Evaluate the view that the USA is still a federal nation (30)
Federalism is defined as the structure of which power is divided between national government and state
government. In the USA, the power of states is protected from federal encroachment by the constitution, ability
to variate laws and autonomy over medical insurance, after Obamacare. However, federalism is not static, and
change is dependent on the government. Recently President Trump's second term has adopted forms of
federalism that encroaches on states’s power such as coercive federalism - states forced to accept federal
demands - and new federalism - aimed at enhancing state autonomy by block grants giving money back to states
yet undermined by mandates to comply with. For this reason, many argue the USA is no longer a federal nation
citing the following points: enhanced federal encroachment on state issues, coercive federal financing, and
healthcare provisions. This essay will argue that, to a low extent, the USA is still a federal nation due to Trump’s
encroachment on approach to federalism as well as his predecessors.
Firstly, some argued to a high extent the USA is still a federal nation as state powers are protected in the
constitution. Article 1 gives states the power to make and carry out their own laws and Article 4 protects state
power through ‘denied powers’ as congress is only given power to carry out duties listed in the Tenth
Amendment or the reserved power amendment awarding all powers not assigned to the federal government to
the states. This has been upheld in many cases, infamously through the federal gun regulation created by the
Brady Act in 1993, requiring states to perform background checks on people buying a gun. Yet, The Supreme
Court deemed this unconstitutional arguing the act violated the Tenth amendment, reserved powers to the states,
demonstrating federalism being upheld and a clear divide between the state and government powers. However,
the stronger argument is to a low extent the USA is still a federal nation, as more recently the federal
government has encroached on state issues, especially immigration and education. While Biden upheld
federalism acknowledging immigration is a federal responsibility, an enumerated power to Congress after
challenging state law - the Texas Senate bill - allowing state police to arrest individuals suspected as illegal
immigrants, Trump chose to enhance such an approach and dropped the lawsuit of the Biden administration
praising the use of state funds to patrol the border and using coercive Federalism to threaten withholding funds
from those states who restrict local police from helping the immigration customs. His previous term's policy to
build a Mexican border saw 16 states file lawsuits against the federal government, with the Supreme Court
ruling to allow the construction and ignore the states. Additionally, educational policies such as Bush’s No Child
Left Behind Act saw sweeping educational changes, such as testing children annually. But this had a degree of
cooperative federalism. Trump has used coercive federalism in education. He threatened to pull funding from
schools unless they scrapped diversity, equity and inclusion content and again faced lawsuits from universities
like Harvard. Yet it worked, with Columbia University agreeing to revise its curriculum in April 2025. These
demonstrate the lack of federalism under the current administration effectively ignoring the Tenth Amendment
and articles, for their own federal benefit and while there is some legal backlash ultimately the threat of funding
appears to yield immense persuasive powers. Therefore, to a low extent is the USA a federal nation.
Secondly to a high extent can the USA still be a federal nation because of the variation in laws and electoral
processes. For example, taxes vary across the states, in addition to federal taxation, tax is set at a state level.
Seven states have 0% taxation, but California has the highest rate of 13%. Electoral processes as of Article 1 of
the constitution means states have autonomy on how to perform electoral processes such as Florida which uses
electronic voting, mail voting, and traditional paper. This shows an element of federalism, as a federal
government does not intervene. However, this is not entirely accurate. The stronger argument is to a low extent
that the USA is still a federal nation, this is because of the increase of controversy around federal ideologically
biassed funding. While it seems electoral processes are free to the states, Trump’s approach to new federalism
has threatened this. After California's devastating wildfires instead of offering unconditional federal support as
expected, Trump threatened to withhold disaster relief unless it changed forest management and water use
policies, but most alarmingly the demand for stricter voter ID laws. Another scare to coercive federalism, is his
executive order in 2025 aimed to shift greater responsibility back to the states – fitting with state autonomy. But
the coercive nature of this cannot go unaddressed. This pattern of policy goal-ordinated funding was also
reviewed in his January 2025 executive order to freeze discretionary funding such as grants while the
Federalism is defined as the structure of which power is divided between national government and state
government. In the USA, the power of states is protected from federal encroachment by the constitution, ability
to variate laws and autonomy over medical insurance, after Obamacare. However, federalism is not static, and
change is dependent on the government. Recently President Trump's second term has adopted forms of
federalism that encroaches on states’s power such as coercive federalism - states forced to accept federal
demands - and new federalism - aimed at enhancing state autonomy by block grants giving money back to states
yet undermined by mandates to comply with. For this reason, many argue the USA is no longer a federal nation
citing the following points: enhanced federal encroachment on state issues, coercive federal financing, and
healthcare provisions. This essay will argue that, to a low extent, the USA is still a federal nation due to Trump’s
encroachment on approach to federalism as well as his predecessors.
Firstly, some argued to a high extent the USA is still a federal nation as state powers are protected in the
constitution. Article 1 gives states the power to make and carry out their own laws and Article 4 protects state
power through ‘denied powers’ as congress is only given power to carry out duties listed in the Tenth
Amendment or the reserved power amendment awarding all powers not assigned to the federal government to
the states. This has been upheld in many cases, infamously through the federal gun regulation created by the
Brady Act in 1993, requiring states to perform background checks on people buying a gun. Yet, The Supreme
Court deemed this unconstitutional arguing the act violated the Tenth amendment, reserved powers to the states,
demonstrating federalism being upheld and a clear divide between the state and government powers. However,
the stronger argument is to a low extent the USA is still a federal nation, as more recently the federal
government has encroached on state issues, especially immigration and education. While Biden upheld
federalism acknowledging immigration is a federal responsibility, an enumerated power to Congress after
challenging state law - the Texas Senate bill - allowing state police to arrest individuals suspected as illegal
immigrants, Trump chose to enhance such an approach and dropped the lawsuit of the Biden administration
praising the use of state funds to patrol the border and using coercive Federalism to threaten withholding funds
from those states who restrict local police from helping the immigration customs. His previous term's policy to
build a Mexican border saw 16 states file lawsuits against the federal government, with the Supreme Court
ruling to allow the construction and ignore the states. Additionally, educational policies such as Bush’s No Child
Left Behind Act saw sweeping educational changes, such as testing children annually. But this had a degree of
cooperative federalism. Trump has used coercive federalism in education. He threatened to pull funding from
schools unless they scrapped diversity, equity and inclusion content and again faced lawsuits from universities
like Harvard. Yet it worked, with Columbia University agreeing to revise its curriculum in April 2025. These
demonstrate the lack of federalism under the current administration effectively ignoring the Tenth Amendment
and articles, for their own federal benefit and while there is some legal backlash ultimately the threat of funding
appears to yield immense persuasive powers. Therefore, to a low extent is the USA a federal nation.
Secondly to a high extent can the USA still be a federal nation because of the variation in laws and electoral
processes. For example, taxes vary across the states, in addition to federal taxation, tax is set at a state level.
Seven states have 0% taxation, but California has the highest rate of 13%. Electoral processes as of Article 1 of
the constitution means states have autonomy on how to perform electoral processes such as Florida which uses
electronic voting, mail voting, and traditional paper. This shows an element of federalism, as a federal
government does not intervene. However, this is not entirely accurate. The stronger argument is to a low extent
that the USA is still a federal nation, this is because of the increase of controversy around federal ideologically
biassed funding. While it seems electoral processes are free to the states, Trump’s approach to new federalism
has threatened this. After California's devastating wildfires instead of offering unconditional federal support as
expected, Trump threatened to withhold disaster relief unless it changed forest management and water use
policies, but most alarmingly the demand for stricter voter ID laws. Another scare to coercive federalism, is his
executive order in 2025 aimed to shift greater responsibility back to the states – fitting with state autonomy. But
the coercive nature of this cannot go unaddressed. This pattern of policy goal-ordinated funding was also
reviewed in his January 2025 executive order to freeze discretionary funding such as grants while the
