Trump, Maine Governor Spar Over Males in Female Sports: ‘We are the Federal Law’
The governor threatened to take him to court. Trump replied: “I’ll see you in court. I look forward to that.”
President Donald Trump stood his ground when going head to head with Maine Gov. Janet Mills (D) over his executive order that bans males from female sports.
At the National Governors Session, Trump called out Maine since the state won’t follow the order:
TRUMP: “Is the Maine here, the governor of Maine?”
MILLS: “I am here.”
TRUMP: “Are you not going to comply with it?”
MILLS: “I’m complying with state and federal laws.”
TRUMP: “Well, I’m — we are the federal law. Well, you better do it. You better do it, because you’re not going to get any federal funding at all if you don’t. And by the way, your population even though it’s somewhat liberal although I did very well there, your population doesn’t want men playing in women’s sports. So you better — you better comply because otherwise you’re not getting any — any federal funding.”
MILLS: “See you in court.”
TRUMP: “Every state — good, I’ll see you in court. I look forward to that.”
President Trump calls Maine Gov. Janet Mills (D) out to her face over her refusal to comply with the executive order keeping men out of women's sports:
"You better do it — because you're not going to get any federal funding at all if you don't." pic.twitter.com/uMUZsy1j6t
— Rapid Response 47 (@RapidResponse47) February 21, 2025
Mills and other Maine officials responded. From The Maine Morning Star:
In a statement shared early Friday, Mills said “the State of Maine will not be intimidated by the president’s threats.”
“If the president attempts to unilaterally deprive Maine school children of the benefit of federal funding, my administration and the attorney general will take all appropriate and necessary legal action to restore that funding and the academic opportunity it provides,” Mills said.
Maine Attorney General Aaron Frey said any attempt by the president to cut federal funding to Maine over the issue “would be illegal and in direct violation of federal court orders.”
“Fortunately,” Frey wrote in a statement, “the rule of law still applies in this country, and I will do everything in my power to defend Maine’s laws and block efforts by the president to bully and threaten us.”
He added, “It is disturbing that President Trump would use children as pawns in advancing his political agenda.”
On Thursday, during an address to the Republican governors, Trump asked if anyone was from Maine.
“They are still saying they want men to play in women’s sports and I cannot believe that they are doing that…so we’re not gonna give them any federal funding until they clean that up,” Trump told them, according to The Daily Mail.
DONATE
Donations tax deductible
to the full extent allowed by law.
Comments
They weren’t really sparring. Trump was just telling her like it is.
Gonna be interesting to see the litigation and how it shakes out. What the Trump admin needs is Congress to add a basic line into the reconciliation bill allowing the President to do a couple things:
1. Hold any funds appropriated for ‘general’ or nonspecific purposes. If Congress authorized spending to build a battleship that type of specific authorization couldn’t be held up.
2. Hold all funds excess due to cost savings. If Congress grants payroll costs of $X but due to reduction in force the number is 10% less then hold those funds.
Personally I would prefer the savings to go 75% towards paying down the Federal debt, 20% to taxpayers, 5% to fund Presidential Priorities allowing POTUS to put the funds towards already Congressionally authorized programs the Executive deems critical. That keeps a limit on Executive moving funding, provides incentive for every President to be cost conscious b/c the taxpayers will be looking for ‘their’ 20% cut of the savings plus allows the Executive to push 5% of additional funds to their own priorities within the gov’t. I suspect that sort of reform won’t be adopted b/c it upsets too many apple carts.
It will interesting. This reminds me of the fight over speed limits. States that refused to comply with the Federal order of 55 mph were denied highway funds. If that can happen then what’s to stop the President and Congress from cutting off education funding if a state refuses to follow federal guidelines?
That’s similar but not the best analogy. The reason is the highway funds are part of the transportation trust funded by federal fuel taxes. IOW those were not general revenue funds when collected or spent.
Here we have a pretty straightforward conflict. Title 9 says (way oversimplified) ‘protect women’, the State laws are subordinate to Federal statutes, the receipt of funding is conditioned on the State compliance with Federal statutes, the WH says the State can’t be in compliance if they let men into women’s spaces the State refuses to
comply. The funds in question are funded by general revenue and the Executive has some degree of discretion to grant or withhold (depending on what funds are ultimately withheld)
The test is gonna be; is Federal statute controlling IOW does non compliance = automatic loss of.funds within the program, if not does does the Executive have discretion over some funds, if so how much. Same sort of question if the WH tries cutting non education funding which IMO is probably not gonna fly.
They were not denied all highway funding. Only a small cut was threatened, small enough that if the state really wanted to keep its speed limits it could afford to do so and absorb the cut. Therefore the cut was not coercive.
Also the cut was made directly and explicitly by Congress, not by the president.
It was only for those two reasons that it was constitutional. Had Congress not explicitly done it, or had the cut been so high that the states had no choice but to comply, then it would have been struck down.
Thanks for the reminder that the amount withheld could not force the state to comply. I had forgotten about that bit.
Just as many here keep reminding us that we have separation of powers at the federal level we need also to remember there is a separation of federal and state powers. States are sovereign. For the federal government to take steps to force states to go against their own (as much as those policies strike many if not most as being wrong) is to put a lie to that sovereignty and make states vassals of the federal government.
No, he wasn’t, because she’s 100% right that he can’t cut the funding. He has no authority to do it, and the courts will order the funding to continue.
Even Congress itself can’t use funding to coerce states into doing its will. But it can use small funding cuts to persuade them. The executive can’t even do that. But what Trump threatened is something not even Congress can do.
Weird… cause when Obama decreed that males must be allowed to play on girls teams and access to female showers and locker rooms the Obama administration said states not following that “rule” risked Federal funding… and Federal funding not just connected to education… but you were cool with THAT huh Mildew… cause then it was (D)ifferent
Did the states ever decide to test his threat in court? Honest question because I don’t recall any court challenges.
The DOE under 0bama threatened Title 9 lawsuits, which is something Trump’s DOE can do too.
As usual, case is lying through his lying slanderous teeth. Assuming he has any.
Maybe the Maine AG should look back at how Obama and Biden both withheld federal funds to gain compliance with their EO’s. Maybe someone should tell the AG that federal monies are not guaranteed.
Not all are ‘guaranteed’ some are. The funds that have both an authorization and a specific funding appropriation by Congress can’t be withheld. The rest of the funding? A big chunk of the total doesn’t have both an authorization and an appropriation from Congress requiring $X to go to a specific recipient, the Executive has some degree of discretion. These funds probably can be withheld. In past practice even funds with a specific authorization and an appropriation have been allowed to be delayed for disbursement until the end of the Fiscal Year.
but judges, even SCOTUS, view the law differently when Trump is involved
well- that’s usually because ‘the moron.’ has no grasp of most issues and clearly never thinks things through. His only criteria for making moron moves like this is- ‘what will my dumbass ,racist, small minded cult eat up’.
“‘what will my dumbass ,racist, small minded cult eat up’.
We’re not members of your vicious little cult, dingus.
You lower the averave IQ in here a disturbing amount. Is your one brain cell lonely?
When was the last time your meds were checked… “dumbass,racist,small minded cult”…. Are you aware Biden is no longer president?… cause you sure seem focused on his voters there in your post… seek help
“immigrants are poisoning our blood”-The moron
‘Haitians are eating cats ” -moron
A black four star general isn’t qualified . But a white ,retired 3 star generals is.
White Christian Nationalists unite
TVJ, I won’t say you’re off your meds because you probably don’t have any to start with. Get some, you need them.
You really must tell the pharmacist to stop putting child proof caps on your medication.
No, they don’t. At least SCOTUS doesn’t. And neither do most judges. Those that can be proven to do so need to be referred to the appropriate circuit’s Judicial Discipline Committee or whatever it’s called.
The gov threatened IL with loss of funds until we raised our drinking age.
Congress conditions 10% of highway funds on a state having a minimum drinking age at or above 21, which is constitutional because 1) it comes from Congress (23 U.S.C. § 158), 2) it is only 10% of the highway funds, and 3) there is a rational link between alcohol laws and highway safety, which is the purpose of the funds.
Thanks for bringing this up. I’ve been trying to explain these basic principles for when federal money is withtheld to several people lately.
Quite right. The withheld funds must be somehow tied to the what is being attempted. Drinking age to highway funds for safety, school funding to safety in sports for girls. They have to be linked so when Trump is saying no federal funding I think he means school funding not other things.
But even then, it must come directly from Congress, not from the executive, and it must be small enough that it only persuades the states and does not compel them. Congress cannot use funding to compel the states to do as it wishes. Had the highway funding cut been so high that states couldn’t afford to say no, then it would have been struck down.
Here’s your #Resistance time, Janet.
Time to put up and then be shut up.
That’s rich!
He added, “It is disturbing that President Trump would use children as pawns in advancing his political agenda.”
I find it disturbing that crazy bitches will allow chicks with cocks to go into women’s locker rooms. Talk about using children as pawns in a political agenda.
They’re not chicks with cocks, they’re mentally ill males.
True. But some people like tvenerealdisease 1156 need to be reminded that they love some women with cocks.
Incredible that’s there’s not a single mention here of the fact that Trump is unambiguously wrong here. The president cannot unilaterally create conditions on funding, they must be authorized by Congress, and even when it’s authorized by Congress 1) the condition must be related to the purpose of the affected funding and 2) the amount conditioned must not be so great as to be coercive. This is very well established.
I guess legal insurrection now supports unconstitutional commandeering?
Lotta “settled law” seems to be dropping by the wayside these days, Mr. Chevron, Ms. Roe, Senor Escobar, Herr Glock.
Kinda makes a historical maverick wanna swing hard and test his chances.
This has been settled law for over two centuries. States have a constitutional right not to be forced to do things they don’t want to do, including by cutting funding so much that they can’t afford to refuse.
Title Nine seems rather related to female sports.
I seem to remember a couple of Presidents wielding Title 9 like a club to force all kinds of things. I would like to see the ME Gov try this one out in court and our AG coming back with a civil rights lawsuit on behalf of girls who have a right not to see naked men in their locker room or be forced into sports with men.
That they can do. But using funding cuts to compel the states, that they can’t do.
I voted for Trump and agree with him most of the time. However his “We are the Federal law. “(I may be paraphrasing) had a disturbing ring of “L’Etat C’est Moi” to me.
Your beef is over matters of style, not substance. Substantively, #47 is right. His phrasing may be indelicate, at times, but, what matters is the substance.
What matters to me is the rule of law. Not style not substance as both can change to suit the current mood and audience. Trump should express his anger with Maine over this. He should even let them knew he will explore what means are open to the federal government to protect female in sports. What he should not do is throw out a threat that he can’t legally make hold.
I don’t think he handled it the best way. Of course, it was direct and humiliating to the governor but it could have been done by simply saying, “Why don’t you talk to your constituents and see what they want?”. Trump is getting a bully’s reputation and we may like it, but it isn’t bringing anyone else on board.
I don’t care whether or not the Communists like getting their asses kicked as long as they get their ass kicked
Never will bring everyone on board
He tried being Mr Nice guy
Got him impeached twice, new record
Had his residence raided with a shoot to kill by our own FBI
Had 2 murder attempts on his life
Found guilty of made up crap amd deemed a felon
Being nice, wayyyy over rated
he’s never tried being ‘mr nice guy’. He’s been an obnoxious asshole his entire life.You’r a cult follower. Completely brainwashed. SMH.
I hope you got a free red hat with your Bible. AHAHAHAHAHAH
I hear he even graduated in the bottom third of his class st Obnoxious Asshole School, Mr. Valedictorian.
At this point, the Dhimmi-crats’ fanatical obsession with advocating for men’s invasion of girls’ and women’s sports and private spaces is akin to stating that the Earth is flat.
One shouldn’t be and needn’t be “nice” in confronting such brazen and irrational fanaticism, especially when the vast majority of the U.S. populace supports #47’s stance.
The people who are not on board like Governor’s and Mayors of and in blue states are not going to be on board no matter what. Boys in girls sports is not supported by the overwhelming majority of people but they don’t care. This might be the only way to force the states to listen to their people.
Sometimes, kicking the asses of people who will never get on board is what brings a lot of other people on board. Worse men have been adulated simply for making the trains run on time.
My man takes no prisoners
A typically grandstanding, Dhimmmi-crat governor attempts to make a name for herself by advocating for the “right” of malignantly narcissistic and viciously misogynistic men to play in girls’ and women’s sports, and, to invade their private spaces.
The Dhimmi-crat apparatchiks and their evil and wretched Party are committed to obnoxiously pushing for men’s invasions of girls’ and women’s sports and private spaces — contrary to rationality, moral probity, decency, science and common sense.
This is good news for the GOP, in the long term.
Soooooo, imortant for the WH to get involved in an important issue like this!!!
‘The moron’ is the perfect a-hole to lead point onn this.
It actually is important.
His funding threat is not right, because he can’t carry it out. But there are plenty of tools the administration can use, starting with Title 9 suits. But really a “dear colleague” letter should do the trick.
The last administration went after their political enemies with the clear idea that “the process is the punishment”. Throwing everything at Maine could make it rather uncomfortable for their Governor, if she will eventually lose on Title 9.
oh put a sock in it. The last administration did their job as there was a #MOUNTAIN# of credible evidence that Trump had committed crimes. What were they supposed to do. Ignore it because he was a Republican?
I prefer “Dear Mush for Brains” letters.
Yes, but “Dear Colleague” should be a reminder of how these things worked under 0bama.
So Title 9 Civil Rights Act can be dismissed by a State which refuses to recognize basic biological differences? Cool what other sections of the Civil Rights Act should States be able to ignore with impunity? The d/prog can’t seem to help themselves, they always want to ignore Civil Right Act but this time it’s the Gov of Maine not Lester Maddox or George Wallace.
No, it can’t, and that is the way Trump should be going about this. I absolutely support what he’s trying to do here, I just can’t support the specific way he seems to think he can go about it, in this one conversation. I hope that right afterwards one of his advisors took him aside and told him “You can’t do it that way, but there are plenty of ways you can and should do it”.
You would think professional courtesy would keep you from bad mouthing morons.
Simple answer. No more DOE funding. Period, end of story. Get the federal government out of schools.
Then perverted governors can permit rapists pretending to be women to molest little girls. Then they can file civil suits, or stop electing perverts.
That’s a longer-term solution because it requires Congress. So long as Congress appropriates money for DOE it must be spent.