When some U.S. cities and states boycotted Israeli companies over the war in Gaza, the Trump administration responded by withholding disaster aid. Aside from being unethical, this approach will backfire in the long run.
Generally, when a boycott’s goal is not economic gain, it is protected under the First Amendment. Therefore, boycotting Israeli companies over the war in Gaza is not illegal, so long as the boycotters seek to pressure the U.S. or Israel’s government into taking action.
On the other hand, this also means that U.S. citizens can legally boycott in favor of Israel. Setting a precedent of coercing U.S. citizens into not opposing the government’s agenda by withholding disaster aid can easily come back to haunt Republicans when another Democrat is elected president.
There are other barriers to this course of action besides the First Amendment, and additional consequences for ignoring them. In accordance with South Dakota v. Dole, disaster relief cannot be withheld from states boycotting Israeli companies because hurricanes and wildfires in the U.S. are unrelated to the war in Gaza.
Moreover, the anti-commandeering doctrine states the federal government cannot force a state to surrender its own resources and personnel to support federal policies. If the federal government refuses to help states rebuild from disasters, that forces states to divert resources from other priorities, essentially commandeering a state’s spending.
Ignoring these barriers undermines states’ rights, on which President Donald Trump’s stance has been inconsistent. Regardless, this is another dangerous precedent to set, both for the Republican Party and for the U.S. as a whole, since this course of action greatly increases the federal government’s power over the states, which will also hurt Republicans should another Democrat be elected president.
Withholding disaster aid also puts lives at risk and makes it harder for citizens to recover from disasters. With major natural disasters becoming more frequent, this approach to quelling opposition against the government is likely to end in catastrophe sooner rather than later.
This type of response is indiscriminate by nature. Naturally, not everyone in a state that boycotts Israel will support the boycott, so cutting off disaster aid to the entire state will likely end with neutral citizens or even supporters of the government resenting it for abandoning them for political reasons.
The fallout from the federal government withholding disaster aid could end up going beyond the state suffering from a disaster. A wildfire will ignore borders if a state lacks the resources to contain it, and citizens in other states will likely find it morally reprehensible to refuse to aid those in need because they have a different opinion and are acting on it nonviolently.
Ultimately, withholding disaster aid to enforce obedience will cause more problems than it solves. The Trump administration might believe this course of action is for the good of all Americans, but refusing to help any citizen for petty reasons will harm the entire country.
