The Trump administration has withdrawn its attempt to block millions in federal nutrition funding to Maine following a legal showdown with Governor Janet Mills over the state’s refusal to enforce a federal mandate banning transgender girls from girls’ sports.
Under a legal settlement announced Friday, the U.S. Department of Agriculture agreed to restore over three million dollars in funding that feeds more than one hundred seventy thousand children and vulnerable adults in Maine, walking back its previous decision to punish the state for refusing to adopt the White House’s policy targeting transgender athletes.
The retreat comes after a high-profile confrontation in February at the White House, where Governor Mills directly challenged President Donald Trump’s executive order, which threatened to withhold all federal support from any state that did not comply with the ban.
When Trump demanded her cooperation, Mills responded, “We’ll see you in court.” Speaking before reporters on Friday, she delivered a follow-up statement that signaled victory, saying, “Well, we did see him in court—and we won.”
Her comments confirmed that a federal judge had ruled the USDA likely failed to follow the legally required procedures before freezing the funds, prompting the department to reverse course rather than risk a broader legal defeat.
The legal resolution marks a win not only for Maine’s leadership but also for civil rights advocates, who argue that the Trump administration has been using federal agencies to impose discriminatory policies under the guise of enforcing Title IX.
The original USDA decision was framed as a consequence of Maine’s inclusive approach to sports participation, but the federal court found that the agency acted prematurely and possibly unlawfully.
Governor Mills had refused to enforce the executive order signed by Trump in early February, which required public institutions including schools, colleges, and even the U.S. Olympic Committee to bar transgender girls and women from competing in female sports categories or risk losing federal funding.
The policy, titled “No Men in Women’s Sports,” was widely criticized for its broad scope and lack of factual basis. During its rollout, Trump repeated discredited claims that thousands of championships had been taken from cisgender athletes by transgender competitors, though there is no statistical evidence supporting those assertions.
At a time when nearly every state legislature is considering bills targeting LGBTQ individuals, Maine’s refusal to comply was one of the most high-profile state-level rejections of the federal directive.
According to the American Civil Liberties Union, more than five hundred seventy-five anti-LGBTQ bills have been introduced across the United States in twenty twenty-five, including measures restricting healthcare, censoring school curricula, limiting access to identity documents, banning trans participation in school sports, and more.
Maine Attorney General Aaron Frey, who led the legal challenge, said in a public statement, “It’s unfortunate that my office had to resort to federal court just to get USDA to comply with the law and its own regulations. But we are pleased that the lawsuit has now been resolved and that Maine will continue to receive funds as directed by Congress to feed children and vulnerable adults.”
While the state has prevailed in this particular case, the legal and political battle is not over. The Trump administration has filed a separate lawsuit against Maine through the Department of Education, seeking to revoke up to two hundred fifty million dollars in broader education funding as a penalty for the state’s refusal to enforce the transgender athlete ban.
Civil rights organizations warn that the larger legal effort represents a broader campaign to dismantle protections for transgender students at the national level, using the threat of financial penalties as leverage to coerce state compliance with federal social policy directives.
Supporters of the Trump administration’s position argue that allowing transgender girls to compete in girls’ sports undermines fairness, while opponents say that the executive order is both unconstitutional and unnecessary.
In testimony earlier this year, NCAA President Charlie Baker noted that fewer than ten transgender athletes are currently competing among the more than five hundred ten thousand student-athletes across NCAA schools, challenging the notion that the policy addresses a widespread issue.
Critics argue that the policy is a political strategy designed to energize specific voting blocs rather than a response to a genuine problem in sports or education.
At the same time, Trump’s attempt to enforce compliance by cutting off school meals was widely condemned as disproportionate and punitive, particularly in a state like Maine where a significant portion of the student population relies on federally supported nutrition programs.
The White House has continued to defend its policy, claiming it is designed to protect the integrity of women’s sports and prevent what Trump called unfair advantages.
However, the approach of using school funding as a means to pressure states into compliance has faced resistance not only in Maine but in other states where local officials refuse to adopt the executive order.
In this case, the federal judge’s decision to block the USDA’s action set a precedent that may influence how future disputes are handled, particularly when federal agencies act without going through appropriate rulemaking procedures.
Legal experts have pointed out that the Trump administration’s aggressive approach to enforcement has at times overstepped the limits of executive power, making its initiatives more vulnerable to legal challenges.
For now, Maine will continue receiving federal nutrition assistance as normal, and the school meal programs affected by the USDA’s initial decision are expected to resume full operation.
Governor Mills has been praised by LGBTQ advocacy groups for standing firm against the directive and defending the rights of transgender students in the face of federal pressure.
Her actions have also resonated beyond Maine, with civil rights groups pointing to the case as an example of how state governments can resist discriminatory policies through legal channels and political resolve.
Activists have expressed hope that the victory in Maine will inspire similar resistance in other states where local leaders are considering whether to adopt or defy the administration’s directives.
The broader political implications remain uncertain. While the administration continues to pursue enforcement of the transgender athlete ban through other means, including court battles and funding threats, the legal loss in Maine shows that these efforts are not immune to judicial review.
It also raises questions about how far the administration is willing to go to implement a policy that appears to have limited impact but significant symbolic weight.
With the election season intensifying, the debate over transgender rights, education policy, and the use of federal funding as political leverage is likely to remain a central issue. In the meantime, the people of Maine will see their school meals restored, and the legal standoff may shift to other arenas as the federal government continues to test the boundaries of its authority over states that resist.
