Since the 1990s, restrictions on the powers of individual states in the US have been increasing. The nature of challenges and their respective solutions have have increasingly become nationalised, than local. This inturn has lead to the decline in the electoral value of “states’ rights” as a key issue. Additionally bipartisan discomfort with uneven state regulations have also contributed to this erosion. The Internet revolution of the 1990s led to increased state-level regulations, creating unprecedented legal challenges in the ever-evolving landscape of the internet. However, the challenges associated with social media and privacy were largely addressed through federal regulations. These regulations, beginning with the Patriot Act, have not only proactively responded to these issues but have also acted to limit the scope of state-level laws governing social media and privacy. Contemporary issues such as immigration, artificial intelligence, abortion, gun regulation, and freedom of speech and expression also required a uniform approach with a greater Federal role. This has led to bipartisan support for national solutions and a corresponding shift away from independent state regulatory frameworks which further insentivised both parties to distance themselves from the states’ rights agenda. The Republican Party which was the primary advocate of states’ rights has seen an incredible shift in rhetoric sidelining the issue. Beginning with the Patriot Act, and continuing through debates on abortion, gun control, and immigration, key issues important to the Republican base increasingly demand a federal regulatory strategy over a state-level one. This shift has contributed to the decline of states’ rights as a viable electoral issue. Furthermore, the support of AI and social media industry leaders for the Republican Party has amplified this trend, with them favoring uniform federal regulations. For the Democrats who have traditionally opposed to states’ rights, especially in the context of social and welfare policies, this decline in the issue’s electoral relevance has been a welcome development. The Trump administration’s actions such as deploying the National Guard without state governors’ consent to quell anti-ICE protests, proposing a bill to ban states from regulating AI for ten years, and earlier efforts to limit state control over climate-focused regulations, have all contributed to the erosion of state authority. These steps have created opportunities for the Democratic Party and other pro–states’ rights factions to raise the issue once again. However, among the many criticisms of such actions, the concern over states’ rights is often sidelined, with attention instead going to issues like the misuse of presidential power, suppression of the right to protest, corruption, and growing corporate influence. The marginalization of the states’ rights narrative, even in the face of clear threats, underscores how much the issue has declined in political relevance. As challenges, systems, and structures become increasingly centralised, and the political will to sustain State’s powers decline, the U.S. federal setup and the underlying philosophy of the “United States” of America is poised for a profound transformation in the near future.