“The Framers split the atom of sovereignty between the States and the Federal Government not as an afterthought, but as a first principle… That structure is not a mere formality; it is the essence of the Constitution’s design, meant to endure as a safeguard against tyranny.
-Printz v. United States, 521 U.S. 898, 936 (1997) (Kennedy, J., concurring)
The First 100 Days
On April 29, President Donald Trump will celebrate his 100th day in office. Today is day 40 of a period widely seen as a high-water mark for presidential power.
Trump 2.0 and the Honeymoon Period
Historically, most presidents enjoy a honeymoon period during their first 100 Days. It’s a period of high popularity, momentum, and a “rally effect” that comes naturally after a year of fear-and-loathing on the presidential campaign trail. Modern presidents usually hit their approval “high” within the first 100 days, then decline, suggesting that the first 100 days are a president’s best shot at capitalizing on goodwill.
Trump 2.0
How is Trump doing?
In February, Harvard Harris published a report that stunned the commentariat, and including some of Trump’s own loyal supporters. Contrary to the general ugliness online and also quite surprising to Trump’s critics, including Veteran Democratic strategist James Carville, who predicted on February 23, 2025, that Trump’s public support would “completely collapse within thirty days,” Trump is enjoying his own Honeymoon – of a sort.
According to the Harvard Harris poll, Trump’s momentum has been bolstered by the sudden and shocking collapse of popular support for the Democratic party, which at the time of writing sits at a record low at 36%. That’s 15 points lower than the GOP.
Optimism
After 40 days of “Trump 2.0,” voters are reporting that they are increasingly more optimistic about the direction of the country. It remains to be seen if the Trump “bump” will last – and whether it will be as dramatic as Biden’s own high-watermark in May 2021 – but the effect is real. By the end of February, voters had more optimism about the direction of the country than at any point in the last 3+ years:
Agenda Approval
As of writing, President Trump enjoys a majority approval at 52%. This is largely due to a trio of issues that dominate the “top issues” to voters so far in 2025: inflation, immigration, and economy and jobs.
Federalism at a Crossroads
Whether any of this is good for the future of federalism remains to be seen.
In 2019, federalism scholar John Kincaid noted that the “Trump interlude” was unlikely to have much of a positive effect on reversing trends toward increasing centralization and polarization. After four years in power, Donald Trump had never publicly tweeted or spoken the word “federalism.” Trump’s longest term impact on federalism, Kincaid argued, was not a result of his own actions, but was likely to flow from his Supreme Court appointments. At the end of Trump’s first term, more conservative justices appeared to be more friendly to state powers, although”not across the board or always for federalism reasons.”
Trump’s record on federalism during his first term was mixed. Will this time be any different?
oleskalashnik / Shutterstock / The Atlantic
Federalism Policy Tracker
This last month, a record number of items were added to the Federalism Policy Tracker. What’s clear is that the President is not going to let the “Honeymoon” period go to waste. In 2009, Barack Obama said this in regard to his first 100 days: “look, we’ve got a limited amount of time where we’ve got maximum political capital… That’s why we’ve pushed so hard in these first hundred days to get things moving, whether it’s through legislation or executive orders.”
By all measures, President Trump has seized on his own maximum political capital. The White House has taken a number of bold aggressive actions that are seen widely as testing the limits of executive authority.
Lawsuits are one indication. According to our own measures, there have been 72 lawsuits filed in just the first 36 days. This is compared to a total of 7 lawsuits filed in the first 40 days during Trump’s first term. Those numbers suggest a challenge rate of ~30% so far this year, compared to a challenge rate of ~9% in the first term. That’s about 2 lawsuits per day at the current rate. If those numbers hold up, we are looking at nearly a 1,000% increase in the challenge rate between terms.
In the next section, we break down five key areas worth watching.
Federalism Flashpoints
I: Executive Orders “Shock and Awe”
Historically, Presidents have used the “First 100 Days” in office as an opportunity to make an impact through the use of Executive Orders (EOs). Between 2016-2020 the Trump Administration issued 24 EOs in the first 100 days. As of writing, the President has issued more than 70 EOs – double the rate of the first term, resulting in a record number of challenges.
- The Federalism Project has released a new tool, the Trump Executive Order Tracker, designed to help users view, understand, monitor and learn more about key Executive Actions currently facing legal challenges. As of March 2, at least 10 Executive Orders have been partially blocked.
II: Spending Power Threats
“Spending power threats” refer to instances where a president or Congress uses the leverage of federal funding (e.g., grants, aid, or appropriations) to compel state or local compliance with federal objectives (often where direct authority is lacking). Chief Justice Rehnquist in South Dakota v. Dole argued that Congress could threaten to withhold federal funding, but that it could not be “so coercive as to pass the point at which ‘pressure turns into compulsion.‘” According to our estimates, the President has publicly threatened to withhold ~$3-5B in funds to states (including $650M to sanctuary states, $150M to Maine, and $2-4B in general noncompliance to 5 other states). The Federalism Index will continue to monitor and report on possible abuses of the spending power. Depending on how things develop, this may be an area where Courts may take an opportunity to clarify whether Trump’s “pressure” on states have turned into outright compulsion.
III: All the President’s Words:
When presidents treat states as mere administrative subunits—extensions of federal will rather than distinct entities with their own sovereignty—it erodes the federal idea and the respect between levels of government that federalism demands. Federalism is successful, by contrast, when people “think federal.” As Federalism scholar Daniel Elazar once noted, there is no federal system that is considered successful today “whose people do not think federal.” Leaders in a federal system understand that the values of federalism are worth defending. Those values include negotiation, bargaining, compromise, and balancing the needs of unity with meaningful diversity.
So far on this score, the President’s First 100 Days leave a lot to be desired. Three recent incidents highlight a dramatically negative trend away from the ideal of building a federal “political culture.”
- On Feb 17, 2025, in a Truth Social post, President Trump wrote: “He who saves his Country does not violate any Law”
- In the last month, Trump has re-floated the self-consciously mischievous idea of a third term.
- On Feb 19, 2025, White House X post: “LONG LIVE THE KING” with AI-generated images of Trump in regal attire.
Public opinion suggests that these and other statements are highly unpopular (see analysis below). Aside from that, it remains true that how American leaders talk about federalism matters because it shapes expectations. If the public buys a narrative that states are just cogs in a federal machine, they’ll tolerate—or demand—more centralization.
- for more on the importance of federal political culture, see the Center for the Study of Federalism “Political Culture” project
IV: Congress
While much of the spotlight remains on Trump, a number of bills are currently under consideration that appear to enhance state autonomy, help devolve power from the federal government, or explicitly protect state discretion. As the session heats up, a number of bills are also being considered that centralize authority, enforce controversial uniform standards, or expand federal executive power over states. The Federalism Index will be monitoring both the House and Senate (below) for legislation that implicates federalism.
V: The Courts
The 2024-2025 term and Trump’s first 100 days are also putting a spotlight on the Courts – specifically, how or to what extent the current Supreme Court may step in as a safeguard of Constitutional structure and federalism. So far this term, 65 cases have been accepted (as of January 30, per Ballotpedia).
Read on to find out more about each area.
Executive Orders
The President has now signed 75 Executive Orders. By comparison, the President had signed ~30 Executive Orders by this point in the first term. This blistering pace of executive action is matched only by the number of legal actions and complaints, also at record levels.
Our “race chart” provides a sense of the unprecedented pace:
Overview
In February, President Trump signed 39 Executive Orders, 0 determinations, 4 memorandums, 5 notices, and 10 proclamations. Below we provide a selection of executive actions that have clear federalism implications.
| Order # | Name | Description | Federalism Impact |
| EO 14190 | Ending Radical Indoctrination in Schools | To “instill a patriotic admiration for our incredible Nation” | Critics view the order as requiring extensive intrusion in to K-12 education (teacher cert., licensing, employment, training) |
| EO 14201 | Keeping Men Out of Women’s Sports | To “protect opportunities for women and girls to compete in safe and fair sports” | Challengers to EO 14201 argue that it oversteps the president’s authority by unilaterally reinterpreting Title IX, a statute enacted by Congress, without legislative amendment. Some worry it could impose uniform federal policy on education and sports, overriding state discretion. Maine’s defiance prompted an HHS Office for Civil Rights review (Web ID: 18, Feb 21, 2025), escalating federal-state tension. |
| EO 14210 | Implementing the President’s [DOGE] Workforce Optimization Initiative | “Commences a critical transformation of the Federal bureaucracy” | Challengers to EO 14210 argue it exceeds executive authority by rewriting agency structures and funding priorities without congressional approval, undermining Congressional authority. Some have expressed concern that if agencies are downsized, states may inherit oversight roles without federal support (education policy, pollution control e.g.) |
| EO 14219 | Ensuring Lawful Governance and Implementing the President’s {DOGE} Deregulatory Initiative | To “commence the deconstruction of the overbearing and burdensome administrative state” | Opposition to the order focuses on how it may impose sweeping reporting and enforcement mandates on agencies without congressional approval, undermining Congress’s Article I powers over appropriations and agency creation. Critics worry it may force states to fill gaps in services or enforcement without funding, thus imposing unfunded mandates. |
| EO 14217 | Commencing the Reduction of the Federal Bureaucracy | To “dramatically reduce the size of the Federal Government, while increasing its accountability to the American people.” | EO 14217 has been criticized for shifting federal responsibilities to states and local governments by cutting programs without ensuring continuity, violating “cooperative federalism” and imposing unfunded mandates. |
| EO 141215 | Ensuring Accountability for All Agencies | To “ensure Presidential supervision and control of the entire executive branch.” | Some critics argue it usurps judicial authority and agency autonomy established by Congress. Overriding agency interpretations could nullify state-federal agreements reliant on current agency rules, forcing states to adapt to a singular federal stance without input. |
For information on executive orders over time, see our “Executive Orders” primer. For a complete list of all Executive Orders see our new Executive Order Tracker: https://www.federalismindex.org/executive-order-tracker
All the President’s Words
“The basis of our political systems is the right of the people to make and to alter their Constitutions of Government. But the Constitution which at any time exists, till changed by an explicit and authentic act of the whole people, is sacredly obligatory upon all.“
-George Washington, Farewell Address
Washington’s Farewell Address speaks to the importance both of Constitutional reverence (“sacredly obligatory on all”) and to the power of presidential rhetoric. In the last 30 days, many have become increasingly worried that the tone from the White House is hurting rather than helping efforts to rebuild a federal political culture.
- On Feb 17, 2025, in a Truth Social post, President Trump wrote: “He who saves his Country does not violate any Law”
- On Feb 19, 2025, White House X posted “LONG LIVE THE KING,” with AI-generated images of Trump in regal attire.
- Recently, President Trump has re-floated the (unpopular) idea of a third term.
Public Sentiment Analysis
Although it might be a waste of time analyzing Trump’s notoriously shifty rhetoric, public sentiment analysis on social media suggests that recent statements are still impactful – and highly unpopular. A non-trivial number of users on X (which includes a large percentage of the President’s supporters) believe that recent statements are giving off “dictator vibes.”
- In a recent sentiment analysis using 10,000 sampled posts from X reactions, Trump’s reference to Napoleon was 60% negative, with most agreeing that it showed “dictator vibes.” Only 30% found it positive, e.g., it indicated a “strong leader.”
- President Trump’s White House X post, “LONG LIVE THE KING,” was largely unpopular with 55% of the sentiment being negative (“anti-democracy”), while only 40% found it either bold or funny.
- Trump’s jokes about a third term have been falling flat, even among his supporters. X reactions of the idea of a third term were 70% negative (“22nd Amendment!”), with only 25% positive or neutral.
Whether or not Trump is serious in his “dictator vibe” moments is a hard question to answer. Public sentiment is clearly not on his side. According to a Feb. 23-25 Economist/YouGov poll, 49% of Americans believe Trump wants to be king of the United States.
Agencies (in the Era of DOGE)
Federal agencies create regulations through a structured process known as rule-making, which is governed by the Administrative Procedure Act (APA) of 1946. In theory, this process helps to ensure transparency, public participation, and accountability in the development of federal regulations.
DOGE
The Department of Government Efficiency (DOGE), established via Executive Order 14158 on January 20, 2025, and formalized through EO 14218 on February 19, 2025, represents an ambitious experiment in fixing the federal bureaucracy’s transparency problems, as well as overseeing an administrative restructuring, while also looking for ways to achieve a $2 trillion reduction in federal spending.
On the debt, Americans agree that the current level is “unsustainable,” with 4 in 5 voters saying the government should “work to balance the budget”:
Nearly 83% of Americans think that reducing expenditures is preferable to increasing taxes, while 77% say we are “in need of a full examination of all government expenditures”:
72% of Americans support the idea of DOGE, while fewer (60%) think that DOGE “led by Elon Musk” is “helping to make major cuts in government expenditures. Part of this gap is partisan, but part of this gap is strategic. In February, we saw a new split between those who believe the that the Executive Branch should lead the charge on cutting spending (42%) versus those who believe that it is the responsibility of Congress (58%).
The Federalism Project will be looking at this emerging debate as well as Musk’s role in overseeing major budget reforms. For his part, Musk argues he is bringing a much needed tech upgrade to the government, while others see a blunt instrument that is putting other popular programs at risk.
Federal Register
Meanwhile, in February, the Trump administration has added 1203 pages to the federal register with 50 proposed rules and 136 final rules.
We estimate that of the 50 proposed rules, 20 relate to deregulation (e.g. rescinding environmental, labor, and health regulations); 10 relate to workforce reduction (e.g. enforcing hiring freezes and program eliminations); 10 relate to education and social policy (Title IX, DEI); ~5 relate to immigration and enforcement (border cities andsanctuary cities); ~5 relate to health and energy (NIH/CDC reform and energy production).
Here is an updated graph of agencies with the most regulatory actions at the advanced state (currently under review):
This month we’ll be tracking regulations under the Trump administration as well as the efforts by DOGE to increase transparency, reduce the size of the federal bureaucracy, and control the deficit.
- For more on regulations and how they affect American federalism, see our Regulations primer here
- Brookings has regulatory tracker that provides limited analysis of a few select regulatory and deregulatory changes made by the Trump administration. View the tracker here.
- For a summary of Trump’s January term, see “Regulatory Big Bang” by Clyde Crews, which summarizes the impact of Biden’s January 21 Federal Register. Read the article here
Congress
Newly elected members of Congress took office in January. In what some may consider a surprise twist, America’s approval of Congress has jumped 12 points since the election, to 29% – the highest rating since May 2021:
Trending Bills
- As of writing (February 28th) there are at least 2,934 bills and resolutions currently before Congress.
- Of these bills and resolutions, 54 had a significant vote in one chamber recently, giving them a “greater than zero” probability of passing.
- 3 bills were enacted during February along with 27 passed resolutions.
This brings the current total of enacted bills to 3 for this session, compared to 614 last session.
Federalism Implications
Among the resolutions and bills more likely to pass (with more than a zero percent chance of becoming law), here are a few with federalism implications:
- H.R.521: A bill has been introduced to modify the landmark Antiquities Act, with the aim of stripping the president of the power to create national monuments.
- S.204: Federal legislation was introduced on January 27, called “The Families’ Rights and Responsibilities Act.” 23 states are “on board” with federal legislation to protect parents’ rights in education.
- S. 368: This bill would lower the economic impact requirements of the Congressional Review Act (CRA) for major rules from $100 million to $50 million per year. Rules exceeding that threshold must gain legislative approval within 15 days of taking effect to stay effective.
- S. 33: The “Separation of Powers Restoration Act” (SOPRA) would allow federal courts to review agency actions and make their own legal determinations. This would allow courts to overturn some agency decisions that they would otherwise uphold under current law.
Judiciary
In February, the Supreme Court heard 4 cases, decided 1 emergency application, and issued 7 opinions. 13 cases still do not have a date set for argument.
Pending Cases with Federalism Stakes:
Several high-profile federalism-related cases are still awaiting decisions, likely later in the term (e.g., United States v. Skrmetti on state bans for transgender medical care, or Garland v. VanDerStok on federal gun regulation). These were argued earlier but not decided by February’s end.
Upcoming:
- Oklahoma Statewide Charter School Board v. Drummond: The Supreme Court is set to review a case from Oklahoma centering on a Catholic online school that is attempting to become the nation’s first religious charter school.
State Supreme Courts
State supreme courts have issued over 1,268 in 2025. That is the equivalent of roughly 21 opinions per day.
These cases cover a variety of topics including:
- Voting Rights and Election: Griffin v. State Board of Elections, In re Tom Malinowski and Missouri State Conference of the NAACP v. State
- Reproductive Rights: SisterSong v. Georgia, Access Independent Health Services v. Wrigley, Adkins v. State, and Texas v. Margaret Daley Carpenter
- Government Structure: O’Neil v. Gianforte, and City of Fargo v. State
- Criminal Law: State v. Hicks, Dupuis v. Roman Catholic Bishop of Portland, and State v. Francisco Edgar Tirado
State Roundup
Although most attention has been centered on the actions of the Executive, it is worth remembering that states remain the most important site of most legislation, even in this era of the so-called “imperial presidency.” Although it will be tempting to focus on national headlines in 2025, states should continue taking the lead – pushing for balance, devolution, and public education on Federalism issues.
In many ways, states continue to be”the first branch of government.”
Utah Bill to Expand Education on Federalism
A bill to expand Utah’s Federalism Commission and provide ongoing education and training on federalism advanced through the state legislature, and is set to take effect May 7, 2025.
- Read more on Utah’s efforts here: https://www.deseret.com/utah/2025/02/19/uvu-constitutional-center-bill/
Administrative State
Meanwhile, as of writing, there are currently more than 63,860 bills and resolutions across the 50 state legislatures. 44 states were in session in January with 6 states not yet convened.
States have been active working on ways to improve and control the “administrative state” in their own state capitals. A recent tool from Ballotpedia is currently tracking 721 state bills in areas including nondelegation, judicial deference, executive control of agencies, procedural rights, and agency dynamics.
The map below shows the concentration of Administrative State-related legislation activity in the United States.
What issues matter to you most? What policies are you watching in your state? What did we miss? Let us know! Contact the PCC!
Authors: Andrew Bibby and Johana Linford