USDA Begins University of Maine ‘Compliance Review’ After Tense Exchange Between Gov and Trump
“USDA is committed to upholding the President’s executive order, meaning any institution that chooses to disregard it can count on losing future funding.”
Because Maine has vowed to defy President Donald Trump’s executive order on protecting women’s sports, Trump has issued warnings to the state’s Democrat governor, Janet Mills. For instance, he said at a Republican Governors Association gathering Thursday that Maine’s federal education funding would be pulled if they didn’t comply.
Legal Insurrection reported on the tense exchange that happened Friday between Trump and Mills after he directly confronted her during his greeting to the National Governors Association (NGA) working session at the White House.
He confirmed Mills’ stance and then advised her what the consequences would be, which prompted their heated back and forth:
“Is Maine here? The governor of Maine?” Trump said, before locating Mills seated nearby at a table in the White House State Dining Room. “Are you not going to comply with it?”
Mills replied, “I’m going to comply with state and federal law.”
“We are the federal law,” Trump responded. “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.”
Mills then said, “We’re going to follow the law, sir. We’ll see you in court.”
Trump got the last word in the back and forth. “Enjoy your life after, governor, because I don’t think you’ll be an elected official afterwards.”
“Good, I’ll see you in court. I look forward to that,” he also remarked in response to her “see you in court” statement. “That should be a real easy one.”
In an update to this story, the United States Dept. of Agriculture announced Saturday that it was launching a “compliance review” of the University of Maine to determine if they’d committed any Title IX violations.
In her announcement, Agriculture Sec. Brooke Rollins explained why the USDA had taken the lead on the issue:
The U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) has initiated a compliance review of the University of Maine following the State of Maine’s blatant disregard for President Trump’s Executive Order (EO) 14201, Keeping Men Out of Women’s Sports.
“President Trump has made it abundantly clear: taxpayers’ hard-earned dollars will not support institutions that discriminate against women,” said U.S. Secretary of Agriculture Brooke Rollins. “USDA is committed to upholding the President’s executive order, meaning any institution that chooses to disregard it can count on losing future funding.”
As a federally funded land-grant institution, the University of Maine receives over $100 million in USDA funding. Title IX prohibits discrimination on the basis of sex in education programs and activities that receive federal funding. Compliance with federal law is mandatory for institutions to continue receiving taxpayer funded support, including USDA grants.
.@USDA has initiated a compliance review of the University of Maine following the state’s disregard for @POTUS’ EO, “Keeping Men Out of Women’s Sports.”
Let me be clear: Any institution that chooses to disregard it can count on losing future funding. https://t.co/osiJI53yiB pic.twitter.com/lMJICdGXiA
— Secretary Brooke Rollins (@SecRollins) February 22, 2025
Here’s how the University of Maine System responded:
The University of Maine System appreciates the media making us aware of the USDA’s letter, which recognizes our flagship’s record of success in securing funding from that agency but notably makes no allegations of any wrongdoing. Maine’s public universities will continue to comply with all relevant State and Federal laws and cooperate with any compliance reviews to ensure postsecondary educational opportunities and high-impact research continue to benefit our students, the state and this nation.
Relatedly, it’s been interesting to see the Usual Suspects line up to claim Trump is “bullying” the newest Resistance member. But let’s remember that none of these people expressed any objections when then-President Joe Biden bullied red states and threatened to withhold federal education funding to any that didn’t comply with his dictatorial LGBTQ directives.
Democrats started this war and counted on Republicans all the way up to Trump to give in. They were mistaken.
-Stacey Matthews has also written under the pseudonym “Sister Toldjah” and can be reached via Twitter/X.-
DONATE
Donations tax deductible
to the full extent allowed by law.
Comments
There is probably a lot more federal money coming into her state than the unaware woke governor realizes.
“The University of Maine System appreciates the media making us aware of the USDA’s letter”
If you’d fix the speaker on your Gateway 2000, you would hear the guy yelling “YOU HAVE MAIL.”
A bunch of Smug SOBs. Title IX was designed to keep men out of women’s sports.
No, it wasn’t, because when it was written that wasn’t even a thing. It was designed to force institutions to have women’s sports, even if the interest in them didn’t justify them.
Then having men in women’s sports is not “having women’s sports”.
I repeat, it wasn’t designed to keep men out of women’s sports. Back then no men were trying to get into women’s sports, so it wasn’t a thing anyone thought needed to be stopped. Men in women’s sports does violate Title 9, but that’s not what it was designed for.
? IT IS CALLED “WOMEN SPORTS”
If they are breaking federal law (title IX – they are), there should be prosecutions.
1. It’s not a crime, so they can’t be prosecuted, just sued.
2. Whether Title 9 forbids men in women’s sports or requires them is a matter of opinion. The 0bama and Biden administrations were of the opinion that Title 9 requires them; the Trump administration is of the opinion that it forbids them. Neither of those opinions can change what it actually means; that is entirely in the hands of the courts, which haven’t yet expressed an opinion.
So when the USDA tells the university “You’re violating Title 9”, the university replies “On the contrary, we’re complying with it, you’re demanding that we violate it, and we won’t do that”. Neither the DOE nor the USDA can cut off their funding without suing them first, and then we will see what the courts say Title 9 means.
It only became an “opinion” when the definition of a woman became ambivalent on one side
That is nevertheless a matter of opinion, and there’s no telling where the courts will come down. The administration is entitled to its opinion, just as the previous one was, and it’s entitled to sue people under its opinion, but then the courts get to give their opinion and that’s what controls. Especially now that Chevron is gone, so the administration’s opinion is no longer privileged.
Just because everyone has understood a statute one way for decades doesn’t mean that way was correct. Look at the student loan statute that for 30 year was understood to allow debt forgiveness at the end of Income Contingent Repayment plans as well as that of Income Based Repayment plans, but a court looked at the statute and pointed out that it only allows forgiveness for IBRs and not for ICRs.
I’m pretty sure my biological sex is not a matter of opinion.
She is Fuzzy to take your side?
I am not a lawyer. My experience is in labor relations. In labor disputes about contract meaning, there are two fundamentals.
1. The language speaks for itself. You cannot impute a meaning that is not a plausible simple reading of what was written.
2. If that still leaves alternative possible plausible reading, look to the intent of the drafters.
If that standard were at all applicable here, I believe (and it is only my personal belief) that the intent of the drafters was to create literally “ Separate But Equal programs for men and women.
Sanddog, your biological sex may not be a matter of opinion, but it is very much a matter of opinion whether that should be relevant here. Trump is entitled to his opinion, but that’s all it is.
Hodge, if you assume that “transmen” are women, then the language speaks for itself that they must be allowed to compete. If you assume they are not, then the language is just as clear that they must not be allowed to compete.
Which way to assume is a matter of opinion. Many people are of the very strong opinion that these people are women, many more are of the equally strong opinion that they are not.
Also, when interpreting laws the drafters’ intent is irrelevant, since they didn’t make the law, they just wrote it. Even the intent of the legislators who enacted it isn’t relevant, because the law is the text, not their secret intentions. The proper test for a law’s meaning is its public meaning, i.e. how an ordinary speaker of English at the time it was enacted would have understood the text. Not what assumptions that person would have made, but how they would have understood the text itself. Of course when Title 9 was enacted it was widely understood that “woman” meant a person with female anatomy.
What is a man and what is a woman is NOT an opinion.
It is a biological fact.
And will remain such regardless of what any human says, however they may say it.
I don’t think people realize how rabidly Marxist Southern Maine actually is because they’re out of sight, out of mind.
And the University of Maine? You could close that college and no one would notice. It’s an insignificance halfway to the Canadian border.
I’ve had political dealings with marxists in Maine that would stand the hair on the back of your neck on end.
So if Mr. Trump decides to yank federal funding to the state because they’re decided that a man who thinks he’s a woman is allowed to use a girl’s locker room is the hill to die on then I’ll be in the front row cheering.
Truly, you have *no* idea how horrible these people are.
My people settled in Maine in 1632. We have always understood the true origin of the term “Loonie.” I suspect much of Steven King’s work was inspired by being woken suddenly as one calls to another down the lake.
I recently picked up a copy of John Hodgeman’s “Vacationland” which is a pretty accurate character assassination of Maine culture, which is mostly centered on Perry’s Nut House.
Steven King is a revered resident of Maine. That says it all don’t you think.
I think that the administration is ready for the confrontation.
Deny the funding till Maine complies. Maine will sue and ultimately it may land at the USSC. So be it. The DOJ has plenty of attorneys and resources to fight leftist lawsuits till hades freezes over.
The d/prog can’t seem to shake their disdain for the Civil Rights Act.
Can someone tell me why the U.S. Department of Agriculture is involved?
Just a guess that land grants were involved in funding the university and perhaps still are.
Read the post: “As a federally funded land-grant institution, the University of Maine receives over $100 million in USDA funding.”
It is a thinly veiled attack against Belted Galloways.
Agriculture? Seems like an odd dept of enforcement.