Lead
The National Governors Association (NGA) withdrew from an annual White House gathering this week after President Donald Trump declined to invite two Democratic governors, undercutting a rare bipartisan forum in Washington. Trump is still expected to meet with governors on Friday, but the session will not be facilitated by the NGA, an organization founded more than a century ago to help state leaders from both parties coordinate in Washington. The excluded governors—Colorado’s Jared Polis and Maryland’s Wes Moore—were publicly criticized by the president on social media, prompting visible strain among state executives. The move marks another escalation in tensions between the White House and certain state leaders.
Key Takeaways
- The National Governors Association, founded more than a century ago, announced it will not facilitate the White House governors’ meeting after two Democratic governors were not invited.
- President Trump declined invitations for Govs. Jared Polis (CO) and Wes Moore (MD) and criticized them publicly, prompting the NGA’s decision to withdraw facilitation.
- The White House meeting will proceed Friday without the NGA; with 50 U.S. state governors, the exclusion of two reduces NGA’s traditional all-governors convening.
- GOP governors such as Kevin Stitt (OK) and Spencer Cox (UT) expressed both frustration and sympathy, while former GOP governor Larry Hogan called the omission a mistake.
- Moore serves as the NGA vice chair; he said he does not seek conflict with the president and is focused on state work despite the dispute.
- Governors noted broader worries about expanding presidential power, including past threats to withhold federal funds or use federal forces against state officials.
- The episode occurred alongside speculation about potential 2028 presidential prospects among governors, adding political significance to the dispute.
Background
The National Governors Association has long positioned itself as one of Washington’s few institutional bridges between state and federal leaders of different parties. Founded more than a century ago, the NGA organizes meetings where governors exchange policy ideas, coordinate federal requests and present unified priorities to Congress and the White House. Annual White House events have functioned as ceremonial and practical opportunities to reduce partisan friction and to surface cooperative initiatives on issues such as infrastructure, public health and disaster response.
Over recent years, relations between several governors and the president have become sharper, reflecting broader national polarization. The current president has at times publicly criticized state leaders and, according to multiple governors, threatened measures such as withholding federal funds or deploying federal assets in ways that governors view as confrontational. Those tensions have elevated routine customs — like a White House reception or discussion — into political flashpoints that test long-standing bipartisan norms.
Main Event
This week, the White House declined to include Govs. Jared Polis of Colorado and Wes Moore of Maryland on the invitation list for a governors’ meeting, drawing an immediate reaction from the NGA. The association announced it would not facilitate the White House event after leadership and member governors judged the exclusion inconsistent with the NGA’s longstanding practice of bringing all governors together. The White House, however, indicated the president would still meet with a number of governors on Friday without the NGA’s organizational role.
Gov. Polis told reporters he could not read the president’s motives and that he spent the morning meeting with colleagues from both parties to exchange policy ideas. Gov. Moore, the NGA’s vice chair, said he has no desire for personal conflict with the president and emphasized his focus on state governance rather than presidential politics. Oklahoma Gov. Kevin Stitt, who chairs the NGA, struck a conciliatory tone publicly but said he had tried to resolve the standoff before the president criticized him as a ‘‘RINO.’’
Former Maryland Gov. Larry Hogan, a Republican who has sometimes opposed the former president, called the White House decision a mistake and said the tradition of bringing all governors together served a useful, if not always productive, purpose. Other governors used the gathering to voice broader concerns about executive overreach and the need for Congress to check unilateral impulses from the White House, underscoring how the dispute is tied to institutional balance as well as partisanship.
Analysis & Implications
The NGA’s withdrawal highlights how personalized presidential politics can disrupt institutional routines that facilitate intergovernmental cooperation. Governors rely on these convenings to coordinate disaster responses, apply for federal funding and negotiate regulatory flexibility; losing an impartial convening partner could complicate those practical exchanges and reduce opportunities for cross-party problem solving. While the White House can still host individual meetings, the absence of the NGA’s facilitation means fewer structured moments for collective bargaining and for drafting unified, bipartisan policy asks.
Politically, the incident deepens fissures within the Republican coalition. Governors like Kevin Stitt and Spencer Cox publicly criticized the president’s approach to unity even as they signaled willingness to work with him on certain matters. That split underscores an ongoing tension between party leaders who prioritize institutional norms and those who align closely with the president’s combative style. The dispute also offers a stage for governors who are weighing national ambitions to publicly define themselves on governance and comity.
From a governance perspective, the immediate operational effects may be limited if the White House and individual governors continue to meet. However, the precedent of excluding elected state executives risks normalizing selective engagement, which could hamper responses to crises requiring rapid, coordinated state-federal action. Over time, repeated instances of selective invitations could erode trust, making future bargaining over federal grants, emergencies and regulatory waivers more contentious and time-consuming.
Comparison & Data
| Item | Count |
|---|---|
| Total U.S. state governors | 50 |
| Governors reportedly not invited | 2 |
| Governors effectively invited (inferred) | 48 |
The table above uses the standard count of 50 state governors and reflects the report that two Democratic governors were not invited. The inferred count of 48 invited governors assumes no other exclusions; that figure is a simple subtraction and does not account for attendance decisions, territory officials, or last-minute changes. The practical significance of excluding two governors depends less on raw numbers than on the symbolic and procedural precedent it sets for future federal-state engagements.
Reactions & Quotes
Governors and observers offered varied responses, mixing institutional concern with personal frustration. Several governors emphasized the importance of maintaining forums for bipartisan exchange even amid politicking.
“I’ve spent quality time with my colleagues this morning and really learning from one another and taking best practices that Republican or Democratic governors have launched in their state,”
Gov. Jared Polis (Colorado)
Polis used the NGA meetings this week to trade policy ideas with colleagues across the aisle and said he remained focused on state-level solutions despite being excluded from the White House facilitation.
“I didn’t run for governor like, man, I can’t wait so me and the president can go toe to toe,”
Gov. Wes Moore (Maryland)
Moore, the NGA vice chair, framed his role as state-focused and expressed a lack of appetite for personal confrontation with the president, while also noting the personal toll of being targeted on social media.
“There never was a huge amount of real work that got accomplished but it was a nice thing annually to bring all the governors — Republicans and Democrats — together,”
Former Gov. Larry Hogan (Republican)
Hogan characterized the tradition of an inclusive governors’ reception as beneficial even when it did not yield major policy breakthroughs.
Unconfirmed
- Whether the White House will permanently sideline the NGA for future governors’ events remains unclear and was not confirmed by federal officials.
- Any direct, immediate effect on specific federal funding decisions tied to this exclusion has not been substantiated.
- The president’s long-term intent in excluding these governors—whether strategic, personal or procedural—has not been independently verified.
Bottom Line
The NGA’s decision to step back from facilitating the White House governors’ meeting marks an erosion of a longstanding, if informal, bipartisan channel between state and federal leaders. While the president can still meet with governors individually, the absence of the NGA removes a neutral convener that has historically eased cross-party exchanges and collective bargaining on federal policy and emergency response.
Watch for two immediate signals: whether governors can achieve practical cooperation with the White House absent NGA mediation, and whether this episode becomes a recurring pattern of selective engagement. The dispute also offers a window into intra-party strains and the degree to which state leaders will publicly defend institutional norms even as they navigate national political calculations.
Sources
- Associated Press (news report summarizing the meeting and governors’ responses)
- Politico (news organization cited for event remarks and现场 context)
- National Governors Association (official organization background)
- Center for American Progress (think tank events referenced regarding governors’ appearances)