Italy Thwarts E.U. Lawmakers Inspecting an Off-Shore Migrant Centre

On 17 June, 2026, the E.U. formally adopted a federal law, the Return Regulation, that allows states to set up “return hubs” outside of the E.U. for the returning of migrants back to their respective countries. On 29 June, 2026, elected representative in the Greens/EFA party in the E.U.’s parliament “were prevented from carrying out a full inspection of the Italian-run migrant detention centre in Gjadër, northwest Albania—a facility at the center of one of [the E.U.’s] most debated offshore migration experiments.”[1] Even though Albanian police patrolled the perimeter of the facility, that it was Italian-run means that state employees, rather than the foreign police, who were thwarting federal lawmakers in their inspection of the facility even though a federal law rendered the facility legal under federal law. Such obstructionist behavior does not bode well for the E.U.’s federal system, wherein both the federal and state legislative bodies are legitimate.

Rep. Tineke Strik, of the Greens/EFA party, said at the time of the visit, “Today’s visit was very disappointing and disgraceful. The staff really created a lot of obstacles for us.”[2] By “staff,” she likely was referring to the Italians running the facility rather than to the Albanian police outside, for police are never referred to as staff. Also, Albania’s Interior Ministry had “previously stated that the Gjadër centre operates as Italian territory, with Albanian police responsible solely for perimeter security.”[3] So managers from the E.U. state of Italy were the problem from the perspective of the federal delegation. Rep. Strik went on to explain, “We didn’t get any data, they didn’t answer any questions, and we were not allowed to really go into the cells and see what the situation is like.”[4] That a check on the Italian staff by federal officials was needed is evident from Rep. Strik’s finding: “For the people we did manage to speak to here, it’s clear they have problems asking for asylum, and many of them don’t see any way out of a failed system.”[5] Had the elected representatives in the Parliament known on 17 June that the system was “failed,” the proposed legislation likely would have been defeated. After the visit on 29 June, it is likely that a significant number of the representatives who had voted yes were suffering “buyer’s remorse.” So, the visit and inspection served a legitimate and thus valid purpose, and the obstruction that the lawmakers encountered from the Italian staff was inappropriate.

That the visit was stymied by state employees is significant from the standpoint of the E.U.’s federal system as a whole, for one of the chief benefits of federalism is that the federal level can act as a check on abuses of power at the state level, and vice versa. Checks can and should work in both directions for liberty to be protected from tyranny, which can occur at both levels in a federal system, and for the legitimacy of both levels. In fact, that the states rather than E.U. citizens are represented in the European Council (and U.S. states are represented in the U.S. Senate, which is founded on principles of international rather than national law) gives the state level a direct check on federal encroachments on the prerogatives of the several states. That E.U. law (excluding directives, which reply on implementation by the state governments) can have direct effect anywhere on E.U. territory, including inside the Italian detention centre in Albania, acts as a check on the power of states, for they are only semi-sovereign in the E.U. Even qualified-majority voting in the European Council and the Council of Ministers can be viewed as a check on a willful governor (e.g., Viktor Orbán) of a state, whereas the principle of unanimity blocks such a check and thus should be eliminated from the E.U.’s basic legal framework.

To be sure, perhaps the E.U.’s Commission would have been more appropriate than legislators in the Parliament in inspecting the Italian facility, for the Commission is the Union’s executive branch, which sees that federal laws, directives, and regulations are implemented whether by federal agencies or state governments. In contrast, lawmakers—legislators—are forward oriented in terms of creating new law. Had a delegation from the Commission have gone and been stymied, the Commission could have recommended to the bicameral Parliament and European Council that the Return Law be amended in some way that would better protect the human rights of the migrants and require state employees to allow inspections with full disclosure of information to federal officials visiting such facilities “off-shore.” Furthermore, it would be rather unwise for candidate states such as Albania, hosting such facilities to block E.U. officials from entering the facilities run by E.U. states. Fortunately, Albania kept clear of such obstructionism, and the blame can be put squarely on the E.U. state of Italy.

Interestingly, just hours before writing this essay, I showed my book on the E.U. and U.S. federal systems, entitled Essays on Two Federal Empires, whose cover-picture depicts the star-studded flags of the E.U. and U.S. (the stars on both represent states), to a young college student newly arrived in California from Italy. She visibly bristled as if in abject denial when she looked intensely at the picture on the cover. I wonder whether the staff at the Italian facility in Albania presumed that E.U. lawmakers had no right to inspect an Italian facility even though Italy was at the time a semi-sovereign state in the E.U.’s federal system. It was obvious to me that the young woman would barely speak to me after seeing my book’s cover, so obdurate was her state of ideological denial that she may even have presumed that the arrogance was mine. Political socialization, which bears on equivalences, evidently starts early.

---

1. Rebecca Rommen, “EU Lawmakers Say They Were Blocked from Fully Inspecting Italy’s Migrant Detention Centre in Albania,” Euronews.com, 29 June, 2026.
2. Ibid.
3. Ibid.
4. Ibid.
5. Ibid.

E.U. Emergency Assistance to Venezuela: Coordinating Federalism

Whereas when the U.S. responds to natural disasters abroad, the resources of all 50 states are combined in a federal-level response, the E.U.’s Civil Protection Mechanism limits the federal level to coordination and instead relies on the states to deploy resources, including personal. I contend that the European arrangement is more in keeping with federalism than is the federal-only arrangement of the Americans. Moreover, involvement at both federal and state levels reflects and facilitates one of the benefits of federalism, wherein each level has the strength to act as a check on the other. Programs in which the federal level coordinates and the state governments deploy can help keep a federal system from lapsing into a “one-size-fits-all” consolidated rather than federal system. The U.S. could stand to take a lesson in this respect.

Severely impacted by earthquakes of 7.2 and 7.5 magnitude and with more than 50,000 people still missing, Venezuela welcomed the first E.U. emergency responders on 27 June, 2026. Deploying “rescue teams and other emergency assistance to Venezuela,” the European Commission relied initially on eight states who actually did the deploying, with the Commission only coordinating for a united response.[1] In other words, the eight states “mobilized for deployment through the E.U. civil protection mechanism.”[2] Separately, the E.U. “also activated its Copernicus satellite service to ‘emergency mapping mode,’ which provides free of charge data in cases of natural and man-made disasters around the world.”[3] The E.U. thus acted on its own with regard to one program while being limited to activating and coordinating state-level deployments in another program. In other words, it was not a federal-only show.

To be sure, direct involvement of state governments abroad could potentially destabilize federal foreign policy and even undercut it, as was the case when Viktor Orbán of the E.U. state of Hungary visited Russian President Putin in Moscow as the Van Der Leyen administration was attempting to pressure Putin into pulling his troops and weapons out of Ukraine. It can be asked, therefore, whether the government officials in Caracas would feel obliged to the E.U. or to any of the state governments as a result of the emergency assistance. If the latter, then limiting the Commission to merely coordinating, rather than sending its own personnel and resources, could be risky in terms of the E.U. being able to negotiate with foreign governments in regard to federal foreign policy.

Assuming the risk is nugatory, then the benefits of the federal-level institution merely activating and then coordinating to the federal system itself could be realized without much of a drawback. The federal level in a federal system wherein governmental sovereignty is divided between the two levels (i.e., not a confederation, in which the states are fully sovereign) is in an excellent position to coordinate, including taking the decision to activate a program, and the state-level governments are well suited to deploying personnel and resources, and the benefit to those states in terms of federalism lies in taking part rather than remaining on the sidelines while federal agencies act and thus gain power that could, if aggregated over time, result in an unbalanced federal system in which power at the federal level enables it to dominate the state governments such that the latter could no longer act as a check on the power wielded at the federal level.

When the E.U. activated its two programs to help Venezuela with the Commission restrained to coordinating state-level deployments, the U.S. was about to celebrate 250 years since thirteen British colonies in North America declared themselves to be sovereign countries. Those countries did not even ratify a treaty that established a confederation of continued national sovereignties under the Articles of Confederation until 1781, and then to delegate some of their respective governmental sovereignties until eight years after the commencement of the Articles. By late June, 2026, however, when the Commission activated its two programs for the benefit of Venezuelans by relying on state-level deployments in one of the programs, the American federal system of dual sovereignty had gone severely off-track due to too much of an imbalance of power between the Union and the states. The consolidation of power by the U.S. at the expense of that of the state governments impaired the ability of the latter to act as a check on abuses of power at the federal level. It is in precisely this respect that the Commission’s coordinating role is so important, lest the E.U. follow its American cousin towards a lopsided federalism, for balance is a key feature of this system of public governance.

---

1. Lucy Davalou, “Europe Send Search and Rescue Personnel to Venezuela in Response to Massive Quakes,” Euronews.com, 27 June, 2026.
2. Ibid.
3. Ibid.

The E.U.’s Immigration “ICE”: The Pros and Cons of State Implementation

On 1 June, 2026, the E.U.’s two legislative chambers agreed informally on text for a law called Return Regulation, which is oriented to facilitating the return of illegal aliens to their respective countries. Both The European Council, the “upper chamber,” and the European Parliament, the “lower” legislative “chamber” (roughly corresponding to the U.S. Senate and the U.S. House of Representatives, respectively) worked in what in American parlance is called a Congressional reconciliation or conference committee to agree to text enabling state police to enter the domiciles of illegal immigrants and state governments to set up detention centers outside of the European Union. That the federal law relegates implementation to the states illustrates just how different E.U. federalism differs from U.S. federalism even though both systems are “modern” rather than confederal in that governmental sovereignty in both unions is split between the federal and state levels. Even though the E.U. after thirty years was like the U.S. after its first thirty years in that most of that sovereignty was at the state level, the use of state governments to implement a federal law differentiates the European federal system from the American one. Both advantages and disadvantages go with leaving implementation largely up to the states.

Imagine if the American Congress had passed a law leaving it up to the state governments to exercise “ICE” enforcement powers to rid the Union of illegal immigrants. In U.S. President Trump’s second term in office, Florida would jump at the chance, whereas states such as Massachusetts, Illinois, and California would refuse to implement the federal law. It would not be difficult to surmise how illegal aliens would work around such a patchwork, at least those with enough money to move to a more preferential state. As a result, the federal rationale—that of eliminating illegal immigrants from U.S. soil—would be compromised. However, the differing political-ideological centers-of-gravity in the several states would get more breathing room, and in empire-scale political unions such as the U.S. and E.U., one legislative size does not fit all. When one is imposed, internal pressure builds up that could eventually blow such a union apart.

Even in the E.U., in which the new law reflected “a broader political shift . . . sometimes backed by the far right . . . pushing for a tougher approach to migration,” states could be said to differ as to the political significance of the far right.[1] Some state governments may for example not find much internal political support for a state law that enables police to search a “place of residence or other relevant premises” of illegal migrants, especially as some NGOs (non-governmental organizations) compared “to the notorious raids conducted by the US Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE).”[2] It is not as if the two federal legislative chambers passed the federal law under the assumption that it would be strenuously implemented by every state. “The provision is vague on purpose, to allow a broad interpretation in the different member states. It opens the doors to home raids and also raids in the premises of associations helping migrants and healthcare facilities,” Eleonora Celoria with Asgi, a state-level association of legal experts said at the time of the law’s passage.[3] Celoria’s depiction of the implications highlight just how politically and ethically controversial the law is, and this, I submit, is precisely why the provision is vague on purpose. States could be anticipated to differ on how the law should be implemented “on the ground.” Even though the maximum legal detention period for illegal immigrants waiting to be expatriated back to their respective countries is “extended from six months to two years, with a possible six-month extension and an unlimited duration for persons considered as posing a security risk,” clearly not every state legislature would go with the maximus. The comment made by MEP Mélissa Camara (of the European Parliament) that the legislative text serves “a xenophobic ideology” may resonate more in some states than in others.[4] Hence, the E.U.’s federal system could be said to be healthier than its U.S. counterpart at the time (2026) because the E.U states were legislatively given more breathing room in which to tailor the federal law according to their respective political cultures.

The astute reader may be waiting for “the other shoe to drop,” meaning: what’s the catch? According to E.U. figures, “only 29% of migrants with no legal right to remain” in the E.U “leave the EU.”[5] Illegals were a big problem facing the Union, and leaving enforcement up to whether a given state government favors the proposed legislative text risks creating a legal loophole wherein illegal migrants could simply move to another state where enforcement is lax or utterly lacking. The intentional vagueness in the legislative text makes even no enforcement possible. In California at the time, I was surprised to see a sign outside a popular pizza restaurant indicating that the workers reserved the right to refuse service and entry to ICE police, as if enforcement of U.S. immigration law were up to restaurant workers. Were such law up to the government of California, given the high proportion of registered Democrats over Republicans, it is a safe bet that no enforcement could be passed by the California Senate and Assembly. Contrast this with states such as Oklahoma, Alabama, and Florida! I would even venture to posit that the ideological distance on the issue of illegal immigration between those three states and California is more than existed at the time between E.U. states on the same issue: how, or even whether, illegal immigration should be expunged.

Perhaps my thesis can be generalized to say that giving states in an empire-scale union enough breathing room is inversely related to efficacy at the federal, or Union level. Federalism is a messy business in part because judgment is requisite; there are few easy answers in how to navigate the common good (of the political union) while seeing to it that the states have enough breathing room so their respective residents do not feel suffocated by a one-size-fits-all federal mentality. In other words, modern federalism, whose signature attribute is dual sovereignty, can be said to involve a balancing act. As of 2026, it could be said that the E.U. was doing a better job at that than was the U.S., but at what cost in terms of the interests of the European Union as a whole, which is not a mere aggregate of state interests? This is a dynamic unique to the empire-level, so it does not pertain to E.U. states that have adopted federal systems of their own. No large U.S. states are themselves federal, though in a nod to the Europeans such a prospect is worth entertaining. Even so, the heterogeneity across an empire of 27 or 50 republics dwarfs that which exists even within a large E.U. or U.S. state. This is yet another reason why the E.U. and U.S. should be compared and contrasted, rather than treating a large state in one union as equivalent to the other union. In other words, the U.S. is not a France with a large back yard that stretches across a continent and beyond. Within such an expanse of land, views on immigration can be expected to vary markedly from state to state.

---

1. Vincenzo Genovese, “EU Greenlights Controversial Return Hubs in ‘Strictest-Ever’ New Migration Law,” Euronews.com, 1 June 2026.
2. Ibid.
3. Ibid.
4. Ibid.
5. Ibid.

California and Florida: Different Political Cultures in the U.S.

As evinced by Canada’s prime minister Mark Carney likening a planned referendum on whether Alberta should vote to separate from the rest of Canada to “Brexit,” in which Britain seceded from the E.U., as if the UK in the European Union were equivalent to Alberta in Canada, political category mistakes can run rampant without being detected as such. Referring to the referendum in the province, Carney said, “That is a very dangerous bluff.” He was “pointing to the turmoil that followed the United Kingdom’s vote to leave the European Union.”[1] The implied false equivalence of Canada and the E.U., as if the former too had been formed out of countries, is as incorrect as that which Carney was more directly assuming between Alberta and Britain. A region of a country, even if the latter has a federal system, is not equivalent to a country that joins a political union such as the E.U. and U.S. That Britain was once the host kingdom in the British Empire, and thus equivalent to other members of the empire, including Ireland and Virginia, does not mean that the UK as a state in the E.U. was equivalent to the latter, or to other political unions consisting of early-modern-scale countries.

Even before they became independent countries, the thirteen British colonies that would rebel were considered to be an empire within the British empire, and such an incongruity was correctly believed to render the latter unstable[2]. Empires consist of (early-modern) kingdom-scale polities, rather than of empires. The distinction between a kingdom and empire was well established, as in Althusius’s 1603 book, Political Digest, on federalism. It would not surprise Althusius at all that the countries that became members of the U.S. would continue to have their own political cultures rather than be fully homogenized at the empire-level.  The ideological conviction that the 50 states are somehow very similar culturally, as if linguistics were the exclusive basis of cultural differences, and thus that the U.S. is equivalent to an E.U. state, is empirically false (as are most ideological biases).

On May 27, 2026, the head of government of California vowed “to tax any payouts that California residents receive from a $1.776 billion ‘anti-weaponization’ fund that Donald Trump secured in a settlement with his own [U.S.] Justice Department.”[3] Newsom said, “Anyone from California that receives any of those funds, we want to tax 100 percent of those proceeds.” A similar proposal had been made in New York by NY Senator Mike Gianaris. It would be a grave mistake to assume that such a bill were also being entertained by the Florida legislature, and the reason goes beyond partisanship between the two major American political parties.

That Newsom would make public his proposal means that he believed that the political center of gravity in California favored going after not just corruption generally, but also efforts to reward people who had rioted at the federal Capitol building as the states’ respective votes for U.S. president were being counted in 2020. State populations differed appreciably on the ideology behind Trump’s “MAGA” populist movement. That movement had a much lower percentage of believers in say California and Massachusetts, than in Florida and Oklahoma. Alaska and Hawaii provide yet another stark contrast on how pervasive support for MAGA was as of 2026.

The sheer ideological difference between the centers of political gravity of those two republics resonates with the theoretical claim that the heterogeneity between kingdom-level polities in an empire is not just a matter of degree, but, rather, a leap, from the cultural differences that exist within any one of those polities. This is why federalism, which intentionally includes governmental means of managing inter-state cultural diversity, originated with empires rather than kingdoms, and is better suited to empires even though some early-modern-scale kingdom-level polities have federal systems (e.g., Germany, Switzerland, Belgium). The cultural differences between E.U. states is a leap rather than just a degree more than such differences within Germany and even Belgium within which different languages are spoken (in Flanders and Wallonia, respectively). The practical need to take account of cultural differences is greater in E.U. governance than at the state level, and thus federalism is more valuable—more fitting—at the E.U.-state interface than within a given state.

Back to the U.S., on the very day on which Newsom announced his proposal to tax all of the proceeds of Trump’s “slush fund” to his base that had sought to interfere with the role of Congress in counting the ballots of electors from the States for in the federal presidential election, Ron DeSantis, the head of Florida’s government, announced his proposed tax cut that would vastly increase the exemption from $50,000 to $250,000 on property taxes in Florida. Ben Albritton, the president of the Florida Senate, said, “I can’t think of a more meaningful way to celebrate America’s 250 [year anniversary of the Declaration of Independence than] the passage of $250,000 in tax relief for every Florida homeowner.”[4] Both men were betting that any drop in school budgets from the drop in tax revenue would be less important to most voters than paying less in property taxes. Here again, a distinct political ideology was in play—one that would get considerably less broadcast air-time in California where proportionally more voters believed in a more expansive role of government and thus for government spending by which public goods could be provided even if taxes are high. To be sure, the ideological divide between favoring tax-cuts versus government spending on public goods is an old one; my point is that the peoples in the American states differed, at least as of 2026, significantly on which side should be valued more. In fact, the European states may have differed much less in this respect even though different languages were spoken! So much for the false claim that cultural differences depend on linguistic differences! Belgium and the Netherlands were much more alike on this axis of political ideology that were California and Florida. Moreover, the differences within a given state, whether of the E.U. or U.S., were a leap down from the differences between the states.

Therefore, Alberta leaving Canada (or the southern region known as Egypt leaving Illinois—which has been attempted five times in Illinois history) is not like Britain seceding from the Union. Even though Canada’s regions admittedly may differ culturally, an empire consists of many polities and thus the diversity between the polities in an empire is greater than in Canada. Put another way, Canada would come into the U.S. as states just as every other country that has become a member of the U.S. has (and territories that became states are legally assumed to have been sovereign countries). Neither Texas nor Hawaii merged with the existing U.S., so neither would Canada merge with the United States. Neither would Canada come in as just one state, but this is not to say that each province would translate into a state; even if each one would, Canada still could not be classified as an empire (unlike the E.U. and U.S., both of which have many country-level republics).  

---

1. Mike Blanchfield and Sue Allan, “Carney Warms Alberta Not to Pull a “Brexit,” Politico, May 25, 2026.
2. Skip Worden, British Colonies Forge an American Empire.

3.Tyler Katzenberger and Nick Reisman, “Newsom Vows 100 Percent Tax on DOJ ‘Anti-Weaponization Fund’ Payouts,” Politico, May 27, 2026.
4.. Gary Fineout, “In One of His Final Acts, DeSantis Calls For Vote on Sweeping Florida Property Tax Cut,” Politico, May 27, 2026.

The E.U.: A Political Union

Strong’s The Antifederalist is a series of essays critical of the American federal system in which governmental sovereignty is “dual,” meaning that both the Union and the member-states have at least some such sovereignty that the other cannot abolish or override. Had more credence been paid to the arguments in that text, perhaps the state governments would have more power at the federal level to protect their retained sovereignty from federal encroachment. The drafting of the E.U. paid more heed to those arguments in terms of safeguarding state sovereignty by considerable direct involvement of state officials at the federal level. Even so, Euroskeptics have warned of a centralized state in the process, and the U.S. has furnished them with an actual instance of a nearly consolidated empire-scale federal system. The warnings may thus be valid even with the additional safeguards that the E.U. has but the U.S. lacks, at least as of 2026, but claims that the E.U. does not have a federal system and is not a political union of states ring hollow as they are utterly false. So too, but the way, is the mislabeling of the E.U. as a bloc. The E.U.’s parliament alone knocks out all three of these ideological claims.

E.U. citizens elect representatives to the parliament, just as U.S. citizens elect representatives to the U.S. House of Representatives. This itself is inherently political, rather than merely economic, in nature.The resolutions and laws passed by the parliament are also not limited to economic measures. As a case in point, the parliament’s resolutions against the government of Azerbaijan furnish us with a case in point.

By May 1, 2026, the E.U.’s parliament had adopted 14 resolutions critical of Azerbaijan. The latest of those “called for the right of return of Armenians who [had] fled the region in 2023 after an armed conflict [had broken] out over a disputed region. [The resolution] described the detention of Armenian prisoners of war by Azerbaijan as ‘unjust’ and urged their ‘immediate and unconditional release.’”[1] Both the detention and the parliament’s reaction to it are inherently political, rather than concerning trade. Put another way, that which is decried as unjust in the resolution is political; it is not as if the parliament’s resolution opposed an unjust trading agreement between the E.U. and Azerbaijan.

The E.U.’s parliament was even viewed by the government of Azerbaijan as a political (legislative) chamber rather than as a trading organization befitting a bloc. “Hikmet Hajiyev, assistant to the President of Azerbaijan and head of the Foreign Policy Affairs Department of the Presidential Administration, called the European Parliament resolution as ‘a diplomatic disgrace and diplomatic failure,’ and accused members of the parliament of ‘creating obstacles to a peace process.”[2] Besides the fact that peace is a political rather than an economic concept, that the European Parliament was viewed as having engaged in diplomacy, albeit allegedly very badly according to Hajiyev, implies the more fundamental or basic understanding that the parliament is a political body. Diplomacy is that which governments conduct on political matters in international relations.

Therefore, the European Parliament has been viewed by government officials of other countries as a political body engaging in political acts, rather than as a bloc or international organization oriented to trade. As for how that chamber views itself, Roberta Metsola, who is the “Speaker” (translated into American terms for easy comparison) or elected head of the European Parliament, pushed back against the charge that the representatives in that legislative chamber had been obsessing on Azerbaijan by making explicit the political nature of the parliament. Heading to the chamber’s floor to make an impromptu statement, Metsola insisted, “We will never change the way we work, even if it is uncomfortable,” meaning not convenient for people in other countries.[3] Of utmost importance in terms of the parliament’s very legitimacy politically, she had first said: “The European Parliament is a directly elected democratic body, with resolutions adopted by a majority.”[4] The assertion that the E.U. is indeed a political union is satisfied by this statement alone, for that which Metsola described is inherently political.

Furthermore, that the body’s representatives are directly elected, rather than appointed by state governments, means that the E.U.’s federal level is not merely a collection or bloc of states. Just as E.U. law has direct effect on E.U. citizens (and other residents and even tourists), so too do E.U. citizens have political access via elected representatives at the federal level, rather than just through state officials in the European Council and the Council of Ministers. Also, through those elected representatives, E.U. citizens can kick out an existing administration at the Commission without the say of state officials.

In short, whereas the European Council and the Council of Ministers, like the U.S. Senate, are founded on international principles, the European Parliament, like the U.S. House of Representatives, is national and thus governmental, in its constitutive principles. This hybrid federal system, differing as it does from a confederation of sovereign states, was invented by political compromise in 1787 in Philadelphia, Pennsylvania and is detailed in James Madison’s Notes.

To be sure, Euroskeptics would surely bolt from these arguments in utter fury, but I contend that the promulgated axis of political comparison is valid even if it is seldom uncovered and made explicit. The distending nature of ideology finds it easy to engage in denial, especially in the domains of politics and religion. Indeed, the E.U. itself is firmly within the political domain, and on this point Hajiyev and Metsola are in agreement, for it is the very premise on which the statements of both officials are based. San Francisco doesn’t matter.

---

1. Vincenzo Genovese, “Roberta Metsola Clashes with Azerbaijan’s Ailyev at European Summit in Armenia,” Euronews.com, 4 May, 2026.
2. Ibid.
3. Ibid.
4. Ibid.

On the E.U.’s Complex Federal System

Because the “the EU is built on consensus at 27” states,[1] by 2026 it had become painfully obvious to Europe’s elite that its Union had come to harbor a great disadvantage in terms of united or collective action because political consensus can be elusive even at 27 states, each of which could result to a veto on reforms at the federal level, with enlargement of the Union from 27 on the horizon. Something had to be done, given the intransigence of the principle of unanimity in the European Council and the Council of Ministers. Direct access of the state governments at the federal level could stave off too much federal encroachment on the prerogatives of the state governments, but the costs associated with this safeguard were becoming too high. Therefore, in February, 2026, E.U. state and federal officials met to give added weight to something called “two-track Europe.” In actuality, there were already more than two tracks in the European Union. Although complex, the means of releasing the Union from the high bar needed to achieve unanimity or even consensus among the several states could well save the Union from the paralysis of division. The outdated premise that united action should only be allowed when there is no division had become too utopian for federal Europe. Multiple-speed Europe in the E.U. is actually more in line with the E.U.’s federal system already being genuine.

In February, 2026, “frustrations about the pace of [economic] reforms prompted” more interest in groups of states moving forward with respect to federal legislation that would be binding only on those states.[2] Mario Draghi, a former head of the European Central Bank, “recommended exploring the use of enhanced cooperation to ‘move faster’ in high-priority areas such as the Savings and Investment Union, the single market and energy prices.”[3] Already, the European Public Prosecutor’s Office (EPPO), patent and divorce law, the Schengen Area and even the euro itself constituted examples of federal law binding on some states but not on others. The term, “enhanced cooperation” is misleading, for it omits the important point that the states falling under a federal law are obliged to abide by it. This point is an important one, especially in the case of the Schengen Agreement. The E.U. already had a genuine federal system, meaning that dual sovereignty was already the case.

Undergirding the creative approach to federalism—more creative than the unitary approach of the U.S.—were informal blocs of E.U. states, “such as the ‘Frugal Four’ and the ‘Friends of Cohesion,’” the Weimar Triangle, the MED9, the Visegrad group, and the Nordic-Baltic Eight.[4] Perhaps the easiest comparison to the U.S. is the bloc of Great Lake states that must all sign off on fresh-water being taken by other states from the Great Lakes. Given the climatic and cultural differences that exist between the American states, more such blocs would not be a bad idea. The key would be that relevant federal law would only apply to the states in a given bloc. The binding nature of the respective law renders both the E.U. and U.S. as something more than blocs, of course. Creative arrangements within a genuine federal system does not stop the system from being federal; rather, such arrangements fit well with the fact that federal systems are tailor-made precisely for cases in which interstate differences are significant. Rather than containing “multiple speeds,” as if every bloc should eventually converge at the most integrated one within the Union, complexity better denotes the E.U.’s way out of the prison of unanimity. Cases in which a federal system makes most sense are hardly those in which one size fits all, so the American doctrine that a federal law must apply to every state is actually inferior.

---

1. Jorge Liboreiro, “Leaders Embrace Two-Speed Europe to Break Impasse as Macron Sets June Deadline for Economic Reset,” Euronews.com, February 12, 2026.
2. Ibid.
3. Ibid.
4. Ibid.

A Big-State Governor Usurps the Role of the European Council's President

The governor of a large state, if speaking for the E.U., risks not only undercutting federal officials who can speak for the E.U., but also subtly orienting federal policy in the interest of that state rather than the entire union. It is important, therefore, that the president of the European Council be tasked with speaking publicly for the Council, rather than usurped.

On December 19, 2025, the president of the E.U. state of France stood at the European Council podium to announce, presumably speaking for the Council, “Either a robust and lasting peace is reached, with the required (security) guarantees, or we will need in the weeks ahead to find ways for Europeans to re-engage in a fulsome dialogue with Russia, and in complete transparency.”[1] Because Macron was not the chair, or president, of the European Council, it is impossible to know whether he is expressing his own opinion or that of the Council; his decision to make the announcement rather than defer to the Council’s president thus weakened the Council. President Putin of Russia had grounds to dismiss Macron’s statement direct talks between Europe will be needed if the American peace proposal falters. Simply put, Macron did not have standing to speak for Europe in terms of talks. Alternatively, he could have stated that his E.U. state would try to have direct talks with Putin, but the downside to that is that Putin could play the E.U. state governments against each other. Hence distinctively E.U. foreign policy would be worthwhile.

At the end of December, 2025, European Commission President Von der Leyen was on firmer ground in insisting that Ukraine’s accession to the European Union as a state was “a key component” of the security guarantees that Ukraine was then seeking as part of a deal with Russia. According to Von der Leyen, who unlike Macron can speak for the E.U., accession represents “a key security guarantee in its own right.”[2] Even though accession requires unanimity in the European Council, I contend that there is value in having a federal official speak for the E.U. on Ukraine becoming a state in the Union. For one thing, it provides a vision which the leaders in the state governments can either accept or reject. For another, Putin can count on Von der Leyen’s statement as coming from the E.U. itself, rather than just from a state government, whether pro or con on Ukraine entering the Union.

In short, the difference between Macron’s opportunism and Von der Leyen’s attempt to bolster Ukraine’s chances in becoming a state is significant. That the state governments hold so much power in the E.U.’s federal system renders making space for E.U. officials especially important, lest one or two big states essentially take over the Union in pursuit of their own geo-political interests. The E.U. has been vulnerable to this because it was, even in 2025, too bottom-heavy.

---

1. Michel Rose, “Macron Says Europe Will Need to Engage with Putin If U.S. Peace Talks Fail,” Reuters.com, December 19, 2025.
2. Maria Tadeo, “Von der Leyen Signals Push for Ukraine’s E.U. Accession as Russia Derails Talks with Attack Claim,” Euronews.com, December 30, 2025.

U.S. Presidential Encroachment on State Prerogatives

Both in the E.U. and U.S., the member-states are semi-sovereign, and are even guaranteed all residual sovereignty that is not in any of the enumerated competencies (i.e., powers) of the respective unions and the states. Europeans are smart to have multiple avenues for the state governments in the European Council and the Council of Ministers so those governments can protect themselves against encroachment by the Commission. To be sure, these safeguards go too far, especially given the sheer number of states even by the mid-2020s, in giving each state a veto especially on important matters in which qualified-majority voting does not apply. In other words, the safeguards against federal encroachment in the E.U. are excessive as long as each state can wield its veto against federal policies, legislation, and regulations. Regarding the latter, the directive means provides each state with some latitude. I suspect that the Europeans who constructed the E.U.’s federal system were in part fearful of federal encroachment because so much of that had already built-up in the U.S., where federal consolidation had become a threat to the governmental sovereignty of the member-states, as if they were just regions rather than republics holding even more sovereignty, on parchment at least, than does Congress and the federal president. So, it is worth taking not of the rare instances in which a state legislature pushes back against threats from the U.S. president on a competency (i.e., enumerated power) reserved by the states.  The rejection by the Indiana Senate of U.S. President Trump’s pressure to accept new districts for U.S. House representatives from Indiana—a map in which the Republican Group would likely pick up two seats—is important because Congressional-district maps are the prerogative of the states rather than an encroaching federal executive.

According to Article 1, Section 4 of the U.S. basic law (consolidated as a constitution), the member-states have the primary authority to regulate the “times, places, and manner” of the U.S. House or Representatives’ elections. This authority includes enacting the boundaries of the districts within a state. To be sure, Congress has been delegated authority to override a state’s Congressional-district map, as federal oversight is in line with the “checks and balances” feature of modern federalism. For instance, a state’s map that discriminates against regions populated mostly by a racial minority would be ripe for Congressional action. It is significant that the U.S. president plays no role either in crafting such maps or in oversight. Therefore, U.S. President Trump’s threats laid against certain senators in the Indiana Senate so they would pass a new Congressional map before the next census so to give Trump’s Republican group in the U.S. House of Representatives more representation than otherwise would likely be the case was a case of federal encroachment of a state power encased in the U.S. Constitution. The Indiana senators voted prudently and justifiably in rejecting the U.S. President’s “bully tactics.”

Senator Michael Crider, a Republican, who faced “threats of violence and intimidation,” issued a statement after he voted no on the redistricting proposal.[1] “When you get kind of bullied and threatened, if that tactic works, then you can expect to deal with that for the rest of your political career.”[2] Sen. Vaneta Becker issued the following statement: “I think this looks like and feels like bullying, and I don’t think Hoosiers respond well to bullying.”[3] Neither, I might add, do Illinoisians on the other side of the Wabash river, to whom people from the Indiana side of the river-border used to shout, “Whos you’r,” hence the mascot, “Hoosier”, instead of who are you?

The same consequences of giving into a bully can be said of a state legislature; once it capitulates to threats and pressure from the federal executive (or Congress), threats will be more likely to continue and even become more dire until the member-state legislators are afraid to use even the powers reserved for the states. In the case of the redistricting plan, President Trump even threatened the Indiana government that federal funds would be cut off from the state in retaliation for not approving the president’s partisan plan. Sen. Spencer Deery made the problem of encroachment on the state explicit: “As long as I have breath, I will use my voice to resist a federal government that attempts to bully, direct and control this state or any state. Giving the federal government more power is not conservative.”[4] That a prerogative of a state legislature could be circumvented “at the whim of a president’s request” was too much for Sen. Mike Bohacek too.[5] Therefore, both in terms of threatening Indiana lawmakers, who have been democratically elected, and in terms of eclipsing federalism, wherein the vital element of checks-and-balances between the federal institutions and those of states, the political courage of the Indiana Republican senators who voted against President Trump’s partisan plan is laudable. Threats of violence have no place in politics, and efforts to usurp the governmental sovereignty that is reserved for the states, whether in the U.S. or E.U., should be resisted lest the check-and-balance “oversight” feature of modern, dual-sovereignty, federalism be lost.

Fortunately, the “acts of intimidation and threats and acts of violence targeting [Republican Indiana] senators who opposed” the proposal backfired, as a majority of the 40 Republican senators voted against the bill.[6] Ironically, politically conservative principles were cited by some of those senators. The head of the Republican Group in the Indiana Senate, Sen. Rodric Bray, said, “many of my caucus members don’t think redrawing our Congressional map mid-cycle is a guaranteed way for Indiana.”[7] In short, changing maps for partisan purposes mid-way through a decade violates the tradition of redrawing maps only just after the U.S. census, which occurs once every decade. As per conservative principles, Bray urged Republicans to campaign more so as to sway a district that was then held by a Democrat but becoming increasingly Republican. As the saying goes, elections have consequences.

 

---

1. Paul Blumenthal, “These Are The Indiana Republicans Who Voted To Crush Trump’s Redistricting Plan,” The Huffington Post, December 12, 2025.
2. Ibid.
3. Ibid.
4. Ibid.
5. Ibid.
6. Ibid.
7. Ibid.

Entangling Confederalism and Modern Federalism: A European Quagmire

On America’s Thanksgiving Day, 2025, Dmytro Kuleba, a former foreign minister of Ukraine, was asked whether Ukraine’s government officials could trust American officials negotiating with the Russian officials, given the fact that Steve Witkoff, the U.S. Envoy at the time, had recently been caught coaching Kirill Dmitriev, a top Russian official, on how to get U.S. President Don Trump on the side of Putin even though the ongoing Russian invasion of Ukraine was still in violation of international law, which, by the way, trumps historical reasons, such as a lost Russian empire. Stalin’s forced famine in Ukraine during the 1930s would seem to nullify any imperial claims from the past. Kuleba relied to the journalist’s question with, “Not really, but we do not have another America.”[1] He was really giving Europe a wake-up call, but the problem there was not a lack of consensus, but a structural deficiency in the federal system of the European Union.

The full essay is at "We Don't Have Another America."

---

1. Mared Gwyn Jones, “European Decision-Making on Ukraine ‘Embarrassing,’ Former Foreign Minister Kuleba Says,” Euronews.com, November 27, 2025.

Putting a State in Charge of the E.U.

If only Ukraine could become the 51^st member-state of the U.S., rather than the 28^th state of the E.U., given the veto of Viktor Orban of the E.U. state of Hungary on the E.U. annexing Ukraine. Besides the inherent problems that come with relying so much on the principle of unanimity in the European Council and the Council of the E.U., mislabeling the prime minister of the state that chairs the legislative committees known collectively as the Council of the E.U. as the E.U. president not only marginalizes the federal officials, including President Von der Leyen, who, as the head of the E.U.’s executive branch, can rightfully be considered as the president of the European Union. In contrast, government officials of a state chairing legislative committees can hardly be said to collectively be the “presidency” of the European Union. Behind the promotion of this fallacy is the anti-federalist, or Euroskeptic, political ideology that misconstrues the E.U. as merely a network of intergovernmental relations between the states.

Although the E.U., like the U.S., splits governmental sovereignty between two systems—that of the union and that of the states, the two unions have different ways in which state officials participate at the federal level. The official participation roles are greater in E.U. institutions than in U.S. institutions at the union level. In his book, Federal Government, Kenneth Wheare makes the point that federalism has two systems of government, neither of which is a “level” above the other. He is correct because the sovereignty remaining with state governments, which in both unions includes all residual sovereignty, is not “lower” than the exclusive or shared competencies, or enumerated domains of power, delegated to the federal governmental institutions. The fallacy of “levels” is much easier to grasp by looking that the European Union than the United States because of the extent of official roles in certain E.U. governmental institutions for state officials, whereas in the U.S., state officials lost their direct participation when U.S. senators became elected offices rather than by appointment by the respective state chief executives/heads of state/commanders in chief (i.e., “governors” being those who govern) or legislatures. This difference may be why so much governmental sovereignty will not be transferred from the system of state governments to the union’s governmental institutions in the E.U. by 100 or 200 years in the E.U. as in the U.S. as of the 249^th anniversary of the thirteen colonies boldly (as there was considerable risk) declaring themselves to be free and independent countries, then already in a military alliance (i.e., the Continental Congress).

On the day before the 249^th anniversary of 13 British colonies in North America declaring themselves to be sovereign countries, Ukrainian President Zelensky attended “the opening ceremony of the Danish EU Presidency in Aarhus.”[1] Depicting or characterizing Denmark as the “EU Presidency” is misleading, for the reference is to officials of that state chairing policy-domain specific committees rather than standing for the E.U. itself. The exaggeration is at the expense of recognition that the Commission’s head, Von der Leyen, a federal rather than a state official, has a greater claim to speak for the European Union. As president of the E.U.'s executive branch, Von der Leyen delivers the annual State of the Union address at the Parliament chamber, just as the president of the U.S. delivers the State of the Union in the U.S. House of Representatives' chamber. It is revealing that just before the Parliament's vote of confidence in Von der Leyen on July 10, 2025, a lawyer specialized in E.U. law predicted that even if the vote is favorable to Von der Leyen, more "and more [E.U.] citizens will ask themselves, is she really the right person to lead the E.U. in such turbulent times."[2] It is not as though the rotating 6-month "presidency" of whatever state government is chairing the committees known collectively as the Council of the E.U. could claim to be at the helm, and thus step in for a weakened Von der Leyen. 

Generally speaking, putting a state in charge of the E.U. would be loaded with intractable problems. In June of the same year, the governor of the E.U. state of France presumed to speak for the European Union rather than just for his state on foreign policy, effectively (and I suspect intentionally) sidelining the E.U.’s president and its foreign minister, an office that is deliberately mislabeled as the “High Representative” to appease Euroskeptics. 

Regarding the involvement of the state governments at the federal level, the President of the European Council, António Costa, had a greater claim than the chair of legislative committees to be referred to as a president, and Macron of France was not the federal official standing for the European Council. That the governor of the E.U. state of Denmark “vowed to support Ukraine’s accession process” to be annexed by the E.U. and to use the “presidency of the E.U. Council to put ‘maximum pressure’ on Hungary to lift its veto on Ukraine” being annexed by the E.U. is less significant than the pressure than the federal officials António Costa and Ursula von der Leyen could apply on Hungary’s governor.[3] In response the emphasis, for example, of the Danish foreign minister chairing the other state foreign ministers in one of the committees in the Council of the E.U., Viktor Orban could more easily relegate Von der Leyen, Kaja Kallas and António Costa and thus deflate pressure from the E.U. itself, which is greater than a committee of state officials chaired by a Danish state official.

In other words, the paralyzing impact of retaining vetoes in the European Council and the Council of the E.U. is exacerbated by falsely portraying a state government as the “Presidency of the E.U.” The Parliament and the Commission even together may be too weak to counter the power of the states in the E.U. governmental system within the federal system; mislabeling a state as the E.U. Presidency only exacerbates the imbalance, even if it is a policy of officials of that state to resist the veto of another state. The E.U. is more than being the simple aggregate of the states, and the European Court of Justice, the European Commission, and the European Parliament are all institutions of the E.U. that manifest the E.U. being more than the sum of its states. Just as balance is important between the system of state governments and the system of the federal government in a federal system, so too balance of power is important between the branches of government, and in this respect the federal government should be distinguished from state government within a federal system because only in the former are some institutions representing states and others represent federal citizens. It is important that the power of the state officials in union institutions not overwhelm the power of federal officials in other union-institutions, lest particular state interests dominate those of the whole. Denmark may have its own economic and political interests with respect to Ukraine, whereas Von der Leyen and Kallas represent the E.U.’s interests rather than those of any state. Overstating the salience of the state governments in E.U. governance at the expense of federal officials.

---

1. Evelyn Ann-Marie Dom and Jorge Liboreiro, “Ukraine Will Do ‘Anything’ to Advance EU Accession Talks Despite Hungary Veto, Zelenskyy Says,” Euronews.com, July 3, 2025.
2. Sandor Zsiros, "EU Parliament Censure Vote Leaves von der Leyen Weakened, even in Victory," Euronews.com, July 10, 2025, italics added.

3.  Evelyn Ann-Marie Dom and Jorge Liboreiro, “Ukraine Will Do ‘Anything’ to Advance EU Accession Talks Despite Hungary Veto, Zelenskyy Says,” Euronews.com, July 3, 2025.

E.U. Flag Day

Both the E.U. and U.S. have their respective flag days during the month of June—on the 29^th and 14^th, respectively. This isn’t the only thing that the flags have in common, and what sets both off from the flags of the states. I contend that these similarities and difference regarding political symbols can function as markers for what both unions are as complex polities of polities even as ideologies seek to obfuscate and dissimilate, even dismissing or ignoring the history of both unions. In other words, flags don’t lie; people do.

The first flags of the E.U. and U.S. were both used by their predecessors, rather than being created in 1993 and 1789, respectively. These dates mark when the states gave some of their governmental sovereignty to the union-level judicial, legislative, and executive branches. The first E.U. flag had been used by the European Communities since 1986, and the first U.S. flag had been used beginning in 1777 by the alliance’s Second Continental Congress, and, moreover, under the Articles of Confederation, under which each of the 13 member countries was sovereign after having been colonies in the British Empire until 1776. Crucially, the Declaration of Independence declared the independence each of the 13 colonies, which even while colonies had been in a military alliance like modern-day NATO.

The original E.U. and U.S. flags. The sheer paralellism is astonding, especially given how differently the two unions are perceived today by the general public on both sides of the Atlantic Ocean. 

The E.U. flag contains stars representing its 12 original states and the U.S. flag contains stars representing its 13 original states because all of those states had been sovereign countries and still retained some governmental sovereignty. In fact, in 1993 and 1789, respectively, the states still held most of the governmental sovereignty, with the federal governmental institutions, or branches, being much restricted in their respective exclusive competencies and enumerated powers.

The parallelism itself is astounding, especially given the tendency in Europe to perceive the E.U. incorrectly as a “bloc” or international organization like NATO and NAFTA, and in America to perceive the U.S. like France with a large back-yard rather than an empire-scale union of semi-sovereign polities. This is precisely why the history of the two flags is so important to know, for treating the U.S. as if it would be a state in the E.U. rather than on the same level and scale as the E.U., and treating the E.U. as if it were a temporary “bloc” of sovereign countries for a single purpose like trade or defense as if a trade agreement of military alliance incur rather basic yet invisible category mistakes.

The basic, or qualitative difference between the unions and their respective states can be grasped by the fact that the E.U. flag’s twelve golden stars, “explicitly, and in contrast to” the flags of the states, represent the states and “the ideals of unity, solidarity and harmony,”[1] which are especially important at the union, empire-level because empires are inherently heterogenous (i.e., interstate differences in culture, norms, and values as well as dominant ideologies) whereas the states themselves are relatively homogenous. Rather than a difference in degree, the difference is that of a leap, given that there is a leap in geographical scale between that of a state and a union of many such states. 

That the stars in the E.U. flag are in a circle better stands for unity than does the arrangement of the 13 stars in the original Star-Spangled U.S. flag, but the circle configuration was in the Betsy Ross version, which although not the official flag, was consistent with the specifications in the Flag Act of 1777. The parallelism between the stars in the Ross flag and in the E.U. flag is very strong.

The Betsy Ross Flag, a close up of part of that flag, and the E.U. flag. The close up and the E.U. flag are directly parallel, with only the color of the stars differing. The stars on both flags stand for states.

The value being placed on unity and solidarity at the federal level is more crucial than at the state level, and this is reflected in the fact that the state flags not only do not have stars representing sovereign and then semi-sovereign polities therein, but also do not symbolically highlight unity or solidarity. 

In short, unity and solidarity, which by the way are put at risk by relying too much on the principle of unanimity in having state vetos at the union level, are more valuable at the federal level in an empire-scale union of states than at the state level. Therefore, empire-scale governance contains, or should contain, dynamics that do not exist at the state, or (early-modern, rather than medieval) “kingdom” level, such as in managing diversity of state preferences at the union level.  Interstate differences are more salient in union-level governance than regional differences are in state-level governance, and early-modern federalism, as distinct from confederalism, treats the two levels as qualitiatively different as a result. To conflate them is thus one hell of a category mistake, and yet people on both sides of the Atlantic Ocean do it much too often, given the reasoning potential of the human brain. Yes, ouch! Just for added fun, let's put corrective braces on the crooked teeth of "Brexit" and add some disinfectant mouth-wash to extirpate the bad odor from former British Prime Minister David Cameron's erroneous statement that the E.U. was just one of the international networks that Britain had been in. 

Before the United Kingdom seceded from the E.U., it could be said that the ideological and cultural differences throughout the empire-scale union bearing on political decisions needed to be managed in the European Council, the Council of the E.U., the European Parliament, and the European Commission dwarfed the differences between the four regions or provinces of the United Kingdom that had to be managed at the state level there. Put another way, whereas the original E.U. flag has stars representing the states, the state flag of the United Kingdom does not have stars representing its regions. Nor, for that matter, does the flag of Germany have stars representing its 15 regions. 

The governmental dynamics at the scale of former and existing E.U. states are in crucial respects qualitatively different than the unique dynamics that empire-scale unions of such states must have in order not to fall apart due to pressure from state differences seeking their own expressions yet while there is unity at the union level. This is the balance that renders federalism itself an unstable form of government, yet the best suited form to empire-scale unions of states. Contrasting union from state flags warns us not to conflate state with union-level governance, and thus states with unions of such states.

---

1. Andreas Rogal, “European Flag Celebrates 40 Years as Symbol for EU and Predecessor,” Euronews.com, June 29, 2025.

The E.U. Stance on Tariffs: Pressure from the States

After the U.S. took the decision to impose reciprocal and car tariffs on the E.U., it did not take long for several of the E.U. states to pressure the federal executive branch, the European Commission, to punch holes in the E.U.’s counter-tariffs so favored industries in the E.U. would not face higher prices on supplies from the United States. As in U.S. states, E.U. states have their own dominant industries, whose financial interests it is only natural for government to protect, as jobs translate into votes. But pressuring the E.U.’s federal government to carve out exceptions for imports desired by favored industries at the state level, such as automobiles in the E.U. state of Germany, would deny the E.U. the full benefit of a united front that federalism can provide against other countries. For maximum leverage in trade negotiations, unilaterally removing counter-tariffs is not wise; it is like a person intentionally tripping over himself while trying to get to the grocery store. Given the regional pressures, trade is rightfully one of the enumerated powers, or exclusive competencies, of the E.U. rather than a shared competency or a power retained by the states.

At a basic level, first of all, to pretend that the E.U. is merely a confederation, in which governmental sovereignty still resides exclusively with the state governments, is a much more subtle way of enervating the E.U., whether out of denial or a desire by federal officials to appease purblind Euroskeptic governors, such as Viktor Orban of the E.U. state of Hungary. Fortunately, though for some people regretfully antagonistically, transparency is valued by truth-tellers. Both qualified majority voting and the exclusive and even shared competencies enjoyed by the E.U. government are incompatible with a confederation, not to mention a mere “bloc” or economic treaty like NAFTA. Correctly “mapping” the E.U. is a prerequisite to being able to get “maximum bang for the buck” (an American expression, wherein “buck” strangely means “dollar”) in terms of collective action at the federal level.

On the summer solstice, 2025, which by the way is not the first day of climate summer as some American meteorologists were claiming as if they were deer in headlights or cows chewing cud, the E.U.’s Commission warned state governments that some of their “sensitive goods” would not be shielded “from planned retaliatory tariffs on U.S. goods” because the E.U. was “weary of undermining its negotiating hand in high-stakes trade talks with President Donald Trump, three E.U. diplomats and officials” said.[1] Not to resist the pressure would unilaterally weaken the E.U.’s negotiating leverage even before sitting down to negotiate with the Americans. In a confidential meeting at the Commission, it was determined that acceding to all of the state requests would mean that the E.U. “would only target €25 billion worth of U.S. exports . . . instead of the €95 billion” that the E.U. “initially targeted as a response”.[2] The sheer difference between €25 billion and €95billion attests to the leverage that collective action at a federal level has over the negotiating power that an aggregation of European countries would have. In other words, the dollar value lost in the shielding can point to the power that is gained by collective action from an exclusive competency residing at the federal rather than state level.

In seceding from the E.U., the former E.U. state of Britain lost any future benefits that can be gained from collective action at the federal level of an empire-scale union of states, for even a secessionist state is commensurate in scale and polity-type with the remaining states rather than the union of such states. A leap in scale from (early-modern) kingdom and empire, and a qualitative difference in polity-type between a state and federal union of such states are why Britain is not equivalent to the European Union. In other words, the United Kingdom is not a small E.U.

In conclusion, subtly letting air out of the tire by insisting that the E.U. does not have a federal system or intentionally allowing states to shield certain imports from America at the expense of the federal stance is not exactly putting the best foot forward in arriving at the negotiation table. Given the sheer amount of benefit that would be lost were the Commission to acquiesce to every state request on carve-outs, proposals to expand the federal competencies subject to qualified majority vote instead of unanimity should be considered with greater urgency, and additional enumerated domains of power federalized from the states. Fears of a leviathan “central state” can be allayed by realizing that the E.U. has a federal system of divided sovereignty and that the state governments have significant access to policy-making at the federal level in the European Council and the Council of the E.U. even though the executive branch, the European Parliament and the E.U.’s supreme court provide less access and thus can protect federal prerogatives and thus the benefits obtainable from collective rather than associative action. Unity need not mean uniformity; collective action is possible at the federal level while states can retain the ability to reflect their own interests and cultures as long at the benefits from collective action are not unduly compromised.

---

1. Camile Gus and Ari Hawkins, “Brussels Resists Pressure from E.U. [State] Capitals to Shield Exports in U.S. Trade Fight,” Politico.com, June 20, 2025.

2. Ibid.

American Federalism and Equal Protection: Transsexual Children in Tennessee

On June 18, 2025, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled that a Tennessee law blocking transsexual children from being able to undergo puberty-blockers and gender-changing surgeries does not violate the Equal Protection clause of the U.S. Constitution. The court’s 6-3 opinion in U.S. v. Skrmetti was reported at the time to fall “largely along conservative-liberal lines.”[1] By this is mean ideological lines, both moral and political in nature. Such is grist for the mill for the broad judgment of an electorate, in what is otherwise known as popular sovereignty, which is superior to governmental sovereignty in a republic. Add in the fact that Tennessee is a member-state in a federal system in which the U.S. Supreme Court is on the federal level, and the broad judgment of the electorate takes on more significance to the extent that a federal system of an empire-scale union is in part supposed to take into account and protect interstate ideological differences that defy one-size-fits-all union-level policies. In other words, as cultural heterogeneity can be expected in going from state to state in an empire-scale union-of-states, efforts “from the top” to impose a single policy on every state do not allow the federation to breath. Political pressure could be expected to build over time if such a suffocating tendency eventuates, with the risk of dissolution increasing over time as if depreciation.

Because the U.S. Supreme Court can (and has) contributed to a one-size-fits-all compromising of federalism in favor of the General (i.e., federal) Government, Chief Justice Roberts wisely resisted the temptation (if he felt any) to decide the issue not only for the people of Tennessee, but also for the entire Union. “The voices in these debates raise sincere concerns; the implications for all are profound. The Equal Protection Clause does not resolve these disagreements. Nor does it afford us license to decide them as we see best.”[2] He was deferring to popular sovereignty. Because he did not find discrimination based on sex to exist in the Tennessee law and thus that it does not violate the Equal Protection Clause of the federal constitution, he was able to not only defer to an electorate to use its broad judgment, but also allow Tennessee some breathing room within the Union.

It is arguably more likely that the majority of the electorate in Massachusetts, for example, would be against the Tennessee law being adopted in Massachusetts, than that a majority of Tennessee’s citizens would vote to repeal the law. Both of these collective value-judgments being able to be codified into law is vital to the endurance of a federal system in an empire-scale union of states. Therefore, the strict scrutiny that sexual discrimination requires of any court should not be used as a crutch by which to “federalize” law in the United States or to replace the value-judgments of majorities of voters with those of justices. The fact that the decision fell along ideological lines means that value-judgments apart from jurisprudence were also involved in the decision, and thus that Roberts is correct that the contesting “sincere concerns” should not be resolved by fiat, but rather by means of ballots.

This is not to say that a federal court should sidestep cases that do involve significantly harmful sexual, religious, or racial discrimination on a minority, for majority rule is not absolute. Rather, the interests of an electorate and of federalism itself should be considered by judges and justices, especially when the law under the microscope has a legitimate purpose. In the present case, stopping children from blocking puberty is a legitimate societal goal because children are especially vulnerable to not being of mature mind on even themselves. Surgeries are of such consequence that this part of the law was not even contested. This means the law had at least some merit of intent and thus could not be rightly claimed to be intended to discriminate. Although historically some state governments have enacted laws intentioned to discriminate against Black Americans, that such laws were so blatant can be used as a litmus test for federal judges and justices to assess whether a law is inherently and intentionally discriminatory. Just because a particular law impacts only a group rather than everyone does not mean that the law necessarily violates the Equal Protection Clause. Put another way, just because a law costs or benefits only people who meet certain criteria, such as having a disease such as gender dysphoria, does not mean that unless everyone meets those criteria the law is unconstitutional.

In fact, the value of broad value-judgments being made by voters as the basis of a republic and the importance of not succumbing to one-size-fits-all-states trends by federal governmental institutions arguably warrant shifts in federal policy and jurisprudence. For instance, the use of referenda by governments so an electorate can assume an increased role on the level of value-judgments would solidify that foundation of American democracy, with elected representatives taking their cues from the broad strokes to implement them into specifics, whether laws or regulations. Furthermore, the U.S. Supreme Court could set a precedent whereby it is more difficult for that court to declare a state law unconstitutional under the federal constitution. That that court is a branch of the federal government means that there is at least an implicit conflict of interest on matters bearing on federalism, since justices are both nominated and confirmed by branches of the federal government. I once asked Sandra Day O’Conner why the court had not done more to counter this institutional conflict of interest. She replied, “It takes five,” meaning five justices to agree to do it, and that was a Republican-majority court!  That the U.S. is not a France or Germany with a large back yard, but, rather, of the same scale and federal-type as the E.U., is reason enough for the American state governments to flex their respective wings more so as to reflect or match the broad value-judgments of their electorates. On June 18, 2025, Chief Justice Roberts resisted the temptation to clip Tennessee’s wings and thus incrementally strengthened the federalism of the empire-scale union.

---

1. Josh Gerstein, “Supreme Court Upholds Tennessee’s Ban on Gender-Affirming Care for Minors,” Politico.com, June 18, 2025.
2. Ibid.