FOur Democratic attorneys general, sitting in their offices from New York to California with state flags and books behind them, announced a new lawsuit on Thursday, alleging that the president had once again broken the law by trying to create new tariffs without congressional approval.
It’s a scene now familiar to the group of top law enforcement officials who together have filed more than 50 lawsuits against the Trump administration, serving as a counterweight to the president’s quest to expand his power and circumvent the constitution.
They have protected billions of dollars for their states. They have stopped or stalled policies that would have cut food benefits during a government shutdown, closed health and job training programs, cut funding for crime victims, ended birthright citizenship, cut funding for schools, and maintained illegal fees.
At a time when some institutions and elected leaders have chosen to go easy on the Trump administration, the 23 Democratic attorneys general have done the opposite.
“We know that the most impactful elected office right now is the Democratic attorney general,” said Massachusetts Attorney General Andrea Campbell.
Their lawsuits have a high success rate: About 80% have obtained a temporary restraining order or preliminary injunction, Arizona Attorney General Kris Mayes estimated. He has signed on to nearly 40 lawsuits filed by Democratic attorneys general against the administration.
Joint lawsuits by attorneys general are not new. Republican attorneys general have banded together to file lawsuits against Democratic administrations and have currently filed joint briefs to defend Trump’s policies. Cross-party groups of attorneys general often work collaboratively on lawsuits over opioids or predatory businesses.
But the sheer number of lawsuits in the past year by Democratic attorneys general surpasses previous efforts. The scope of his legal work is broad and growing. Recently, actor Mark Ruffalo on social media called on state attorneys general to join together to fight the potential merger of Paramount and Warner Bros., and California Attorney General Rob Bonta responded that he is “in conversation with” his attorney general colleagues on the issue.
The nearly two dozen Democratic attorneys general and their staff have met regularly since before Trump returned to the White House. Even before Trump won in November 2024, they were preparing for a possible Trump presidency, analyzing his comments and Republican plans like Project 2025 to prepare the types of lawsuits they hoped to file.
When Trump began his second presidency with an executive order seeking to overturn birthright citizenship, preventing those born in the United States to foreign parents from becoming citizens, Democratic attorneys general sued him the next day, a group of many who filed suit. The order was blocked by the courts and will be heard in the U.S. Supreme Court in April.
Part of the group’s success comes from their preparation, but, several attorneys general told The Guardian, they wouldn’t make as much if the Trump administration wasn’t blatantly breaking the law.
“I’d like to say we’re winning these cases because we’re all a bunch of Johnnie Cochrans or Perry Masons or whatever,” said Minnesota Attorney General Keith Ellison. “But the truth is, what he is doing is clearly illegal and a 1L law student would know that.”
Attorneys general offices have added lawyers and refocused staff to focus on federal accountability, finding that the cost of Trump’s lawlessness exceeds the costs of additional lawyers.
“It’s taking money out of our state,” said Ellison, who has filed more than 50 lawsuits against the Trump administration since last January. “One thing we can’t do is just let them pick Minnesota’s pocketbook.”
Meanwhile, their Republican colleagues are completely absent, even as the issue at hand, like massive tariffs on local businesses, also affects red states.
“They’ve just been disinterested and supine, and I think they’re secretly rooting for us, because when we achieve a victory and remove the tariffs, their residents benefit, their businesses benefit,” Bonta said at a recent news conference.
While some cases led to policy reversals for all states or prevented them from taking effect nationwide, the U.S. Supreme Court limited universal injunctions to mid-2025, meaning only states that signed onto a litigation can receive relief in a given case.
“That’s why it has never been more important than today to have an attorney general willing to defend consumers and citizens,” Mayes said. “If you don’t have a Democratic attorney general, you’re going to be hurt by the Trump administration. And the irony of all of this is that it’s the Republican attorneys general and their states that are getting hit by Trump because they’re not getting the same relief that we are.”
Democratic AGs often implore their Republican colleagues to join their demands and protect the money that would flow to their states, but they know that political dynamics – that is, a vengeful president willing to unite his followers against them – come into play.
“I know they care about their states, but they are afraid,” said Delaware Attorney General Kathy Jennings. “They are completely scared. There is nothing more I can say about it except that they will not stand up to this man for fear of the repercussions they will face personally or their constituents.”
Adam Piper, executive director of the Republican Attorneys General Association (Raga), said Republican attorneys general have sued the Biden administration multiple times “to make America safer, energy more affordable and our border more secure,” while Democratic attorneys general have “prioritized political witch hunts against President Trump.”
“These different approaches make clear that Attorneys General are on the front lines of the political fights that most impact Americans, making the AG races the most important state races this November,” Piper said.
TO Few of the Democratic AGs served for at least part of Trump’s first term, but they knew his second term would be different. There would be few, if any, dissenting voices around the president who could stop his plans. He would be better prepared to enact the long list of policies he had been promoting during the election campaign. They better understood that Trump’s boasts were not just words: his projections had to be taken seriously.
The attorneys general began speaking in early 2024 and met regularly to plan how they would respond to key issues.
They met in person that year to discuss Project 2025 and other plans Trump had made public, Ellison said. They divided into groups to focus on the rule of law, immigration, schools, LGBTQ+ and trans rights, and diversity. They discussed and wrote memos about how they could prove they had standing to sue. They talked about which states to file lawsuits in, based on where they believed they had advantages, he said.
His all-out push against Trump began right when he took office and hasn’t let up since.
“We were prepared,” said Jennings, of Delaware. “We were ready and we’ve been doing it every day since.”
His plan included public participation. They addressed town halls across the country, which also served as a way to gather evidence for current and future cases, and rally their supporters to become more involved in the fight. While Americans have since joined mass protests and boycotts, there was little public resistance when the attorneys general began their town halls in early 2025. A Minnesota town hall in March was standing room only, and the attorneys general received standing ovations.
The attorneys general still meet regularly, up to twice a week by video, Mayes said. Your staff is in communication daily.
These meetings allow them to share what is happening on the ground in their states, said Oregon Attorney General Dan Rayfield. Sometimes an issue may be more isolated, but usually when an issue is raised, other states see it too, he said.
They collectively decide which states will lead a given case, usually based on who has the experience and availability.
“The reality of the AG world is that New York and California are the big dogs; they really have a lot more people than the rest of us,” Ellison said. “And many times they contribute more, according to their capacity. But there are also many states that exceed their capacity.”
For Campbell, doing nothing was never an option. He does his job because he believes in service and helping people, and he has a responsibility to protect Massachusetts residents and the state’s economy (and the rule of law in general).
“We are exercising the courage to stand up for ourselves, not only for our residents, but also for the constitution,” he said. “And we know that without a constitution you can’t have a functioning state economy.”
