Federal Law Vs State Law: Who Trumps Bans?

Former US President Donald Trump's administration has been criticised for its aggressive approach to executive power, with some arguing that it overstepped the boundaries of federal authority and infringed on state law. Trump's actions have triggered intense debate over the limits of presidential power and whether federal government law can supersede state law. This raises the question: can federal government law trump state law on bans? This topic will be explored in detail, examining specific cases where the Trump administration's actions have clashed with state-level policies and the implications for the balance of power between federal and state authorities.

Trump's executive order to end the ban on 'segregated' facilities for federal contractors

In March 2025, US President Donald Trump issued an executive order to end the ban on segregated facilities for federal contractors. This order rescinded a requirement that federal contractors must enforce rules against segregation in their workplaces. The order also revoked policies dating back to 1965 on equal employment opportunities and environmental actions designed to protect communities of colour.

Trump's order has been widely criticised for conflicting with federal and state laws that outlaw segregation and discrimination. All businesses operating in the United States are still subject to the Civil Rights Act of 1964, and state anti-discrimination laws. The American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) condemned the move, stating that it "undermines obligations dating back to the Johnson administration that firms doing business with the US government [...] are held to the highest standards in remedying and preventing bias".

Despite the ongoing legality of the Civil Rights Act, Trump's executive order holds symbolic significance. New York University constitutional law professor Melissa Murray noted that the changes conflict with laws established by the government in the 1950s and 1960s "that led to integration". Civil rights attorney Ben Crump also commented on the order, stating that "while segregation is still illegal, this change sends a clear message".

Trump's order is part of a broader campaign to slash federal programs that he views as ineffective or wasteful. This includes dismantling independent agencies and granting private individuals access to sensitive government systems. Legal experts have raised concerns over potential breaches of privacy and security laws. Trump's actions have triggered intense debate over the limits of presidential power and the potential for executive overreach.

Trump's disregard for the law and belief that he cannot violate it

In 2025, legal experts, historians, scholars, and federal judges raised concerns about former President Donald Trump's disregard for the law and the Constitution. Trump's actions, such as attempting to dismantle independent agencies, granting private individuals access to sensitive government systems, and offering unprecedented federal employee buyouts, triggered legal challenges and debates over presidential power.

Trump's executive order to rescind the ban on segregated facilities for federal contractors was seen as conflicting with federal law and state anti-discrimination laws. The American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) condemned the move, stating that it undid decades of federal anti-discrimination policy and promoted systemic discrimination.

Trump's administration also faced legal challenges for potentially breaching the Privacy Act of 1974, as well as concerns about potential access to sensitive financial data. Scholars and legal experts pointed to other actions by Trump that blatantly broke the law, such as freezing federal spending, dismissing members of government boards, and banning birthright citizenship.

Trump's disregard for the law was further evident in his statement, "He who saves his Country does not violate any Law." This sentiment was echoed by his supporters and Vice President JD Vance, who suggested that the administration may ignore judicial orders they disagree with. Trump's actions and statements indicate a belief that he is above the law and that his interpretation of it is supreme.

In conclusion, Trump's actions and statements during his presidency demonstrate a pattern of disregarding legal and constitutional boundaries, believing himself to be exempt from consequences and unbound by the constraints that typically govern the executive branch.

Trump's attempt to control state and local funding

Trump's attempts to control state and local funding have been described as "dangerous, dumb, and undemocratic". The Trump administration has been vocal about its desire to use federal funding for political punishment. The administration has threatened to cut off grants to "sanctuary cities", block financial assistance to states that push back against the president's demands, and freeze all federal grants and loans for social services across the country. Trump has also threatened to strip away federal funding from states that do not comply with his policies, such as Maine, whose governor he threatened by saying, "You better do it, because you're not going to get any federal funding at all if you don't."

While the federal government can legally deny states certain funding streams under specific conditions, Trump's actions are limited by the Constitution and the Impoundment Control Act, which state that the president cannot withhold congressionally-approved funding without congressional authorization. Courts have repeatedly ruled that attempts to do so violate both statutory and constitutional principles. The Supreme Court has also ruled that threatening to withhold all Medicaid funding unless states agreed to expand the program was unconstitutional coercion.

Trump's disregard for the law has been evident in his administration's aggressive approach to executive power, including attempting to dismantle independent agencies, granting private individuals access to sensitive government systems, and offering unprecedented federal employee buyouts. This has triggered legal challenges and intense debates over the limits of presidential power.

Despite the administration's threats, history, legal precedent, and constitutional law significantly limit the president's authority over congressionally-appropriated funds. The courts have consistently ruled that the executive branch cannot strong-arm states and cities into compliance by weaponizing federal dollars.

Trump has also signed executive orders to empower states, localities, and citizens to prepare for incidents like cyber attacks, weather events, and wildfires, and to streamline operations and update relevant government policies to reduce complexity, increase efficiency, and better protect and serve Americans.

Trump's administration granting private individuals access to sensitive government systems

In the United States, federal law takes precedence over state law. This is based on the Supremacy Clause of the US Constitution, which states that federal law is the "supreme law of the land." This means that in cases where there is a conflict between federal and state law, the federal law will trump the state law.

However, this principle has been challenged during the Trump administration, particularly with regard to granting private individuals access to sensitive government systems. Shortly after his inauguration, Donald Trump granted Elon Musk and his team at the Department of Government Efficiency (DOGE) access to the federal payment system, which handles over $5 trillion in federal disbursements annually, including sensitive information such as tax refunds, Social Security, and Medicare. This move has raised concerns about the potential for misuse or mishandling of personal information and has triggered legal challenges, with federal judges ruling against the administration's attempts to access these systems.

Trump's actions have been characterized as an aggressive approach to executive power, testing the limits of presidential authority. His administration's attempts to dismantle independent agencies and offer unprecedented federal employee buyouts have also sparked intense debate over the boundaries of executive power. The fate of the US Agency for International Development (USAID) is particularly notable, as Trump has signaled plans to strip it of its independence and place it under the control of the State Department, despite legal experts arguing that he lacks the constitutional authority to do so without congressional approval.

Trump's actions regarding federal contractor segregation bans further illustrate his controversial approach to federal law. By rescinding a 1965 executive order banning segregation in the workplaces of federal contractors, Trump's administration conflicted with federal anti-discrimination laws and state laws requiring integration. This move was condemned by the ACLU as undoing decades of progress in promoting equity and remedying systemic discrimination.

Trump's threat to strip Maine of federal funding

In February 2025, former US President Donald Trump threatened to strip Maine of federal funding if the state did not comply with his executive order banning transgender athletes from participating in women's sports. This order conflicted with a Maine law that allowed transgender athletes to compete in women's sports.

Trump's threat was in response to Maine Governor Janet Mills' refusal to comply with his executive order. Mills defended her position, stating that she was following state law and that it was coercion for Trump to withhold funds lawfully appropriated by Congress to advance his political agenda. She also suggested that Trump's actions were a warning to other states and that his administration's investigation into Maine could be the first of many such actions.

The threat sparked widespread criticism and concerns about Trump's disregard for the law and the potential violation of federal court orders and civil rights laws. Maine Representative Chellie Pingree called Trump's threat an "egregious abuse of power" and an "unconstitutional act of coercion."

While the federal government can legally deny states certain funding streams under specific conditions, Trump's threat to cut off all federal funding to Maine solely because the state challenged his policy raised legal concerns. It is important to note that the power to deny funding does not equate to the power to coerce.

Trump's stance on this issue aligns with his broader pattern of testing the limits of his executive authority and clashing with courts and Congress over executive overreach. His administration's actions, including attempting to dismantle independent agencies, granting private individuals access to sensitive government systems, and offering federal employee buyouts, have triggered legal challenges and debates over presidential power.

Frequently asked questions