Federalism has been dying a death by a thousand cuts.
Can the Federal Government withhold funds from individual States to get them to act a certain way? The national speed limit and national drinking age say, "Yes...yes it can."
And, truth be told, the Dems hate states doing different things. The Dems really want to concentrate power in D.C. They don't want 50 experiments running; they want only one.
Don't get me wrong. As a fan of Federalism, I don't like this trend at all. But, I hold no confident belief that federalism can be saved. The 17th Amendment (Senators no longer selected by states, but by popular vote) doomed Federalism to a slow death. The Switch in Nine threw dirt on the grave of Federalism. South Dakota v. Dole and other cases allowing the Feds to withhold federal funds to extort the States to act...well, that was just a few plastic flowers on the grave. (Consider: would Congress allow withholding of funds to states if the Senators were responsible to the State governments instead of to the people? If you like federalism, support the repeal of the 17th Amendment...and oppose the abolition of the Electoral College.)
Of course, I welcome any Democrat who wants to start using the word "federalism" again. I'm not sure I can take you at your word on your interest in federalism, though. If it were Obama doing this to Alabama, I doubt you would be upset...some reason would be found to jusifty the action, or the MSM would be silent about it at a minimum.
But, to directly address your question: I decline to defend Trump on this.