As punishment for the crimes of having a diverse population, not voting for him in three elections straight, and having Tim Walz as governor, Trump has also stripped or withheld billions of dollars, attempting to starve the state of resources. Meanwhile, the state, like all others, continues to pay into the federal government’s coffers.

Like many other blue states, Minnesota pays more to the federal government than it takes in. But why should the state continue to subsidize a government bent on destroying it? What if it just … didn’t?

A few other states have already floated this idea. Legislators in Connecticut, Maryland, New York, and Wisconsin introduced bills to withhold federal payments way back in June of last year. Those bills would authorize the state to withhold federal funding if the state determines that the federal government is delinquent in its funding. States would withhold federal taxes collected from state employees and stop repaying federal grants.

A similar proposal in New York would allow the state to withhold federal taxes from state employee paychecks as well as an amount equivalent to any federal payments being withheld in violation of a court decision. California Gov. Gavin Newsom has said his state might withhold some funds given Trump’s threats to slash billions in funds, but Newsom hasn’t specified what funds or how this would work.

All of these proposals run into the same problem: How, if at all, can a state tell the federal government to pound sand when the taxman comes around?

Could Minnesota do any of these things? As with all law-related questions in the Trump era, the answer is: it’s complicated.