Or have we simply forgotten how federalism is supposed to work?
For the past 250 years, federalism has been at the heart of the American experiment. By dividing authority among national, state, and local governments, the United States was designed to balance unity with diversity, prevent the concentration of power, and create multiple arenas for collective decision-making. As the demands of modern governance grew over time—particularly during the twentieth century—federal, state, and local roles became increasingly intertwined, giving rise to what scholars have described as “marble-cake federalism”: a system in which authority, funding, and accountability are blended across levels of government, rather than neatly separated into distinct tiers.
Among leading public administration experts in the United States, however, there is growing concern that the United States has entered a new period of federalism: punitive federalism or authoritarian federalism. The term is meant to capture a paradox: federal authority is used selectively and coercively, while the de facto responsibility for real problem-solving is left to state and local governments without the federal government providing the resources for subnational governments to succeed.
While I recognize the damage that an increasingly authoritarian federal executive is doing to the political and social fabric of the country (especially in light of the apparent failure of the federal legislative branch or the judicial branch to provide horizontal checks and balances at the federal level), I am not convinced that what we are witnessing represents a fundamental failure of the American federal system itself. For the most part, the constitutional division of authority across levels of government has proven more resilient.
The deeper problem, I would argue, is something more subtle and more troubling: over the past century, the very notion of federalism itself has become a political football in a two-party system. On one hand, the notion of “intergovernmental partnerships” has become shorthand for a federal system that promotes a progressive multilevel public sector—or, as its detractors would claim, a multilevel governance system designed to promote “tax and spend” solutions. On the other hand, proponents of “federalism” and “states’ rights” often use these terms as shorthand for the underlying pursuit of “limited government” (i.e., a low-tax or no-tax laissez-faire approach to the public sector at all levels) rather than a principled argument in support of stronger state or local involvement in the federal system.
As a result of the political polarization of the concept of federalism itself, we have allowed the American federal experiment to atrophy by over-centralizing expectations and under-investing in the capacities of states and local governments to act as engines of public wellbeing. In short, we have come to rely on the federal government to do far too much, while allowing state and local governments to forget—or avoid—their core responsibility to govern.
Federalism was never meant to be passive
The American federal system was not designed as a hierarchy with a single active level and two passive ones below it. States were intended to be co-equal platforms for collective decision-making, not administrative subcontractors waiting for federal permission or funding. Local governments, in turn, were meant to be the closest expression of democratic self-government—places where community needs are translated into public action.
Yet over time, that balance has eroded. National policy debates increasingly assume that meaningful progress must come from federal legislation, federal regulation, or federal spending. When Washington fails to act—or acts erratically—the conclusion is often that the system itself is broken. But that conclusion lets state and local governments off the hook far too easily.
The quiet hollowing-out of state responsibility
One of the most striking features of modern American governance is how little many states now expect of themselves. It is often overlooked that for over a century (prior to 1913), the federal government did not even have the constitutional power to collect income taxes, leaving states as the fiscal powerhouse of the federal system
Instead of a race to the top—attracting residents and businesses by providing high-quality infrastructure public services at the lowest cost possible—many states seem to be in a race to the bottom, lowering state taxes and—thus—lowering their own ability to provide public services. Thus rather than serving as the core fiscal and policy engines of the federal system, many states have embraced a narrow conception of success: keeping taxes low, minimizing visible government, and competing with other states for mobile capital through tax incentives and regulatory concessions.
This approach to federalism appears to be largely driven by a prevalent, but incomplete, view—successfully advocated for by those with a specific worldview and agenda—that higher taxes cause inefficiency and lower taxes attract investments, rather than recognizing that the efficiency impact of public finances—and its ability to attract private sector capital—results from the balance of public revenues and public expenditures.
The resulting race to the bottom in state taxation has real consequences. In many states, the minimalist government mindset, combined with chronic under-taxation, has hollowed out state capacity. It has weakened investments in education, public health, infrastructure, and community services.
The resulting political paralysis has left states structurally dependent on federal transfers—not as partners in governance, but as claimants in a permanent intergovernmental bargaining game. States demand federal flexibility when it suits them, federal preemption when it benefits favored constituencies, and federal funding when budgets fall short. State politicians are quick to point to Washington—while disavowing responsibility for outcomes— when federal funding cuts impact constituents within their states, rather than taking state-level action to fill the gap.
That is not authoritarian federalism. That is abdicated federalism.
When everything becomes “federal,” nothing is owned locally
Although history has taught us that a strong federal government can be a tremendous force for good in terms of improving people’s lives (think FDR or LBJ), the more recent federal context is showing the downside of a federal system that relies heavily on federal systems and federal funding for nutritional assistance for the poor or subsidized access to health care. The over-reliance on federal action—and distortions in the news and information ecosystems—have also skewed how citizens understand government. Problems like housing affordability, school quality, public safety, childcare, and community health are routinely framed as national failures, even though the most consequential decisions affecting these outcomes are made at the state and local levels.
This dynamic weakens democratic accountability. When residents believe solutions must come from Washington, they disengage from state legislatures, county boards, school boards, and budget hearings—the very venues where many collective priorities are most effectively shaped in a country as diverse as the United States.
The real danger: federalism without collective action
There is no denying that the erratic nature of decision-making by the federal executive—and the apparent complicity of the federal legislature and judiciary—pose a risk for the wellbeing of many Americans—including those who rely on the provision of federally-funded social services to get them through hard times. But if there is a genuine risk in the current moment, it is not that the federal architecture itself is failing—but rather, that federalism is being emptied of its collective purpose.
A functioning federal system does three things well. It enables collective action at multiple scales. It aligns resources with responsibilities. And it creates overlapping arenas where citizens can deliberate, decide, and hold leaders accountable.
What we increasingly have instead—in a hyper-partisan context—is fragmentation without empowerment. States resist coordination (when politically expedient) but avoid real leadership. Local governments innovate but lack fiscal room to scale. The federal government oscillates between potential overreach and coercion or punitive paralysis.
Reclaiming the state as a platform for public wellbeing
If we want to move beyond this impasse, the conversation must shift. Rather than (or in addition to) asking how to fix the authoritarian dysfunction in Washington, we should be asking what states must once again be willing to do for themselves as—at least for now—as the federal government seems to be retreating from certain public functions, potentially including—but not limited to—disaster management and emergency response, the promotion of higher education, the safeguarding of civil rights, environmental stewardship, support for public media and the arts, nutrition support, and access to affordable health services.
There is nothing in the Constitution that implies that these functions fall fully or exclusively within the power of the federal government. While a strong technical argument could be made that federal co-funding is warranted in many of these cases, elections have consequences. As the frontline delivery of public services—more often than not—falls within the state or local realm, state and local governments need to reclaim their role as platforms for collective decision-making and public wellbeing. That means accepting, openly and honestly, that public services cost money—and that broad-based, adequate taxation is not a failure of competitiveness but a prerequisite for shared prosperity.
It also means investing in institutional capacity: professional public administration, data systems, fiscal equalization mechanisms, greater transparency and more effective citizen engagement, and durable partnerships with local governments. These are not luxuries. They are the infrastructure of self-government at the state and local levels.
Local government as the frontline of democracy
For localities like Fairfax County, stronger states should not be constraints; they would be enablers. A state that takes responsibility for equitable education funding, regional infrastructure, and social services creates space for local governments to focus on community-specific priorities rather than constant fiscal triage. Fiscal space must be created for local governments to respond to their constituents’ needs.
Similar to the mindset change needed at the state level, local governments must resist the temptation to see themselves solely as service providers navigating constraints imposed from above. They are also democratic institutions, uniquely positioned to reconnect citizens with the idea that government can be a tool for shared problem-solving. That requires the local freedom to act in some areas, while it requires local governments to operate in transparent manner, open to public deliberation, and willing to articulate a vision of community wellbeing that goes beyond narrow efficiency. It also requires pushing back—collectively—when state policies undermine local empowerment while shifting responsibility downward.
It also requires a mindset change—in many parts of the Commonwealth, and in many parts of the country—with respect to local taxation. Too often, low local taxes are seen as a badge of honor without the slightest question as to the impact of lower taxes on public service delivery and local economic success. Indeed, many localities are happy to lower their own local taxes while accepting copious intergovernmental revenues funded by taxpayers who live in higher-taxing, higher-trust, and more productive parts of the state and country. What historically was a progressive intergovernmental fiscal structure across government levels is at risk of becoming a populist blue-to-red funding pipeline.
In reality, higher local taxes are generally a reflection not of ‘socialism’, ‘wokeness’, or a ‘derangement syndrome’, but evidence of residents’ willingness to invest in public goods and residents’ commitment to the wellbeing of their own community. Too many state and local leaders fail to challenge the claim that low local taxes reflect “limited government”, fiscal discipline, and responsiveness to local political preferences (“no socialism!”)—rather than as evidence of the abdication of local civic responsibility, the lack of community trust, and a failure to contribute to the community’s own wellbeing, while relying on contributions from taxpayers elsewhere (i.e., “socialism!”).
While state governments return to a posture of greater functional responsibility, with a concomitant reallocation of resources to fund policy areas where the federal level is retrenching, state leaders should expect the same level of seriousness and dedication from leaders at the local level.
Concluding thoughts: a local lens on a national challenge
Dysfunction within the federal government hits close to home for many in Northern Virginia, where many—directly or indirectly—work with the federal government.
In addition, federal action—or inaction—under the current administration may exacerbate problems like the affordability of health care, the rising cost of living and access to nutrition support, academic freedom and access to higher education, public safety, public transit and public transportation infrastructure, and access to affordable childcare. As noted earlier, while these challenges are routinely framed as national issues, and even though most involve federal funding, these public investments, public services, and challenges are fundamentally local in nature.
As federal funding is declining in key policy areas under the current administration, the solution is not to abandon federalism, nor to romanticize national action as a cure-all, nor to pin all hope on the next national election. It is to restore federalism’s original promise: multiple, capable levels of government, each empowered to act, each accountable to the people they serve.
If there is an authoritarian threat to American governance, it lies as much in the current federal overreach as in collective resignation—the belief that meaningful government action is always a federal responsibility. American federalism, at its best, was meant to prevent that very outcome. It still can—but only if states choose to govern again, and recommit to the principle that government is, or ought to be, instituted for the common benefit of the people, nation, or community; and that of all the various modes and forms of government, state and local governments are most capable of responding to the collective needs and priorities of their constituents.
Note: The Feature image for this blog post was produced with the help of AI.
