Why It Matters
As Washington’s partisan divisions intensify, state legislators from both parties are converging on a strategy to insulate their constituents from the consequences of federal power swings: decentralizing authority back to the states. This shift reflects a growing bipartisan frustration with national political volatility and signals a potential realignment of how American federalism operates in practice.
What Happened
Democratic and Republican state leaders have begun publicly embracing federalism as a governing framework to reduce the stakes of national elections and limit the reach of whichever party holds the presidency. In December, the Assembly of State Legislative Leaders—a newly formed bipartisan coalition—held its inaugural meeting with lawmakers representing 30 states. The group ratified a statement affirming state authority to legislate independently on matters within their borders.
The movement gained particular momentum following President Trump’s 2024 election victory. Democrats have invoked states’ rights arguments to challenge Trump administration policies, while Republican state officials have supported the decentralization principle as a philosophical matter.
California Governor Gavin Newsom sued the Trump White House over the deployment of National Guard troops in Los Angeles without his consent. The state prevailed in court and buttressed its legal argument by citing James Madison’s reasoning in the Federalist Papers about the proper limits of federal authority. Minnesota Democratic state Senate leaders similarly framed their objections to federal immigration enforcement—following the deaths of two Minneapolis residents in an immigration enforcement incident—as a states’ rights question, arguing that Minnesota should control how federal immigration officers operate within state borders.
Utah state Representative Ken Ivory, a Republican, chairs the Utah Federalism Commission, a bipartisan legislative working group exploring how to shift political decisions away from the federal level. Ivory characterized the alternative as unsustainable: “Otherwise we just end up fighting every four years over red king-blue king. And our entire nation goes entirely one way, and then 180 degrees the other way.”
Minnesota Democratic state Senate leader Erin Murphy framed the strategy pragmatically: “This is a matter of states’ rights. And while we can’t impact—except for next November—the makeup of Congress, we can impact and bring relief for the people of Minnesota.”
By the Numbers
30 — states represented at the Assembly of State Legislative Leaders’ December inaugural meeting
449 — words in the declaration on state legislative independence approved by the Assembly
Zoom Out
The embrace of federalism by both parties represents a notable departure from recent decades of constitutional politics. For much of the 20th and early 21st centuries, progressive advocates championed federal power as a vehicle for uniform national standards on civil rights, environmental protection, and social policy, while conservatives and libertarians positioned themselves as defenders of state autonomy. That alignment has fractured. The Trump presidency prompted Democratic officials to suddenly emphasize state sovereignty, while some Republican governors and legislators have welcomed the rhetoric as philosophically consistent with their longstanding constitutional preferences.
This shift coincides with the nation’s 250th anniversary, prompting reflection on the original constitutional design. The Framers deliberately constructed a system of divided sovereignty, intending the states to serve as checks on federal overreach and as laboratories for different policy approaches. The current federalism momentum suggests state officials believe that system has been overshadowed by executive and federal legislative dominance.
What’s Next
The Assembly of State Legislative Leaders is expected to continue convening lawmakers to coordinate on state-level policy strategies. Specific legislative proposals are likely to emerge from committees like Utah’s Federalism Commission. The extent to which this movement translates into concrete legal challenges, state legislation, or structural constitutional change remains uncertain, but the bipartisan nature of the conversation suggests it may transcend typical partisan cycles.