AI suggests more aggressive actions to resist the illegal withholding of federal disaster relief

 by Mary Harrsch © 2025

In 2024, my state of Oregon experienced one of its most severe wildfire seasons, burning nearly 2 million acres. In response, our Governor Tina Kotek requested a federal major disaster declaration under the Robert T. Stafford Act. President Biden approved this request, enabling federal assistance to support recovery efforts for the affected areas.

Smoke column from the Little Yamsay Fire as seen from Silver Lake Road, Oregon - May 11, 2024 courtesy of Wikimedia Commons.

Despite the federal approval, the state faced immediate financial challenges. By November 2024, Oregon owed over $200 million to firefighters and contractors due to unpaid invoices from the extensive firefighting efforts. To address this, Governor Kotek convened a special legislative session in December 2024, during which lawmakers approved $218 million in emergency funds to settle these outstanding bills.

However, in early 2025, the Trump administration implemented a freeze on federal funds designated for wildfire mitigation projects. This suspension affected ongoing prevention efforts in Oregon, including those by organizations like the Lomakatsi Restoration Project, which had to halt projects and lay off staff due to the funding freeze. Senators Jeff Merkley and Ron Wyden criticized the freeze, describing it as "illegal and dangerous."

Due to the freeze, Oregon, along with New York, Arizona, California, Colorado, Connecticut, Delaware, Hawaii, Illinois, Maine, Maryland, Massachusetts, Minnesota, Nevada, New Jersey, North Carolina, Rhode Island, Vermont, and Wisconsin formed a coalition with California and filed suit challenging the federal government's freeze on disaster relief funds on February 7, 2025.

But ChatGPT offered a number of more aggressive actions our coalition could take:

California [and its coalition] has several potential avenues for retaliation against the federal government's politically motivated withholding of disaster aid, though each comes with risks and legal challenges. Here are some potential actions the state could take:

1. Legal Action Against the Federal Government

Lawsuit for Breach of Duty

California could sue the federal government for failing to provide disaster relief after a formally declared emergency. The Stafford Act (42 U.S.C. §§ 5121-5207) mandates federal assistance for disaster relief, and withholding funds for political reasons could be challenged as an unlawful abuse of executive authority.

The state could argue that FEMA’s denial violates equal protection by selectively enforcing aid based on political affiliation.

Possible outcome: A court could compel FEMA to release funds, though legal battles could delay relief.

Multi-State Coalition Lawsuit

Other states that have faced politically motivated withholding of funds (e.g., blue states under GOP administrations) could join a coalition to challenge the White House in federal court.

2. Legislative and Financial Retaliation

Statewide Federal Tax Withholding Proposal

While California cannot legally intercept federal tax payments, it could challenge IRS operations by passing a Federal Tax Escrow Act, requiring Californians to deposit their federal tax payments into a state-held escrow account, to be released only when federal obligations (such as disaster relief) are fulfilled.

Similar ideas were floated after the 2017 SALT deduction cap, though ultimately abandoned due to IRS pushback.

State Taxation of Federal Properties or Contractors

California could attempt to impose taxes on federal government operations, such as leases for federal land or contracts with federal agencies.

This would likely be challenged under the McCulloch v. Maryland precedent, but aggressive legal maneuvers could at least create pressure on the administration.

Public Pension Fund Leverage (CalPERS & CalSTRS)

California’s public pension funds—among the largest in the world—could divest from federal projects, defense contractors, or industries that rely on federal subsidies.

3. Economic Warfare Against Federal Interests

Boycotting or Withholding Cooperation on Federal Initiatives

California agencies could refuse to cooperate with federal enforcement in areas like immigration, environmental oversight, or regulatory enforcement.

The state could halt participation in certain federal data-sharing programs, affecting agencies like ICE, DOJ, or the IRS.

Sanctions on GOP-Aligned Corporations

California could target corporations that heavily fund GOP candidates through state procurement policies.

Example: The state could refuse to sign contracts with companies known to be major donors to Speaker Mike Johnson and Trump-aligned PACs.

Legal Challenges to Federal Trade Agreements

As the world’s fifth-largest economy, California has leverage in national and international trade.

The state could use environmental regulations, consumer protection laws, or labor laws to disrupt interstate commerce that benefits red states disproportionately.

4. Political & Grassroots Mobilization

California-Led Congressional Resistance

California’s congressional delegation could block key Republican legislative priorities in retaliation for disaster aid withholding.

This could include filibusters, procedural delays, and aggressive oversight hearings on federal mismanagement.

International Pressure via Trade & Diplomacy

California could leverage its major trade relationships (Canada, the EU, China, Mexico, etc.) to sidestep federal policies.

It could also negotiate climate pacts and trade agreements that bypass federal approval, as it has done in the past.

Statewide Economic Disruption Tactics

As the largest contributor to U.S. GDP, California could stage a statewide economic slowdown protest, urging businesses to delay tax payments or engage in legal yet disruptive financial maneuvers.

Conclusion

The federal government’s withholding of disaster aid is unprecedented, but California has multiple options to retaliate, ranging from lawsuits and legislative action to economic and political warfare. While many of these options carry risks, a coordinated, multi-pronged strategy could force the federal government to reconsider its stance."

I thought the Public Pension Fund Leverage (CalPERS & CalSTRS) option is something all states of the coalition could consider. In the case of California, their public pension funds—among the largest in the world—could divest from federal projects, defense contractors, or industries that rely on federal subsidies.