Dan Haar: Can CT keep money it collects for feds if Trump illegally halts aid? One senator says yes

CT Insider – Monday, May 19, 2025
By Dan Haar

As Connecticut battles the Trump administration over money for federal programs authorized by Congress, few people have considered a weapon to hit back: money the state sends to Washington, D.C.

State Sen. Matt Lesser, D-Middletown, not only thought of it, but late last week he also filed an amendment to a bill in the state legislature that would allow Connecticut to keep millions of dollars it owes the federal government.

It’s a simple enough idea, though it’s politically risky and legally debatable. If President Donald Trump cuts payments for programs such as Medicaid and food assistance, and if a federal court orders the administration to resume those payments, and if Trump’s White House ignores the order, Connecticut would — under Lesser’s amendment — stop sending money to the federal government.

The state would use the money instead for “programs and services,” presumably those that were cut.

“If they’re going to be breaking the law, maybe Connecticut should fight back,” Lesser said, explaining his action. “It’s adding a tool to our tool chest to respond.”

There’s no question about the money. State governments send many millions of dollars to the federal government in the form of tax withholding for state employees, among other payments.

Could Connecticut get away with simply not sending cash it has collected for the U.S. Treasury? Many of us have dreamed about this sort of protest as taxpayers if, for example, the nation is mired in a war we believe unjust. But of course, as the ads for tax lawyers remind us, the Internal Revenue Service is the world’s most powerful debt collector.

It’s unclear whether the measure will come to a vote in the state Senate and House of Representatives, and if it does, and passes, whether Gov. Ned Lamont would sign it. At least two other blue states, New York and Maryland, have similar bills wending through their legislatures, Lesser said.

The idea of a state pulling off this kind of ploy comes from what Lesser calls an “existential” crisis. As co-chair of the General Assembly’s Human Services Committee, he spends a lot of time on Medicaid and other safety-net supports. He had drafted the amendment to a health care bill but did not file it until late Thursday.

What sent him over the top? Comments earlier Thursday by John Sauer, the U.S. solicitor general and a former Trump personal lawyer, who told the U.S. Supreme Court that the administration would “generally” follow federal court precedents and orders. Generally? Not absolutely? That perplexed Justice Amy Coney Barrett, a Trump appointee, and many legal scholars.

And it angered Lesser enough that he filed his amendment.

“If the federal government is going to act outside the law, that is a real existential problem for the state of Connecticut,” Lesser told me Friday, “on programs where we have to cooperate, like Medicaid.”

The political risk is paramount even if Connecticut can do this legally. Trump has repeatedly shown vengeance against any person, any business and any city or state that goes against him. It’s a good bet his administration would punish a state that tried to withhold collected tax money, even if the courts upheld such an action.

Lesser is in the camp of Democrats, led in part by Sen. Chris Murphy, D-Conn., that follows the ethic of Winston Churchill and his famous “We shall fight them on the beaches” speech in the worst moment of World War II.

“Timidity has never been a successful counter to authoritarianism,” Lesser said when I asked about retribution. “Of course we’re expecting to be targeted. The question is, what can we do to best protect Connecticut programs?”

Lamont, who needs to work more closely with the Trump administration, and who attended Trump’s inauguration out of respect for the office, has been solidly in the camp of Democrats who say let’s fight hard but pick our battles carefully.

For example, he squared off last week against House Speaker Matt Ritter of Hartford, a fellow Democrat, saying he did not support strengthening the Trust Act, which limits how state agencies can cooperate with U.S. immigration agents.

Lamont’s office did not say how he would respond to Lesser’s bill, as is the governor’s custom on bills that remain far from a vote and have not traveled through the political layers at the Capitol. Lesser, for his part, told me he had not worked the measure among his colleagues in the Senate or in the House.

“It’s a conversation starter,” he said of the amendment. “There may be other things we can do.”

The conversation started in earnest on Jan. 28, when Trump’s budget office issued a memo that launched the administration’s plan to cut federal grants and programs, initially including Medicaid and Head Start, later calling that an error. Lamont and every Democratic state senator and statewide officeholder came together at the Capitol to decry the Trump memo.

William Tong, the state attorney general, immediately joined other state attorneys general in filing federal lawsuits to force the administration to follow Congress’s budget. Tong’s office continues to focus on those lawsuits, his spokeswoman said in an emailed comment Friday in response to questions about the possibility of holding back money from the feds.

“The federal government cannot defund Connecticut in defiance of court orders. We are closely monitoring each funding stream subject to various court orders and will not hesitate to return to court — as we have in several instances — to ensure those funds flow as required by law,” Tong spokeswoman Elizabeth Benton said.

It’s unclear whether Trump’s administration has already defied court orders to the point that would trigger action under Lesser’s amendment. The administration typically argues on appeal that court injunctions don’t apply to this or that program, or that courts lack authority.

“The question is, are they going to follow the rule of law?” Lesser asked. “If we’re going to be partnering with the feds on a variety of programs, we need to be sure that we’re not left holding the bag if they reneg on things.”

Access this article at its original source.