COMMONSENSE NOTES // By IDRIS B. ODUNEWUThe Center Can Hold — States’ Rights and Local Privilege in a Climate of Federal Overreach

“Things fall apart; the centre cannot hold;
Mere anarchy is loosed upon the world…”
— W.B. Yeats, The Second Coming

In moments of political upheaval, Yeats’s words echo with an almost prophetic clarity. As American institutions weather the storms of executive disruption, legal ambiguity, and polarized governance, we must reexamine what it means for “the center” to hold. While some interpret Yeats’s lament as an omen of collapse, let’s posits the opposite: the American center can hold—not in Washington D.C., but in the flexible, resilient, and increasingly assertive governance of states and municipalities.

The Trump administration, both in its initial term and through its enduring influence, has ushered in a radical rethinking of federal authority. From its contentious immigration policies and climate rollbacks to the handling of public health, education, and voting rights, federal overreach has often tested the limits of constitutional norms and intergovernmental balance. Critics on both sides of the political spectrum have noted a disturbing consolidation of power in the executive branch, leading to concerns about the erosion of democratic accountability and the long-term viability of federal institutions.

In this fraught climate, it is no surprise that the guardians of American values—justice, common welfare, public security—are increasingly found not under the dome of the Capitol, but in the courthouses of state governments and the council chambers of cities and towns. In short: the states are stepping up. Local jurisdictions are asserting their privilege. And far from the center falling apart, this decentralized response suggests that it is evolving.

The New Federalist Revival
Traditionally, the American federal system thrives on tension: states push back, the federal government adapts, and a dynamic equilibrium maintains democratic balance. However, this equilibrium has been thrown off in recent years by what some scholars have termed “executive maximalism”—an approach to governance marked by sweeping executive orders, legal ambiguity, and a willingness to bypass the checks and balances typically provided by Congress and the courts.

In response, state governments have mounted robust countermeasures. California, for instance, has positioned itself as a regulatory counterweight to federal environmental rollbacks. New York has sued the federal government over immigration enforcement and census manipulation. States like Michigan and Pennsylvania have enacted protections for voting access even as federal leadership stoked distrust in electoral systems.