A recent spat has kicked off between President Donald Trump and New York City Mayor Bill de Blasio. This spat is spurred by the President's threat to withhold Federal policing grants and other grants to the cities and states who have failed to reign in the rioters or accept Federal help to do so. Mayor de Blasio stated that he'll, "see him in court."
In fact, de Blasio went on to talk about how the courts have already ruled that Trump cannot withhold aid from cities. Yet this is a greatly skewed argument and I'll explain why.
First, that ruling was police funding being withheld from sanctuary cities. The ruling in California stated, essentially, that because immigration isn't a state issue, the Federal Government cannot withhold grants in an attempt to get them to enforce a federal law outside of their jurisdiction. Secondly, even the left wing Bloomberg News is correctly reporting that the ruling doesn't apply nationally, and won't unless the Supreme Court takes up the case. You can read The Hill's explanation here.
This means that the case that de Blasio is citing as precedent doesn't apply to this situation at all because in this case Trump would be withholding funds from departments and cities who are not enforcing their own jurisdictions. In other words, you aren't doing what we're paying you for, so we're not going to pay you. It's a completely different argument, and it'll be one that is very hard to refute in a court of law. No silly jurisdictional loop-holes here.
But in all things Federal, there is a fundamental question that must be answered, why should the residents of states like Texas, Idaho, Nebraska, Florida, Ohio, Montana, and others be required to pay for damages that they a) had no part in creating, b) had no way of stopping, and c) had no ability to speak in to? In other words, this is YOUR mess, why in the world should we clean it up for you? It's no different than Flint, Michigan's city government blowing through the funds to fix the city's water and then blaming it all on Trump and the Federal Government.
Why are Texans responsible for fixing water issues in Michigan? That's a city level problem.
Why are Texans responsible to pay for damages done to neighborhoods in other states? Especially when the leaders of those states had the opportunity to stop and/or significantly reduce the violence and destruction. Had they done so? It might be a different story asking for funds, at that point one could argue that they did all they could, and now need help for things that they couldn't control.
Which brings us to the point of this article. Trump has already said no to FEMA funds, and now he's putting these mayors and states on notice that if they want to do things their way, that's fine, but they'll be the ones paying the price and bearing the consequences. The Federal Government is done allowing states to run amok and then throw their hand out for money from other states who didn't participate.
Don't allow your police to do their job? Then you won't get the money that funds those law enforcement activities. The Federal Government isn't paying these states to hire social workers and counselors, and that's what they're trying to do with the money. The Feds are saying, "no," and they should. Those monies are for police officers and their equipment, and that alone.
So yes, Mayor de Blasio, I'm sure Trump will see you in court, but I'm afraid that you'll be sadly disappointed by the result. You can say that you can't stop the grants for something that they aren't intended to cover (ala California), but you cannot then say that they should be allowed to pay for things that they aren't intended to cover. If grants are for ONLY what they are stipulated for, then yes, not only can he do it, but he should.
Perhaps you should have thought of that before you allowed your city to become a warzone over political correctness run amok.