Federalism Reversed: An Abuse of Centralized Power in the Trump Era

Winter 2026

Reese Foster

Edited By: Leah Smith

In recent years, an abuse of federal authority has expanded as a result of the Trump Administration. Federalism, which is “...the division and sharing of power between the national and state governments…”, forms the foundation of the United States Constitution [1].

Dual-federalism, where the spheres of authority between federal and state are clearly separated, generally characterized the Constitution until the presidency of Franklin D. Roosevelt. The New Deal, introduced by FDR in 1933, intensified opposition among groups that were opposed to increasing federal power that was centered around expanding the autonomy of the states. The contention between the federal and state governments has continued over the past century, with popular arguments for and against increased state authority emerging. The Supreme Court has ruled cases in favor of both positions, as interpretations of the 10th amendment and the Supremacy Clause have fluctuated with the changes in court partisan composition. The 10th amendment, which delegated any powers not given to the federal government to the states and people, and the Supremacy Clause, which declares federal law supreme, have continually contended each other throughout these case rulings. One of the most influential of these cases, which demonstrated the use of federal power from the left, was the ruling of Roe v. Wade, which established the constitutional right to an abortion [2].

The Trump administration marked a shift in United States politics, particularly in terms of the employment of federalism. Conservative states have begun to speak in favor of a more robust federal government. Many scholars have argued that this repositioning within the Republican party is largely due to the Trump era and has resulted in an abuse of federal power. In turn, many Democratic states have become advocates for traditional dual-federalism and more autonomy in policy-making within their own jurisdictions. Dobbs v. Jackson overturned Roe v. Wade in 2022, following three supreme court appointments under the Trump administration. This major step backwards is at the forefront of recent influential policies and events that have sparked major public frustration towards the federal government.

The changing dynamics in central government support and movements towards increased state autonomy from the Democratic party will be closely examined in relation to the Trump era. Through an analysis of current partisan principles and values as well as influential court cases, most importantly the overturning of Roe v. Wade, the abuse of federal power by the Trump Administration becomes increasingly apparent.

Since the formation of the modern two-party system, which was driven by FDR’s New Deal and was solidified during the Civil Rights Era, the United States has experienced a strong push for federalism by the Democratic party. Through many influential court cases including Brown v. Board, Swann v. Charlotte-Mecklenburg, Obergefell v. Hodges, and Roe v. Wade, Democrats successfully turned power away from the states and towards the federal government while expanding rights for women and minorities. By shifting power towards the federal government and judiciary, the enforcement and implementation of civil rights was stripped from the hands of the states.

A direct result of this federal phenomenon was the backlash from the Republican party. Efforts to return power to state governments became prevalent, and often successful. Many major cases and laws exemplify this, including the ruling on Milliken v. Bradley in 1974, which was a direct response to Swann v. Charlotte-Mecklenburg. This ruling effectively limited federal power to enforce the desegregation of schools through the implementation of school district lines within states [3]. The impact of Swann v. Charlotte-Mecklenburg also diminished, as district lines also decided busing patterns [4]. With this ruling the states gained power. Brown v. Board, which ruled racial segregation in public schools unconstitutional, remained in place, but state governments gained the capacity to continue segregation in a way that was legal in technical terms [5].

Congress passed the Taft-Hartley Act in 1947 which effectively limited federal power over labor. In direct response to the Wagner Act which allowed the federal government to enforce the right of workers to form labor unions, the Taft-Hartley Act scaled back central government legislative and judiciary power while protecting non-union workers from coercion by unions as well as discrimination against non-union workers [6] [7].

Democratic pushes for federalism, and Republican efforts against, have been a common thread throughout the mid and late 1900s, and into the 2000s. However, a dramatic fluctuation in federalism is evident through the presidency of Donald J. Trump. Not only has the Republican party begun to support an increase in power for the federal government, an abuse of power has surfaced due to an increase in their authority. Many actions taken by the Trump administration directly demonstrate this phenomenon, such as the vast amount of executive orders in both his first and current term, adding to 449 orders total [8]. This is the highest amount of orders since the presidencies of FDR and Truman, which were the administrations that kickstarted the growth of federal power [9].

Although executive orders have the potential to be extreme misuses of power, the most prominent and harmful outlet that the Trump administration has used is within the judiciary. Trump has been able to appoint three Supreme Court judges, Neil Gorsuch, Brett Kavanaugh, and Amy Coney Barrett, largely to Republican party control of both the house and senate. These appointments cleared the path for implementation of legislation that heavily favored the views of the Trump administration and its supporters.

One of the most notable cases that exemplifies the growth of federalism and emergence of federal power abuse by the Trump administration is the ruling of Dobbs v. Jackson in 2022. Trump’s SCOTUS appointments formed the majority that ruled the U.S. Constitution ineligible to protect abortion rights nationwide [10]. While this ruling grants states more power in implementing laws regarding abortion within their own jurisdiction, it is evident that the ruling of Dobbs v. Jackson is a direct result of the growth of federal power and a subsequent exploitation of this increased authority.

Without this expansion, and the resulting Supreme Court appointments, the overturning of Roe v. Wade would have been far more difficult, if not nearly impossible. While appointing judges does lie within the presidential delegated powers, with the approval from the legislature, Trump’s appointments were deliberate grasps at power to advance the goals of his administration and political party.

This, in combination with the backlash that republican congressmen and justices who are not aligned with the MAGA agenda have received, proves that coercive federalism has and will continue to plow over democratic American values. Even judges who were appointed by Trump, such as Texas judge Fernando Rodriguez, have begun to receive criticism if they disagree with the president or rule against his agenda. Rodriguez, “...echoed two other rulings to bar the Trump administration from using the 1798 Alien Enemies Act…” and faced a negative response from the president who claimed that these judges, including Rodriguez, were preventing the U.S. from deporting murderers and other criminals [11].

These intimidation tactics place pressure on these politicians to support the administration’s appointments, further illustrating how Trump’s tactics threaten the democratic system that shapes our government and therefore our country. High public disapproval arose following the ruling of the Dobbs v. Jackson, with 68% of Americans stating that they believe “abortion should be legal in all or most cases” [12]. This imbalance between the public sentiment and justice decisions in a system where the government is supposed to reflect the will of the people, is just another case where a misuse of authority is apparent. To take this abuse a step further, even with vast public disapproval, the US government has not been able to pass any legislation to alter the effect of Dobbs v. Jackson.

Many arguments have been raised to combat the continued growth of coercive federalism sparked by the Trump administration. Opponents to Trump’s agenda are concerned that the overturning of Roe v. Wade is just the tip of the iceberg when it comes to erasing the effect of landmark court cases. One of the most discussed approaches is to respond to maneuvers of the Trump administration with equally unethical practices. Proponents for “fighting fire with fire” claim that this is the only way to combat the danger of growing coercive federalism and the subsequent legislation that may result.

A major figure in this battle is California Governor Gavin Newsom, who pushed to pass Proposition 50 in late 2025 [13]. The goal of Prop 50 was to allow California to redraw congressional lines to gain more democratic seats in Congress as a direct response to Texas’s redistricting bill that passed four months prior, that was used to gerrymander districts for more Republican seats [14]. This tactic, which proved effective as Proposition 50 passed, is both praised for its directness and reflection of public opinion, as well as criticized for the threat it poses to the integrity of the Constitution.

However, while this method may temporarily jeopardize American values, the danger that the federalist structure and constitution itself faces from the Trump administration is far more imminent. Fighting against legislation that prominently displays an abuse of authority in a way that may not align with proper democratic practices now, will protect the entire structure of our government in the long term.

The foundation of the United States was based on many democratic values that have influenced our modern government system. One of the most prominent and consistent features of this system is federalism. The formation of political parties and the vast spectrum of administrations that have occupied the White House have shifted the implementation of federalism over time. Federalism has tended to be favored by the modern Democratic Party since the 1950s.

However over the last ten years, the Republican party, controlled by the Trump administration, has campaigned for, and even abused, federalism. This abuse causes public disapproval and outrage, and a backwards movement in the advancement and protection of human rights. A major example of this is the case of Dobbs v. Jackson, which stripped women of the right to an abortion, established with the ruling in Roe v. Wade fifty years prior [15] [16].

The Trump administration abused their federalist powers through measures such as excessive executive orders, but the most influential action made by the Trump administration, in terms of the removal of abortion rights, was the appointment of Supreme Court judges. This has played the largest role in the Trump administration’s abuse of power, and we can only wonder how far it will be taken in the future. Will the next president continue this dangerous theme or try to recover the institution of federalism? The will of the people must be represented by our government, and to do so, the detrimental effects from authoritarian administration needs to be combatted by our government, the American people, and all who value democracy.

References

[1] “Federalism and the Constitution,” Constitution Annotated, accessed February 25, 2026, https://constitution.congress.gov/browse/essay/intro.7-3/ALDE_00000032/

[2] Roe v. Wade, 410 U.S. 113 (1973).

[3] Milliken v. Bradley, 418 U.S. 717 (1974).

[4] Swann v. Charlotte-Mecklenburg Bd. of Educ., 402 U.S. 1 (1971).

[5] Brown v. Board of Educ., 347 U.S. 483 (1954).

[6] “FDR and the Wagner Act,” Franklin D. Roosevelt Presidential Library and Museum, accessed January 18, 2026, https://www.fdrlibrary.org/wagner-act

[7] “1947 Taft-Hartley Substantive Provisions,” National Labor Relations Board, accessed January 20, 2026, https://www.nlrb.gov/about-nlrb/who-we-are/our-history/1947-taft-hartley-substantive-provisions.

[8] Gerhard Peters and John T. Woolley “Executive Orders,” The American Presidency Project, University of California Santa Barbara, last modified February 20, 2026, https://www.presidency.ucsb.edu/statistics/data/executive-orders.

[9] Peters and Woolley “Executive Orders.”

[10] Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health Org., 142 S. Ct. 2228 (2022).

[11] Peter Stone, “US Judges Who Rule Against Trump are Being Barraged with Abuse and Threats, Experts Warn,” The Guardian, May 17, 2025, https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2025/may/17/trump-judges-courts-threats.

[12] “Majority of Public Disapproves of Supreme Court’s Decision To Overturn Roe v. Wade,” Pew Research Center, July 6, 2022, https://www.pewresearch.org/politics/2022/07/06/majority-of-public-disapproves-of-supreme-courts-decision-to-overturn-roe-v-wade/.

[13] Dani Anguiano, “What does Prop 50’s passage mean for California, Gavin Newsom and the US?,” The Guardian, November 5 2025, https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2025/nov/05/california-proposition-50-explainer.

[14] Anguiano, “What does Prop 50’s passage mean for California, Gavin Newsom and the US?”

[15] Dobbs, 142 S. Ct. at 2228.

[16] Roe v. Wade, 410 U.S. at 113.