Governors Work Together in Opposition to the President

by Kirk Kirkland

During the first week of the shutdown of government by the Republicans in Congress, it was difficult to find successful ways to push back the polarization that has occurred between these two political parties. But in this dark hour several leaders in both parties spoke out about violence and called for people to look for legislation where our leaders could work together.

In past newsletters we identified issues where the Environmental Advocates and Pierce County government can work together to push back against Trump’s Federal Administration. This month we watched one governor’s protest of the soldiers coming to Chicago, then watched it turn into a movement with Federal judges to stop soldiers in two states.

The first piece of good news came from Portland and Chicago where judges stopped the Federal Administration from sending more troops. In the process Illinois Governor J B Pritzker said “Mr. President, do not come to Chicago. You are neither wanted here nor needed here.”

With this bold leader we see that the governors have found how to stop the Federal Administration by enforcing the constitutional rule of law.

In addition to these governors’ leadership there were other signs of a tipping point coming. Last week the governors in three states cooperated and produced an aggressive state-level policy for California, Oregon, and Washington. Three governors enacted a joint response to replace federal cuts to medical care and essential funding for medical research as a way to protect the California’s higher education system and their medical research.

With this effort we see California Gavin Newsom stepping up and showing leadership along with Gov. Tim Walz of Minnesota. Gov Newsom acted with righteous indignation, filing lawsuits and appearing on as many media platforms as would have him.

Of particular interest is the Utah Governor, a Republican, Spencer Cox who is committed to accelerate his efforts against political polarization. Cox is utilizing his reputation for moderation and bipartisanship to urge national calm after the death of Charlie Kirk. In public appearances, Cox has emphasized the moral imperative to end political violence, urging citizens not to return “hate with hate.” He was president of the National Governor Association 2023-2024.

Cox has framed his work and Utah’s response as a potential path for the country to “disagree better” and move away from the brink of extreme conflict. See for yourself on YouTube at the 2024 Governors’ Winter Meeting. Disagree Better with Governor Cox

Charlie Kirk’s widow, Erika Kirk, surprised everyone with her ability to forgive her husband’s assassin where she also said: “the answer to hate is not hate.”

____________________

Now let’s step back for a moment and take a look at the history of significant social change in the last two decades. It came when governors and their attorney generals worked together, to make the cigarette industry responsible for the damage to the health of smokers. As a result, cigarette advertising was changed and each state received a donation from the Tobacco Industry to cover state medical costs.

Significant change happened again when congress could not pass legislation to reduce automobile pollution. Governors in three western states increased their car standards for better average miles per gallon.

Canada followed their lead until eventually, large states like Pennsylvania, New York and Massachusetts created a majority of states. Their participation created a huge market share, effectively forcing automakers to produce cleaner, more efficient vehicles nationwide. These governors didn’t need a majority vote in congress. They made a demand from a majority of the states to the automobile industry.

This current emerging leadership by governors started just before the shut down. It was three western governors who enacted a joint response to replace federal cuts to medical care to their citizens. This medical issue now has momentum for other governors to solve this problem in their states.

Now in the second week of shutdown, on October 10, Democratic Governor Pritzker of Illinois accused Governor Greg Abbott of Texas, of a betrayal, letting his troops be used to invade other states. His appearance on the Rachel Maddow show on MSNBC set off a media storm.

Such animus would once have been considered unusual or out of bounds from members of the National Governors Association. In the past they balanced budgets and found solutions for their states, regardless of party.

The Governors Association also hosted “disagree better” road shows in between twice-annual meetings. But, the deployment of about 200 troops from Texas to the Chicago area, and the threatened movement of Texas troops to Portland, Ore. has motivated governors to choose sides.

“The President wants to call up National Guard troops in a way that we don’t believe is lawful,” Governor Tina Kotek of Oregon, a Democrat, said in an interview with NY Times reporter David Goodman. “That should concern every governor, Republican or Democrat.”

At first, Republican governors were mostly silent. However the current chairman of the National Governors Association, Governor Kevin Stitt of Oklahoma, said in an interview with the NY Times that the deployment of Texas National Guard troops to Illinois violated his beliefs in federalism and “states’ rights.”

“Oklahomans would lose their mind if Pritzker in Illinois sent troops down to Oklahoma during the Biden administration,” Mr. Stitt said according to the NY Times article.

Democratic governors also asked Mr. Abbott to rebuff the president’s move. This shows that some bipartisanship still exists. In fact, more than two dozen republican governors filed a motion on Wednesday October 8, 2025 requesting permission to enter a legal brief objecting to the Texas Guard mobilization in Illinois.

This was a show of bipartisan support from Republicans that included: William Weld of Massachusetts, Bill Graves of Kansas, Arne Carlson of Minnesota, Marc Racicot of Montana, and Christine Todd Whitman of New Jersey.

“The President’s assertion of authority to deploy military troops on domestic soil is based on his unreviewable discretion, and without the cooperation and coordination of state authorities, threatens to upset the delicate balance of state and federal authority that underlies our constitutional order,” was the wording the more than two dozen former governors wrote in a legal brief objecting to the Texas Guard mobilization.

This motion by the Governors set off the most contentious debate from Senator Tammy Duckworth over Mr. Trump’s use of the military to police American cities.

“We’ve seen President Trump force military troops uninvited into American cities,” said Senator Duckworth, Democrat from Illinois. On Thursday she proposed new rules to require the administration to notify Congress before sending military personnel to domestic locations.

The Senate rejected her measure and a series of others offered by Democrats that would have placed limits on how the president could use military troops in American cities. Republicans argued that the deployments were both legal and appropriate.

Though her measure was voted down along party lines, Ms. Duckworth, who had threatened to block a final vote on the defense measure, secured a commitment from Republican leaders to hold a hearing on the deployment of National Guard troops.

All of this news has put severe strains on the National Governors. Their association has so far been silent until the Senate debate on funding. . After the vote on the budget, Illnois Governor Pritzker continued fighting against the Federal Administration’s outreach..

In a press Conference in October he said: “This is not only illegal, but it is un-American. The President is turning the American military on the American people.”

Governor Pritzker will be remembered for his fiery language when he ask Trump to withhold his troops:

“If you hurt my people, nothing will stop me, no time or political circumstance, from making sure that you face justice under our constitutional rule of law.”

Currently there are 17 Democratic states where the Attorney Generals have filed suit against Federal Administrations in these two categories:

1 Challenged the federal government attempts to coerce their cooperation on immigration enforcement by threatening to withhold federal funds.

2 Attorney General’s s filed lawsuits against the federal government’s attempts to coerce their cooperation on immigration enforcement by threatening to withhold federal funding (often referred to as “sanctuary city” challenges).

This is not a majority and Republican governors are missing, but it might be a tipping point when combined with the shut down of the government for a record time.

Here are the cooperating states: California, Connecticut, Delaware, Hawaii, Illinois, Maryland, Massachusetts, Minnesota, New Jersey, New Mexico, New York, Oregon, Pennsylvania, Rhode Island, Vermont, Virginia, Washington