This article originally appeared in The Detroit News October 15, 2025.

Millions of people took to the streets on June 14 for No Kings Day, protesting President Donald Trump. The movement is preparing No Kings Day 2.0 for this weekend, including a rally in Detroit, to highlight what they call Trump’s “authoritarian excesses.” But the protesters may be overlooking a concrete, effective solution.

The coming No Kings protests will focus on Trump’s immigration enforcement, National Guard deployment and spending cuts. A website offers people ready-made messages. For example, “Trump is pouring public money into his authoritarian takeovers of cities … while cutting services that working families rely on every single day.”

Anyone who questions the expansion of presidential powers is asking a valid question. Congress is ever more dysfunctional, abdicating power to the White House, and courts are generally slow to overturn executive action.

Constitutional scholars have long warned of ever-growing presidential powers. William A. Galston at the Brookings Institution wrote, “This battle over the proper extent of executive authority goes back to the country’s founding.”

Robert A. Levy of the Cato Institute wrote a lengthy critique of Trump’s recent actions. He concludes: “The imperial presidency has indeed become a problem. But the problem pre-dates recent power grabs by Donald Trump.”

One reason presidential power tends to grow is that people cheer power grabs so long as “their guy” is in office. Levy pointed out that former President Joe Biden ignored Congress to put taxpayers on the hook for hundreds of billions of dollars of college student debt. The Biden administration imposed Covid-19 vaccine mandates on private employers. These overreaches failed to trigger any No Kings protests.

Americans should be concerned about the imperial presidency. But there’s a problem: It’s hard to protest the king when you depend on the coin of the realm. Governors and state legislatures tolerate dictates from the federal government because of the billions available in federal funding.

The State Policy Network’s Center for Practical Federalism released a new report that shows how much money states get from the federal government — a whopping $1.05 trillion in 2023, according to U.S. Census Bureau data. The report, written by Tony Woodlief and Jennifer Butler, found that 23 states are more reliant on federal dollars than they were before the pandemic lockdowns.

Michigan lawmakers just finalized a state budget. Absent from that process was any discussion about Michigan’s dependency on federal dollars. But we are dependent; 37.3% of Michigan’s revenue comes from federal sources, supporting everything from economic development to public schools to infrastructure projects.

“Federal money may appear ‘free,’ but state officials know better,” said Woodlief, a co-author of the new report. “It comes with strings, hidden expenses, and an expectation that we’ll obey federal directives regarding our schools, nursing homes, natural resources and everything else.”

Counting on federal dollars is risky, Woodlief told me. Economic pressures, presidential priorities and political budget fights can disrupt federal funds.

While Congress ultimately has the power of the purse, presidents can influence how money is moved through the agencies. When Biden came into office, he ordered a halt to border wall construction. Earlier this year, Trump withheld $6 billion in education grants to schools. And the U.S. Supreme Court preliminarily allowed Trump to halt DEI grants to universities in eight states.

These sorts of funding freezes are often challenged in courts. So presidents also shape policy by attaching strings to federal funds, according to the Brookings Institution

What’s more, when states rely on Washington, D.C., to fund programs, they give presidents immense leverage to dictate policy. Woodlief and Butler offer three recommendations to reduce Michigan’s federal dependency:

1. Legislative oversight: Requires state agencies to seek legislative approval before applying for or accepting federal funds.

2. Contingency planning: Require agencies to develop contingency plans should the state lose federal funding.

3. Transparency: Federal agencies often issue guidance to state agencies, which can influence policy without legislative oversight. State agencies should disclose such guidance to lawmakers.

As crowds gather for No Kings Day 2.0, hopefully they can channel that energy into structural reform, no matter who’s in the White House.

Permission to reprint this blog post in whole or in part is hereby granted, provided that the author (or authors) and the Mackinac Center for Public Policy are properly cited.