Make Them Own It
How State AGs Can Force the Regime to Defend Its Criminality
It starts with the public face of the government. You visit the website of the Department of Housing and Urban Development, and a banner screams that “The Radical Left are going to shut down the government”1. You get a newsletter from the Department of Veterans Affairs that blames Senate Democrats for the shutdown, which one veteran called “blatant propaganda”¹. Then it gets more personal. An out-of-office email from a federal employee is no longer neutral. Without their consent, it’s been changed to partisan messaging. Some employees at the Department of Education who tried changing it back found it was forcibly reverted2. This isn’t just a few isolated incidents; it’s a coordinated campaign across at least ten executive departments, turning the civil service into a mouthpiece for the regime¹.
Then it gets bolder. The administration sends a letter to major universities proposing a “compact”. In exchange for “substantial and meaningful federal grants,” these schools must freeze tuition, limit the enrollment of foreign students, and prohibit any speech that would “punish, belittle and even spark violence against conservative ideas”3.
Let’s call this what it is. Forcing public employees to spout propaganda is an illegal misuse of government resources. And as Erwin Chemerinsky, the dean of the law school at U.C. Berkeley, wrote in The New York Times, the university compact is “extortion, plain and simple”³.
These are not isolated incidents of political hardball. They are clear, felonious examples of bribery and coercion. And it’s time we started treating them as such.
A Pattern of Unchecked Corruption
The Trump administration is systemically hijacking the federal government. It is using the power of the state not to govern, but to reward loyalty and punish dissent.
The university “compact” is a textbook case of quid pro quo bribery: trading taxpayer-funded federal grants for ideological compliance. It is a demand that universities give up their constitutional right to free speech in exchange for money. This tactic is so coercive that it mirrors a scenario the Supreme Court has already deemed unconstitutional—describing it as a “gun to the head”³.
Simultaneously, the weaponization of official government communications—from the websites of the Small Business Administration and HUD to newsletters from the Department of Veterans Affairs—turns career civil servants into unwilling propagandists¹. This coordinated effort is a potential violation of the Hatch Act, which limits the political activities of federal employees. Experts in public policy have called the move “incredibly coercive and invasive,” with one stating they’ve “never heard of any US government... requiring employees to use partisan language”². Ethics watchdogs have called the messaging “wildly inappropriate” and a violation of the law¹.
So why are they getting away with it?
The Immunity Shield They Hide Behind
For decades, a simple constitutional principle has given federal officials a sense of invulnerability: the Supremacy Clause.
In layman’s terms, the Supremacy Clause is the federal government’s trump card. It establishes that federal law and the actions of federal officials carrying out their duties supersede state and local laws. This has been interpreted as an iron shield, making it nearly impossible for a state Attorney General to prosecute a federal official for actions taken in their official capacity.
The administration believes this shield is absolute. They believe it gives them the right to engage in extortion, bribery, and propaganda, confident that no state prosecutor can touch them. We have allowed this concept of federal supremacy to be twisted into a license for federal criminality. It’s time to call their bluff.
The Strategy: Shatter the Shield
State Attorneys General must act despite the Supremacy Clause. They have the power and the tools to fight back right now.
Use State Laws: AGs in states like New York, California, and Maryland can bring charges under their own powerful statutes—state-level RICO acts, bribery laws, and Hatch Act equivalents.
Bring the Indictments: Target the officials who orchestrated these schemes. The Secretary of Education. The White House advisers who drafted the university compact. Name the crime, and name the criminals.
Force the Argument: The legal battle must be centered on a new interpretation: the Supremacy Clause was designed to protect the lawful execution of federal duties, not to provide a sanctuary for criminal acts. Bribery is not a lawful duty. Extortion is not in a cabinet secretary’s job description. Forcing civil servants to violate the Hatch Act is not a legitimate government function.
The Political Checkmate: Make Them Own Their Criminality
A legal victory in the Supreme Court will be a long, arduous fight and quite likely never come. But the political victory is immediate, and it is devastating.
When a state AG indicts a federal official for bribery, the administration will be caught in a trap of its own making. It will have two choices:
Allow the case to proceed in state court and risk a conviction.
Intervene. Order the Department of Justice to step in and quash the indictment, claiming federal immunity under the Supremacy Clause.
When they inevitably choose the second option, they will be forced to make our argument for us. The national conversation will no longer be about constitutional theory. The headlines will be simple and damning:
“TRUMP ADMIN CLAIMS IT’S ABOVE THE LAW, KILLS STATE BRIBERY CASE”
“DOJ FORCED TO INTERVENE TO PROTECT OFFICIAL ACCUSED OF EXTORTING UNIVERSITIES”
They will have to publicly argue, through legal filings and press conferences, that they have a right to be criminals. They will have to tell the American people that state laws against bribery and corruption do not apply to them. It is a politically toxic, indefensible position that will expose the rotten core of their regime for all to see.
A Call to Action
This strategy is not a fantasy. It is a demand we must make of our elected officials. We must create a national chorus calling on our state-level defenders of the law to step up and fight.
Find your State Attorney General.
Call their office. Write them emails. Flood their social media.
Deliver a unified message: “We demand you use your power under state law to prosecute federal corruption. Force them to defend their criminality in public. Make them own it.”
The old rules are gone. The federal government will not police itself. The fight for the rule of law must be waged from the outside, by the states. Let them kill the case. Let them go to court and argue for their immunity from the law. Let them tell America, unequivocally, that they reserve the right to be criminals.
We’re waiting.
This Strategy Is a Weapon. It’s Time to Use It.
An idea is a start. Action is what wins the fight. If you’re ready to move from outrage to offense, then stand with us. The American Manifesto is the shadow comms shop for this fight. We provide the disciplined strategy and the relentless messaging needed to hold power accountable and win.
Every subscription is an act of resistance. It fuels this work, sharpens our weapons for the information war, and helps us mobilize the patriots needed to defend our republic. Join the fight.
Force Accountability. Fight Back. Win.
Your Move — We Need to Hear From You
This strategy is a living document, and it gets stronger with every American who joins the fight. We need to hear from you in the comments:
Do you agree that a high-stakes legal and political strategy like this is the right approach, or do you still worry about the risks? What’s the biggest barrier you see?
Which State Attorney General do you believe would be most likely to take on a fight like this, and why?
This article focuses on bribery and propaganda, but what other clear abuses of federal power do you think could be prosecuted at the state level?
How can we best frame this for the public? What is the single most powerful way to explain why a state AG indicting a federal official is a defense of the law, not a violation of it?
What angle did we miss? If you have other ideas for legal pressure points or key messages, we want to hear them.
Swenson, A., AP News - October 2, 2025 - Federal agencies’ messaging blames Democrats for shutdown.
This report demonstrates the widespread and coordinated nature of the partisan messaging, showing that at least ten executive departments used official public-facing websites and communications to blame Democrats for the government shutdown.
Feiger, L. & D’Ignazio, V., WIRED - October 2, 2025 - Government Workers Say Their Out-of-Office Replies Were Forcibly Changed to Blame Democrats for Shutdown.
This article provides the core evidence of federal employees at the Department of Education having their out-of-office messages changed without consent to partisan propaganda, a potential violation of the Hatch Act.
Chemerinsky, E., The New York Times - October 2, 2025 - Opinion | Trump’s ‘Compact’ With Universities Is Just Extortion.
This op-ed by a constitutional law expert frames the administration’s “compact” with universities as unconstitutional extortion and bribery, arguing it coerces schools into giving up their First Amendment rights.
Superb strategery, my friend!
Our officials here in Maine are standing firm. :)