Democrats Challenge Trump and Musk — and Succeed
Democratic state attorneys general have been strategizing their legal actions for a year.
TroibNews 
The resistance convenes daily on Microsoft Teams.
At 4pm ET, the nation's 23 Democratic state attorneys general join a confidential thirty-minute video chat to strategize against the Trump administration. They discuss updates on the seven ongoing federal cases and debate whether to view Elon Musk as a legitimate government ally or a rogue element. They coordinate their responses, utilizing timezone differences to extend their effective work hours.
The American left has struggled during Trump 2.0. The sweeping protests of 2017 have not returned, and donations to progressive causes have declined significantly. Democratic congressional members have been intimidated by Trump’s claims of executive authority, and many governors from the party are hesitant to initiate confrontations with the president. In responding to Trump, elected officials have often looked to labor unions and advocacy groups for direction.
The attorneys general, however, regard themselves as the last defense against presidential overreach. Their collective lawsuits have successfully paused the administration's attempts to revoke birthright citizenship, freeze federal funding, and cut support for medical research. Recently, they submitted their sixth amicus brief against the Trump administration, with all 23 attorneys general uniting to emphasize the significance of the Affordable Care Act. The US Department of Justice declined to comment on that brief or others it is defending.
“Right now in the United States, the Democratic AGs are the only group of people who are united and working to prevent some of these unconstitutional actions from continuing,” asserted Hawaii attorney general Anne Lopez in an interview.
This effort represents a shift from Trump 1.0, where Democratic state officials collaborated in a more spontaneous and reactive manner, often coming together with little notice. They achieved significant legal victories then but were often constrained by the risk of conflicting rulings across different courts.
This year, the attorneys general have implemented a strategic plan they developed over the year prior to Trump’s return to the White House. They recognized that responding reactively to Trump’s initiatives would mean they were too late.
For many of them, consistently responding to Trump has become a full-time responsibility on top of their regular constitutional duties. All are concerned that they will need to seek additional funding and resources from their legislatures to maintain their national efforts while also handling their routine responsibilities, such as investigating Medicaid fraud or pursuing cases against tobacco companies.
“We talk each and every day these days, and you’d think we’d start to get tired of it, but we’ve just grown closer over time,” said Kathy Jennings, Delaware’s attorney general. “And in the next four years, we’re going to grow very close.”
Bob Ferguson took notes as his car navigated the streets of Seattle, where he previously worked at a large corporate law firm before entering politics. Ferguson had attended Democratic Attorneys General Association meetings across the country, usually vibrant events filled with lobbyists eager for face time with influential state-level law enforcement and regulatory leaders.
The February 2024 meeting was particularly significant for Ferguson as he entered the final year of his third term as Washington’s attorney general. He was running for governor and, regardless of the outcome, would leave his office as the last remaining Democratic attorney general from the start of Trump’s first presidency.
Ferguson wanted to leverage his speaking opportunity at the meeting to deliver a serious warning to his colleagues: they were unprepared for what lay ahead.
Walking the stage at the Grand Hyatt with a microphone, he called to mind the tumultuous early months of 2017, when a new president’s unfiltered policymaking threatened civil rights and disrupted the balance of powers.
Even though the 2024 election was still nine months away, Ferguson urged them to begin preparing for the legal challenges they would face if Trump reclaimed office. He recalled his office's proactive work during 2016, when they crafted a constitutional challenge to Trump’s campaign promise to ban Muslims from entering the U.S. This groundwork allowed them to file a brief against the policy just days after Trump implemented the order.
“Whatever he is saying or articulating on the campaign trail,” Ferguson conveyed to the assembled attorneys, “assume he's going to do it — no matter how outlandish it may be — and prepare for that.”
Ferguson’s speech served both as encouragement and a crash course on appellate strategy. He emphasized that attorneys general should begin requesting financial resources from their states to employ additional lawyers. Preparedness for January 20 was crucial, he cautioned, since the president would be ready. Last time, Trump’s missteps offered easier legal challenges, but this time, they should not expect the same.
Several attorneys general stepped up to begin research, drafting motions, and constructing arguments, taking back categories like immigration, reproductive health, environmental issues, and voting rights to allocate responsibilities based on expertise and capacity.
“There was going to be a need for coordinated action, making sure that we were not caught flat-footed,” noted Maine’s Aaron Frey. “It allowed us to be thinking about what is going to be important for our states.”
Meanwhile, Rob Bonta in Sacramento was already preparing for more national cases following the 2022 Supreme Court decision overturning Roe v. Wade. He was maintaining a “brief bank” for potential federal abortion ban challenges.
After the Seattle meeting, the brief bank expanded, allowing Bonta and his growing litigation team to outline the ways Trump’s policies could be contested, from military actions to budget strategies and federal waivers.
Unlike Ferguson, who had to speculate about Trump’s likely actions based on campaign rhetoric, Bonta and his colleagues had a concrete roadmap. They reviewed Project 2025, a comprehensive set of conservative policy proposals from the Heritage Foundation aimed at radically reshaping the federal government.
Throughout the summer and fall, state attorneys general, including the District of Columbia, began weekly discussions to update each other on their progress, prioritizing efforts and clarifying their powers.
“I think there was a collective recognition that we wanted to approach things differently,” said Rhode Island’s Peter Neronha, who began his tenure during Trump’s last two years. “We knew we would have to come up with a process for everyone to participate.”
Though multistate lawsuits are not new, historically, Democratic attorneys general have had varied experiences in organizing during a conflicting administration. In 2017, they occasionally united, but often acted independently or in smaller groups.
“It was more ad hoc than I think it is today,” stated George Jepsen, who served as Connecticut’s attorney general during Trump’s first presidency.
When Trump issued his travel ban targeting seven majority-Muslim countries, three separate lawsuits emerged from various attorneys general. Washington and Minnesota challenged the initial order; Hawaii filed a second suit after Trump amended it, while Virginia and New York stepped in on behalf of individuals affected at airports.
“It was very reactionary and stressful. We were just trying to figure out what the heck everybody was going to do,” recalled Hawaii’s former Attorney General Doug Chin.
The concern was to avoid rulings that could inadvertently constrain their collective efforts.
By summer, they established a framework for developing united multistate suits. They identified states with the most relevant experience in particular courts, deciding on optimal venues for filing.
“I guess one of the good things about the summer slumps,” remarked Maine’s Frey, “was that we had time to prepare and determine how we would collaborate and maximize resources.”
Where Project 2025 listed specific proposals, they crafted tailored cases that all states could support. For vaguer suggestions, they researched successful arguments from previous attempts to mitigate Trump’s last-term agenda.
Their early preparations were based on available resources, often relying on California’s extensive staff and New York’s sizable team.
Lawyers were already drafting a brief concerning birthright citizenship before Trump took office. The states invited San Francisco to participate in the case, recalling the 1898 Supreme Court case of Wong Kim Ark, which established that the 14th Amendment applied to anyone born in the United States.
By November, the brief bank had expanded considerably, consuming significant time for state attorneys across the country. New Jersey Attorney General Matthew Platkin consulted his lawyers about volunteering for pre-election preparations, recognizing their work might become moot if Harris won.
“I said, ‘This is purely volunteer, nobody has to do this, we can't pay you any more,’” he recounted. “Over fifty lawyers signed up without knowing the election's outcome, driven by concern.”
On Election Night, Bonta stepped out from a nearly empty Los Angeles hotel ballroom where California Democrats had hoped to celebrate a victory. Instead, with disheartened legislators leaving, Bonta’s thoughts shifted to a year of planning he’d hoped would “gather dust” after a Harris win. He and his colleagues had meticulously strategized on court choices, comparing the merits of state and federal judges, and ensuring their cases would have legal standing against Trump.
“If he violates the law — as he has said he would, as Project 2025 says he will,” Bonta declared, “then we are ready.”
On Inauguration Day, executive orders poured from the White House, mandating changes like easing drilling on federal land, withdrawing from international agreements, and altering civil rights definitions.
The attorneys general were shocked by the rapidity and recklessness of these moves. However, they were also aware that they had spent the preceding year preparing for significant policy shifts.
“Trying to map out a list of areas where we might see massive policy changes and things that are illegal,” explained Nick Brown, the newly elected head of Washington’s attorney general’s office.
They held discussions every few hours that day, divvying up lawsuits based on standing, expertise, and available staff. They kept track of ongoing briefs and coordinated on filing logistics.
“As you can imagine, everybody is the chief legal officer of their respective state, so everybody is used to leading. But when you work collectively, you have to set aside that desire sometimes,” observed Illinois Attorney General Kwame Raoul.
Shortly after, they filed their first two cases. In Massachusetts, 19 states presented their coordinated response to Trump’s order denying citizenship to children of undocumented immigrants.
This effort built off earlier legal successes against the Trump administration regarding census and asylum policies, arguing they violated the Administrative Procedure Act.
“They had a way to articulate what the state's interest was, because that's the main hurdle you have to get over,” commented David Levine, a law professor. “You can’t just sue because you don't like what he’s doing.”
Hours later, Oregon, Arizona, and Illinois initiated their own suit in Washington, later including three pregnant mothers worried about their children's citizenship status as a way to underline the order's impact.
“It wasn’t any strategic thing,” Raoul explained about the timing of filings. “Sometimes, one AG may want to file in their state for a specific reason while another group opts to proceed elsewhere. We’re doing our best to minimize that and collaborate.”
On January 27, Trump’s Office of Management and Budget announced a temporary funding freeze affecting the entire government, creating turmoil in state and local programs. Although the specifics of the memo were unforeseen, the attorneys general had spent the prior year preparing communication for when Trump’s actions inevitably intersected with Congress's fiscal powers.
“We had to get that filed quickly, so we leveraged the West Coast offices,” said Rhode Island’s Neronha. “You only have 24 hours in a day, but when you’re burning the midnight oil, you gain three extra hours by aligning with the West Coast teams, allowing our folks some needed rest.”
A day later, all 23 states filed a suit in Rhode Island to obstruct the memo’s implementation, utilizing the same separation-of-powers rationale that previously succeeded in a 2020 challenge that stopped Trump from diverting military funds for border-wall construction. Their brief argued that only Congress had the authority to allocate funds.
Democratic officials were not alone in challenging the new president. The AFL-CIO contested Trump’s civil service changes, the ACLU fought for access to gender-affirming care, and the City of Baltimore opposed the closure of the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau. The attorneys general followed up these lawsuits with amicus briefs voiced by all 23 states.
However, states maintain a unique position that outside entities like labor unions lack. Their lawsuits act as class-action suits on behalf of all constituents, leveraging concrete harms that only state governments can document comprehensively. On February 10, 22 states initiated a lawsuit regarding cuts to the National Institutes of Health. While filed in Massachusetts, it contained detailed impacts on programs at the University of Wisconsin.
“Ensuring that this information is included and utilized in these cases is critical for us and other states,” stated Wisconsin’s Attorney General Josh Kaul.
Ferguson and other seasoned attorneys general who faced Trump during his first term had warned their successors to brace for unpredictability. However, few anticipated that chaos would stem from a tech mogul boasting vast wealth and seemingly unrestricted access to federal decision-making.
“Who could predict that this billionaire, the richest man in the world, comes in out of nowhere and gets the blessing of the president to invade people's privacy?” Jennings remarked during a February press conference.
To counter the actions of the Department of Government Efficiency, attorneys general needed to develop a united stance toward Elon Musk. Should they view him as a spokesperson for the president, providing an additional avenue to challenge Trump? Or was Musk himself acting unlawfully?
By mid-February, the collective decided to pursue both angles. One coalition led by New York sued Trump, alleging the Department of Government Efficiency had compromised citizens' privacy. Shortly afterward, a second group led by New Mexico targeted Musk, charging him with wielding excessive power without Senate confirmation.
“It’s essential that individuals understand there are co-equal branches of government that must be respected, and that states have a unique obligation to ensure adherence to the Constitution,” asserted New York attorney general Letitia James ahead of a hearing in the privacy case.
The attorneys general found Musk's considerable influence resonating with the public in a way that few other matters had during the initial frenzied days of Trump 2.0. Jennings noted that her office was inundated with calls expressing concern about DOGE, far more than any other issue during her six-year tenure.
“You ask the AGs and they’re all going to tell you the same thing,” she said. “Our phones were flooded with calls. This really hit home for people.”
John Suthers, who as a Republican attorney general in Colorado had previously joined a challenge to the Affordable Care Act while abstaining from other multistate suits, warned that Democrats could fall prey to groupthink as they rushed to file lawsuits against Trump.
“A lot of these folks aren’t practicing solid law as opposed to good politics,” Suthers stated. “It’s probably great politics to sue the president for every little action, but it’s certainly not sound law.”
High above the kitschy attractions of Hollywood Boulevard, the Democratic Attorneys General Association gathered for its first in-person conference since the inauguration. Attendees celebrated early legal wins while engaging in a packed schedule of discussions about responding should Trump defy a court order.
Despite pervasive concerns about constitutional crises, the atmosphere was uplifted by the camaraderie built through shared struggles. Colleagues exchanged inside jokes — which they declined to explain — and shared praises for each other's lesser-known talents, such as Michigan’s Dana Nessel’s humor and Nevada’s Aaron Ford's vocal abilities.
The positive energy stemmed, in part, from finally interacting outside the confines of their daily Zoom meetings, which began shortly after Trump’s inauguration. Their teams also communicate daily, aiming to resolve differences and sharpen their strategies during their allotted thirty-minute discussions.
Nevertheless, concerns about staff burnout loom large, prompting a need to share time and resources judiciously. Behind every detailed filing submitted to federal courts lies countless hours of collaboration among attorneys and legal experts. Unlike the previous term, outside firms eager to volunteer pro bono hours have largely distanced themselves from current efforts.
To enhance litigation capacities, smaller states have expanded their operations. In Olympia, Washington's team has increased by 50 percent since Ferguson took office, establishing new divisions for civil rights, environmental protection, and complex litigation. Rhode Island has recently created a new six-person unit dedicated to “federal accountability.”
“The cavalry is on the way,” declared Maryland Attorney General Anthony Brown. “I anticipate that Maryland will take a leadership role on more cases as soon as we can manage the workload.”
To support these suits, California allocated an additional $25 million for Bonta’s office. Rhode Island’s legislature boosted Neronha’s budget to increase staffing. Furthermore, attorneys general in Hawaii, Connecticut, and other states are requesting funds from their lawmakers.
“There’s no doubt our resources are being stretched; I’ve approached our legislature for more,” commented Colorado Attorney General Phil Weiser.
For now, the attorneys general will continue to recruit additional lawyers while balancing their obligations to their states and developing responses to each new executive action with corresponding lawsuits. As they refine their brief banks, they are also keeping their strategies under wraps.
“So I think that preparation paid off,” Ferguson, now Washington’s governor, reflected. “I believe that proved to be a worthwhile investment of time, as they have been able to match the administration's pace thus far.”
Emily Ngo, Shia Kapos, Matt Friedman, and Kelly Garrity contributed to this article.
Max Fischer for TROIB News
At 4pm ET, the nation's 23 Democratic state attorneys general join a confidential thirty-minute video chat to strategize against the Trump administration. They discuss updates on the seven ongoing federal cases and debate whether to view Elon Musk as a legitimate government ally or a rogue element. They coordinate their responses, utilizing timezone differences to extend their effective work hours.
The American left has struggled during Trump 2.0. The sweeping protests of 2017 have not returned, and donations to progressive causes have declined significantly. Democratic congressional members have been intimidated by Trump’s claims of executive authority, and many governors from the party are hesitant to initiate confrontations with the president. In responding to Trump, elected officials have often looked to labor unions and advocacy groups for direction.
The attorneys general, however, regard themselves as the last defense against presidential overreach. Their collective lawsuits have successfully paused the administration's attempts to revoke birthright citizenship, freeze federal funding, and cut support for medical research. Recently, they submitted their sixth amicus brief against the Trump administration, with all 23 attorneys general uniting to emphasize the significance of the Affordable Care Act. The US Department of Justice declined to comment on that brief or others it is defending.
“Right now in the United States, the Democratic AGs are the only group of people who are united and working to prevent some of these unconstitutional actions from continuing,” asserted Hawaii attorney general Anne Lopez in an interview.
This effort represents a shift from Trump 1.0, where Democratic state officials collaborated in a more spontaneous and reactive manner, often coming together with little notice. They achieved significant legal victories then but were often constrained by the risk of conflicting rulings across different courts.
This year, the attorneys general have implemented a strategic plan they developed over the year prior to Trump’s return to the White House. They recognized that responding reactively to Trump’s initiatives would mean they were too late.
For many of them, consistently responding to Trump has become a full-time responsibility on top of their regular constitutional duties. All are concerned that they will need to seek additional funding and resources from their legislatures to maintain their national efforts while also handling their routine responsibilities, such as investigating Medicaid fraud or pursuing cases against tobacco companies.
“We talk each and every day these days, and you’d think we’d start to get tired of it, but we’ve just grown closer over time,” said Kathy Jennings, Delaware’s attorney general. “And in the next four years, we’re going to grow very close.”
Bob Ferguson took notes as his car navigated the streets of Seattle, where he previously worked at a large corporate law firm before entering politics. Ferguson had attended Democratic Attorneys General Association meetings across the country, usually vibrant events filled with lobbyists eager for face time with influential state-level law enforcement and regulatory leaders.
The February 2024 meeting was particularly significant for Ferguson as he entered the final year of his third term as Washington’s attorney general. He was running for governor and, regardless of the outcome, would leave his office as the last remaining Democratic attorney general from the start of Trump’s first presidency.
Ferguson wanted to leverage his speaking opportunity at the meeting to deliver a serious warning to his colleagues: they were unprepared for what lay ahead.
Walking the stage at the Grand Hyatt with a microphone, he called to mind the tumultuous early months of 2017, when a new president’s unfiltered policymaking threatened civil rights and disrupted the balance of powers.
Even though the 2024 election was still nine months away, Ferguson urged them to begin preparing for the legal challenges they would face if Trump reclaimed office. He recalled his office's proactive work during 2016, when they crafted a constitutional challenge to Trump’s campaign promise to ban Muslims from entering the U.S. This groundwork allowed them to file a brief against the policy just days after Trump implemented the order.
“Whatever he is saying or articulating on the campaign trail,” Ferguson conveyed to the assembled attorneys, “assume he's going to do it — no matter how outlandish it may be — and prepare for that.”
Ferguson’s speech served both as encouragement and a crash course on appellate strategy. He emphasized that attorneys general should begin requesting financial resources from their states to employ additional lawyers. Preparedness for January 20 was crucial, he cautioned, since the president would be ready. Last time, Trump’s missteps offered easier legal challenges, but this time, they should not expect the same.
Several attorneys general stepped up to begin research, drafting motions, and constructing arguments, taking back categories like immigration, reproductive health, environmental issues, and voting rights to allocate responsibilities based on expertise and capacity.
“There was going to be a need for coordinated action, making sure that we were not caught flat-footed,” noted Maine’s Aaron Frey. “It allowed us to be thinking about what is going to be important for our states.”
Meanwhile, Rob Bonta in Sacramento was already preparing for more national cases following the 2022 Supreme Court decision overturning Roe v. Wade. He was maintaining a “brief bank” for potential federal abortion ban challenges.
After the Seattle meeting, the brief bank expanded, allowing Bonta and his growing litigation team to outline the ways Trump’s policies could be contested, from military actions to budget strategies and federal waivers.
Unlike Ferguson, who had to speculate about Trump’s likely actions based on campaign rhetoric, Bonta and his colleagues had a concrete roadmap. They reviewed Project 2025, a comprehensive set of conservative policy proposals from the Heritage Foundation aimed at radically reshaping the federal government.
Throughout the summer and fall, state attorneys general, including the District of Columbia, began weekly discussions to update each other on their progress, prioritizing efforts and clarifying their powers.
“I think there was a collective recognition that we wanted to approach things differently,” said Rhode Island’s Peter Neronha, who began his tenure during Trump’s last two years. “We knew we would have to come up with a process for everyone to participate.”
Though multistate lawsuits are not new, historically, Democratic attorneys general have had varied experiences in organizing during a conflicting administration. In 2017, they occasionally united, but often acted independently or in smaller groups.
“It was more ad hoc than I think it is today,” stated George Jepsen, who served as Connecticut’s attorney general during Trump’s first presidency.
When Trump issued his travel ban targeting seven majority-Muslim countries, three separate lawsuits emerged from various attorneys general. Washington and Minnesota challenged the initial order; Hawaii filed a second suit after Trump amended it, while Virginia and New York stepped in on behalf of individuals affected at airports.
“It was very reactionary and stressful. We were just trying to figure out what the heck everybody was going to do,” recalled Hawaii’s former Attorney General Doug Chin.
The concern was to avoid rulings that could inadvertently constrain their collective efforts.
By summer, they established a framework for developing united multistate suits. They identified states with the most relevant experience in particular courts, deciding on optimal venues for filing.
“I guess one of the good things about the summer slumps,” remarked Maine’s Frey, “was that we had time to prepare and determine how we would collaborate and maximize resources.”
Where Project 2025 listed specific proposals, they crafted tailored cases that all states could support. For vaguer suggestions, they researched successful arguments from previous attempts to mitigate Trump’s last-term agenda.
Their early preparations were based on available resources, often relying on California’s extensive staff and New York’s sizable team.
Lawyers were already drafting a brief concerning birthright citizenship before Trump took office. The states invited San Francisco to participate in the case, recalling the 1898 Supreme Court case of Wong Kim Ark, which established that the 14th Amendment applied to anyone born in the United States.
By November, the brief bank had expanded considerably, consuming significant time for state attorneys across the country. New Jersey Attorney General Matthew Platkin consulted his lawyers about volunteering for pre-election preparations, recognizing their work might become moot if Harris won.
“I said, ‘This is purely volunteer, nobody has to do this, we can't pay you any more,’” he recounted. “Over fifty lawyers signed up without knowing the election's outcome, driven by concern.”
On Election Night, Bonta stepped out from a nearly empty Los Angeles hotel ballroom where California Democrats had hoped to celebrate a victory. Instead, with disheartened legislators leaving, Bonta’s thoughts shifted to a year of planning he’d hoped would “gather dust” after a Harris win. He and his colleagues had meticulously strategized on court choices, comparing the merits of state and federal judges, and ensuring their cases would have legal standing against Trump.
“If he violates the law — as he has said he would, as Project 2025 says he will,” Bonta declared, “then we are ready.”
On Inauguration Day, executive orders poured from the White House, mandating changes like easing drilling on federal land, withdrawing from international agreements, and altering civil rights definitions.
The attorneys general were shocked by the rapidity and recklessness of these moves. However, they were also aware that they had spent the preceding year preparing for significant policy shifts.
“Trying to map out a list of areas where we might see massive policy changes and things that are illegal,” explained Nick Brown, the newly elected head of Washington’s attorney general’s office.
They held discussions every few hours that day, divvying up lawsuits based on standing, expertise, and available staff. They kept track of ongoing briefs and coordinated on filing logistics.
“As you can imagine, everybody is the chief legal officer of their respective state, so everybody is used to leading. But when you work collectively, you have to set aside that desire sometimes,” observed Illinois Attorney General Kwame Raoul.
Shortly after, they filed their first two cases. In Massachusetts, 19 states presented their coordinated response to Trump’s order denying citizenship to children of undocumented immigrants.
This effort built off earlier legal successes against the Trump administration regarding census and asylum policies, arguing they violated the Administrative Procedure Act.
“They had a way to articulate what the state's interest was, because that's the main hurdle you have to get over,” commented David Levine, a law professor. “You can’t just sue because you don't like what he’s doing.”
Hours later, Oregon, Arizona, and Illinois initiated their own suit in Washington, later including three pregnant mothers worried about their children's citizenship status as a way to underline the order's impact.
“It wasn’t any strategic thing,” Raoul explained about the timing of filings. “Sometimes, one AG may want to file in their state for a specific reason while another group opts to proceed elsewhere. We’re doing our best to minimize that and collaborate.”
On January 27, Trump’s Office of Management and Budget announced a temporary funding freeze affecting the entire government, creating turmoil in state and local programs. Although the specifics of the memo were unforeseen, the attorneys general had spent the prior year preparing communication for when Trump’s actions inevitably intersected with Congress's fiscal powers.
“We had to get that filed quickly, so we leveraged the West Coast offices,” said Rhode Island’s Neronha. “You only have 24 hours in a day, but when you’re burning the midnight oil, you gain three extra hours by aligning with the West Coast teams, allowing our folks some needed rest.”
A day later, all 23 states filed a suit in Rhode Island to obstruct the memo’s implementation, utilizing the same separation-of-powers rationale that previously succeeded in a 2020 challenge that stopped Trump from diverting military funds for border-wall construction. Their brief argued that only Congress had the authority to allocate funds.
Democratic officials were not alone in challenging the new president. The AFL-CIO contested Trump’s civil service changes, the ACLU fought for access to gender-affirming care, and the City of Baltimore opposed the closure of the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau. The attorneys general followed up these lawsuits with amicus briefs voiced by all 23 states.
However, states maintain a unique position that outside entities like labor unions lack. Their lawsuits act as class-action suits on behalf of all constituents, leveraging concrete harms that only state governments can document comprehensively. On February 10, 22 states initiated a lawsuit regarding cuts to the National Institutes of Health. While filed in Massachusetts, it contained detailed impacts on programs at the University of Wisconsin.
“Ensuring that this information is included and utilized in these cases is critical for us and other states,” stated Wisconsin’s Attorney General Josh Kaul.
Ferguson and other seasoned attorneys general who faced Trump during his first term had warned their successors to brace for unpredictability. However, few anticipated that chaos would stem from a tech mogul boasting vast wealth and seemingly unrestricted access to federal decision-making.
“Who could predict that this billionaire, the richest man in the world, comes in out of nowhere and gets the blessing of the president to invade people's privacy?” Jennings remarked during a February press conference.
To counter the actions of the Department of Government Efficiency, attorneys general needed to develop a united stance toward Elon Musk. Should they view him as a spokesperson for the president, providing an additional avenue to challenge Trump? Or was Musk himself acting unlawfully?
By mid-February, the collective decided to pursue both angles. One coalition led by New York sued Trump, alleging the Department of Government Efficiency had compromised citizens' privacy. Shortly afterward, a second group led by New Mexico targeted Musk, charging him with wielding excessive power without Senate confirmation.
“It’s essential that individuals understand there are co-equal branches of government that must be respected, and that states have a unique obligation to ensure adherence to the Constitution,” asserted New York attorney general Letitia James ahead of a hearing in the privacy case.
The attorneys general found Musk's considerable influence resonating with the public in a way that few other matters had during the initial frenzied days of Trump 2.0. Jennings noted that her office was inundated with calls expressing concern about DOGE, far more than any other issue during her six-year tenure.
“You ask the AGs and they’re all going to tell you the same thing,” she said. “Our phones were flooded with calls. This really hit home for people.”
John Suthers, who as a Republican attorney general in Colorado had previously joined a challenge to the Affordable Care Act while abstaining from other multistate suits, warned that Democrats could fall prey to groupthink as they rushed to file lawsuits against Trump.
“A lot of these folks aren’t practicing solid law as opposed to good politics,” Suthers stated. “It’s probably great politics to sue the president for every little action, but it’s certainly not sound law.”
High above the kitschy attractions of Hollywood Boulevard, the Democratic Attorneys General Association gathered for its first in-person conference since the inauguration. Attendees celebrated early legal wins while engaging in a packed schedule of discussions about responding should Trump defy a court order.
Despite pervasive concerns about constitutional crises, the atmosphere was uplifted by the camaraderie built through shared struggles. Colleagues exchanged inside jokes — which they declined to explain — and shared praises for each other's lesser-known talents, such as Michigan’s Dana Nessel’s humor and Nevada’s Aaron Ford's vocal abilities.
The positive energy stemmed, in part, from finally interacting outside the confines of their daily Zoom meetings, which began shortly after Trump’s inauguration. Their teams also communicate daily, aiming to resolve differences and sharpen their strategies during their allotted thirty-minute discussions.
Nevertheless, concerns about staff burnout loom large, prompting a need to share time and resources judiciously. Behind every detailed filing submitted to federal courts lies countless hours of collaboration among attorneys and legal experts. Unlike the previous term, outside firms eager to volunteer pro bono hours have largely distanced themselves from current efforts.
To enhance litigation capacities, smaller states have expanded their operations. In Olympia, Washington's team has increased by 50 percent since Ferguson took office, establishing new divisions for civil rights, environmental protection, and complex litigation. Rhode Island has recently created a new six-person unit dedicated to “federal accountability.”
“The cavalry is on the way,” declared Maryland Attorney General Anthony Brown. “I anticipate that Maryland will take a leadership role on more cases as soon as we can manage the workload.”
To support these suits, California allocated an additional $25 million for Bonta’s office. Rhode Island’s legislature boosted Neronha’s budget to increase staffing. Furthermore, attorneys general in Hawaii, Connecticut, and other states are requesting funds from their lawmakers.
“There’s no doubt our resources are being stretched; I’ve approached our legislature for more,” commented Colorado Attorney General Phil Weiser.
For now, the attorneys general will continue to recruit additional lawyers while balancing their obligations to their states and developing responses to each new executive action with corresponding lawsuits. As they refine their brief banks, they are also keeping their strategies under wraps.
“So I think that preparation paid off,” Ferguson, now Washington’s governor, reflected. “I believe that proved to be a worthwhile investment of time, as they have been able to match the administration's pace thus far.”
Emily Ngo, Shia Kapos, Matt Friedman, and Kelly Garrity contributed to this article.
Max Fischer for TROIB News
