American Federalism: April 2025 in Review

“There is no federal system that is commonly viewed as successful…whose people do not think federal.”

D. Elazar, Exploring Federalism (1987 p. 192)

In this issue, we continue the theme of “thinking federal.” In April, we added more than 2 dozen items to the Federalism Policy Tracker, on a range of issues from election integrity to border security to the record number of lawsuits and legal challenges to President Trump’s “Agenda 47.”

As we pass the symbolic 100 day mark, we continue to advocate for Americans to “think federal,” that is, to consider the ways in which we can help each other remain oriented to shared ideals – including the norms of republicanism, constitutionalism, and power sharing that are essential to the “federal way.”

Before looking at the ceremonial “100 Days,” we should start by noting that the States have been active – and not only as “agents of resistance” against the federal government. While much of the conversation has focused on the fireworks between Governors, state AGs, and President Trump, many states continue to push forward on important initiatives in their own backyard. Utah, for example, passed 18 bills related to federalism issues this last session. House Speaker Mike Schultz observed that it was one of the “few areas where there’s bipartisan support.”

On the other hand, April was another “mixed bag” when it comes to those hoping for a renewal of federalism values. As below, there was a continuation of some worrying trends that seemed to point toward further nationalization, more polarizing rhetoric, and what a lot of Americans perceive as a lack of energy or ambition in Congress to assert its Constitutional role as the primary lawmaker in a large and diverse republic.

100 Days

Last month, we reported on what seemed to be the end of the so-called “Trump Honeymoon.” By mid-March, a majority of polls showed a negative net approval (only Rasmussen and RMG show Trump above 50%).

On April 1, the New York Times updated its polling tracker, showing similarly mixed results.

A few polls showed President Trump with a +3 positive net approval rating. However, a number of other polls, including an AP-NORC poll, showed Trump “underwater” by -10 points or more.

By April 10, it was clear that the mood of the country was starting to shift. According to this updated Harvard-Harris poll: 39% of voters said the “Country is on the Right Track,” down from 42% in February:

What issues were affecting voters the most?

On the positive side, Trump’s highest approval, not a surprise, was on two main issues: 1) Immigration; and 2) Reducing Government Costs.

It seems fair to conclude that most of the damage to Trump’s overall rating in April came as a result of the volatility, introduced on “Liberation Day” (April 2 tariff announcements). According to Harvard Harris polling, 45% of the country – in April – were saying that their “personal financial situation is getting worse,” a dramatic +4 point jump from March.

Federalism at a Crossroads

Unfortunately, there is still not good data on how Americans are reacting to the second Trump era as it relates to broader Constitutional issues (“thinking federal”).

What remains clear is that Americans do not want a King.

In February, for example, we noted that 65% of respondents said it would be “too risky” to give President Trump more power “to deal directly with the nation’s problems.” When the question was broadened to a future president, numbers went up dramatically – a point worth keeping in mind as the country thinks about a future administration.

78% agreed it would be too risky to give “any president” or “anyone who occupies the Oval Office expanded power.”

Despite this nearly-universal agreement, party politics continued to play a role in April and recent days.

On May 2, a new poll showed that 54% of Americans now think the president has too much power – up from 22% last year.

The Trump Paradox

This brings us to another ongoing theme, which we called earlier “The Trump Paradox.” Donald Trump continues to be rhetorically transgressive (Kincaid 2017), and his second term continues to excite those who support a broad decentralizing platform. Trump’s second term has – in theory – the potential to be much more transformative than the first. But just as in his first term, that transformative potential may be limited – not only by activist or even “corrupt” judges, as his supporters are right to point out, but also because of Trump’s own transgressive rhetoric, which could undermine the American president’s own most important power, persuasiveness.*

This potential liability became clearer at the end of April when a new poll showed that 54% of Americans now believe that the president is wielding too much power these days. This is notable. Only about 3 in 10 say the same about the Supreme Court and Congress.

If Trump is to be transformative, from a federalism point of view, we will have to see more support, at the very least, for a cooperative as compared to a coercive approach to federal-state relations. How this plays out in American public opinion, and subsequently, in upcoming electoral politics, remains to be seen.

Federalism Flashpoints

This month, the Federalism Index Project has compiled a list of the top five Federalism Flashpoints worthy of our attention as we move forward in our shared goal of “thinking federal.”

I: Executive Orders

As of writing, the President has issued 143 Executive Orders, averaging approximately 1.19 executive orders per day.

1.19 executive orders per day

This number is simply unprecedented, and there has been no shortage of coverage in the media of this record-smashing pace.

For context, during his first term, President Trump signed 55 executive orders over the entire year, averaging about 0.15 per day. President Joe Biden issued 42 executive orders in his first 100 days in 2021, averaging 0.42 per day. President Franklin D. Roosevelt, known for his extensive use of executive orders during the Great Depression, issued 93 in his first 100 days in 1933, averaging 0.93 per day.

So, at least on the use of executive orders, Trump is now firmly in a league of his own.

Executive Orders Tracker

To help readers keep track of Executive Orders that have Federalism Implications, 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.

19 of Trumps EO’s revoke previous executive orders (NPR estimates that these have revoked over 100 of Biden’s Executive Orders)

This month, our own Johana Linford (using data from Ballotpedia) has produced this graph of EO by topic area. As we can see, a healthy number of those (23) are focused on breaking down or dismantling the “Administrative State”:

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).

This last month, President Donald Trump threatened to withhold federal funding from states and institutions to enforce compliance with high-priority administration policies. Here, we list only three notable instances that have caught media/public attention:

Sanctuary Cities. On April 28, President Trump signed an executive order directing the Departments of Justice and Homeland Security to identify sanctuary jurisdictions—cities and states that limit cooperation with federal immigration authorities—and to initiate steps to withhold federal funding from them. The order aimed to compel local governments to comply with federal immigration laws by threatening the loss of federal funds. This move faced immediate legal challenges. On April 24, a federal judge blocked the administration from withholding funds from 16 sanctuary cities and counties, ruling that the executive order likely violated constitutional principles by imposing conditions on federal funding without congressional authorization.
Education Funding and DEI Programs. In early April, the Trump administration’s Department of Education issued a directive to state education chiefs, requiring them to certify that their schools do not implement Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion (DEI) programs as a condition for receiving federal education funds. The administration argued that DEI initiatives violate Title VI of the Civil Rights Act, which prohibits race-based discrimination in federally funded programs. This policy shift threatened to withdraw federal funding from schools that continued to operate DEI programs. Legal challenges from teachers’ unions and civil rights organizations are ongoing.
Maine Transgender Policy. The showdown with Maine’s governor is ongoing. As we reported last month, President Trump threatened to withhold federal education funding from the state of Maine unless it complied with his executive order banning transgender girls from participating in girls’ sports. Governor Janet Mills responded defiantly, stating that Maine would not be intimidated and would follow its own laws, including the Maine Human Rights Act, which prohibits discrimination based on gender identity. Following this confrontation, the Trump administration initiated several investigations into Maine’s education policies.

Where is the line?

The use of spending power threats raises an ongoing question: Where is the line between legitimate political pressure and compulsion?

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 more than $3B in funds to states (including $650M to sanctuary states, $150M to Maine, and $2-4B in general noncompliance to other states).

Given the number of lawsuits ongoing, this may become a divisive issue even or especially among Conservatives. Even some conservative scholars more friendly or deferential to executive power have noted that the executive has limited discretion in enforcing spending laws, but not in setting conditions or denying funds outright.

This may be an area where Courts take an opportunity to clarify whether Trump’s “pressure” on states has turned into outright compulsion.

III: All the President’s Words

In our last newsletter, we introduced a new section on presidential rhetoric. Research shows that political rhetoric has a real impact on democratic principles, including how citizens think about the Constitution and the rule of law.

For example, a study from Notre Dame in 2023 concluded that while occasional “norm-violating rhetoric” may not matter very much on a day-to-day basis, leaders who repeat and reinforce anti-Constitutional or antidemocratic rhetoric for years at a time will eventually have an impact.

In April, President Trump appeared to back off some of his more obviously-authoritarian comments, including his comparison to Napoleon (on Presidents’ weekend), which may have harmed him in the polls. As we noted last month, a continuation of this kind of anti-American rhetoric will come back to hurt not only the President’s legacy, but perhaps the revival of a more balanced relationship between federal and state power.

Is that kind of message getting through to the President, though?

To his credit, the administration is now clearly treating the idea of a third term as what it always was – a joke. (And a joke that sells hats, too).

On the other hand, Trump continues his penchant for monarchical proclamations, including, for example, his April 2 address at the Rose Garden, where he pronounced Liberation Day, announcing sweeping tariffs under Executive Order 14257.

While it seems awkward even to have to report on this, it is also true that Trump ended the month (April 30) by posting an AI-generated image of himself dressed in papal regalia on his social media platform, following a remark expressing interest in becoming the next Pope.

We can have our differences on whether this post was tasteful or not. The American federal system thrives on pluralism and diversity of thought. If diversity of thought means anything at all, it has to also include room for differences about what counts as political humor.

But, whether Trump is kidding or not may not matter. As we reported in February, 49% of Americans believe Trump wants to be king of the United States.

IV: Congress

While much of the spotlight remains on Trump, a number of bills are currently under consideration that could have significant implications for states and for the federal structure more generally. Using Govtrack as an initial pass, we have narrowed down the top “trending” bills in April, affecting states:

More (below) on recent actions in Congress with implications for federalism.

V: The Courts

President Trump’s first 100 days are also putting a spotlight on the Courts. It remains to be seen how or to what extent the current Supreme Court will choose to act as a “safeguard” of federalism and Constitutional structure more broadly.

So far this term, 29 decisions have been released (averaging 5.6 per month). 7 decisions were released in April (more below).

Executive Actions

As of writing, the President has signed 143 Executive Orders.

By comparison, the President had signed ~25 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 updated “race chart” provides a sense of the unprecedented pace:

Executive Orders – First 100 Days in Office

Overview

In April alone, President Trump signed 36 Executive Orders, 1 memorandum, 4 notices, and 17 proclamations.

Below, we provide a selection of executive actions that have clear federalism implications.

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

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 that aims at achieving a $1 trillion reduction in federal spending.

In April, DOGE accelerated its mission, claiming $160 billion in savings (up from $45 billion), canceling 8,454 contracts ($30 billion). It claims to have laid off between 121,000 -279,445 federal employees so far (according to CNN and Challenger).

While it is hard to fault DOGE for doing more, critics point out that the pace lags Musk’s goal of $1 trillion in savings and reducing the federal government by nearly 75%. Still, the DOGE efforts remain overall positive among voters.

A recent poll conducted by the Economist and YouGov from April 25–28, 2025, indicates that Dogecoin (DOGE) maintains a notable level of popularity among Americans. The survey revealed that 41% of respondents approve of DOGE, while 39% disapprove, and 20% remain undecided. This suggests a slight net positive sentiment toward DOGE during that period.

41% of respondents approve of DOGE

It remains to be seen how Musk’s announcement that he would begin scaling back the time he spends at DOGE may affect its operations.

More worrying, and especially for those who see in DOGE an opportunity to transform government, DOGE continues to face heavy political and legal opposition.

April 17: U.S. District Judge Ellen Hollander ruled against DOGE’s attempt to gain unrestricted access to the Social Security Administration’s (SSA) data systems. The court found that DOGE failed to justify its need for such broad access, citing concerns over potential violations of federal privacy laws. The Trump administration has since petitioned the Supreme Court to overturn this decision, arguing that the restriction hampers efforts to modernize government systems.
April 29: A coalition of labor unions, nonprofits, and local governments filed a lawsuit against President Trump, Elon Musk, and heads of nearly two dozen agencies. The suit argues that the administration’s extensive federal workforce reductions and agency consolidations, spearheaded by DOGE, are unconstitutional. Plaintiffs contend that these actions violate civil service protections and undermine the constitutional separation of powers.
March 6, 2025: The U.S. African Development Foundation (USADF) filed a lawsuit to block DOGE from shutting it down, as reported by Democracy Docket.
March 10, 2025: Democracy Forward and unions filed an amended complaint and motion for emergency relief against DOGE regarding access to Social Security Administration (SSA) data, as noted by Nextgov/FCW.
March 18, 2025: A federal judge ruled that DOGE violated the Constitution by shutting down the U.S. Agency for International Development (USAID).

The Evolution of Lawfare?

The suits against DOGE are part of a larger trend that began in February. According to Just Security’s litigation tracker, there have been 222 lawsuits against the Trump administration as a whole.

At this pace, combining various lawsuits and multistate actions, there are now on average 2 lawsuits per day being filed against President Trump and his administration.

2 lawsuits per day being filed against President Trump and his administration.

Where is Congress?

Leaving aside the question of whether DOGE can meet its (popular) goals, and despite of the mounting legal challenges, other polls reveal important questions that are starting to surface related to strategy and Constitutional structure.

Many Americans now believe that the Executive branch should not lead the charge on cutting spending and size of government (42%). 58% believe that it is the responsibility of Congress (58%).

Federal Register

Meanwhile, the Trump administration has added an average of 767 pages each week to the federal register for a total of 10,736 pages so far, with 285 proposed rules and 491 final rules.

Of the 103 proposed rules added in April, only 2 appear to be “significant” in economic impact (likely to have an annual effect on the economy of $100 million or more).
Secretary of State Marco Rubio has announced a comprehensive reorganization of the U.S. State Department aimed at reducing bureaucracy and aligning with the Trump administration’s “America First” agenda. The plan includes closing 132 offices, relocating 137 others, and reducing personnel by up to 22%.
This month, Health and Human Services Secretary Robert F. Kennedy Jr. announced a plan to phase out eight petroleum-based synthetic food dyes from the U.S. food supply by the end of 2026.
CEI released its latest edition of the 10,000 Commandments, highlighting the regulations of federal agencies, their cost, and the total amount. They also updated their “Unconstitutionality Index” reporting that last year there were 19 rules for every law passed.

Here is an updated list of agencies with the most regulatory and deregulatory actions at the advanced state (currently under review):

This next 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 a regulatory tracker that provides limited analysis of a few select regulatory and deregulatory changes made by the Trump administration. View the tracker here.

Congress

As of writing (April 30th), there are at least 5,306 bills and resolutions currently before Congress. Of these bills and resolutions, 126 had a significant vote in one chamber recently, giving them a “greater than zero” probability of passing.

In April, 1 bill was enacted (H.J.Res. 25)
There were at least 20 passed resolutions.
- 54 resolutions were introduced under the CRA to overturn Biden-era regulations, with 3 enacted.

This brings the current total of enacted bills to 11 for this session, compared to 614 in total 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. 22: The SAVE Act, which would require individuals to provide documentary proof of U.S. citizenship when voting in federal elections, passed the House on April 10th.
H.R.1609: The Local Zoning Decisions Protection Act would defund efforts “to interfere in local zoning through Affirmatively Furthering Fair Housing and other means.”
H.R.1526: Passing the House this month, the No Rogue Rulings Act would prohibit district court justices from issuing nationwide injunctions.
H.R.38: The Constitutional Concealed Carry Reciprocity Act would establish a statutory framework to regulate the carry or possession of firearms across state lines.

Judiciary

In April, the Supreme Court heard 12 cases, decided 7 emergency applications, and issued 8 opinions.

Cases Decided (with Federalism Implications)

Trump v. J.G.G.: In a 6-3 decision, the Court held that detainees subject to removal under the Alien Enemies Act are entitled to notice of the basis for their detention and an opportunity to challenge their removal through habeas corpus in the federal district court of their confinement. The Supreme Court issued its decision on April 7.
Department of Education v. California: In an unsigned opinion, the Court put on hold an order from a federal judge that would have required the Department of Education to reinstate $65 million in grants. The Court explained that the government would be unlikely to get the funds back once they were disbursed and that the recipients of these funds wouldn’t be permanently harmed if they were withheld while the litigation continues in lower courts. The Supreme Court issued its decision on April 4.

Cases Heard

Mahmoud v. Taylor: Argument date: April 22. The case concerns whether public schools violate parents’ First Amendment right to free exercise of religion by requiring elementary school children to participate in instruction involving LGBTQ+-themed storybooks without providing parental notice or an option to opt out.
Oklahoma Statewide Charter School Board v. Drummond: Argument date: April 30. 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.
Diamond Alternative Energy v. EPA: Argument date: April 23. The Supreme Court is set to review whether California, under a waiver from the Clean Air Act, can prohibit the sale of gasoline-powered automobiles starting in 2035, pitting federal statutory authority against state environmental regulation.

Upcoming:

Trump v. CASA Inc. et al: This case challenges nationwide injunctions blocking President Trump’s executive order to deny birthright citizenship to U.S.-born children of undocumented or temporary immigrants. The case tests the Fourteenth Amendment’s Citizenship Clause and the scope of judicial power to issue broad injunctions.

*This important point was made by John Kincaid in the above-referenced article, quoting Richard Neustadt (Neustadt, Richard E. 1980. Presidential Power: The Politics of Leadership from FDR to Carter. New York: John Wiley & Sons).

Get in Touch!

What issues matter to you most?

What policies are you watching in your state? What did we miss?

Let us know by contacting the Phoenix Correspondence Commission – the national federalism commission.

Authors: Andrew Bibby, Johana Linford, and Noah Farnsworth

Order #	Description	Federalism Impact
	The order directs federal agencies to promote AI education across K–12 and higher education institutions. It prioritizes equitable access to AI education for all students and establishes systems for assessing progress and accountability, aiming to prepare the next generation for leadership in a technology-driven future.	The Secretary of Education is directed to “identify and implement ways to utilize existing research programs to assist State and local efforts to use AI for improved student achievement, attainment, and mobility.” The order will also provide states with funding, guidance, and encourage partnerships between private entities and states and local school districts.
	The EO mandates that federal agencies operate in a race- and sex-neutral manner, emphasizing individual merit over demographic considerations. It prohibits the use of “disparate impact” theory and directs agencies to review and revise policies to eliminate practices aimed at achieving statistical parity among demographic groups, thereby reinforcing a colorblind, merit-based approach to federal governance.	The order pre-empts any state laws that “impose disparate-impact liability” and affects how federal civil rights laws are enforced, particularly in areas like education, employment, housing, and credit.
	This order aims to revise federal education policies related to school discipline. It directs the Attorney General to repeal or amend all Title VI (racial nondiscrimination) regulations that contemplate disparate-impact liability. Additionally, it instructs all agencies to deprioritize the enforcement of statutes and regulations, including disparate-impact liability. The order also mandates an assessment of all pending investigations, lawsuits, and consent judgments that rely on a theory of disparate-impact liability, with appropriate action to be taken.	EO 14280 reduces the federal government’s role in overseeing state and local school discipline policies by instructing agencies to eliminate the use of disparate-impact liability under Title VI of the Civil Rights Act. This move is thought by some to shift greater control to states and localities, limiting federal civil rights enforcement tools that address racial disparities in education.
	The EO directs the U.S. Attorney General to identify and take action against state and local laws, regulations, policies, and practices that burden domestic energy resource development, siting, production, or use. The focus is on laws that may be unconstitutional, preempted by federal law, or otherwise unenforceable.	The executive order aims to centralize energy regulation at the federal level, challenging state-level initiatives related to climate change, environmental justice, and carbon emissions that are deemed inconsistent with national energy priorities.