Trump intends to punish all who voted against him

It’s not just Minnesota. Trump is also stopping billions in
funding for social services in Colorado, Illinois, New York, and California.
Why? Could it be because all of them are led by Democrats
and inhabited by voters who overwhelmingly rejected Trump in 2024?
It’s not the first time Trump has openly penalized “blue”
states. What’s new is how blatant his vindictiveness toward blue states has
become.

Two weeks ago Trump used the first veto of his second term to kill a pipeline project that had achieved bipartisan congressional support, to provide clean drinking water to Colorado’s parched eastern plains.
Trump’s
action enraged Republican congresswoman and formerly dedicated Trumper Lauren
Boebert, who stated: “Nothing says America First like denying clean drinking
water to 50,000 people in southeast Colorado, many of whom voted for him in all
three elections.”
If there were any doubts about Trump’s sentiments toward Colorado, he posted a New Year’s Eve message telling Colorado Governor Jared Polis, a Democrat, and Daniel P. Rubinstein, the Republican district attorney in Mesa County who prosecuted Ms. Peters, to “rot in Hell,” adding “I wish them only the worst.”
Is it even legal for Trump to reward red states and penalize
blue ones? In a word: No.
In early December, Justice Department lawyers openly
admitted that Trump withheld Department of Energy grants to Minnesota and other
states according to “whether a grantee’s address was located in a State that
tends to elect and/or has recently elected Democratic candidates in state and
national elections.”
It’s the first time the Trump regime clearly acknowledged in
court that which states get what depends on whether most people in a state
voted for or against him.
What’s the legal argument? Trump’s Justice Department
lawyers claim that
such overt political vindictiveness “is constitutionally permissible, including
because it can serve as a proxy for legitimate policy considerations.”
This, my friends, is utter rubbish.
Punishing states based on whom their residents voted for directly violates the 14th Amendment’s Equal Protection Clause, which requires that the government treat citizens equally under the law: No “State [shall] deprive … to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.”
Penalizing a state for how its citizens vote also violates
the First Amendment’s guarantee of freedom of speech. Voting is one of the most
basic forms of speech in a democracy; it cannot be abridged or punished
depending on for whom one votes.
And it violates a president’s duty under the Constitution to
“take Care that the Laws be faithfully executed.” At the least, this requires
that a president apply the law in a nonpartisan way. Congress may award grants
or benefits to certain states and not others, but this power is reserved for
Congress, not the president.
The issue will almost certainly end up in the Supreme Court.
Although my expectations for our highest court could not be much lower, I’d be
surprised if the justices sided with Trump here.
Any other result would effectively allow Trump to pit red
states against blue and wreak havoc on the very idea of a national government.
Trump has made it clear he regards himself as president only
of the people who voted for him. But that’s not how the Constitution works. Nor
is it how American democracy works.