Records Reveal How Democrat AGs Collaborated Anti-Trump Legal Strategy Before Inauguration

FIRST ON THE DAILY SIGNAL – As early as July of last year, during the heat of a presidential race, a group of Democrat state attorneys general coordinated on challenging the White House on environmental policy. 

Fast forward to 10 days after Republican Donald Trump was elected to another term as president, and Democrat attorneys general from 19 states and the District of Columbia agreed that they “have a common interest in developing potential litigation to challenge executive action related to ending or curtailing birthright citizenship.” 

In the following days and weeks after the election and before Trump was inaugurated, attorneys general–such as Letitia James of New York, Rob Bonta of California, Keith Ellison of Minnesota, Brian Schwalb of the District of Columbia, and others–planned other hypothetical lawsuits regarding immigration, environmental regulations, health care, and gun control.

“States have learned they can better protect their own residents and interests by working together to fight unconstitutional executive overreach,” Mike Faulk, spokesman for Washington Attorney General Nick Brown, told The Daily Signal in an email statement. 

Government Accountability and Oversight first obtained the documents from the attorneys general offices of James in New York and Schwalb in D.C., said Chris Horner, an attorney for the group. The group shared the documents with The Daily Signal.

The Daily Signal called and emailed the New York and D.C. attorneys general offices multiple times on Tuesday and Wednesday. The offices of Maine Attorney General Aaron Frey, Maryland Attorney General Antony Brown, and Colorado Attorney General Phil Weiser responded to inquiries for this story and declined to comment. 

Common interest agreements allow separately represented parties–in this case states–that share a legal interest to share confidential information and legal strategies with each other without waiving the attorney-client privilege or the work-product doctrine. But Horner is skeptical of the rationale for the common agreement. 

“Even when they try to paper that over by saying these states might want to intervene or file an amicus brief, wanting a political outcome is not the same as sharing a legal interest in that outcome,” Horner told The Daily Signal. “But that is what a lot of these represent. One further ‘tell’ is that many were entered in anticipation of the prospect of what a hypothetical future Trump administration might do.”

Months before the election, it was Oregona’s top state lawyer Ellen Rosenblum who became part of an agreement July 19 to challenge the White House Council on Environmental Quality “in promulgating a rule or guidance.” The council was at the time under President Joe Biden. 

A few days later, four other attorneys general–from Maryland, New Jersey, New Mexico, and Wisconsin–signed on, just a day after incumbent President Joe Biden endorsed Vice President Kamala Harris to be his successor. 

States haven’t sued over actions by the Council on Environmental Quality during Trump’s second term but brought an August 2020 lawsuit that was paused after Biden was elected.  

On Nov. 8, four days after Trump’s victory, Illinois Attorney General Kwame Raoul and then-Oregon Attorney General Rosenblum were the first to sign an agreement to challenge an anticipated Trump action opposing the premise of birthright citizenship. Most others signed on by Nov. 12, and the agreement was finalized on Nov. 14. 

A day after Trump’s inauguration, 19 state attorneys general announced their lawsuit on defending birthright citizenship. 

By Dec. 19, Democrat attorneys general from 23 states signed an agreement for “potential litigation to challenge executive, agency, and state actions to vacate, rescind, enjoin, or

Stay” a rule allowing beneficiaries of the Deferred Action Childhood Arrivals program, or DACA, and other noncitizens to have access to health plans under the Affordable Care Act, better known as Obamacare. 

Five days before Trump was sworn in, a group of 15 Democrat attorneys general asked a federal court to allow them to intervene in an existing lawsuit to defend health subsidies for illegal immigrants who came to the country with their parents. The Biden administration expanded Obamacare for about 147,000 people protected under the DACA policy. 

In a 2024 agreement, the names of 12 separate attorneys general, along with some state environmental officials, were on an agreement to protect the Inflation Reduction Act, one of President Joe Biden’s key legislative achievements, expanding taxpayer subsidies for environmental programs and an expansion of the Internal Revenue Service. The document was not dated, but included the name of Oregon’s Rosenblum, who left office on Dec. 31.

The agreement said the states “anticipate participating in administrative and judicial proceedings that are ongoing or expected to be brought addressing actions or omissions relating to implementation of the federal Inflation Reduction Act.” 

The agreement added this “could include, among other things, submitting filings to federal agencies including, but not limited to, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, the U.S. Department of Energy, and/or the U.S. Internal Revenue Service and/or engaging in litigation relating to actions or omissions of such agencies regarding implementation of the IRA.”

Green subsidies were key through the documents, said Horner, the lawyer for Government Accountability and Oversight.

“One common thread is that these AGs coalesced to protect the interests of key political constituencies: trial lawyers and green groups, for example,” Horner said. 

The states did sue over a federal funding freeze–which included Inflation Reduction Act money. A Rhode Island federal judge sided with the states to prevent the funding freeze. 

An agreement among Democrat attorneys general that was effective on Jan. 3 said, “The Parties have agreed that they have a common interest in developing legal strategies to challenge the actions and formation of the Department of Government Efficiency (“DOGE”), and a common interest in any existing or future executive, legislative, regulatory, and investigative actions or inactions and any administrative or judicial proceedings related to or arising from DOGE recommendations (the “Common Interest Matter”).”

In February, 14 states sued to challenge the authority of DOGE and its chief, Elon Musk, to access government data. 

By Jan. 9, attorneys general from 23 states joined to defend a ruled on the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms, and Explosives regarding regulations of those in the business “of selling firearms,” including litigation and “any existing or future legislative, regulatory, investigative, or litigation proceedings related to” the government’s definition. The state of Texas sued the ATF, challenging the agency’s definition and argued it infringes on private gun sales and oversteps the agency’s authority. 

Most of the 23 attorneys general that signed in November on to a common interest agreement to defend another ATF rule on the classification of “forced reset triggers,” and to defend or challenge decisions by ATF to change the policy. The agreement was reached on Jan. 9. 

This month, 16 states and the District of Columbia sued the Trump administration to reverse a policy on triggers, arguing that rifles can be converted to machine guns. 

The Daily Signal contacted the offices of 17 other attorneys general named in the various common interest agreements on both Tuesday and Wednesday. The offices did not respond by publication time. These offices were for Attorneys General Kris Mayes of Arizona; Bonta of California; Williamong of Connecticut; Kathy Jennings of Delaware; Anne Lopez of Hawaii; Raoul of Illinois; Andrea Campbell of Massachusetts; Dana Nessell of Michigan; Aaron Ford of Nevada; Matthew Platkin of New Jersey; Raul Torrez of New Mexico; Jeff Jackson of North Carolina; Dan Rayfield of Oregon; Peter Neronha of Rhode Island; Charity Clark of Vermont; and Josh Kaul of Wisconsin. 

The post Records Reveal How Democrat AGs Collaborated Anti-Trump Legal Strategy Before Inauguration appeared first on The Daily Signal.