President Donald Trump singled out Maine Gov. Janet Mills to ask if she would comply with his executive order on transgender athletes.

“I will obey state and federal law,” she replied.

“Well, I’m …We are the federal law,” he told her.

Maine Gov. Janet Mills disagrees with President Donald Trump as he speaks about transgender women in sports during a meeting of governors at the White House on Friday. Jabin Botsford / The Washington Post

“See you in court,” she replied.

Trump concluded that he would win easily and taunted Mills, suggesting she has no future in politics.

Contrast Trump’s remarks with John Adams’ 1780 definition of the American republic as “a government of laws, not of men.” Adams was later the second president.

Trump’s view follows his earlier statement that “Article II [of the Constitution] allows me to do whatever I want.” The president is redefining his role. If that holds, then check and balances among Congress, the president and the courts are dead.

The avalanche of executive orders issued by Trump has raised at least two major issues, and both will inevitably end up in court.

Has the president taken on powers that, under the Constitution, belong to Congress?

Can the president selectively veto congressional spending by closing or reducing federal agencies or programs through forced staff cuts?

Trump may be encouraged by two factors. First, he won the election. His representatives claim that the majority vote victory gave him a mandate to carry out every promise or proposal he had made in the campaign. This electoral endorsement would amount to a sweeping legislative act, making irrelevant both Congress and the courts.

The other support for Trump’s assertion of power comes from the Supreme Court decision in Trump v. U.S., issued last year. The Chief Justice, on behalf of the Court, wrote, “the system of separated powers designed by the Framers has always demanded an energetic, independent Executive.” The Court’s ruling implied that the president could defy Congress.

Presidential executive orders might amount to federal legislation that ordinarily would be under congressional control. If Congress is dominated by the president’s allies, his solo lawmaking may go unchallenged. Historically, limits on presidential lawmaking have resulted from the president’s need to compromise with a skeptical Congress, but that’s missing these days.

In the end, presidents may be lawmakers, but Trump is not the law. The Supreme Court long ago made itself the judge of what the law is. It can decide that, while Trump could issue an order, it cannot violate the Constitution or existing laws. Mills implied that Maine could prevail in Court, possibly because Trump had ignored the powers that states lawfully retain.

Acting mostly through Elon Musk, who holds a temporary government position, the Trump administration has tried to shut down the U.S. Agency for International Development and to terminate or reduce federal government programs. These actions came swiftly, stunning both federal workers and the private sector.

Presidents may dismiss federal employees, provided they respect employee rights set by law or labor contracts. Musk may be using his business practices to dismiss people under an approving president, but it is doubtful that the Court has yet allowed presidents to go as far with public employees as Musk demands.

These firings amount to an “item veto,” by which a president can block a portion of spending that has been ordered by law. Trump is not alone among presidents in wanting to have this power. This move is called rescission and for 50 years it has been banned by law. President Bill Clinton tried it, and he was overruled.

Just as Republican state attorneys-general brought cases against Biden policies, Democratic AGs are now lodging many legal challenges to Trump. The courts have begun acting and mostly trying to stick to the law. That means both Trump and his opponents can win procedural points, but the full story has just begun to be written.

Former Maine AG and Harvard Law School lecturer James Tierney claims that the state AGs play “a vital role” in challenging the president. But, he says, they know that “Donald Trump is the President of the United States. They are not going to sue their way out of it.” Plus, congressional Republicans can continue to allow Trump unchecked power.

Trump’s treatment by the same Supreme Court as accepted his assertion of power will be the most important test. Will it impose any limits on his actions and Musk’s? If it approves his moves and appears partisan, a constitutional crisis caused by his view of presidential power will have arrived.

If it overrules Trump, some of his supporters say the president should ignore unfavorable court decisions. He should rely on the almost unlimited power given him by the voters in 2024. If he disobeys the courts, that would also bring the ultimate crisis.

James Harrington, a British philosopher, wrote in 1656: “The empire of laws is concerned with right; the empire of men, with power.” Which do American voters want?

Gordon L. Weil formerly wrote for the Washington Post and other newspapers, served on the U.S. Senate and EU staffs, headed Maine state agencies and was a Harpswell selectman.