Maine House censures lawmaker for post about transgender student
The Maine State House in Augusta lit up at night during the 2024 legislative session. (Emma Davis/ Maine Morning Star)
The Maine House of Representatives voted to censure Rep. Laurel Libby (R-Auburn) for posting on her legislative Facebook page photographs and personal details about a transgender high school athlete.
Days after the post, President Donald Trump threatened to withhold funding from Maine for not complying with his executive order seeking to ban transgender women from competing in sports that correspond with their gender identity. In her post, Libby referred to a policy of the Maine Principals' Association that continues to allow such participation in scholastic sports in accordance with the Maine Human Rights Act, which prohibits discrimination based on gender identity, among other protected classes.
After the 75-70 vote Tuesday night to censure — an official statement of condemnation by the Legislature — Libby declined to submit an apology to the body, meaning she is in violation of the House rules and therefore unable to cast a vote or speak on the floor until she complies.
'I urge you, and indeed every member of this body, to recommit to keeping kids out of the political fray as has long been observed in both our state and federal politic,' Speaker of the House Ryan Fecteau (D-Biddeford) said to Libby after the vote. 'Maine kids and all Maine people deserve better.'
Fecteau explained on the floor that he reached out to Libby earlier this week to request she take down the post, which has since received national attention, but she refused.
In a floor speech ahead of the vote, Libby began her remarks referencing other policy decisions, including criticizing how the Legislature and governor handled the COVID-19 pandemic and passage of a law expanding access to abortion later in pregnancy. The comments, however, drew several point of order objections as lawmakers asked Libby to keep her comments to the resolution at hand. Those objections bubbled to a chorus when the representative said, 'Boys participating in girls sports is not fair.'
House Majority Leader Matt Moonen (D-Portland), who proposed the censure, pointed to the Legislature's code of ethics, which states that members are 'charged with civility and responsible conduct inside and outside of the State House' and 'entrusted with the security, safety, health, prosperity, respect and general well-being of those the legislator serves.'
House Minority Leader Billy Bob Faulkingham (R-Winter Harbor) argued the code of ethics does not refer to online or social media posts, and that Libby's post also didn't violate Facebook's community standards.
'This censure motion makes a mockery of the censure process,' Faulkingham said. 'It sets a standard that says that the majority party, when they're displeased with a social media post that upsets them, can censure a member of the minority party, and by a majority vote, censure them.'
In a statement issued after the vote, Faulkingham also accused Democrats of using what he referred to as a 'sham' censure to distract from the supplemental budget proposal to address an imminent Medicaid funding shortfall that is currently still in limbo.
'Instead of solving pressing problems,' he wrote, 'they have attempted to divert public attention to a social media post.'
Democrats characterized the moment differently.
'Recognizing the gravity of these harmful actions should not be a partisan issue,' Moonen said on the House floor. It arguably had not been before the censure motion, Moonen added, pointing to comments from Maine Republican Party Executive Director Jason Savage about Libby's actions. While Savage criticized the Maine Principals Association's decision in an interview with WGAN, he called for those sharing Libby's post to have 'a dose of humanity.'
'I think if you're a young person who is struggling with identity, I don't think we need to be putting you at the center of anything and making you a focal point for an entire state or nation,' Savage said.
Trump administration launches investigation into Maine schools over transgender policy
While some Republican representatives expressed their disapproval of Libby's actions, they stopped short Tuesday of taking official action to reprimand their colleague.
'I think my colleague's actions were cruel, callous and reprehensible,' said Rep. David Boyer (R-Poland). However, Boyer explained he'd be voting against censure. 'I have concerns about regulating members' conduct on social media,' he said.
Rep. Jennifer Poirier (R-Skowhegan) said what legislators should be asking is whether Libby is being afforded freedom of speech.
'This youth's name and picture, similar to those used in her post, could be found easily with a simple Google search,' Poirier said. 'If Rep. Libby had posted the same picture, the same name with sentiments of congratulations, would we be here doing the censure right now? I think we know the answer to that.'
Democratic lawmakers pushed back, describing the post as 'doxing,' or sharing personal identifying information about someone with malicious intent. Rep. Jan Dodge (D-Belfast) said the narrative Libby posted about the student took the post well beyond the act of publishing a photo of a minor online.
'I'd like to note that the representative from Auburn had the forethought to blur the faces of some of the student athletes in the social media post, but not this athlete,' Dodge said.
Rep. Michael Lemelin (R-Chelsea) — who was censured last year for implying that the Legislature's passage of the bill expanding access to abortion later in pregnancy caused the Lewiston shooting by invoking God's wrath — pushed back on accusations of doxing because Libby has not said she intended to do harm. Lemelin then referred to the act of censuring Libby as 'a lynching.'
Rep. Christina Mitchell (D-Cumberland), a teacher who represents the county where the student in the post resides, said parents have reached out to her to express their upset and concern.
'The representative from Auburn's actions have directly harmed the school, the families and our children in my community, and it's all happening because one person, an adult, a legislator, chose to use a child to score political points,' Mitchell said.
Other Democrats echoed this sentiment in their remarks, arguing lawmakers should 'keep the kids out of it.'
'Before social media coarsened our civic discourse, it was pretty much universally accepted,' Rep. William Bridgeo (D-Augusta) said. 'Any effort to ignore or undermine that principle is unacceptable and it does need to be condemned.'
SUPPORT: YOU MAKE OUR WORK POSSIBLE
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Yahoo
33 minutes ago
- Yahoo
Legislature to repeal MinnesotaCare for undocumented adults
Demonstrators gather for a protest organized by the Minnesota Immigrant Rights Action Committee calling for the continuation of MinnesotaCare for undocumented adults at the Minnesota State Capitol Tuesday, May 27, 2025. (Photo by Nicole Neri/Minnesota Reformer) Despite Democratic-Farmer-Labor control of the state Senate, the governor's office, and half of the House, Republicans forced Democrats to roll back one of their signature accomplishments from the 2023 legislative session: health care for undocumented people. The Legislature is expected to vote Monday to repeal undocumented adults' eligibility for MinnesotaCare, the state-subsidized health insurance program for the working poor. Children would still be covered. Republicans successfully used their leverage — the threat of a government shutdown starting July 1 — to force the Democrats' hand on an issue that is of supreme importance to GOP lawmakers. The DFL pulled out all nearly of the stops to avoid cutting health care access for undocumented adults. During negotiations, DFL leaders offered Republicans concessions related to paid leave, earned sick and safe time, and noncompete agreements — but Republicans didn't budge, said Sen. Alice Mann, DFL-Edina. 'They turned all of those things down, because all they wanted…was to make sure that the 17,000 people were left out to die, that we worsen our health care system and that we decrease our tax revenue,' Mann said at a press conference Monday decrying the move. When Gov. Tim Walz and legislative leaders announced a budget deal — contingent on repealing MinnesotaCare eligibility for undocumented adults — on May 15, lawmakers with the People of Color Indigenous Caucus protested outside the door. They told reporters later that they were blindsided by the deal. After the announcement, POCI caucus members brought alternatives to legislative leaders, said Rep. Liish Kozlowski, DFL-Duluth. The POCI caucus suggested capping undocumented enrollment in MinnesotaCare, raising premiums, allowing children currently enrolled to retain coverage instead of aging out, or making exceptions for elderly people or those with chronic conditions. None of those options made it into the bill, which is expected to be heard first on the House floor during a 21-hour special session beginning at 10 a.m. Republicans have repeatedly exaggerated the cost of providing health care to undocumented people enrolled in MinnesotaCare. Enrollment has exceeded the state's expectations, however, with more than 17,000 undocumented people currently enrolled. Meanwhile, per-person spending on the undocumented population has been lower than expected, according to the Department of Human Services. Federal politics and funding have complicated the issue: A budget bill passed by the GOP-controlled U.S. House would cut funding to states that provide health care to undocumented people, including Minnesota. And while the federal government pays for some of the cost of MinnesotaCare, it doesn't contribute any money for undocumented enrollees. Walz is expected to sign the bill into law.
Yahoo
33 minutes ago
- Yahoo
Democrats have a dirty secret - they actually like some of the tax cuts in Trump's ‘big beautiful bill'
Some of the sweeping tax cuts proposed in President Donald Trump's massive spending package have found support among Democrats — even as they are expected to oppose the legislation over proposed cuts to Medicaid and other government services when it comes up for debate in the Senate later this month, according to a new report. The gargantuan budget package, which House Republicans and the White House have dubbed the One Big Beautiful Bill Act, passed the House by a single vote last month and is now drawing heat from fiscal hawks in both chambers as well as Tesla CEO Elon Musk, who was fresh off his months-long stint as a special government employee when he began threatening to back challengers to any legislator who votes for the bill. Still, there are facets of the proposal that have appeal for some Democrats, the New York Times reports. Virginia Rep. Don Beyer, a Democrat who is also a wealthy car dealership owner, told the Times his party is 'in general very much in favor of reducing taxes on working people and the working poor' when asked about Trump's plan to end taxes on service workers' tips. 'Those people are living on tips,' he added. Trump's tip tax cut plan has also attracted attention from Sen. Jacky Rosen of Nevada, a state where service workers make up a large and powerful voting bloc that has traditionally supported Democrats but shifted to Trump in large numbers during the 2024 presidential election, handing him the Silver State's electoral votes. Rosen, a Democrat, took to the Senate floor last month to advance a bill approving Trump's 'no tax on tips' plan. It passed unanimously even though the measure was largely symbolic because the U.S. constitution requires tax laws to originate in the House 'I am not afraid to embrace a good idea, wherever it comes from,'. she said at the time in remarks on the Senate floor. Yet despite the support for some of the individual tax provisions in the plan, it's highly unlikely that it will be able to muster enough if any Democrats to ease the way to Trump's desk, even under a Senate procedure known as budget reconciliation, which fast-tracks some types of spending legislation without subjecting it to the upper chamber's de facto 60-vote threshold for passage. Democrats are expected to unanimously vote against the legislation in the upper chamber, where it has also attracted opposition from some Republicans who've complained that the cuts to spending in the package don't go far enough to offset the reduced revenue caused by provisions meant to enact Trump campaign promises to end taxes on tips for service workers, as well as taxes on overtime pay for hourly workers and on social security benefits for seniors. Nonpartisan experts such as those at the Congressional Budget Office have warned that the reduced tax receipts would blow a massive hole in the federal budget and jeopardize America's long-term fiscal outlook, but that hasn't stopped some prominent Democrats from getting behind the individuals tax cuts. Trump and his allies hope the prominent tax cut proposals will blunt Democrats' efforts to paint the One Big Beautiful Bill Act as a giveaway to wealthy GOP donors that will gut government services while only providing limited relief for working-class voters. To that end, the president and others in his camp have routinely taken to social media to argue that anyone who votes against the bill is effectively voting for tax increases because the legislation makes permanent a number of temporary tax cuts enacted in the 2017 Tax Cuts and Jobs Act, which Trump signed into law during his first term. Democrats, meanwhile, remain opposed to the bill's massive cuts to Medicare and other measures that make it harder for people to claim tax credits meant to boost lower-income Americans' bottom lines. Rep. Brad Schneider, an Illnois Democrat, told the Times that the whole bill had to be considered rather than any individual provision or provisiosn. 'Any one thing — a tax credit or a tax cut — might make sense, but you've got to take a look at the whole picture,' he said.
New York Post
36 minutes ago
- New York Post
Elite universities offer to spend more endowment cash to stave off tax hit after Trump attacks ‘woke' policies: report
Some of the richest universities in the US are proposing a deal with the federal government that would allow them to spend more of their own money in exchange for a reprieve on a proposed tax on their endowments, according to a report. Nearly two dozen elite schools — including Harvard, Yale, Princeton, Stanford, Duke and the University of Chicago — are backing a plan that would commit them to distributing at least 5% of their endowment value each year. In return, they're asking Congress to scale back a proposed 21% tax on their investment income, a massive jump from the current 1.4% rate, the Wall Street Journal reported. Advertisement 4 Students walk on the Stanford University campus in this 2019 file photo. AP The White House has framed the tax hike as a way to hold 'woke, elitist universities' accountable. President Trump has launched an aggressive campaign against elite universities, accusing them of hoarding tax-advantaged wealth, embracing 'woke' politics and defying federal law. His administration has moved to revoke their tax-exempt status, block access to federal research grants, and restrict international student enrollment — turning once-reliable sources of funding into pressure points. Advertisement The schools, which are part of a group called the Learn Alliance, circulated a proposal on Capitol Hill that outlines a compromise. They'll increase annual spending on things like financial aid and research, and in exchange, they're asking lawmakers to scrap the House-passed tiered tax system in favor of a much lower flat rate — either 2.4% or 3.4% on investment income. 'What I hear from Republican members of Congress is a desire to ensure that colleges are using their charitable endowments to support today's students and researchers rather than saving too much for the future,' Princeton University President Christopher L. Eisgruber told the Journal. Advertisement 4 Nearly two dozen elite schools — including Harvard — are backing a plan that would commit them to distributing at least 5% of their endowment value each year. AP 'Those are valid concerns, and this proposal directly addresses them.' Eisgruber argued the plan would free up billions of dollars for student-focused spending and local economic development, while a steep tax hike would have the opposite effect — discouraging schools from using their endowments. The Learn Alliance says its plan would generate at least $30 billion in additional spending over a decade. Advertisement That far exceeds the $6.7 billion in federal revenue the current House-endorsed tax is expected to raise during the same time period, according to the Joint Committee on Taxation. If adopted, the proposed 5% distribution rule would mark a major shift. Private foundations already follow a 5% payout rule, but colleges and universities have long resisted such mandates, arguing they need flexibility to manage for the long term. The new House bill would also increase the tax on private foundation investment income to 10%, up from the current 1.39%. 'This would be a significant shift in national policy,' Liz Clark, vice president of policy and research at the National Association of College and University Business Officers, told the Journal. 4 The schools, which are part of a group called the Learn Alliance, circulated a proposal on Capitol Hill that outlines a compromise. Yale is one of the members of the alliance. Shutterstock She added that schools are under unusual pressure in the current political climate to show they're putting their money to work. Sen. Chuck Grassley (R-Iowa), a senior member of the Senate Finance Committee and frequent critic of large endowments, said Thursday that lawmakers were only beginning to dig into the endowment tax issue. Advertisement 'I've heard from small colleges in Iowa who say these tax increases would hit them hard,' he said. According to a recent analysis by higher education research group Ithaka S+R, most schools that would fall under the proposed 21% tax rate currently distribute less than 5% of their endowments annually. 4 The image above shows Blair Hall on the campus of Princeton University in Princeton, NJ. LightRocket via Getty Images Over a five-year period ending in June 2023, the report found that several top universities failed to meet the 5% mark in most years. Advertisement 'Even small percentage increases in spending would translate to a significant jump in dollar terms because the endowments are so large,' said Catharine Bond Hill, an economist at Ithaka. Not all schools are taking the same approach. A group of smaller colleges is lobbying Congress to cap the investment tax at 1.4% for institutions with fewer than 5,000 full-time students. These schools, which lack the diversified funding sources of larger institutions, say the higher rates would hit them disproportionately hard. Meanwhile, another coalition — including Vanderbilt University and Washington University in St. Louis — is pushing for a system that rewards schools with tax breaks if they meet certain benchmarks, like enrolling a higher percentage of low-income students.
