Trump administration to review state laws that harm economy, Justice Department says

[BumRushDaShow]

Source: Reuters

August 15, 2025 10:49 AM EDT Updated 4 hours ago


WASHINGTON, Aug 15 (Reuters) - The Trump administration on Friday said it was working to identify laws in U.S. states that "significantly and adversely affect the national economy or interstate economic activity," according to a statement from the U.S. Department of Justice.

The DOJ will conduct the effort along with the White House's National Economic Council, it said, adding that it was also soliciting public comments for possible solutions.

Read more: https://www.reuters.com/world/us/trump-administration-review-state-laws-that-harm-economy-justice-department-says-2025-08-15/

---

Short article at post time.

[Ocelot II]

1. We don't need no stinkin' states' rights!

[mdbl]

18. More irony lost on stupid magats.

[Nittersing]

2. or... What else can we privatize

[TommyT139]

3. That's vague.

It could mean anything from state laws about controversial drugs like mifepristone, to vehicle exhaust regulations, to gender markers on drivers licenses, to civil rights -- anything.

[sinkingfeeling]

4. They sure were fast to dump states' rights.

[Eliot Rosewater]

5. The beginning of the end but when someone suggests

We may have to go to drastic measures, do things that have never done before in opposition, and there are many things you could do that don’t include violence but when that is suggested some people try to take the opportunity to score points by mocking such suggestions.

I don’t want to see what they have to say and I will never respond to them. 😡

[CrispyQ]

6. But the best economies are blue states, so he's gonna fuck those up, too? -nt

[orangecrush]

19. Of course

[wiggs]

7. re issues such as lack of health care, lack of mental health assistance, predatory lending practices, homelessness,

wealth inequality, under performing schools, illness due to pollution, tax evasion, massive syndicates buying homes only to keep them as rentals forever, price gouging...those kinds of things?

[orangecrush]

20. Yup

[Norrrm]

8. " that harm economy"... short term gain for long term loss.

[Karasu]

9. Notice they aren't even remotely pushing themselves as the party of "states' rights" anymore and haven't since January.

Last edited Sat Aug 16, 2025, 12:18 AM - Edit history (1)

This is unapologetic, textbook, full-throated fascism.

[Prairie Gates]

10. It's the position of many MAGAs that state laws affect birthrate affects economy

National abortion ban under the auspices of economic interest. They are even cynical enough to justify it on the basis of needed increased birthrate for Social Security, which of course they will then kill anyway.

[Bayard]

11. I'm betting its environmental laws

He's already been gutting them, and the EPA, on a national level. Can't stand in the way of pollution.

Don Henley: Goodbye To A River

[ProfessorGAC]

13. The Most Stringent Environmental Regs....

...are in California.
Their state GDP is the 4th largest of any COUNTRY! They are bigger than Japan, with about 22% of the people.
So if they use that argument, it's completely specious.

[Bayard]

17. Yes,

But trump's middle name is Specious.

[ificandream]

12. His definition of what harms the economy is different than everyone else's.

[aggiesal]

14. Next time some RWger says something about Small Government, ....

I'm going to shove this article in his face

Not that it would work, because they probably couldn't read it.
Or if they could, they wouldn't understand it.

[Justice matters.]

15. Mad king pedofelon the 1st doesn't care about any law.

Nor about his duty to consult and obey the laws passed by the Congress of the United States.

So that's just another distraction to bury the criminal cover up of the Epstein files.

[LudwigPastorius]

16. "laws...that "significantly and adversely affect the national economy or interstate economic activity..."

i.e. business and environmental regulations, abortion and reproductive rights, LGBTQ rights, immigrants’ rights, and voting rights

So glad Republicans are against 'big guvment'.

[eppur_se_muova]

21. "The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved ...

“The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.”

Constitutional Amendments – Amendment 10 – “Powers to the States or to the People”
https://www.reaganlibrary.gov/constitutional-amendments-amendment-10-powers-states-or-people

So state regulations should trump Federal regulations, if they were adopted before the Federal laws were passed.

More "it's eveybody's fault (but me)" from Turnip.





(Couldn't resist using the RR library for the link)