Politics is getting weirdly personal again. You’ve probably seen the headlines or the viral clips of a governor basically telling Donald Trump to shove his federal demands where the sun doesn't shine. It isn't just one person, though. From the rocky coasts of Maine to the sprawling farmlands of Illinois, a group of Democratic governors has decided that "polite disagreement" is dead.
They're done.
Honestly, the energy shifted significantly as we entered 2025 and 2026. The most famous "stick it" moment—the one everyone is searching for—happened right in the State Dining Room of the White House. Governor Janet Mills of Maine didn't blink. When Trump threatened to yank federal funding over her refusal to ban transgender athletes, she didn't give a long, winded speech. She looked him in the eye and said, "We'll see you in court." It was the political equivalent of a middle finger, and it set the tone for a whole new era of state-versus-federal warfare.
When the Governor Tells Trump to Stick It (Legally Speaking)
When we talk about a governor tells Trump to stick it, we’re usually talking about Janet Mills, but the sentiment is a contagion. Trump's return to the presidency brought a flurry of executive orders that felt like heat-seeking missiles aimed at blue states. But the states were ready.
In February 2025, during a meeting that was supposed to be a standard gathering of the nation's governors, things went off the rails. Trump singled out Maine. He asked if Mills was going to comply with his order to bar trans students from sports.
"I'm complying with state and federal laws," Mills replied.
Trump’s response was peak Trump: "We are the federal law."
💡 You might also like: Percentage of Women That Voted for Trump: What Really Happened
He then threatened her entire state's budget. He told her she better comply or lose the money. That's when she dropped the hammer. "We'll see you in court." Trump, never one to let it go, told her to "enjoy your life after governor" because he figured her career was over.
It wasn't. It just made her a hero to a very specific, very angry segment of the country.
The Illinois Stand-Off: Pritzker’s "No Call" Policy
Then you’ve got JB Pritzker in Illinois. If Mills used a scalpel, Pritzker is using a sledgehammer. By late 2025, the tension between Chicago and the White House reached a boiling point. Trump started calling Chicago a "hellhole" and the "murder capital of the world," threatening to send in the National Guard and ICE teams in unmarked vans.
Pritzker didn't just issue a press release. He went on the offensive.
He basically told the President to stay out of his state. When Trump demanded a phone call to "discuss" the situation, Pritzker flat-out refused. Why? Because he knew Trump would claim the governor had "begged" for help.
"I’m not going to provide him with evidence to support his desire to have the court rule in his favor," Pritzker told a room of reporters.
📖 Related: What Category Was Harvey? The Surprising Truth Behind the Number
It’s a different kind of "stick it." It’s the "I won’t even pick up the phone" version of defiance. Pritzker even went as far as suggesting the 25th Amendment should be invoked, calling Trump’s rhetoric about using American cities as "training grounds for the military" a sign of cognitive decline.
The gloves? They aren't just off; they’ve been burned.
California and the "Arrest Me" Dare
You can't talk about governors fighting the White House without Gavin Newsom. He's been the chief antagonist for years, but in 2025, it got spicy.
During the Los Angeles protests against mass deportations in June 2025, the federal government sent in teams that looked more like an occupying force than law enforcement. Tom Homan, Trump's border czar, suggested on Fox News that politicians who got in the way of ICE might end up behind bars.
Newsom’s response on MSNBC was legendary for its bluntness.
"Arrest me," Newsom said. "Let's just get it over with, tough guy. I don't give a damn, Tom. Arrest me. Let's go."
👉 See also: When Does Joe Biden's Term End: What Actually Happened
That is as close as a governor gets to telling a president to stick it without actually using the profanity. It’s performance art, sure, but it’s also high-stakes legal maneuvering. California even looked into the possibility of blocking federal taxes—basically saying if you won't give us our money back, we'll just stop sending it to Washington.
It’s probably not legal. It definitely wouldn't work. But the fact that a sitting governor is even saying it tells you how broken the relationship is.
Why This Matters for 2026 and Beyond
We are currently in a cycle where states are becoming the primary checkers of presidential power. When a governor tells Trump to stick it, it isn't just for a viral clip. It’s a signal to their voters.
Take Tim Walz in Minnesota. Now that he’s not running for reelection in 2026, he’s "unbound." He’s been calling the administration "petty" and "vile." He’s protecting his state's paid leave programs and gender-affirming care laws with a ferocity that people wasn't expecting.
What’s the actual result of all this?
- Legal Gridlock: Almost every major executive order is currently tied up in a circuit court somewhere.
- Funding Wars: The USDA and the Department of Education are withholding billions from states like Pennsylvania and Maine.
- The 2026 Midterms: This defiance is the primary campaign platform for every Democrat running for office right now.
Practical Next Steps for Following the Fallout
If you're trying to keep up with who is winning this fight, don't just look at the tweets. Watch the dockets.
- Follow the SNAP Lawsuits: Pennsylvania joined 21 other states to sue the USDA after they tried to force states to hand over personal data on food-stamp recipients. If the states win, it limits how much the feds can "blackmail" states with their own tax dollars.
- Check State Executive Orders: Governors like Matt Meyer in Delaware have issued orders specifically to block out-of-state subpoenas. This is the "shield law" strategy.
- Monitor the National Guard: The biggest flashpoint is whether a president can deploy the Guard into a state without the governor's permission. This is currently the "nuclear option" of constitutional law.
The reality is that "sticking it" to the president is now a standard part of the job description for a blue-state governor. It’s loud, it’s messy, and it’s likely going to get much worse before it gets any better. If you want to see where the line is drawn, keep an eye on the court rulings in the Second and Ninth Circuits over the next six months. That's where the real "sticking it" happens.