How the HELL is this LEGAL? Sean Duffy to withhold transportation funds from cities with anti-ICE protests

[Miles Archer]

Sean Duffy to withhold transportation funds from cities with anti-ICE protests

https://www.rawstory.com/sean-duffy-withhold-dot-funding/

Transportation Secretary Sean Duffy said Monday his department would withhold funding from cities where anti-ICE demonstrations were allowed to take place.

In a Monday post on X, Duffy responded to President Donald Trump's call for ICE agents to target cities led by Democrats.

"The @USDOT will NOT fund rogue state actors who refuse to cooperate with federal immigration enforcement," Duffy wrote. "And to cities that stand by while rioters destroy transportation infrastructure — don't expect a red cent from DOT, either. Follow the law, or forfeit the funding."

[Tootbsb]

1. California needs to withhold ALL federal taxes.

[lame54]

12. How would that work?

[Tootbsb]

18. Exactly how it works when they say we don't get funding congress has already voted to allocate.

[lame54]

39. ???...

I pay my federal taxes directly to the federal government
California never has access to it
So, again
How would that work?

[DetroitLegalBeagle]

32. It wouldn't

States do not collect taxes and send it to the Feds. Taxpayers and businesses send their taxes directly to the Feds. The States have no hand in it.

[tritsofme]

20. That would be incredibly dumb. Individuals and businesses who had their taxes intercepted and seized by California

would still owe the feds what they owe, plus interest and penalties.

[Wifes husband]

28. I have been wondering the same thing

It is easy to say that California should refuse to send money to the federal government, but what funds does the government of California send to the federal government?
Only money I know of comes from individuals.

[tritsofme]

37. Exactly, this is just a silly slogan spread by people who are ignorant.

[Wifes husband]

38. I believe it was H.L. Mencken who said:

"For every complex problem there is an answer that is clear, simple, and wrong."

[MichMan]

34. If my governor stole taxes withheld by my employer instead of sending it to the US Treasury, there would be hell to pay

[Midnight Writer]

2. Everything is "legal" when the criminals and the law enforcement are the same people.

[C_U_L8R]

3. Were they paying attention on Saturday??

There is not a place in this country where they won't find anti-ICE beliefs.

[lame54]

13. Exactly - any excuse to not part with "their" money

[bucolic_frolic]

4. Money is free speech ruled SCOTUS

Anti-money is anti-free speech.

Anti-free speech is anti-1A.

Anti-1A is unConstitutional.

[Irish_Dem]

6. Money has more rights than humans.

[Irish_Dem]

5. No protests will be tolerated by the dictatorship.

[Walleye]

7. No, not legal. As long as the Republican congressman are cowering in the corner, they'll get away with it

[newdeal2]

11. I think SCOTUS would have a hard time with this one

They naturally want to punish liberals. But they also know there were protests in 50 states so you cannot just punish blue states by that logic.

[BOSSHOG]

23. And there are liberals in all 50 States

Hate is the fuel that powers the Republican Party. Hate is the result of willful ignorance.

[nolabear]

8. Cascades is looking better all the time.

We on the West Coast control a HUGE amount of the economy and are about as sanctuary as it gets. Here in Seattle we’ve got vocal legislators so are an even bigger target than some.

GOD I hate these assholes.

[Norrrm]

9. That would include airports. Sean can make them safe only by shutting them down.

[haele]

10. There was only one city I noticed where transportation infrastructure was destroyed...

And that was along the "parade route" in DC.
Tanks on asphalt and cement...there were cracks in the road forming afterwards.
And with the heavy rains this weekend in DC? Pothole city.

[serbbral]

14. Democrats & Republicans

They really don't get it. These protests were not just Dems. Since these protests have taken place, I have heard more than once how many on the right want to spin this as liberals/dems have protested. From what I've read there were many who voted for Trump out there also, not only dems/liberals.

[JustAnotherGen]

15. Intolerable Act

They are sure are adding up.

[Initech]

16. I'd rather withhold Sean Duffy from his position. He doesn't belong there.

Fuck you Sean Duffy!!!

[Ping Tung]

17. Brilliant! Force the commuters to walk to work and while you're at it, put Whites Only seats on the buses.

[sinkingfeeling]

19. It will be raining lawsuits on his head. Stop calling this the

United States. The Confederate States is closer under the MAGA regime.

[WestMichRad]

21. In what cities did rioters damage or destroy transportation infrastructure?

Ummm… precisely none?

Go eff yourself, Duffwad.

[live love laugh]

22. The No Kings protests were not just about ICE but the media framed it that way.

So are they trying to withhold funds from every city?

The first amendment attacks have to be challenged.

[Hope22]

27. No Kings was No Kings

it could not be more clear…..

[progree]

24. "All blue cities, Democrat-run cities. And they think they're going to use them to vote. It's not gonna happen,"

Speaking at the G7 on Monday, Trump doubled down on his threat.

"Most of those people are in the cities. All blue cities, Democrat-run cities. And they think they're going to use them to vote. It's not gonna happen," he said.

Huh? Who is "they"? and blue cities aren't going to be allowed to vote, or what?

[MichMan]

25. Hmmm. Will have to see how this plays out

States that didn't change their speed limits to 55 or change the drinking age to 21 were threatened with losing Federal transportation funds. As I recall, the Feds prevailed in court and the states caved.

[Initech]

26. It isn't legal, Sean Duffy needs to be fired and he can eat a bag of shit.

Also fuck both his current employer and his former employer!

[dchill]

29. It's 2025 - explain why it has to be legal?

Duffy shouldn't legally be in the administration. I know it's not illegal, but it should be.

[Johonny]

30. Divert all state funding from red counties

To cover federal funding short falls. Make the GOP reps explain why they are screwing their own people. Fuck the people that voted for this.

[NotHardly]

31. A blatant attack on freedom of speech, right to assemble, & extortion, just to begin with...

[mkp]

33. Yo Duff-Trump

Fuck You. And shove your ideas up your ass. And if you don't like my free speech, fuck you too. Just who's money is it anyway? It is our money... how about I start withholding any funds from those I don't like.
You're gonna be up shit creek if we all do it, Duffy Dumb Ass. Without our money, we won't need you either, maybe you should start looking for a new line of work (both of you) because you damn sure aren't too good at being a government worker.
I wouldn't hire you if you worked in Trump's Administration... you might wanna leave that off your resume.

[moniss]

35. It will make a hell of a court case because

it touches on the laws regarding Impoundment, Bill of Attainder (in some sense) and denial of due process. Typically Federal funds to the states from various agencies are governed by program rules. In other words the Federal DOT doesn't just transfer one big chunk of money to a state DOT encompassing the entire amount of spending. There will be various programs, projects etc. and they will each proceed under various subsections within the two main bodies. These programs all have specific areas of activities and these are written out and described in departmental regulations and sometimes by the state legislatures specifically for some things. How funding is done, program administration and project approval are all the kinds of things everybody gets down on paper so that this isn't just some Wild West run thing where anything goes.

In those regulations etc. will also usually be language about what can constitute a "review" of funding and how it can proceed. The reason being is if you didn't have it then funding could be yanked around on a whim by any administrator for any reason. An example would be a Federal administrator wanted his brother-in-law to be given a no-bid contract for some portion of work on a road construction project. The state DOT refused and so now the guy from the Feds tries to yank all of the funding for this project. If things like that were allowed it would be petty chaos all across the nation.

So Duffy might think he can, and the Feds could unless the courts stop them, but getting into that battle with states is a quagmire since there are plenty of Federal projects that require coordination with the states and getting along.

So to sum it up in order to pull funding for projects you usually have to go through a review process where some sort of misconduct on the project is alleged like overspending, unauthorized changes etc. or the need for the project has changed etc. and then a decision is made. It does not include things completely unrelated to the project such as you didn't hire my cousin or "we don't like that your city council voted to allow food trucks" etc.

[leftyladyfrommo]

36. Every city had protesters. Even small towns

had marchers. So that's a ridiculous statement.