Unified Government but Divided Polity? The 2024 U.S. Elections and the Potential Counterweight of the States

Jared Sonnicksen

RWTH Aachen University

Despite the many controversies of his first presidency (2017-2021) – most notoriously the January 6, 2021 ‘storming of the Capitol’ with his refusal to recognize the election results, recurring scandals and more – Donald Trump was reelected as the 47th President of the United States in the federal elections of November 5, 2024, with a majority both of the popular and electoral vote. Simultaneously, the Republican Party gained majorities in both chambers of Congress (the House of Representatives and the Senate). Consequently, the upcoming Trump Administration will have a constellation of “unified government” at federal level. This provides not only a basis to claim a clear electoral mandate. It also renders it comparatively easier for the President and the majority in both Congressional chambers to implement their political agenda. The Republican Party has become more solidified and cohesive in the last few years in general regarding its support for Trump during his first administration, and even more so in the interim. The evolving shift to the right of the Republicans – not caused by, but surely coinciding and intensifying under, Trump’s leadership – has raised further concerns about looming threats to the rule of law and separation of powers, and thus democratic backsliding. On the other hand, the U.S. remains a presidential system of government. As such, even under unified government, the President as head of government cannot rely on party discipline, certainly not to the extent typical in parliamentary systems. Only a few members of the Republican Party in the House of Representatives or in the Senate defecting could hinder the passage of legislative proposals. At least until the midterm elections of 2026, the constellation at federal level after the 2024 elections points toward a highly favorable position for the Trump Administration.

The U.S. Constitution is characterized by a complex division of powers among its levels of government. It is not only federal, but also a dual federal order. The states maintain a large scope of powers in a variety of policy areas. In many ways, the states have even become politically reinvigorated in recent years, though also politically divided. This not only poses a complication for governance at the federal level, but the states, with their competences and policy ambits, also provide a set of potentially robust safeguards. This may prove particularly relevant not least vis-à-vis an overly encroaching and/or democratic-backsliding presidential administration.

Presidential elections in a recurring polarized context

Polarization and division are hardly new in the United States. Nor can U.S. presidents govern easily, even with a Congressional majority of the same party. With the election of Barack Obama in 2008, there was likewise unified government for the Democratic Party. Despite these favorable conditions for governing at federal level, the Obama administration (2009-2017) faced tremendous institutional pushback. In the first two years, economic recovery measures and large-scale healthcare reform were achieved. But the Tea Party quickly emerged as electrifying opposition within the Republican Party, polarization increased considerably and divided government soon set in after the 2010 midterm elections. Several years of budget impasses and government shutdowns ensued, just to name a few examples. In 2016, Donald Trump succeeded in winning the Republican nomination and eventually the presidency (with a majority of the electoral, but not the popular, vote), and had a Republican majority in both chambers of Congress. Somewhat akin to Obama’s starting point, the preceding years had witnessed much polarization and Trump’s campaign to “make America great again” appealed for large-scale changes. Nevertheless, his administration encountered substantial resistance, had few legislative achievements, and two years later there was divided government after the 2018 midterms. This overall pattern recurred under the Biden presidency, including the return to divided government in the 2022 midterms.

It is difficult to forecast how governance under the next Trump Administration will unfold precisely. The U.S. presidency gets frequently overrated or over-estimated, as the previous discussion shows, putting the presidency and its limitations into perspective. However, the Republican Party has further changed, with even more solidified support for Trump, while the President-elect will re-enter office with prior experience. The stage is thus set for what may be a much more efficient administration and much more disciplined party to effectively implement the proposed policies. Some of them – such as using the military domestically, using the justice system to pursue political opponents, and ignoring parts of the Constitution (which, given the refusal to accept election results in 2020 and much of the recent campaign rhetoric, are not unlikely) – raise serious constitutional, rule-of-law, and democratic concerns. This poses the question of whether and how the states may serve as counterweights.

The divided states as a check and balance – but at a price

In the wake of the 2024 elections, it has not taken long for considerations of federalism as a potential counterbalance to be revived. Cooperative federalism characterized a great deal of state-federal, intergovernmental and inter-administrative relations, especially for most of the 20th century. States’ autonomy and their horizontal relations have likewise enabled “uncooperative federalism” in various ways. The overall polarization, policy and political fragmentation have increased the manifold tensions of US federal democracy. The two major (and de facto only) political parties have become increasingly antagonistic and competitive not only at federal level, but also within the states and in states’ relations with each other. As the Obama Administration and the first Trump Administration witnessed, states can use their scope of competence to pursue their own policies in divergence to those at the federal level, even refusing federal funding (to avoid the conditions or regulations attached). They can also coordinate with each other to contest the federal government in the judicial arena. The patterns of state contestation have aligned increasingly with the divide between the Democratic and Republican parties, so that, on the whole, a ‘nationalized’ polarization of the parties permeates state-level politics and intergovernmental relations. 

In brief conclusion then: what does this mean for the coming years? Surely the Democrat-led state governments can be expected to play an active role in opposition to the Trump Administration and the Republican majority in Congress. Democrat-led states and even other states can join up in litigation against potentially unconstitutional and/or undemocratic policies. Moreover, within States, women’s reproductive and various civil and minority rights can be protected, labor-friendly policies like increased minimum wages introduced, or the dismantling of environmental regulations in parts thwarted, by way of several examples in the arena of policy-making. However, this likewise implies that policy fragmentation in the U.S. could increase. Moreover, states – Republican-led ones in particular – have already demonstrated in recent years the capacity and willingness to use this leverage in ways that produce state-level democratic backsliding, such as through restricting abortion, LGBTQ+ and voting rights. States led by Democratic governments counteracted federal measures they opposed under the first Trump administration, such as by defying stricter immigration controls imposed by executive orders, enhancing voter accessibility, or pursuing their own environmental policies against the background of federal deregulation. The Democratic-led as well as other states can serve again as a counterweight against the President and Congress. This can also provide safeguards against potential abuses like executive overstretch or civil rights violations. At the same time, it comes with a price of even more policy differentiation in the already highly polarized U.S. federal democracy. Policy diversity and experimentalism are of course potential advantages of federal democracy in the first place. Policy divergences, disparate rights protections and increased contestation coupled with two-party dominated antagonism, however, are already indicative of the current state of the states. But this may be the avenue Democrat-led state governments will take to serve as counterweight to the Trump Administration under unified government. This may be a price worth paying too, especially in the coming years, should the federal level follow a democratic-backsliding path. Of course, the wiser – albeit unlikely – investment would be for both parties to find mechanisms and processes to improve cross-party, cross-state and multi-level cooperation and consensus seeking.

Jared Sonnicksen is Professor of Political Systems at the Institute of Political Science, RWTH Aachen University (Germany). He is also currently Co-Speaker of the Standing Group on Federalism and Regionalism of the ECPR.

Suggested Citation: Jared Sonnicksen, ‘Unified Government but Divided Polity? The 2024 U.S. Elections and the Potential Counterweight of the States’ IACL-AIDC Blog (26 November 2024) Unified Government but Divided Polity? The 2024 U.S. Elections and the Potential Counterweight of the States — IACL-IADC Blog