It happened in a room full of people who are paid to know the law, but the vibe was anything but legalistic. During a National Governors Association session at the White House in February 2025, a verbal spark turned into a constitutional wildfire. Donald Trump, back in the Oval Office for his second term, looked across the room at Maine’s Democratic Governor Janet Mills.
The topic? Transgender student-athletes.
Trump had recently signed an executive order aimed at blocking federal funding for schools that allow trans girls to compete in female sports. He’d heard a rumor—or maybe he just knew—that Maine wasn't planning to play ball. When he asked Mills directly if she’d comply, she gave a classic lawyer’s answer: she’d follow state and federal laws.
That’s when it happened. Trump fired back with five words that have since been memed, debated, and analyzed by every legal scholar from Harvard to Stanford.
"Well, we are the federal law."
Why those five words matter so much
On the surface, it sounds like typical Trump bravado. But in the world of American governance, saying "we are the federal law" is a heavy statement. Honestly, it’s a direct challenge to how most of us were taught the "three branches of government" works in third grade.
Usually, Congress makes the law. The courts interpret the law. The President? They just execute it. But the 2025 version of the White House sees things a bit differently.
The administration’s stance—often referred to as the "Unitary Executive Theory" on steroids—suggests that because Article II of the Constitution vests all executive power in the President, every federal agency is basically just an extension of his will. When Trump told Mills "we are the federal law," he wasn't just being snappy. He was asserting that an executive order carries the full weight of federal statute, especially when it comes to how the government spends its money.
📖 Related: Typhoon Tip and the Largest Hurricane on Record: Why Size Actually Matters
The Maine standoff and the money
You've got to understand the leverage here. Maine, like every other state, relies on billions in federal dollars for public schools. Trump’s "we are the federal law" comment was immediately followed by a threat to yank that funding.
"You better do it," he told her. "You better do it."
Mills, who served as Maine’s Attorney General for years before becoming governor, didn't blink. Her response was short: "See you in court."
And they did go to court. Within weeks, the Justice Department was filing motions while state attorneys general were banding together to file injunctions. It wasn't just about sports anymore. It was about whether a President can unilaterally redefine federal civil rights statutes through an executive order and then use the "power of the purse" to force states into line.
Executive orders vs. actual statutes
There is a massive difference between a law passed by Congress and an executive order. Think of a statute as the foundation of a house. It’s hard to build, requires a lot of people to agree, and it’s meant to stay there forever.
An executive order is more like the furniture. The President can move it around, swap it out, or throw it on the lawn whenever they want.
But here is the twist. Under the current administration, the line is blurring. In early 2025, the White House issued a flurry of orders that didn't just tweak policy—they sought to dismantle entire departments. We’re talking about the Department of Education being told to pack its bags and "return authority to the states."
👉 See also: Melissa Calhoun Satellite High Teacher Dismissal: What Really Happened
When the President says "we are the federal law," he’s basically saying that if Congress won't pass the bill he wants, he’ll just write an order that functions like one.
What the legal experts are saying
Scholars like William Baude at the University of Chicago have pointed out that while no President has issued more orders in their first 100 days than Trump, the legal basis is often shaky.
- The Pro-Trump View: Supporters argue the President is the only person in the executive branch with a national mandate. Therefore, the "alphabet soup" of agencies (the FBI, the SEC, the Department of Education) should do exactly what he says, without question.
- The Opposing View: Groups like the ACLU and the NAACP argue that the President is still bound by the Administrative Procedure Act. You can’t just change the rules of the country because you had a bad meeting with a governor.
Interestingly, the Supreme Court’s 2024 ruling in Trump v. United States added a whole new layer of complexity. If a President is "immune" for official acts, does that mean they can't be stopped from enforcing an order that might technically violate a federal statute?
The short answer: No, the order can still be struck down. But the President can’t be prosecuted for signing it. It creates a weird legal "no-man's land" where the government can move fast and break things, and the only way to stop it is through a mountain of paperwork and months of litigation.
Real-world impact: Memphis and beyond
It’s not just about school sports. The "we are the federal law" philosophy has moved into the streets. By late 2025, we saw the deployment of National Guard troops to cities like Los Angeles, Memphis, and Portland.
In Memphis, the administration formed the "Memphis Safe Task Force." It wasn't just local cops. It was a mix of federal agents—some from the FBI, some from the IRS—deputized to act as local law enforcement.
When people asked what authority they had to be there without the governor's full consent, the answer was essentially a version of the same refrain: the President has the authority to protect the country from "invasion" or "the enemy within," and his word is the governing authority.
✨ Don't miss: Wisconsin Judicial Elections 2025: Why This Race Broke Every Record
The "One Big Beautiful Bill"
While the executive orders get the headlines, there’s also the legislative side. The "One Big Beautiful Bill Act" provided nearly $15 billion for immigration detention. This isn't just an order; it’s a funded mandate.
This is where the "we are the federal law" statement becomes a reality. When you have the money and the manpower, the distinction between a "law" and an "order" starts to feel pretty academic to the people on the ground. By January 2026, the number of people in immigration detention hit 66,000—the highest in U.S. history.
What most people get wrong
People tend to think this is just a Republican vs. Democrat thing. It’s actually a "Branch vs. Branch" thing.
Even some conservative lawmakers have expressed "kinda" quiet concerns about the executive branch taking over the "power of the purse," which the Constitution explicitly gives to Congress. If the President can just move money around and declare his orders to be the law of the land, what is Congress even there for?
Honestly, it’s a question that hasn't been fully answered yet. We’re watching the answer be written in real-time through court filings and standoffs at the state borders.
Actionable insights for the current climate
If you're trying to navigate this landscape, whether you're a local official or just a concerned citizen, here is how the "federal law" is actually operating right now:
- Follow the Funding: The administration is primarily using federal grants as a "carrot and stick." If your state or city isn't complying with an executive order, expect the money to be the first thing that disappears.
- Watch the Courts, Not the Headlines: A lot of the "we are the federal law" talk is rhetorical. The actual law is being decided in the Fifth and Ninth Circuit Courts of Appeals. That’s where the real stay of execution for these policies happens.
- Local Governance Matters: As we saw with Governor Mills, states still have their own constitutions and their own court systems. The "federal law" isn't the only law in the room, even if the person in the White House says it is.
- Audit Your Federal Contracts: If you run a business that does work for the government, pay close attention to the new "Accountability for All Agencies" orders. The rules for contractors regarding DEI and "merit-based" hiring have changed drastically in the last 12 months.
The "we are the federal law" moment wasn't a slip of the tongue. It was a mission statement. Whether that statement holds up under the weight of the Constitution is something the 2026 court cycle is about to determine.
Next Steps for Staying Informed:
- Monitor the National Governors Association (NGA) updates, as they are currently the front line for state-level pushback against federal executive mandates.
- Review the specific language of the "Ensuring Accountability for All Agencies" executive order, which outlines how independent agencies like the FCC and FTC are now reporting directly to the White House.
- Check your local school district’s federal funding status if you live in a state that has publicly defied executive orders on student-athlete participation.