Anticipating Changes: How Municipal Governments Can Navigate a Second Trump Administration

Derek Green, Interviewed by Bellevue Senior Associate Julie Platt

• If you were still a city leader, what steps would you take in anticipation of a Trump administration?

  Derek: Under the new administration, the Senate and House will be controlled by Republicans. This shift from a divided government to full Republican control will bring interesting dynamics, especially with tensions between MAGA-aligned members and traditional conservatives in the party. We saw similar challenges when Joe Manchin and Kyrsten Sinema influenced the direction of the Democratic-controlled Congress. This internal divide could create friction as the new administration seeks to advance its agenda.

  Many new appointees lack experience in government or the executive branch, so they’ll face a steep learning curve. Those expecting quick, dramatic changes may face difficulties due to the checks and balances built into the federal system. Some Republican members could push back against cuts or program eliminations that affect their districts, adding complexity to reform efforts.

  The first year of this new administration is likely to be unstable. While there will be a push to act quickly, roadblocks from Congress, the judiciary, and within the administration will slow things down. Cities and states may have to rely more on their resources and initiatives rather than expecting significant federal support. This theme emerged at the National Good Cities Summit in Tampa, where local governments were encouraged to take a more independent approach, as federal action may be less predictable shortly.

• Those are all really good points, and it will be interesting to see how the dynamics take shape. As a follow-up, are there any departments or offices that city leaders should consider that will significantly impact their budgets?

  Derek: In cities like Philadelphia, budgeting largely depends on the funding received from the federal and state governments. During the Obama administration, federal funding to the city was significantly reduced due to sequestration, and Philadelphia struggled to make up for the shortfall. Going forward, the city’s budget will continue to rely heavily on federal funding, and any changes could have significant impacts.

  For example, suppose a federal department like education faces cuts or restructuring. In that case, it might lead to a transfer of certain responsibilities, such as student loans moving to the Treasury, but untangling and reorganizing these functions could be more complicated than anticipated. 

  The administration will likely spend considerable time and political capital trying to restructure or eliminate federal departments, but the effectiveness of these efforts is still being determined. Previous administrations, including this one, have sometimes needed help understanding the full cost of political capital required to achieve such changes. Departments like Education will directly impact cities and school districts, and the uncertainty surrounding these changes could add to the instability.

  A major concern for cities is the future of initiatives passed under the Biden administration, such as the Bipartisan Infrastructure Law and the Inflation Reduction Act, which have provided significant opportunities for infrastructure development. With a new administration coming in, will those funds be clawed back, or will projects continue? Some Republican members who opposed these initiatives still celebrated them in their districts, particularly in areas with economic decline. In such places, local leaders may be less inclined to dismantle these programs, which could create tension within the new administration as it decides whether to maintain or rebrand these efforts.

  Donald Trump has never focused heavily on details. For him, loyalty and pushing his policies are the main priorities. It’ll be interesting to see if he reverts to his earlier, less partisan approach when he was known more as a dealmaker or if he continues down the more partisan path he took during his campaign for the nomination.

  These proposals could significantly affect the construction, agriculture, and hospitality industries if implemented. CEOs in those sectors may push back, pointing out how such policies could hinder their ability to operate.

  Additionally, the tariffs could exacerbate inflationary pressures, creating more economic instability. Whether or not there’s pushback from businesses or the public will play a big role in these policies’ success. With so many factors in play, it’s hard to predict what will happen, and that’s why it feels like a very unsteady time ahead.

• That's a great perspective on how cities will have to balance the unpredictability of a Trump administration with the everyday reality of governing. We learned from the Trump administration that cities played a key role in pushing back against or mitigating some of its more egregious policies. What do you see as the role of cities and states, particularly in Philadelphia, in protecting the most vulnerable populations?

  Derek: The broader impact of how cities will work with the Trump administration remains uncertain. For instance, after Trump won a second term, his vote share increased in certain cities and states. He might interpret that as a sign that he doesn’t need to approach these policies similarly. Still, there’s potential for decisions that some would argue negatively affect specific states.

  On the other hand, we’ve already seen Democratic attorneys general collaborate to resist policies they oppose. Similarly, certain city councils—Oakland, for example—have taken steps to “Trump-proof” local policies. How effective those efforts will be is another question entirely.

  Cities and states need to focus on what’s within their control. For example, during the Trump administration, Philadelphia prepared for potential federal cuts to community block grants that ultimately didn’t happen. That cautious approach to budgeting can be prudent, but fiscal limitations always play a role.

  It’s similar to preparing for climate change: we know to expect harsher winters and hotter summers, but we can’t predict the exact severity year to year. Cities and states must prepare as best they can, knowing resources are finite and challenges can shift unexpectedly.

• Let’s switch gears a bit—where do you think cities and municipalities could find common ground or opportunities to work with the Trump administration? 

  Derek: Cities and states have long faced infrastructure challenges, particularly in regions with aging systems like Pennsylvania. During my time as president of the Pennsylvania Municipal League, we pushed hard for the bipartisan infrastructure law because investment in bridges, water systems, and transportation is essential. Historical events, like the Minneapolis bridge collapse during the Rendell administration, prompted Pennsylvania to assess and invest in its aging infrastructure, leading to initiatives like Governor Corbett’s rapid bridge replacement program. These bipartisan efforts highlight the ongoing need for such investments.  

  Many cities, especially those with smaller populations and stagnant revenue, need help maintaining decades-old infrastructure. Third-class cities with aging populations in Pennsylvania often require more resources to upgrade critical systems like water and transportation.

  During the first Trump administration, “infrastructure week” was a frequent talking point, but significant projects rarely materialized. A second Trump administration might attempt to rebrand the bipartisan infrastructure law as its own to demonstrate progress. Collaboration with organizations like the National League of Cities or the National Association of Counties could facilitate such efforts and ensure cities and states receive the necessary resources.  

  Addressing infrastructure issues requires sustained investment and collaboration across federal, state, and local levels. It’s a major concern for Pennsylvania and nationwide, as aging systems demand attention to ensure safety and support economic growth.

• The reauthorization of the 2017 Tax Cuts and Jobs Act has been a topic of significant discussion, with many anticipating it will be a priority for the Republican-controlled federal government. Tax legislation often includes various provisions—some beneficial, some less so. From your perspective, as a city council member and someone who worked with the Municipal League in 2017, what major Republican agenda items do you expect in this bill? Additionally, how do you think these provisions might impact cities and states?

  Derek: Reauthorizing the 2017 Tax Cuts and Jobs Act could have significant implications. One notable push might come from members of Congress in Northeast jurisdictions advocating for the return of the state and local tax (SALT) exemption. Restoring SALT could benefit cities in those regions by easing the tax burden on their residents.  

  However, other potential priorities, like a proposed mass deportation plan targeting alleged criminals, could also have broader economic implications. Such policies strain the court system and disrupt critical industries like construction, hospitality, and agriculture, potentially exacerbating inflation or affecting the deficit. Tariffs could add another layer of economic complexity. These factors could influence how Congress approaches any revisions to the Tax Cuts and Jobs Act, especially if they lead to further deficits or inflationary pressures.  

  Timing will be critical. If the administration prioritizes large-scale initiatives like deportations or tariffs before addressing tax policy, the financial impacts of those actions could limit the feasibility of a revised tax bill. Additionally, the legislative process—drafting, committee review, and passage through the House and Senate—takes time, and external pressures could shape what ultimately gets included.  

  The effects of these national policies on cities and states could be significant. Financial constraints at the federal level often cascade to municipalities, as seen during the Nutter administration in Philadelphia. The Great Recession, which began shortly after that administration took office, severely hampered its ability to execute planned initiatives due to lost revenue. 

  Similarly, Philadelphia now faces wage tax revenue challenges from professionals working remotely. If national economic pressures mount, they could further strain city and state budgets, impacting their ability to recover and adapt.

• I want to revisit your point about balancing the executive branch acting quickly, Congress’s response, and how that interplay could shape future policies. During the first administration, a significant push was to repeal the Affordable Care Act (ACA), which provides vital subsidies to many states and cities. Do you anticipate a similar push this time? Additionally, how do you see the challenges of translating campaign promises into action, particularly regarding the political capital required to turn rhetoric into reality?

  Derek: Yes, Trump talked a lot about repealing Obamacare, and there were bills in the House aimed at doing just that. You can say, "We’re going to do this and that," but if it’s never going to get through the Senate, it’s just talk. A bill might get out of committee and pass the House, but everyone knew it wasn’t clearing the more moderate Senate. That dynamic allows for more, let’s say, boisterous public statements because you’re not going to face the consequences of those proposals becoming law.  

  Now, the dynamics have shifted with a Republican-controlled executive branch and House and a more conservative  Senate. This raises questions about whether they’ll need Democratic votes to push through key measures, like continuing resolutions to keep the government running. Democrats might even step back and say, "You’re in charge—deal with it."  

  It’ll be fascinating to see how this plays out, especially when it comes to moving from campaign promises to actual governance. The administration must navigate these challenges and determine how to turn their rhetoric into legislative action. 

  If that had passed, there wouldn’t have been many constituents who had already lost access to healthcare, as the ACA was still in its early stages. Now, it would be much harder to repeal. Once people start receiving a benefit, it becomes difficult to take it away. This is why Republicans have long opposed Social Security—it’s tough to undo once it’s established. The same applies to the ACA. Those who have benefited from it are unlikely to want to see it gone, regardless of what you call it.

• We’ve discussed the Bipartisan Infrastructure Law and the Inflation Reduction Act as major bipartisan funding efforts, but billions of dollars from these laws remain unspent. You’ve mentioned the Biden administration's push to expedite these funds, particularly to ease concerns over the unspent amounts. Given the tension between the speed of the administration and the slower pace of bureaucracy and the legislative branch, what are your thoughts on how the Trump administration might handle the remaining IRA funds?

  Derek: Who knows? I don’t think you can compare the next four years to the last ones, especially since Trump isn’t running for re-election. He might focus more on his legacy and aim to be more inclusive, or he might double down on specific policies and do precisely what he wants. This could lead to gridlock between a Republican-controlled Congress and the executive branch, or he might try to broker deals. His cabinet appointees are loyalists, but some policies contradict traditional Republican views. For example, Robert F. Kennedy Jr. has strong anti-Big Pharma views, which could cause issues with Congress and the private sector.

  Trump has disrupted the Republican Party in ways that challenge traditional beliefs. Issues that once had broad public support, like foreign policy and global alliances, are now more contentious. Trump has expressed a desire to reduce involvement in Ukraine, whereas traditional Republicans, influenced by Cold War dynamics and NATO concerns, would typically support a stronger stance. 

  It’s tough to predict what the next four years will look like. There might be overreach from both the executive branch and Congress, which could create openings for Democrats in the Senate and House. But ultimately, anyone claiming to know what will happen doesn’t know.

• This has been fascinating. Are there any final thoughts or key takeaways you’d like to share with our clients or the general public?

  Derek: I think it’s going to be unpredictable. From both the private and public sector perspectives, you can’t rely on the federal government to consistently take beneficial actions. The early part of this administration will be marked by a lot of unpredictability, which will make it difficult to rely on federal support. Given this uncertainty, I think the private sector and cities and states should focus on strengthening existing relationships and exploring new business opportunities with jurisdictions they already work with. There may also be an increased need for the private sector to help the public sector navigate these challenges, which could lead to more public-private partnerships moving forward.

“There are many unknowns about his priorities. Is he thinking about his legacy, or is he focused on shaking things up? These questions make things feel uncertain, especially when considering the potential impacts of policies like tariffs and mass deportations.”

— Derek Green

• About Derek Green

  Derek S. Green, Esquire, is an attorney and public servant with extensive experience in law, politics, and community leadership. Elected to Philadelphia City Council At-Large in 2015 and re-elected in 2019, he chaired key committees and held leadership roles in numerous organizations. In 2022, he resigned to run for Mayor and now serves as Of Counsel at Obermayer Rebmann Maxwell & Hippel, LLP, and Special Counsel at Bellevue Strategies.

  A graduate of the University of Virginia and Temple University School of Law, Derek has received multiple awards for his work. He remains a dedicated advocate for Autism awareness alongside his wife, Sheila, in honor of their son.

• Summary

  Derek Green explores the challenges ahead under a Republican-controlled government led by Donald Trump, focusing on the friction between the party and federal branches. He explains how internal divisions, inexperienced appointees, and an overreliance on executive orders could lead to slow progress and unpredictability. For cities like Philadelphia, he stresses the importance of staying proactive, especially with federal funding for infrastructure, education, and other initiatives potentially in flux. 

Contributors

Derek Green, Bellevue Special Counsel

Julie Platt, Interviewer

Kristina D'Amico, Editor

Read More