Simply final yr, Texas Gov. Greg Abbott joined a bipartisan refrain of governors in denouncing a Biden administration plan they mentioned would strip states of powers assured to them below federal regulation.
The plan would have transferred Air Nationwide Guard models from six states to the U.S. House Drive, the newly created army department, stoking issues about federal overreach and the erosion of governors’ management over their very own guard forces. Texas wasn’t among the many affected states, however Abbott made his opposition unmistakable in an open letter to the president.
He known as the plan an “insupportable menace that may set a “harmful precedent.”
“I strongly oppose any try to sideline governors in terms of their respective Nationwide Guards,” he wrote.
A yr later, Abbott helped Donald Trump just do that. He mentioned that he “totally approved” the president’s plan to ship Texas Nationwide Guard members to Illinois and Oregon to guard federal regulation enforcement personnel who’re executing immigration legal guidelines. These states’ governors vigorously objected, saying such motion was an pointless escalation that interfered with state sovereignty.
Abbott defended the deployment on Fox Information. The president, he mentioned, has the authority to mobilize guard members to protect public security.
“President Trump and I’ve a great, longstanding working relationship, and there’s a substantive cause behind that,” Abbott mentioned. He added that he and the president have been “working very intently aligned on guaranteeing that our nation goes to be protected.”
Abbott, the chief of the biggest state led by Republicans, has emerged as certainly one of Trump’s most essential allies because the president checks the boundaries of government energy. Whereas governors usually align with their events’ presidents, Abbott’s help for Trump’s enlargement of federal powers is a putting departure from his personal historic and ardent defenses of state sovereignty.
That, constitutional consultants say, units a dangerous instance that could be tough to reverse.
“What he’s doing is short-term acquire for his political positions, and Texas’ political positions, however not for Texas as a state shifting ahead,” mentioned Georgetown College Regulation Middle professor Victoria Nourse. “You would possibly like this president, however you’re not essentially going to love what occurs to Texas with the subsequent one.”
There are myriad examples of Abbott bending his views on state sovereignty to accede to the needs of the brand new administration, together with directing state businesses to help the administration’s immigration enforcement — an motion that constitutional regulation consultants mentioned basically deputized the Texas authorities into federal service — in addition to offering information on voters and redrawing legislative boundaries to web extra GOP-friendly seats within the U.S. Home.
Abbott’s arguments then and actions now are an instance of what Jessica Bulman-Pozen, a constitutional regulation professor at Columbia College, calls partisan federalism, a time period describing how state leaders’ fervor for defending their sovereignty more and more relies on whether or not their occasion is in energy in Washington. She mentioned Abbott’s help of the guard deployments is especially alarming as a result of it diminishes the standard energy of governors to handle regulation enforcement of their states.
Abbott didn’t reply to interview requests or written questions from ProPublica and The Texas Tribune. However Robert Henneke, basic counsel for the conservative suppose tank Texas Public Coverage Basis, and James Peinado, chair of the Republican Liberty Caucus of Texas, which advocates for restricted authorities, mentioned they noticed no contradiction between Abbott’s historic protection of states’ authority and his help of Trump’s actions. Trump is following the regulation, Henneke mentioned, and “the states don’t have the facility to dam the lawful train of authority of the federal authorities.”
Abbott’s actions, nevertheless, have drawn rebuke from fellow governors, together with no less than one from his personal occasion.
Oklahoma Gov. Kevin Stitt, a Republican, informed The New York Instances that he was stunned Abbott despatched Texas guard members to Illinois. “We consider within the federalist system — that’s states’ rights. Oklahomans would lose their thoughts if Pritzker in Illinois despatched troops all the way down to Oklahoma through the Biden administration,” mentioned Stitt, who didn’t reply to interview requests.
Ron Beal, a retired regulation professor at Baylor College, mentioned Abbott’s actions not solely violate the historic spirit of cooperation amongst states, however present Trump cowl to unlawfully intrude in state issues.
“Trump’s cause for sending troops is clearly a complete fabrication of actuality and I consider a constitutional violation,” Beal mentioned. “It’s merely outrageous that Abbott would take part and cooperate with such exercise.”
Shifting View of Federal Energy
Abbott’s devotion to state sovereignty has lengthy been central to his political id.
In January 2016, getting into his second yr as governor, he revealed a 92-page essay defending states’ rights and decrying what he known as the Obama administration’s government overreach. In a speech that month to the Texas Public Coverage Basis, he accused President Barack Obama of bypassing Congress by enacting local weather change and immigration coverage by means of unilateral government orders. Abbott additionally lambasted the Supreme Court docket for upholding the Reasonably priced Care Act, arguing the justices invented a authorized foundation for it.
“State leaders have been speculated to have the facility and alternative to examine any try by federal officers to overstep their bounds,” Abbott wrote. “Certainly, your complete construction of the Structure was premised on the concept that the states could be stronger than the nationwide authorities.”
Abbott proposed the “Texas Plan,” a set of 9 constitutional amendments that he mentioned would restore the stability of authority between the federal authorities and states. Amongst them was one that may clarify that the president, Congress and judges don’t have any powers past these expressly talked about within the Structure.
The essay supplied a well-reasoned critique of rising federal energy, mentioned Sanford Levinson, a constitutional regulation professor on the College of Texas, who has assigned it as required studying for his college students.
Levinson mentioned Abbott’s latest actions mark a whole reversal.
“He condemned presidents for overreach, notably in government orders, and mentioned we needed to do one thing to rein that in. There’s a lot to be mentioned for that, however that’s actually not his view in 2025,” Levinson mentioned. “Most of what Trump does is thru government order.”
Trump has sought to make use of government orders to drive adjustments to elections and voting. He has additionally pressured state leaders to make adjustments on his behalf, and Abbott has obliged.
Over the summer season, Abbott turned the primary governor to adjust to Trump’s demand that Republican-led states break from the standard 10-year cycle of redrawing congressional districts to create extra GOP-friendly seats for the 2026 midterm election.
Initially sympathetic to incumbent Republican Home members’ worries that the technique may weaken strong GOP seats by spreading the occasion’s voters throughout too many districts, Abbott finally known as a particular session of the Texas Legislature to draft new congressional boundaries.
Texas lawmakers in 2003 equally performed a uncommon mid-decade redistricting, however that was not directed by then-President George W. Bush, mentioned Karl Rove, certainly one of Bush’s senior advisers. “The White Home and RNC didn’t provoke or lead the hassle,” Rove mentioned in a textual content message.
A governor permitting a president to affect when a state redistricts cedes the historic energy of states to run their very own elections, mentioned Mimi Marziani, who teaches election regulation on the College of Texas.
She mentioned Trump’s request for extra GOP-friendly seats “has every thing to do with nationwide occasion pursuits and nothing to do with state pursuits.” And she or he warned that if governors give in, they are going to be weak to future presidential meddling.
Earlier this month, Trump endorsed Abbott for reelection, citing redistricting as one of many governor’s key accomplishments. Per week later, a panel of three federal judges blocked the state’s newly drawn congressional map from taking impact, discovering that it discriminated in opposition to voters primarily based on race. On Tuesday, Abbott mentioned Texas would “swiftly attraction” to the U.S. Supreme Court docket.
Abbott’s cooperation has prolonged to sharing voter registration information with Washington.
Texas joined greater than a dozen states in turning over voter roll data to the Justice Division, regardless of long-standing resistance to federal oversight of state elections.
The Structure permits states to run elections, topic to oversight by Congress. However Trump sought higher management over the method, issuing an government order in March that prioritized implementing the federal legal guidelines that bar noncitizens from voting.
Trump has repeatedly claimed that noncitizens are voting en masse to sway U.S. elections in favor of Democrats, whereas analysis has proven this to not be true.
A latest voter roll audit by the Texas secretary of state, utilizing a federal citizenship database, flagged 2,724 voters — or 0.015% — as potential noncitizens. Preliminary investigations by county voter registrars, nevertheless, discovered that a few of these voters are residents.
Performing on Trump’s order, the Justice Division requested from states their whole voter rolls, together with dates of beginning, addresses, driver’s license numbers and partial Social Safety numbers, in line with a letter despatched to Texas and obtained by ProPublica and the Tribune below public information legal guidelines.
Information present that Texas offered voter roll data to the Justice Division in October.
Texas secretary of state spokesperson Alicia Pierce informed ProPublica and the Tribune that the secretary of state offered solely the publicly accessible model of its voter roll, which redacts data comparable to driver’s license and Social Safety numbers.
The Justice Division is suing eight states, six of which had offered or supplied publicly accessible variations of their voter rolls as a result of they didn’t embody all the knowledge the federal authorities sought. One such state is Pennsylvania.
“This request, and reported efforts to gather broad information on tens of millions of Individuals, signify a regarding try to develop the federal authorities’s function in our nation’s electoral course of,” Pennsylvania Secretary of the Commonwealth Al Schmidt, a Republican, wrote to the Justice Division in August.
Justice Division spokesperson Natalie Baldassarre declined to touch upon why the federal authorities had not included Texas among the many states it was suing for failing to share all the knowledge the federal government sought.
However the identical month that Texas quietly handed over the restricted voter roll, Secretary of State Jane Nelson, an Abbott appointee, introduced her workplace had completed working the total roll, together with Social Safety numbers, by means of a federal database to examine voters’ citizenship standing.
The Division of Homeland Safety shops voter information uploaded by state officers, DHS information obtained by ProPublica discovered.
Nelson’s workplace didn’t reply questions on whether or not doing so basically offered the federal authorities with much more information on Texas voters than it had initially sought.
In Limbo
Abbott embraced Trump’s deployment of Texas Nationwide Guard troops below a novel interpretation of a federal regulation that authorizes the mobilization of troops to quell a rebel or menace of rebel, or if “common forces” are unable to implement federal regulation. No trendy president has invoked the regulation to help in finishing up immigration coverage.
Regardless of Abbott’s help, the 400 Texas Nationwide Guard troops mobilized by Trump are nonetheless not on the streets of Illinois or Oregon.
Federal judges quickly halted the deployments after Oregon and Illinois sued the Trump administration, arguing that its actions violate the tenth Modification, which supplies the states all powers not explicitly granted to the federal authorities by the Structure.
The states’ arguments echo these Abbott made in his 2016 essay, through which he warned that Washington too usually ignored that modification to impose its will on states. He proposed making it simpler for states to sue the federal authorities over alleged abuses of energy.
The seventh U.S. Circuit Court docket of Appeals, which is dealing with the Illinois case, had the same take. In an Oct. 16 ruling, the courtroom mentioned the Texas troop mobilization was “an incursion on Illinois’s sovereignty” and certain a violation of the tenth Modification.
The litigation stored Texas Guard members who have been deployed to the Chicago space greater than a month in the past in limbo, unable to hold out what Trump needed them to however unable to go away. A U.S. Protection Division spokesperson mentioned the 200 guard members who have been coaching at a base in Illinois returned to Texas final week. The remaining, sure for Oregon, stay at Fort Bliss in El Paso.
The U.S. Supreme Court docket has positioned the Illinois case on its emergency docket and is contemplating the events’ written arguments. The courtroom’s pending ruling would seemingly apply to the Oregon case as properly.
Regardless of the uncertainty concerning the deployment’s legality, Trump instructed in an October speech to U.S. army members that he was ready to ship troops, together with active-duty models, into extra cities.
Abbott’s cooperation so far will make it more durable for different states to withstand Trump in future deployments, mentioned James Gardner, a constitutional regulation professor on the College at Buffalo. The framers of the Structure meant for states to face with each other to make sure officers in Washington by no means collected an excessive amount of energy, Gardner mentioned.
He mentioned that whereas Abbott, who’s searching for a file fourth time period subsequent yr, would seemingly rediscover his ardour for states’ rights if a Democrat have been elected president, the governor might wrestle to regain energy he helped take away from the states.
“By altering the Structure’s contemplated stability of energy, it makes it simpler for the central authorities to crush dissenting states,” Gardner mentioned.
