The Trump Administration’s major actions to scale down and refocus the work of federal agencies, while restoring power to states and localities, represent a healing return to the Founders’ goal of authentic federalism.
Federalism is a system of government in which power is divided between higher and lower levels of authority. In the U.S. system, we have a written constitution that delineates explicit powers for the federal government and reserved powers to the states, which the Framers deemed essential for granting the lower authorities broad powers to best serve the people.
James Madison, Alexander Hamilton, and John Jay explained the structure for governing in The Federalist. It’s a three-part model developed to withstand the extremes of centralized tyranny and uncontrollable anarchy. Its purpose is to ensure a representative republic that respects individual liberty. The vertical element of this system creates effective and responsible roles for the national, state, and later local governments, with citizens providing a major check at each level.
Image created using AI.
Authentic federalism—a descriptor not conventionally associated with federalism but inherently implied—occurs when all three levels of government recognize, respect, and responsibly act in the service of the people. In short, each governing entity should operate within its own lane.
Political scientists have shown keen interest in identifying various modes of federalism in the U.S. and elsewhere, offering a variety of descriptors including “cooperative,” “dual,” “creative,” “horizontal,” “marble-cake,” “picket-fence,” and “vertical” federalism. While examining and categorizing these practices is useful, the focus should be on governing in the manner the Founders intended and, more importantly, on fostering a healthy polis by practicing authentic federalism.
Despite the attention on national and state politics, local government often has the most direct impact on our daily lives. This phenomenon is based on a principle, often overlooked but present in the spirit of the U.S. Constitution: those closest to the people are best positioned to protect the health, safety, welfare, and morals of the community. Here, the importance of maintaining genuine respect for federalism is fundamental.
These are three examples of how federalism at the local level is historically manifested and why we should continue to support authentic federalism.
Public Education —Historically, and still today, state and local entities primarily fund and manage public education in a decentralized manner. While there is significant variation across the country, state departments of education typically prescribe educational standards and aggregate assessments to ensure that students meet minimum educational requirements. By design, local school districts, through governing school boards and individual teachers and staff, have considerable latitude in curriculum development, staff hiring, and policy setting.
The federal Department of Education may be useful in collecting statistics on activities across states and publicizing best practices in curriculum development, teaching processes, and assessments. However, it should avoid providing costly direct services or funding states for such services. Consequently, little will be lost as the current administration reduces its role.
Public Safety —In the spring of 2021, White House leaders and many members of Congress attempted to control how local police entities perform their duties. Local authorities possess a superior understanding of how to protect their communities and enforce laws, as they are acutely aware of the people, places, and issues within their jurisdictions—far more so than any state or federal entity. The Founders recognized that those closest to the people are best suited to safeguard their safety, property and health, while being more invested in the community’s welfare.
Public Health —A foundational principle of public health further illustrates that local entities are better positioned to protect community health than state or federal entities. Aside from the selective approaches that occasionally emerge through public health advocacy groups, local officials are both practically engaged and legally active in asserting their authority to provide public health services and regulations. They often resist preemption laws when interest groups seek to limit their jurisdiction.
The enduring responsibility and challenge for those who maintain political interest is to ensure that the roles of the three levels of government are assigned with a certain degree of flexibility. Priority, however, must be given to the needs of citizens, ensuring each level’s actions are both responsible and defensible. Therefore, it is crucial to revisit the mission, purpose, and actions of government agencies at all levels.
Stephen F. Gambescia is professor and director of a Doctor of Health Science program at Drexel University. He can be reached Sfg23@drexel.edu.
Stew Bolno is an organizational effectiveness consultant in Philadelphia. He can be reached at stewbolono@comcast.net.