Maine sues Trump administration for funding freeze over policy on transgender student athletes
Keep up with the latest in + news and politics.
The pause was announced last week by the United States Department of Agriculture (USDA) and Secretary of Agriculture Brooke Rollins as part of Trump's Title IX interpretation disallowing transgender student-athletes to play sports aligned with their gender identity. The state claims the pause is withholding funds used to feed school children and disabled adults, contrary to promises from the USDA and Rollins.
Related: Trump vs. Maine: State refuses anti-trans sports policies as federal agencies push to cut funding
Attorney General Aaron M. Frey said the state's Child Nutrition Program of the Maine Department of Education was unable to access federal funds used to feed children and adults with disabilities and asked the court to grant a temporary restraining order releasing the federal funds.
'Without federal funds, state employees who administer school food programs will be laid off, food providers will not be able to purchase food or pay staff to prepare and serve food, and schools will not be reimbursed for meals they provide,' Frey said in a statement released yesterday. 'In short, children, as well as some vulnerable adults, will go hungry.'
Frey was unsparing in the lawsuit, saying Rollins sounded 'more like a hostage taker seeking a ransom payment than a cabinet-level federal official."
Rollins was equally confrontational in her letter to Gov. Janet Mills on announcing the pause.
'You cannot openly violate federal law against discrimination in education and expect federal funding to continue unabated,' Rollins wrote in her letter dated April 2. 'Your defiance of federal law has cost your state, which is bound by Title IX in educational programming. Today, I am freezing Maine's federal funds for certain administrative and technological functions in schools. This is only the beginning, though you are free to end it at any time by protecting women and girls in compliance with federal law.'
Rollins also promised that the pause would 'not impact federal feeding programs or direct assistance to Mainers; if a child was fed today, they will be fed tomorrow.'
The lawsuit came after news was announced on Friday that the U.S. Department of Education had launched a Title IX Special Investigative Team to investigate the state's transgender student-athlete policies.
'To all the entities that continue to allow men to compete in women's sports and use women's intimate facilities: there's a new sheriff in town,' Secretary of Education Linda McMahon said in a press release announcing the team on Friday. 'We will not allow you to get away with denying women's civil rights any longer.'
Advocates decried the Trump pause and Rollins letter.
'This sounds like another incoherent and baseless plan with the potential to waste untold taxpayer resources to pursue an unhinged agenda of animus," a GLAAD spokesperson told The Advocate. "In Maine, no fewer than six federal agencies reportedly swarmed the state over two transgender students. This is so far out of whack with what states need to help every student and community succeed. Targeting a handful of athletes does nothing to protect women and girls, in fact, these bans endanger girls as they risk invasive genital exams and other expensive 'verification.' It makes no sense, and it is harmful. Every student and school is safer when the most vulnerable students are protected and respected.'
Mills and Trump had a live televised confrontation over transgender student-athletes and the threat of losing federal funds at a National Governors Association meeting at the White House in February.
'Is Maine here, the governor of Maine here?' Trump asked the bipartisan gathering of governors. 'Are you not going to comply with it?
'I'm complying with state and federal laws,' Mills responded.
'Well—I'm— we are the federal law,' Trump replied '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 comply because otherwise, you're not getting any federal funding.'
'We'll see you in court,' Mills responded.
'Good. I'll see you in court,' Trump said. 'That should be a real easy one. And enjoy your life after governor because I don't think you'll be in elected politics.'
The Trump administration has not commented publicly on the lawsuit.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
The Hill
8 minutes ago
- The Hill
Tariff rebate checks in 2025? What we know about current legislation
(WJW) – It's not a pandemic stimulus check, but Congress is currently weighing the possibility of sending the American people more money. As part of the American Worker Rebate Act, introduced by Republican Sen. Josh Hawley of Missouri in July, people would receive hundreds of dollars in tariff rebate checks, which work to counteract the financial burden imposed on families by the Trump administration's tariffs. As the bill stands now, a household would get $600 for every child and adult – meaning a family of four would receive $2,400. Check amounts go down for those U.S. residents who are making more than $150,000 as a family or $75,000 individually. The bill has not been passed by the Senate or the House, and it must overcome multiple obstacles before being brought to President Trump's desk to sign. However, last month, Trump did say he was 'thinking about' approving a rebate. If the revenue from the latest tariff rollout exceeds projections, the bill leaves room for a larger rebate to be sent out to the American people. So far, there has been no word from Congress or the IRS on the possibility of a fourth stimulus check, like those issued during the height of the COVID-19 pandemic. A rebate is a refund of something already paid for, while a stimulus is simply money given to pump up the economy. The U.S. Senate is currently on break for the summer and will be back in action on Sept. 2.
The Hill
8 minutes ago
- The Hill
Watch live: Newsom outlines plan to combat Trump, GOP redistricting
California Gov. Gavin Newsom will speak to reporters Thursday afternoon as the mid-decade redistricting battle heats up across the U.S. ahead of the 2026 midterms, a day after announcing the ' Liberation Day ' event. His remarks come as Democrats push back against GOP 'gerrymandering' efforts in Texas that could give Republicans five additional seats in next year's election. Newsom sent a letter to President Trump and red state leaders earlier this week urging them to end the redistricting war. After Trump missed the deadline to respond, the governor said the Golden State would also be redrawing its House maps to counteract attempts to 'rig' the lines in the Lone Star State. The event is scheduled to begin at 2:30 p.m. EDT. Watch the live video above.
The Hill
8 minutes ago
- The Hill
How Trump's tariffs could actually work
Economists prefer free trade because it is the best policy for global welfare. But what the debate around tariffs often fails to recognize is that there is an economic rationale for U.S. tariffs of 15 to 20 percent. Large countries like the U.S. have market power, which means U.S. demand affects global prices. Tariffs depress U.S. demand, pushing global prices down. As a result of tariffs, the U.S. imports goods at lower prices and also obtains revenue in the process. Most economists estimate that the optimal tariff for the U.S. is between 15 and 20 percent but could be as high as 60 percent. The major problem with imposing high tariffs is that if our trade partners retaliate with similarly high tariffs on imports from the U.S., the U.S. will be worse off. So, the U.S. wants a tariff if it can act alone, but cooperation on low tariffs is the best policy for all — and better for the U.S. — if the alternative is a trade war. To get a sense of the magnitudes, a recent study estimates that 19 percent tariffs could expand U.S. income by roughly 2 percent and boost employment if other countries don't retaliate. However, the effects on income and employment become negative when other countries also impose tariffs. The basic intuition for the tariff is that foreign sellers want access to the huge U.S. market and are willing to pay a fee for that access. Consider a German auto firm, say BMW, that sells lots of cars in the U.S. If the U.S. places a tariff on German cars, Americans will shift to buying more GMs and fewer BMWs. But the U.S. consumer is hard to replace, so BMW will lower the pre-tariff price of its cars to maintain competitiveness. U.S. consumers face somewhat higher prices on BMWs with the tariff, but the tariff revenue that the U.S. government collects more than compensates for the consumer loss, so the U.S. as a country is better off. Put differently, because the U.S. is large, some of the tariff is paid by BMW. The ability to pressure BMW and other German producers to lower prices only works because of the extraordinary buying power of the U.S. consumer. If, for example, a small country, say Ghana, puts a tariff on BMWs, it would negligibly affect total sales, so this effect would be absent. This market power is similar to the leverage that companies like Amazon and Walmart have to push down the prices of their suppliers because they control such a large share of the market. The problem with using market size to push down import prices is that the U.S. is not the only large country. If other large markets, like the European Union and China, also raise tariffs then everyone is worse off. In a trade war, U.S. exporters will also have a hard time selling abroad, while U.S. consumers will have fewer varieties to choose from and face higher prices. The biggest risk Trump took when he reversed decades of low, predictable tariffs was starting a trade war with tariffs spiraling out of control around the world. Given the recent news of U.S. bilateral trade deals with the United Kingdom, Indonesia, Vietnam, the Philippines, Japan, Korea and the EU, as well as a preliminary accord with China, the gamble may have paid off. One after another, our most important trade partners are accepting significantly higher U.S. tariffs without raising their own tariffs on imports from the U.S. Moreover, in addition to accepting higher tariffs on their exports to the U.S., Europe, Japan and Korea are committing to increased investment in the United States. Why are countries caving? The large market is part of it, but the gaping U.S. trade deficit with these markets also matters. It gives the U.S. additional leverage since American consumers are needed to buy foreign goods to a greater extent than American businesses need foreigners to buy U.S. goods. The U.S. military might also factor in, as many of the countries making deals depend on the U.S. for security. The unpredictability introduced may already be depressing investment and hiring, as investors and firms have no idea what policy will be tomorrow. Similarly, companies that rely heavily on imported parts and components may be unable to survive in the U.S., leading to job loss in import-dependent industries. Already high, U.S. inequality could get worse if care is not taken since low-income families spend more of their income on goods, making them more vulnerable to price increases. There are also major global threats. The bullying that was part of achieving these trade deals could lead to backlash against the U.S. and its brand with real consequences of sustained loss of U.S. leadership and power in all global matters. The unpredictability introduced may depress investment, as investors have no idea what policy will be tomorrow. Domestic political blowback in our trade partners against the U.S. could ultimately create pressure for higher tariffs on imports from the U.S., resulting in a trade war. Variable U.S. tariffs across trade partners — already ranging from 15 to 55 percent — will create trade diversion and administrative costs. Countries could look to other markets and make deals that exclude the U.S., reducing our global leverage. And the list goes on. But if the U.S. government moves on from these trade wins, facilitating a return to predictable policy, and shows more openness to global cooperation in other critical areas, Trump's trade policy could boost U.S. income without major damage to our global standing or global investment. Perhaps this is the hope that has been driving the stock market up. The risks are many and great. But given the (surprisingly) flexible response abroad to date, the policy is not guaranteed to fail as many assumed. One big bullet may have been dodged. .
