I mean, would we really want the rule to be different? Considering how large a percentage of federal taxes people in each state pay, to have the Feds - and think of the Dems being in power - able to cut off all> federal funds if states don’t do exactly what the feds want on every issue would effectively destroy federalism.
Yes and no. The States have been left with few powers to self regulate and Federalism has become problematic. I see your point, and thank you for explaining it.
The EO issue should be limited to Executive Branch employees, but with Federalism, that’s almost all of government ( with NGO’s it’s enourmous). The States lost power after the Civil War. Congress abdication of its powers started with Wilson and accelerated with FDR. Now we have a POTUS with powers never intended, and a Judicial branch that overreaches for politics. Obama and Biden have exposed the dangers of loss of balance in government and abdication of duties by Congress.
Can the POTUS deny funding to states who won’t follow the laws and enforce the Constitution? I say yes, as this seems to be a pattern since the civil war. However, if POTUS can issue EO’s and deny funding to states, that’s a bit to close to ‘King’.
When I think it logically, this issue explains the fear and irrational behavior from the Democrats. Obama and Biden both used the executive branch against political enemies using EO’s as well as ‘NGO’ money. Those ‘Kings’ robbed the treasury to pay off unneeded government workers (work welfare), funnel trillions into NGO’s that undermined rule of law and the Constitution . The fear a new “King’ doing Karma back to them. They fear that so much that they now accept political murder as ‘justified’, to stop the new ‘King’ from resetting society and the economy. It’s all a result of abdication by Congress and usurpation of States rights, Federalism gone wild.
Well, you may say yes, but the Supreme Court consistently has said "no". States cannot take actions that violate law, but they also cannot be forced to enforce federal law or enact/support federally-administered programs.
An easy example: states don't have to participate in school lunch programs. If they don't, the feds can deny them the money that was supposed to go to those programs. But the feds could not deny those states Medicaid funds as a way of forcing them to adopt the school lunch programs. That's been consistent.
Another example is that the federal government cannot require state law enforcement to enforce federal laws. So the feds could not order state police to conduct searches for privately-owned guns. The flip side of that is that they also can’t order state police to conduct searches for illegals. Two sides of the same legal coin.