CalMatters
This story was originally published by CalMatters. Sign up for their newsletters.
By Levi Sumagaysay, CalMatters
Gov. Gavin Newsom suggested last week that California may withhold taxes it pays to the United States if President Donald Trump slashes federal funding to the state.
It could be another front in the escalating battle between the Trump administration and the Golden State, which are at the moment wrestling over the president summoning the military to handle protests against immigration raids in Los Angeles. But how it would all work — on both sides — is anyone’s guess.
CalMatters asked several tax experts to weigh in on how the state could withhold money from the federal government. Most would not comment about what they called a “vague” threat by state officials. But they pointed out that residents and businesses pay state and federal governments directly when they file their income taxes — making it unclear what tax money California could withhold.
Newsom is not suggesting people stop paying their taxes, said Tara Gallegos, a spokesperson for the governor. But she said the state is considering “whether there are potential options that would allow it to retain some of the funding it typically sends the federal government.”
She would not provide further details and did not answer CalMatters’ question about which of his staff the governor has directed to explore those options.
California’s biggest sources of revenue are personal income tax, corporation tax and sales tax, the last of which goes to local and state governments. The state does not handle other excise taxes, such as those from airports, transportation and more, that the federal government receives, according to the Finance Department.
Newsom on Friday also floated on social media the idea that California is a “donor” state and contributes tens of billions of dollars more a year to the U.S. than it gets back, something Gallegos reiterated to CalMatters.
A study by the Rockefeller Institute of Government found that in fiscal year 2021-22, California provided about $83 billion more to the federal government than it received, nearly three times as much as the next state, New Jersey, which provided about $29 billion more than it received from the U.S.
In addition, California taxpayers contribute the most of any state to total federal taxes, according to IRS data the state’s Finance Department cited. In fiscal year 2023-24, California’s total federal taxes were $806 billion — nearly twice as much as Texas, which contributed $417 billion, and more than twice the $384 billion New York contributed.
State Assembly Speaker Robert Rivas also posted on social media last week that California must look at “every option” including withholding tax dollars, saying that “we’re the nation’s economic engine and the largest donor state, and deserve our fair share.” Rivas, a Salinas Democrat, was not available to answer questions, his staff said.
Some people dispute the notion of donor states.
“The governor’s long-standing complaint that California is a donor state rings hollow,” said Jared Walczak, vice president of state projects for the Tax Foundation, a Washington, D.C.-based right-leaning think tank. “Unless California politicians are questioning the legitimacy of Medicare, Medicaid, and Social Security, the complaint that California residents pay more in federal taxes than they get back is disingenuous.”
“Courts have made it abundantly clear that you can’t be a conscientious objector to paying taxes,” Walczak said.
Courts have also made it tough for the White House to cancel funding.
White House spokesperson Harrison Fields confirmed in an email to CalMatters this week that the Trump administration is reviewing possible wide-ranging funding cuts to California, as reported last week by different media outlets such as CNN and the Washington Post. But Fields said no decision has been made, and would not specify which programs are being considered for defunding. In the same email, Fields said the answers were on background or off the record, which he and CalMatters did not agree to beforehand.
H.D. Palmer, spokesperson for California’s Finance Department, pointed to the Trump administration’s attempt to freeze hundreds of billions of dollars in federal grants and loans, through an Office of Management and Budget memo, which it then rescinded in late January after public outcry and court orders.
“One salient point from our high school civics lessons: The power of the purse doesn’t lie with the (presidential) administration,” Palmer said.
Palmer provided a list of state programs that receive the most federal funding, which the state is counting on in its current budget. The list includes money for health, education, highway planning and construction, disaster recovery, grants for the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program and more. The biggest is $100.9 billion for medical assistance programs.
He said the White House has yet to provide specifics or answer the following question: “What public policy benefit are you seeking by withholding these federal dollars from California?”
Conversely, WTAF?!!
Could Trump actually make or ask the VA to withhold medical based on personal characteristics?!
(I just stumbled on this. Something new and horrible and outrageous every day.)
“‘Extremely disturbing and unethical’: new rules allow VA doctors to refuse to treat Democrats, unmarried veterans
Department of Veterans Affairs says the changes come in response to a Trump executive order ‘defending women’
The new rules, obtained by the Guardian, also apply to psychologists, dentists and a host of other occupations. They have already gone into effect in at least some VA medical centers.
Medical staff are still required to treat veterans regardless of race, color, religion and sex, and all veterans remain entitled to treatment. But individual workers are now free to decline to care for patients based on personal characteristics not explicitly prohibited by federal law.
Language requiring healthcare professionals to care for veterans regardless of their politics and marital status has been explicitly eliminated.
Doctors and other medical staff can also be barred from working at VA hospitals based on their marital status, political party affiliation or union activity, documents reviewed by the Guardian show. The changes also affect chiropractors, certified nurse practitioners, optometrists, podiatrists, licensed clinical social workers and speech therapists.
In making the changes, VA officials cite the president’s 30 January executive order titled “Defending Women from Gender Ideology Extremism and Restoring Biological Truth to the Federal Government”. The primary purpose of the executive order was to strip most government protections from transgender people. The VA has since ceased providing most gender-affirming care and forbidden a long list of words, including “gender affirming” and “transgender”, from clinical settings.
Medical experts said the implications of rule changes uncovered by the Guardian could be far-reaching.
They “seem to open the door to discrimination on the basis of anything that is not legally protected”, said Dr Kenneth Kizer, the VA’s top healthcare official during the Clinton administration. He said the changes open up the possibility that doctors could refuse to treat veterans based on their “reason for seeking care – including allegations of rape and sexual assault – current or past political party affiliation or political activity, and personal behavior such as alcohol or marijuana use”.
The Department of Veterans Affairs is the nation’s largest integrated hospital system, with more than 170 hospitals and more than 1,000 clinics. It employs 26,000 doctors and serves 9 million patients annually.
In an emailed response to questions, the VA press secretary, Peter Kasperowicz, did not dispute that the new rules allowed doctors to refuse to treat veteran patients based on their beliefs or that physicians could be dismissed based on their marital status or political affiliation, but said “all eligible veterans will always be welcome at VA and will always receive the benefits and services they’ve earned under the law”.
He said the rule changes were nothing more than “a formality”, but confirmed that they were made to comply with Trump’s executive order. Kasperowicz also said the revisions were necessary to “ensure VA policy comports with federal law”. He did not say which federal law or laws required these changes.
Until the recent changes, VA hospitals’ bylaws said that medical staff could not discriminate against patients “on the basis of race, age, color, sex, religion, national origin, politics, marital status or disability in any employment matter”. Now, several of those items – including “national origin,” “politics” and “marital status” – have been removed from that list.
Similarly, the bylaw on “decisions regarding medical staff membership” no longer forbids VA hospitals from discriminating against candidates for staff positions based on national origin, sexual orientation, marital status, membership in a labor organization or “lawful political party affiliation”.
Dr Arthur Caplan, founding head of the division of medical ethics at New York University’s Grossman School of Medicine, called the new rules “extremely disturbing and unethical”.
“It seems on its face an effort to exert political control over the VA medical staff,” he said. “What we typically tell people in healthcare is: ‘You keep your politics at home and take care of your patients.’” Caplan said the rules opened the door to doctors questioning patients about whether they attended a Trump rally or declining to provide healthcare to a veteran because they wore a button critical of JD Vance or voiced support for gay rights.
“Those views aren’t relevant to caring for patients. So why would we put anyone at risk of losing care that way?” Caplan said.
During the 2024 presidential campaign and throughout the early months of his second term, Trump repeatedly made threats against a host of people whom he saw as his political antagonists, including senators, judges and then president Joe Biden. He called journalists and Democrats “the enemy within”.
In interviews, veterans said the impact of the new policy would probably fall hardest on female veterans, LGBTQ+ veterans and those who live in rural areas where there are fewer doctors overall. “I’m lucky. I have my choice of three clinics,” said Tia Christopher, a navy veteran who reported being raped in service in 2000.
Based in Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania, Christopher advocates on behalf of military sexual trauma survivors throughout the country. Under the new policy, some may have to register at a hospital in another region and travel more than a hundred miles to see a doctor. It “could have a huge ripple effect”, she said.
As concerned as they were about the new policies themselves, medical experts were equally worried about the way they came about. Sources at multiple VA hospitals, speaking on condition of anonymity because of fear of retaliation, told the Guardian that the rule changes were imposed without consultation with the system’s doctors – a characterization the VA’s Kasperowicz did not dispute.
Such a move would run counter to standards established by the Joint Commission, a non-profit organization that accredits hospitals. Kasperowicz said the agency worked with the Joint Commission “to ensure these changes would have no impact on VA’s accreditation”.
At its annual convention in Chicago this week, the American Medical Association’s 733-member policymaking body passed a resolution reaffirming “its commitment to medical staff self-governance … and urges all healthcare institutions, including the US Department of Veterans Affairs, to ensure that any amendments to medical staff bylaws are subject to approval by medical staff in accordance with Joint Commission standards”.
The changes are part of a larger attack on the independence of medicine and science by the Trump administration, Caplan said, which has included restrictions and cuts at the National Institutes of Health and the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, where the secretary of the Department of Health and Human Services, Robert F Kennedy Jr, last week fired every member of a key panel that advises the government on vaccines. The Guardian has earlier reported on a VA edict forbidding agency researchers from publishing in scientific journals without clearance from the agency’s political appointees.
https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2025/jun/16/va-doctors-refuse-treat-patients
This is disgusting, if implemented.
Declining treatment of individuals, VETERANS no less, based on marital status or political opinion is barbaric.
Refusing to patronize a business based on their politics is one thing, but refusing medical care is absurd and would seem counter to the Hippocratic Oath. Then again, I wouldn’t want to be treated by a “doctor” who was dumb enough to buy into the whole MAGA thing.
Another day, another step further away from what America was founded to be.
Seems it’s a done deal. Policies now allow for types of discrimination. Though someone would still have to invoke such now-allowable discrimination.
Utterly Un-American.
“Until the recent changes, VA hospitals’ bylaws said that medical staff could not discriminate against patients “on the basis of race, age, color, sex, religion, national origin, politics, marital status or disability in any employment matter”. Now, several of those items – including “national origin,” “politics” and “marital status” – have been removed from that list.
Similarly, the bylaw on “decisions regarding medical staff membership” no longer forbids VA hospitals from discriminating against candidates for staff positions based on national origin, sexual orientation, marital status, membership in a labor organization or “lawful political party affiliation”.
The evil clown car is accelerating.
“What public policy benefit are you seeking by withholding these federal dollars from California?”
Great question for Dumpy. There is none. It’s all revenge. There is no good that will come from withholding funds from CA.
Name one.
Not wise for Gov. Newsom to go toe-to-toe with the Feds, especially when the POTUS has nothing but disdain for our state and wants to exact childish revenge. He IS giving California the middle finger. Gavin is playing with fire if he actually plays any tit-for-tat games with Trump. Gavin is polling at 2% (fifth place amongst the current Dem field). His low numbers could go way up if he is able to work something out with the White House. I don’t think he’s able to do much, but it certainly won’t go well if he continues threatening the Feds. Those who will pay the biggest price: Californians.
Why do you oppose standing up to bullies and fascists?
Where’s your source for “2%?”
If one is going to stand up to bullies and fascists, it must be done with honesty and strength. The “namby-pamby” approach that Gov. Newsom is taking does not come across as genuine…rather scripted in my opinion. On top of that, we have Rep. Carbajal stumbling through a pre-written statement admonishing Sec. Hegseth, then Padilla getting thrown to the ground for no good reason and cuffed….while he’s wearing his freshly washed “Mom” jeans. None of those three have had a good week on a national level, but it works for their base.
The 2% polling numbers were from a couple of weeks ago, and are up to 6-7% now…so at least Gavin is rising in the polls.
BEES all of them are more honorable and manly )or whatever the Mom jeans jab was) than you MAGots.
Still can’t cite that source, huh?
Typical cowardly BEES. Crapping on those trying to stop tyranny and just making up random numbers….. sad.
Sad.
Yes, you are. What kind of person would spend their day online making up things and defending bigoted fascists? Really is a shame.
You become more of a troll with every post.
https://www.kcra.com/article/california-gov-newsom-approval-slides-ppic-poll/65051541
“Newsom’s ratings fall from February
44% of Californians approved of Newsom. This was 8 points behind the previous PPIC survey from February, where Newsom had a 52% approval rating.”
And you think Alex Padilla lacks honesty and strength because he was thrown to the ground by fascist thugs while wearing clean bluejeans?
There is something deeply wrong with you.
I reread what he wrote … I hadn’t realized just HOW stupid it is. He was referring to Newsom’s polling as a 2028 Presidential Dem candidate–which no one smarter than a rutabaga would care a fig about this far out:
https://www.newsweek.com/gavin-newsom-2028-election-odds-poll-2072809
P.S. It’s not even a poll of who people favor as President, but rather “as the face of the Democratic Party”, which is meaningless and measures nothing–26% said that “no one” is the face. In an actual election, that entire 26% could go to Newsom–or anyone else. This is the worst sort of polling nonsense.
Also, AOC led the poll at 26%. Much as I like her, the chances of her actually being the Dem candidate are near nil–there is still a powerful Dem party establishment and there’s no way it will support her … nor would she be a good choice pragmatically to win in a GE, much as I wish that weren’t true.
Here are some different (meaningless at this point) poll numbers:
https://www.nj.com/politics/2025/06/whos-winning-the-trump-vs-newsom-fight-polling-indicates-a-clear-winner.html
” Newsom is leading the race to become the next Democratic nominee, standing at 12% odds, according to online prediction market Kalshi. He is followed by Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez (D-N.Y.) at 10%, former Transportation Secretary Pete Buttigieg at 10%, and Pennsylvania Gov. Josh Shapiro at 6%.”
But here is something that’s not so meaningless:
“84% of Dems say their party should fight Trump more”
Also:
“Americans who are paying the most attention to the protests have opposed Trump sending in the National Guard and Marines by 17 points, while those paying little to no attention support the move by 17 points.”
Which shows the importance of paying attention.
Any excuse to roll over for a Dictator from people like you. STFU with your fake handwringing.
Bend those knees!
Your 2% is complete Blatant Sophistry. Was it a typo, or did you just make it up to sound alarming?
https://californiaglobe.com/fr/new-statewide-polls-finds-a-low-44-newsom-approval-rating/
Pissing matches don’t usually end well, Gavin. But hey, no federal taxes for CA residents? Wow! Do you have a bridge to sell us too?
BASIC – I know reading is really hard for you, but since we all know you don’t do it maybe stop pretending like you have any clue at all about what you’re whining about.
1st sentence, 4th paragraph. I know, I know…. that’s a lot of work, but I did it for you again. You’re welcome.
Oh I read it, sack. All of it. Quit wasting your time.
BASIC – so you “read it” and still don’t understand what the words say? That’s what you’re saying.
Yeah, regarding “wasting time,” I think you’ve wasted too much hanging out online and not parking your rear in a remedial English class.
Dude, get educated please.
Not everyone is a coward, Basic, some people stand up for what’s right.
“Pissing matches don’t usually end well” may be the most self-UNaware thing you’ve ever written here.
effin hell, man.
lol! Good point!
The longer Newsome‘s at the helm, the bigger the crap pile becomes
This Newsome guy sounds awful! Good thing he’s not our governor.
But, in giz’s fantasy world, that someone is.
You mean the punctuation is OK? but you still don’t have a point
The punctuation is fine. What’s YOUR point?
His point is that you’re nitpicking. And yes, he’s right – let’s let Newsome (Newsom) keep floundering. THAT’S his point. It was so straightforward. Where’s the problem other than a typo? Cmon man.
Typos, bad grammar, and abject stupidity are hallmarks of con comments.
BASIC – it’s no surprise that you’re here excusing poor literacy.
The point is though, that no, the Governor is NOT ruining CA as much as you crybaby MAGots think he is. Change your sources of facts and you’ll understand why everyone is always laughing at you brainiacs LOL!
Lefty lib lunacy…
Remind me which party throws ungodly temper tantrums over where their tax dollars go? Now a Dem does it and suddenly it’s “lunacy?” Okay Steeevvveeeeeoooooo
STEVE-O – explain why CA should keep carrying lazy Americans in red states if the Feds are going to cut us off?
Come on, use those smarts of yours.
Why are you such a fan of Big Government picking our pockets to support a bunch of drug addicts and chronically unemployed bums in the South?
On account of them’s his pEoPlE!
Nah, CA easily matches any southern state in terms of “drug addicts and chronically unemployed bums in the South”. We’ve got way more than our share, haven’t you noticed? Add in Oregon and Washington and oh man…not even close.
BASIC – Of course you are wrong.
Overall drug use:
https://www.samhsa.gov/data/sites/default/files/reports/rpt39463/2021NSDUHsaeMaps110122/2021NSDUHsaeMap110122.htm
Drug overdoses by state:
https://www.cdc.gov/nchs/pressroom/sosmap/drug_poisoning_mortality/drug_poisoning.htm
The percentage of welfare recipients in those poor, dumb southern states exceeds that of CA.
https://www.usnews.com/news/best-states/articles/food-stamp-benefits-by-state
Also, again, the percentage of state income dependent on federal aid (the actual topic of this article) is once again, your favorite uneducated red states:
https://usafacts.org/articles/which-states-rely-the-most-on-federal-aid/
You know that you are ALWAYS wrong, so why don’t you at least avoid announcing it? That, or do your homework before coming out publicly with your poor level of critical thinking and reading skills.
He doesn’t go by facts. He goes by his gut, or maybe that last truth-social post he read.
Yeah, so we should be taking care of our own people not sending our money thousands of miles away to people that hate us.
Hey, here’s an idea. Let’s randomly pull people off the street in the Southern States–and drug test them. And if they test positive for opiates let’s deport them to a prison in El Salvador and then give their citizenship to some hard working folks from Mexico. I guarantee that would reduce the crime rate and improve the economy in this states.
The wealthier states should be contributing more to the Feds than the poorer states. Some states, like West Virginia, really need the financial help no matter where it comes from. I had no idea that California “….in fiscal year 2021-22, California provided about $83 billion more to the federal government than it received, nearly three times as much as the next state….” No doubt that that amount was higher in 2023 and 2024. California has always been a generous state, and I don’t see that changing any time soon, regardless of the “threat” to stop chipping in to help out the less-fortunate states.
BEES – so you also necessarily believe that the richest individuals in this country should be contributing a larger percentage of their income than the poorer individuals. Good to hear!
Also, those states make choices. A state is not the same as a person. A state isn’t born into poverty. A state doesn’t have different skin color. Their leaderships CHOSE to cut funding to education and other things that would otherwise make them more prosperous.
So, I really have a hard time feeling sorry for poor, dumb Alabama. Those racist fu*(s deserve to be poor.
Unless something changes, California will continue to fork out billions to support all of the poor, dumb, and racist states. As you say, they deserve to be poor, and those states will have their hands out for free money for most of our lifetimes. It has been that for many years, and will remain that way for m-a-n-y more years. It’s a hard thing to accept, but nothing changes under the sun. BTW, I used to live and work with families in v-e-r-y poor rural areas of several southern states (Florida, Georgia, and Alabama….also short periods of time in Mississippi and Louisiana).
BEES – that’s what this article is about – something might change…..
Anyway, what those states need is to stop voting for Christian-Nationalist racist Cons who choose not to address the roots of poverty.
Blanket hatred toward poor Southern states that did not vote Blue is not going to change their voting habits. I take it that you know Jackson, Mississippi quite well. Jackson voted something like 80% Blue/Kamala, but the whole state went 60% Red/Trump. Proposing to not helping out the people of Jackson is not going to solve the “voting” problem. But, be my guest….try that approach and see where things go (hint: they’ll go “south”).
BEES – no where did I say I hate all people in the South. That’s another stupid lie. Quit doing that.
Sacjon, this *is* a pretty broad statement:
“So, I really have a hard time feeling sorry for poor, dumb Alabama. Those racist fu*(s deserve to be poor.”
I fight with myself all the time to be more accepting and understanding of the other side. Plus, as noted, there are at least some liberal voters in just about every city and town in America.
And Jackson MS’s water crisis needs to be fixed!
BEES – I mean the state officials who made the decisions to be a poor, dumb, racist state, not the individuals themselves.
Yeah, those who voted for this are getting what they asked for, but no, I don’t mean to say everyone in the state is poor, dumb and/or racist. Hope that helps you feel better.
This Anon who called out your broad statement is not Bees! 😉
I have to qualify my own thoughts. I try to not be so hard on SOME of the other side. There are those who are irredeemable.
Hinds County, which contains most of Jackson MS, voted overwhelmingly Democrat.
https://www.clarionledger.com/elections/results/2024-11-05/race/0/mississippi
Ignorance results in voting results like that in red states, which devote only paltry sums to educating their populace.
Dude you are so schizo.
Nothing changes if you bend your knees and put your head in the sand. Also, electing cons will do that to your state, as they want no changes from the current profits to businesses, and thus contributions to them.
Excuse me, they are not “less fortunate”. They are immoral and lazy and more criminal and some, I assume, are good people.