sustain pressure on Washington or whether the movement fragments along party lines as the 2026 midterm elections approach.