Thank Gov. Mills

As you may have seen, Gov. Mills made it clear to the president that Maine won’t be bullied. Join us and many others from across the political spectrum in thanking Gov. Mills for her moral courage and ethical leadership.

At a bipartisan meeting of governors last Friday, President Trump threatened to withhold federal funding to Maine unless the state adopted his personal policy preferences. He went on to say, "I am the law." These chilling words suggest he has a limited understanding of – and no respect for – the actual structure of power sharing and rule of law established by the U.S. Constitution.

Gov. Mills responded with one of our favorite phrases: We’ll see you in court.

By standing up for the rule of law and the Bill of Rights, Gov. Mills called to mind the "Declaration of Conscience" made nearly 75 years ago by U.S. Senator Margaret Chase Smith of Maine. The commitments inherent in "Americanism" outlined by Sen. Chase Smith are just as true today as they were then. The basic principles of our democracy include "the right to criticize; the right to hold unpopular beliefs; the right to protest; and the right of independent thought."

Dissent and disagreement are critical features of our system, not bugs. Rather than threatening or coercing states into compliance with his personal views like a dictator, the role of the president is to celebrate any opportunity to engage in and debate important political issues.

The foundation of this country has always been that we do not and will not have a king. In our system, the people have the power, through Congress, to determine how funds are allocated and under what conditions. Moreover, the states have the ability – within the bounds of our constitutional commitments – to make law that reflects local priorities, needs, and perspectives.

President Trump’s behavior should bring condemnation from all people of conscience who believe in American democracy and the rule of law. We applaud Governor Mills for taking a courageous stand. Join us in thanking Gov. Mills.

In solidarity,

The Trump administration’s three executive orders targeting diversity, equity, inclusion, and accessibility (DEIA) initiatives take a “shock and awe” approach that upends longstanding, bipartisan federal policy meant to open doors that had been unfairly closed. In his first few days, President Donald Trump is undertaking a deliberate effort to obfuscate and weaponize civil rights laws that address discrimination and ensure everyone has a fair chance to compete, whether it’s for a job, a promotion, or an education.

With these actions, the administration is not only undoing decades of federal anti-discrimination policy, spanning Democratic and Republican presidential administrations alike, but also marshalling federal enforcement agencies to bully both private and government entities into abandoning legal efforts to promote equity and remedy systemic discrimination. Trump’s executive orders undermine obligations dating back to the Johnson administration that firms doing business with the U.S. government and receiving billions in public dollars are held to the highest standards in remedying and preventing bias.

For decades, federal policies have supported efforts to promote equal opportunity, enforced by administrations from both parties. These policies grew out of federal anti-discrimination laws passed during the 1960s civil rights struggle and have been expanded to guarantee that opportunity was not denied — as it had been for too long — because of one’s race, gender, sexual orientation, gender identity, disability, or other legally protected characteristics.

Trump’s executive orders represent a major departure from these policies, particularly in the federal contracting space. One order rescinds Executive Order 11246, a cornerstone of equal opportunity policy for federal contractors that has been in place since 1965 under the Johnson administration, without offering any replacement framework. This abrupt shift abandons a measure that has helped dismantle entrenched race and sex segregation in high-paying industries historically closed to women and Black and Brown workers. It also leaves contractors scrambling to navigate a complex regulatory environment, including federal anti-discrimination laws like Title VII and other laws mandating federal contractors take affirmative action with respect to veterans and disabled workers — all of which remain in place.

More broadly, the orders seek to intimidate all employers — ranging from private organizations and federal contractors and grantees to state and local entities — into abandoning DEIA initiatives, using vague and threatening language to create fear of enforcement actions. The strategy is clear: Bully everyone into dropping programs that ensure equitable workplaces by falsely equating diversity efforts with discrimination.

Yet, in employment for example, properly designed DEIA programs are not only legal under federal and state civil rights laws and longstanding legal precedents; they are also necessary to ensure compliance with those laws. Programs labeled as DEIA encompass a broad range of lawful initiatives that create fairer workplaces and ensure opportunities aren’t limited based on race, ethnicity, disability, sex, sexual orientation, or gender identity. Many of these initiatives are not focused on selecting specific candidates for hire — they aim to create fairer processes. For instance, recruiting at underrepresented institutions or ensuring fairness in promotion criteria helps address systemic inequities without disadvantaging any individual.

These programs are not discriminatory; they are essential to creating environments where everyone has a chance to succeed and addressing persistent barriers for individuals to advance in their careers. Employers must take a stand against this political intimidation and remain committed to opening doors to all candidates, especially those facing unfair headwinds. Legal advocacy groups and state attorneys general have urged compliance with federal anti-discrimination laws while advancing equity through measures that are neutral to race and other protected characteristics. Abandoning these programs risks perpetuating inequality, alienating diverse talent, and violating equal employment laws. Simply put, the federal government should not be intimidating and coercing employers into abandoning their commitment to equal opportunity in the workplace.

The executive orders also target DEIA and necessary practices in higher education institutions and schools. These actions mischaracterize lawful equity programs as discriminatory, aiming to chill efforts to promote equal access in education.

The Supreme Court’s decision in Students for Fair Admissions, Inc. v. Harvard left colleges and universities with several pathways to advance educational equity. The decision had no bearing on K-12 education, where schools must continue to identify and address barriers to equitable learning environments.

At a minimum, schools are required to comply with federal and state civil rights laws that ensure educational opportunities are provided on an equal basis. This means reviewing policies and practices to ensure they don’t unnecessarily limit opportunities based on race or other protected characteristics. Schools must also work to foster a climate where all students can access and thrive in their educational pursuits. Now, more than ever, educational institutions must resist intimidation and reaffirm their commitment to identifying and removing barriers to equal opportunity.

Programs labeled as DEIA encompass a broad range of lawful initiatives that create fairer workplaces and schools. The executive orders attempt to conflate these lawful efforts with discrimination, weaponizing enforcement to bully institutions into abandoning critical programs and taking steps to try to eliminate protections against discrimination by government contractors. However, no court has declared DEIA efforts inherently illegal, and President Trump cannot override decades of legal precedent.

Companies, schools, and institutions must resist the fear and confusion these executive orders are designed to create. Now is the time to double down on our commitment to equal opportunity, ensuring that everyone, regardless of their background, has a fair chance to thrive. The ACLU continues to stand firm against these actions. DEIA expands opportunity in our nation by improving education, helping businesses grow, and giving all communities a chance to thrive and succeed.

During his first two weeks in office, President Donald Trump has signed nearly 40 executive orders. They cover a dizzying array of policy areas --from immigration to public school -- and many of them have already been challenged in court. The orders have impacted all of our lives, and, constitutional or not, the damage that some of these orders threaten to do is real.

But can President Trump actually carry out the policy plans outlined in his executive orders? Below, the ACLU explains the history, function, and limits of a presidential executive order.

Article II of the Constitution vests the president with executive power over the government, including the obligation to “take care that the laws be faithfully executed.” An executive order is a written directive, signed by the president, that orders the government to take specific actions to ensure “the laws be faithfully executed.” It might mean telling the Department of Education to implement a certain rule, or declaring a new policy priority. Executive orders, however, cannot override federal laws and statutes.

Statutes have to be passed by Congress and signed by the president. Or, if vetoed, then Congress must override the veto for the bill to become law. Executive orders can’t preempt this process. Furthermore, the Constitution gives Congress control over things like taxation, spending, and certain war powers. Most things we think of when we think of laws come from Congress: what counts as a criminal offense, how much the federal government can tax our income, and declaring war or making treaties.

With an executive order, the president can’t write a new statute, but an order can tell federal agencies how to implement a statute. For example, Congress can declare a certain drug legal or illegal. But with an executive order, the president can tell the Department of Justice if prosecuting certain drug cases is a priority or not.

With an executive order, President Trump can order the federal government to take any steps that are within the scope of the constitutional authority of the executive branch, and do not violate any federal law.

The Constitution has a set of checks and balances written into it so that no one branch of the government is more powerful than the other. The president can’t use an executive order to sidestep those checks and balances, and the president can’t take over powers from other branches, such as the power vested in Congress to pass new statutes or in the courts to invalidate certain laws as unconstitutional.

Some executive orders take effect as soon as the president signs the order. But many other orders do not have any impact until a government agency takes some additional steps. Very often, an executive order requires a federal agency to write a report, undertake an investigation, or promulgate a new regulation. Those steps can often take months, and sometimes years. The order may provide a deadline (like telling an agency it has 60 days to make a certain recommendation for action), but it doesn’t have to.

Those checks and balances provide a few ways that an executive order can be stopped:

• Congress can enact a law that reverses what the president has done, provided Congress has the constitutional authority to legislate on the issue
• A court can hold that an executive order is unlawful if it violates the Constitution or a federal statute
• Any future president can issue a new executive order that rescinds or amends the earlier executive order

Every single president, from George Washington to Donald Trump, has issued executive orders. Most modern presidents issue hundreds of them during their presidency. While some executive orders are pretty mundane, such as declaring a federal holiday or a day of mourning, others have been among the most important actions the United States government has ever taken.

Abraham Lincoln used an executive order—the Emancipation Proclamation—to address slavery during the Civil War. Franklin Delano Roosevelt issued an executive order to integrate the shipyards and other military contractors. Harry Truman signed an executive order to integrate the military. Lyndon Johnson used an executive order to impose civil rights obligations on all federal contractors. More recently, Joe Biden signed an executive order to require every federal agency to find ways to facilitate voter registration.

But some of the federal government’s worst actions also came via executive order. Roosevelt, for example, used an executive order to force the relocation and internment of Japanese Americans to concentration camps. And in his first week of his second presidential term, Trump used an executive order to rescind Johnson’s historic executive order requiring government contractors to comply with civil rights obligations

Trump, or any president, is misusing executive order authority if the president orders the government to take actions that are not authorized by the Constitution or are in violation of federal laws. That’s when the courts must step in to safeguard our rule of law. However, an executive order can be lawful and still cause harm, especially when it threatens important civil liberties or civil rights.

President Trump’s order rescinding Johnson’s order concerning civil right obligations of federal contractors, for example doesn’t overrule any statute that governs equal protection in employment. Even so, it undermines civil rights protections and sends the signal that federal contractors won’t have the same obligation to protect their employees, and it communicates to the public that equal protection is not a priority.

Executive orders can be an effective way to carry out policy while staying within the rule of law. However, as we’ve seen with the Trump administration, they can also cause chaos, damage the democratic process and harm our must vulnerable communities. At the ACLU, we have more than 100 years’ experience holding powerful entities, like the executive branch, to account. Already during this administration, we’ve explained how Trump’s most recent executive orders rolling back DEI efforts, attacking birthright citizenship and targeting trans people are unlawful. We’re continuing to advocate and fight whenever President Trump uses executive orders to attack our civil liberties and civil rights.