“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.
This isn’t mere resistance for resistance’s sake; it’s a constitutional imperative. The Tenth Amendment reserves to the states all powers not delegated to the federal government. As the federal executive has pushed the limits of its authority, states have reasserted their legal rights, serving as both laboratories of democracy and as bulwarks against centralized overreach.
Local Government: The Forgotten Center
While states have garnered most of the national attention, local governments—cities, counties, school boards—have often borne the brunt of policy implementation, especially during moments of federal failure. COVID-19 was a striking example. In the early days of the pandemic, when federal guidance was slow, inconsistent, or absent, local leaders made difficult decisions about lockdowns, mask mandates, and school closures. Mayors, public health commissioners, and city councils effectively became the front lines of national crisis response.
Likewise, in the wake of increasing incidents of gun violence and the lack of meaningful federal reform, cities like Chicago, Denver, and San Jose have enacted local gun safety ordinances. Sanctuary cities have provided protections for undocumented residents in defiance of federal threats. School districts have adopted inclusive curricula and health mandates that reflect local values rather than national talking points.
This trend underscores a pivotal shift: the moral and administrative authority of American governance is being localized. While Washington spirals into partisanship and paralysis, local governments are quietly becoming the stewards of American civic values.
Can the Federal Government Maintain Its Obligations?
At the heart of the American social contract is the expectation that the federal government will provide certain universal goods: justice, security, the general welfare. The Trump administration’s living legacy, however, has exposed how fragile those obligations can become under a politicized and destabilized executive.
Whether through the manipulation of the Department of Justice for political ends, the withdrawal from international agreements, or the undermining of science in public health, the perception has grown that the federal center is not holding. Public trust in national institutions has reached historic lows, and even the courts—long seen as impartial arbiters—are now viewed through a partisan lens.
It is doubtful whether a single administration can reverse this erosion. The next presidential administration will need to do more than issue policy corrections; it must reestablish a culture of institutional humility and transparency. It must rehabilitate public trust—not just in federal leadership, but in the very idea that national governance can be a force for equitable and effective policy.
This effort will require unprecedented cooperation with states and municipalities. It must treat them not as subordinate entities, but as partners. Only then can the obligations of justice, welfare, and security be fulfilled in a meaningful, modern sense.
The Risks of a Fragmented Union
Of course, decentralization carries its own risks. The uneven application of rights and services can deepen regional inequalities and exacerbate political polarization. When a woman’s reproductive rights or a child’s access to inclusive education vary by ZIP code, the principle of equal protection under the law is tested. States’ rights, historically invoked to preserve segregation or restrict civil liberties, are not an unambiguous good.
But in the current climate, the alternative—a runaway federal executive with no counterbalance—is arguably worse. Local and state assertion, when coupled with federal reform, can create a more adaptable and resilient governance structure. The goal should not be to weaken the federal government, but to distribute power in ways that allow the system to survive disruption.
A New Center Must Be Found
Yeats’s apocalyptic vision ends with a haunting question: “And what rough beast, its hour come round at last, slouches towards Bethlehem to be born?” In times of great political stress, the center may not hold in its current form—but that does not mean it must fall apart.
The American center—the place where justice, liberty, and common purpose converge—can hold. But it will not look like it used to. It will be polycentric. It will include the governor as much as the president, the mayor as much as the senator, the school board as much as the Supreme Court. It will require new models of intergovernmental collaboration, new legal theories of federalism, and above all, a recommitment to shared democratic norms.
In this climate of federal overreach and executive volatility, it is not weakness but wisdom that compels us to look to states and cities. They are not just reacting to the dysfunction of Washington; they are reconstructing the center from the margins. If the center is to hold, it must be built with new bricks—local, diverse, pragmatic, and unyielding in the face of authoritarian drift.
The future of American governance lies not in a singular power, but in the strength of its many parts. In the voices of local leaders, the decisions of state legislatures, and the courage of everyday citizens, a new center is emerging. And it can hold.
– Use Our Intel
