When Democratic Pennsylvania Gov. Josh Shapiro sued the Trump administration over its federal funding freeze, he said he was just making sure the Keystone State gets what it deserves.
Political strategists, however, say Shapiro could also be ensuring he gets what he wants: More press attention as the Democratic Party ponders its 2028 nominee for president.
“This is good policy as the governor of Pennsylvania, and it happens to make for good national politics at the same time,” Dan Turrentine, a Democratic strategist and co-host of the popular Morning Meeting program on 2Way, told DVJournal.
Shapiro was reacting to a late January White House memo ordering a “temporary pause” on federal grant, loan, and other financial assistance programs. The freeze was lifted days later following an order from a federal judge. States also complained the Trump administration’s order would impact Medicaid funding as well.
Despite the judge’s intervention, Shapiro still filed suit Feb. 13, claiming the Trump administration was refusing to release $2.1 billion allocated to Pennsylvania through federal grants.
“Federal agencies are now unilaterally and arbitrarily suspending or restricting Commonwealth agencies’ access to the congressionally appropriated grant funds that have been committed to them,” Shapiro alleges in his court filing. The funds were appropriated in the Inflation Reduction Act and Infrastructure Investment and Jobs Act, two massive spending bills signed by former President Joe Biden.
Shapiro said his office tried to work with the feds and Pennsylvania’s congressional delegation to get the funds released, but to no avail. He argued the government was breaking a contract with the Commonwealth because the funding was approved by Congress.
“We have committed [the money] to serious needs–like protecting public health, cutting energy costs, providing safe, clean drinking water, and creating jobs in rural communities,” said the governor.
The Governor’s Office said the money would be used to plug 500 orphaned and abandoned gas wells and build or maintain more than a dozen water treatment systems to deal with runoff from abandoned mines.
Calling the withholding of the funds “flagrantly lawless actions,” the filing suggests the action is being taken because President Donald Trump didn’t like how Congress divvied up the money. The petitioners added no law permits federal agencies from refusing to spend cash because of policy disagreements with a state.
But the Trump administration isn’t backing down.
White House deputy press secretary Harrison Fields told Axios the White House is ready for a fight.
“Radical Leftists can either choose to swim against the tide and reject the overwhelming will of the people, or they can get onboard and work with President Trump to advance his wildly popular agenda,” Fields said.
Shapiro’s suit said state agencies use the funds to avoid massive debt and obligations that “cannot be reimbursed.” The agencies can use some discretionary spending and reserves to cover “small unexpected debts” but not the whole $2.1 billion.
Shapiro’s filing also features a laundry list of complaints about Trump’s executive orders, more evidence of a political motive, observers say. And picking legal fights with presidents in the other party for political gain is hardly new.
Texas Gov. Greg Abbott sued the Obama administration almost 50 times over alleged policy disagreements, while California Gov. Gavin Newsom sued the first Trump administration more than 120 times. California’s legislature recently set aside $50 million for future lawsuits against Trump.
Turrentine said it’s a smart strategy because it raises the governor’s profile for future Democratic primary voters. “He is standing up for what he thinks is right for his state, and for a lot of Democratic primary voters, they will agree.”
Republican strategist Vince Galko of Mercury Public Affairs, on the other hand, is less impressed.
“It’s window dressing that these elected officials have to do to show that they’re standing up for their party and showing some kind of token resistance,” said Galko.
The national media portrayed Shapiro as a more moderate Democrat compared to last year’s ticket of Kamala Harris and Tim Walz. But Galko suggested the Shapiro suit put him in “100 percent lockstep” with the unpopular Biden administration.
“I don’t recall any suits coming from Shapiro on cuts or policies related to the Biden administration,” he quipped.
It sets up an interesting dynamic for a state that backed Trump in 2024 and saw Republicans sweep every statewide election. Shapiro, whose term ends in 2026, is widely believed to be running for a second term as governor, while keeping his eye on the 2028 presidential contest.
