What to Know: 

• The Federalism Scorecard measures how well a state’s elected leaders oversee agencies and manage the state–federal interface—not ideology. It’s about governance capacity and accountability.
• 2025 highlights: states like Tennessee and Utah lead; Wisconsin and Idaho also rank highly. Illinois and California sit near the bottom. Reforms to grant oversight and guidance transparency are common movers.
• Vulnerability and partisanship aren’t one and the same. Outliers complicate the narrative, so the smarter takeaway is which levers (oversight, review, transparency) change outcomes.
• Campaigns and nonprofits can use this lens to refine messaging, targeting, and policy asks—and to monitor states most likely to shift over the next 12–24 months.

   

  This pillar draws on the 2025 Federalism Scorecard published by the State Policy Network's Center for Practical Federalism — a 50-state index of how well elected leaders oversee state agencies and manage the state–federal interface.

About the Scorecard

The Federalism Scorecard is published by the State Policy Network (SPN), a coalition of state-based policy organizations that tracks how much control states keep over their own decisions. SPN’s Center for Practical Federalism compiles the legal and procedural “guardrails” each state uses to manage federal money, federal guidance, and agency rulemaking.

In plain terms, “federalism” is the idea that states should govern themselves on day-to-day matters — and that decisions affecting schools, permits, health programs, and budgets should be made by elected state leaders, not only by federal agencies. The Scorecard is SPN’s way of measuring how well each state is holding that line.

What the Scorecard Measures

The 2025 Federalism Scorecard evaluates whether elected state leaders—legislatures and governors—retain real oversight of state agencies and visibility into federal grant conditions. The logic is straightforward: when agencies drift from legislative control or when federal dollars arrive with opaque strings, policy choices migrate away from voters’ representatives. The scorecard therefore looks for durable guardrails that keep decision‑making connected to elected officials and transparent to the public.

The index groups its signals into two broad categories:

• Internal governance. Do lawmakers have working tools such as oversight committees, subpoena power, limits on agency lobbying (only two states restrict this), judicial non‑deference to agency interpretations, legislative or independent regulatory review, and accessible injunctive relief for citizens when agencies overstep?
  
  
• External interface. How does the state manage federal grants and guidance—e.g., legislative oversight of grants, executive visibility, cost tracking, contingency planning for federal‑fund volatility, and public transparency when federal guidance shapes policy? What share of the state budget depends on federal revenue?

Taken together, these indicators don’t label states as red or blue; they describe the strength of process—the mundane but decisive rules that keep policy under elected control. Two new 2025 variables—Null-and-Void Statutes and Legislative Subpoena Power—expand the framework, while three lower-impact metrics were retired (Cost-Benefit Analysis, Legislative Resources, Balanced Emergency Powers). For year‑over‑year context, see the 2024 scorecard.

2025 at a Glance: Leaders, Laggards, and Movers

A top‑line look at 2025 shows states like Tennessee and Utah continuing to perform well, with Idaho and Wisconsin also in the upper tier. On the other end, Illinois and California remain more vulnerable. What distinguishes leaders isn’t a single silver bullet but a bundle of practical rules that shed light on grants, elevate legislative review, and reduce reliance on unwritten agency guidance.

Screenshot from State Policy Network Federalism Scorecard 2025

Tennessee (67.18) and Utah (66.34) lead the 2025 index, followed by Idaho (57.85) and Wisconsin (51.10). Illinois (–4.55) and California (–6.12) remain near the bottom, while Mississippi, Alabama, and Montana (–13.56) mark the most vulnerable tier.

Reforms matter. States that climbed in recent cycles tend to have adopted one or more of the following:

1. Grant oversight with teeth. Legislatures review large or novel grants before agencies commit, bringing costs, conditions, and tradeoffs into daylight.
2. Guidance transparency. When federal guidance drives policy, agencies must publish it and cite it, allowing lawmakers and the public to see the basis for decisions. Only Utah mandates disclosure of all federal guidance; Tennessee and Oklahoma require it within their Education departments.
3. Independent or legislative regulatory review. Significant rules receive an external check for legality and cost, reducing the risk of agencies making major policy by rulemaking alone.
4. Citizen remedies. Clear avenues for injunctive relief help individuals and businesses challenge unlawful or procedurally weak actions.

Notable climbers include Oklahoma (from #40 to #14), Nebraska (from #35 to #12), and North Carolina (from #32 to #19) after adopting REINS-style oversight and contingency-plan rules.

These aren’t headline‑grabbers, but they change outcomes precisely because they rebalance incentives: officials must justify decisions in public, and legislators can steer policy before commitments are locked in. 

→ Read next: What the 2025 Federalism Scorecard Actually Measures — and Why Party Control Isn't the Main Driver

Does Vulnerability Track With Partisanship?

It’s tempting to map scores directly onto party control. The data suggest a subtler story. There are high‑scoring states under Republican control and under Democratic control; likewise, there are low‑scoring states in both camps. That pattern reflects institutional history as much as ideology—some states codified legislative review decades ago; others rely on informal norms and executive discretion that fray during crises.

For practitioners, the lesson is to emphasize mechanisms over labels. Voters across parties respond to concrete commitments: publish the grant terms; disclose the guidance; review big rules in daylight. These moves speak to fairness and predictability, not factional identity, and they offer a practical way to depolarize administrative debates.

Swing States Through a Federalism Lens

In competitive states, procedural guardrails become campaign‑relevant because they influence the speed, clarity, and credibility of policy delivery. Consider how states administer major programs like Medicaid, environmental implementation plans, or education funding formulas. Where oversight and transparency rules are strong, leaders can explain tradeoffs and timelines with confidence; where rules are thin, policy shifts feel abrupt and unaccountable.

This lens helps campaigns do three things:

• Anticipate friction. If a state depends heavily on federal funds in one domain, grant conditions can become flashpoints. Knowing the oversight rules tells you where surprises may land.
• Target persuasion. Communities most affected by opaque processes—small businesses facing sudden rule changes, school districts adjusting to guidance—often want reliability more than rhetoric.
• Frame accomplishments. If reforms strengthened review or transparency, show the practical benefit: fewer whiplash policy changes and clearer lines of authority.

→ Read next: How Federal Dollars Shape Swing States (2025) — And the Guardrails That Reduce Surprises

Why Some States Depend More: The Drivers

State exposure to federal strings is shaped by a mix of economic structure, program enrollment, institutions, and risk profile. Differences among states reflect their economic structure, program mix, and institutional safeguards — not ideology. Four forces stand out:

Image by DALL-E illustration

• Economy. Energy production, defense installations, agriculture, tourism, and university systems change how frequently agencies interact with federal programs and how consequential those interactions are.
• Programs & demographics. Eligibility and participation vary across states. A large Medicaid program or a rapidly growing population can increase the stakes of federal rules; aging populations can shift priorities in health and infrastructure.
• Institutions. Some states built independent review bodies, adopted REINS‑style thresholds, or formalized grant approval processes. Others lean on executive discretion, which can work in calm periods but struggles during rapid policy change.
• Geography & risk. Disaster‑prone regions regularly navigate federal aid, waivers, and emergency rules, putting a premium on transparent processes and legislative visibility.

These forces combine differently in each state. Two states with similar politics can reach very different scores because one codified oversight years ago while the other relies on handshake norms. Understanding those paths helps campaigns set realistic expectations and propose reforms that match local constraints. For deeper examples and short state vignettes on economy, programs, institutions, and risk—as well as a near-term outlook—see Drivers & Outlook.

How Campaigns & Nonprofits Can Use This

Treat the scorecard as a starting point for planning rather than a trophy case. Practical applications include:

• Message testing. Contrast opaque vs. transparent processes: “We publish grant terms and cite federal guidance so you can see why decisions are made.” That frame resonates with voters who want competence more than combat.
• Policy development. Build targeted asks around grant review rules, guidance disclosure, independent or legislative regulatory review, and clear remedies for citizens. These measures are portable across states and align with good‑government expectations.
• List development & targeting. Align outreach with the policy areas where oversight would be most visible to constituents—e.g., small business permitting, school funding, or environmental compliance. Use the score and recent reforms to prioritize states where a small change could deliver large credibility gains.
• Content planning. Tie earned and owned media to moments when oversight rules surface (major grant approvals, high‑impact rules). Offer clear explainers that convert process improvements into citizen benefits.

Wrap Up

The Federalism Scorecard is a window into how states actually govern. In 2025, the most interesting stories are the movers—states that adopted low‑drama, high‑impact rules for grant oversight, guidance transparency, and regulatory review. Those changes make policy more predictable for citizens and keep authority closer to elected representatives.

Further Reading

• What the 2025 Federalism Scorecard Actually Measures — and Why Party Control Isn’t the Main Driver
• How Federal Dollars Shape Swing States (2025) — And the Guardrails That Reduce Surprises