Federal Accountability

OAKLAND — California Attorney General Rob Bonta yesterday secured a ruling from the U.S. District Court for the District of Oregon blocking U.S. Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) Secretary Robert F. Kennedy, Jr.’s December 18, 2025 declaration (Kennedy Declaration). The Kennedy Declaration claims that gender-affirming care fails to meet professionally recognized standards of care and that, as such, HHS may disqualify any doctors or hospitals that provide such care from federal healthcare programs like Medicare and Medicaid. By threatening to disqualify providers from Medicare and Medicaid, the Trump Administration has sought to bully doctors and hospitals into no longer providing medically necessary gender-affirming care. 

“This ruling marks a major victory in our fight against the Trump Administration’s cruel campaign against transgender Americans,” said Attorney General Bonta. “The Kennedy Declaration sought to unlawfully bully doctors and hospitals into halting crucial care for transgender individuals nationwide. I am pleased the court has ruled in our favor, and I will continue to fight to protect Americans and the providers they trust from this Administration’s hateful agenda.”

On December 23, 2025, Attorney General Bonta joined a coalition of 18 other attorneys general and one governor in filing a lawsuit challenging the Kennedy Declaration. 

In yesterday's ruling, the court granted the states’ motion for summary judgment, declaring that the Kennedy Declaration lacks the authority to establish superseding standards of care to exclude providers from federal healthcare programs.  

BACKGROUND

Attorney General Bonta is committed to defending transgender individuals’ right to safely access medically necessary gender-affirming care and to protecting medical providers’ ability to continue providing medically necessary care for their patients. In August 2025, Attorney General Bonta co-led a multistate coalition in filing a lawsuit that challenges the Trump Administration’s executive order attempting to restrict the provision of medically necessary gender-affirming care for individuals under the age of 19 by threatening providers with civil and criminal prosecution under specious legal theories. In December 2025, he joined a coalition of 19 attorneys general in filing amicus briefs opposing efforts by the U.S. Federal Trade Commission to undermine the independence of scientific organizations that support medically necessary gender-affirming care. In late 2025, he filed amicus briefs opposing the U.S. Department of Justice’s (U.S. DOJ) subpoenas for private medical records, including patient records, related to gender-affirming care at Children’s Hospital Colorado, Boston Children’s Hospital and Children’s Hospital of Philadelphia. In January 2026, he filed a lawsuit against Rady Children’s Health for unlawfully closing its gender-affirming care program for patients under the age of 19.

Representing California in the multistate lawsuit, Attorney General Bonta, Governor Newsom, and CARB are joined by the City of Los Angeles, the City and County of San Francisco, and the County of Santa Clara 

SACRAMENTO — In response to President Donald Trump’s illegal attempt to overrule science and abandon an entire category of federal climate protections, California Attorney General Rob Bonta, alongside California Governor Gavin Newsom and the California Air Resources Board (CARB), today co-led a coalition of 25 attorneys general, the Governor of Pennsylvania,10 cities and counties in filing a petition challenging the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency’s (EPA) rescission of the Endangerment Finding in the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit. The Endangerment Finding is EPA’s formal acknowledgement that greenhouse gas emissions from motor vehicles contribute to air pollution that drives climate change and endangers public health and welfare; it has served as the legal basis under the Clean Air Act for limiting climate pollution from vehicles. 

In comments previously submitted to EPA, the coalition argued that EPA’s rescission of the 2009 finding violates settled law, clear Supreme Court precedent, and the longstanding, robust scientific consensus regarding the harmful impact of greenhouse gases from vehicle emissions on human health and welfare. The Trump Administration’s decision to finalize its rescission will endanger hundreds of millions of Americans — particularly communities disproportionately burdened by environmental harms. The Endangerment Finding rescission will cause unprecedented disruption to the regulatory landscape and result in significant increases in the emission of greenhouse gases, with catastrophic consequences for residents, industries, natural resources, and public investments. In the lawsuit, California and the coalition ask the Court to vacate EPA’s illegal rescission of the Endangerment Finding and restore EPA’s greenhouse gas emission standards for vehicles, which three prior administrations — including the first Trump Administration — implemented and enforced. 

“With the unlawful rescission of the Endangerment Finding, President Trump and his EPA have abandoned their most important mission: protecting the health and welfare of the American people. The science doesn’t lie. Climate change and GHG emissions are harming public health and causing devastating and ever-worsening disasters. Our communities have felt the impact of destructive wildfires, watched families run from burning homes, inhaling toxic fumes, and we've seen entire communities wash away in severe floods. The President can’t keep his head in the sand — climate change is real and decades of settled science warned us this was coming,” said Attorney General Rob Bonta. “Let me be clear: This unlawful rescission is not about cutting ’red tape.’ The president is choosing Big Oil profits over our health, and betting that the American people won’t notice the cost until the bill comes due at the expense of our communities. We will not stand idly by while the federal government abdicates its responsibility to protect the public and follow the law. California will vigorously defend the Endangerment Finding in court and continue to fight to protect our communities, our health, and our natural resources.”

“This is what corruption looks like. Donald Trump is breaking the laws that protect Americans from climate pollution — all to enrich his Big Oil and his wealthy polluting allies,” said Governor Gavin Newsom. "Workers, families, and communities would pay the price, left choking on dirty air. No one is above the law in this country. Not even the president. We’ll fight this lawlessness in court.”

“The Trump Administration is failing to protect everyday people across this country in countless ways, including through their unlawful attempts to unwind decades of science-based policy,” said Yana Garcia, Secretary for Environmental Protection. “The truth is that climate change presents immediate threats to human health and to our environment, and rising temperatures threaten the welfare of American families by increasing household costs across this country every day. California remains committed to climate action and will keep fighting back because our people and our future deserve better.”

"The Trump Administration, in recklessly repealing the Endangerment Finding, is abdicating their responsibility to protect American lives," said CARB Chair Lauren Sanchez.  "California isn't going to sit back and watch while the federal government dismantles critical public health protections — we're going to fight back." 

"Federal air quality regulations are critical to protecting human health from the impacts of climate change," said Dr. Rita Nguyen, California’s Assistant Health Officer. "Climate change is a serious threat to human health as California experiences more frequent, more severe, and longer-lasting episodes of extreme heat. For instance, during the September 2022 record-breaking 10-day heat wave in California, there was a 5 percent increase in deaths – 395 more deaths than would be expected. Additionally, climate-related hazards like heat, wildfires, extreme weather, and poor air quality can disproportionately harm the mental health and well-being of children and youth, contributing to anxiety, depression, post-traumatic stress disorder, decreases in learning, and other challenges that can have long-term consequences."

“We’re proud to stand with Attorney General Bonta and partners across California and the nation in defending science and protecting the health and safety of our communities,” said Santa Clara County Counsel Tony LoPresti. “At a time when federal actions threaten decades of progress, it is critical that state and local governments work together to push back and uphold strong, science-based standards. We won’t let unlawful federal actions put our communities, health, and economy at risk.”

“Climate change is an existential threat to humanity,” said San Francisco City Attorney David Chiu. “Rolling back the Endangerment Finding means fewer safeguards against the pollution that drives climate change and worsens air quality. This reckless and illegal move disregards decades of scientific evidence and harms communities already on the front lines of the climate crisis.”

Under the federal Clean Air Act, EPA is required to regulate pollutants from vehicles that cause or contribute to dangerous air pollution. The 2009 Endangerment Finding was the direct result of the landmark 2007 Supreme Court decision in Massachusetts v. EPA, which confirmed that greenhouse gases are an air pollutant under the Clean Air Act. In response to that opinion, and after years of detailed scientific review, EPA acknowledged in 2009 that greenhouse gas emissions from motor vehicles contribute to air pollution that harms public health and welfare in numerous ways. The agency then set standards to limit motor vehicle greenhouse gas emissions.

In its proposal to rescind the Endangerment Finding, issued last summer, EPA claimed that an updated review of climate science “cast significant doubt” on the Endangerment Finding, based on a report by the Department of Energy’s “Climate Working Group” — a quintet of climate change contrarians hand-picked by the Secretary of Energy to dispute the scientific consensus. That group was quickly disbanded in the face of legal challenges and never released a final report. Their draft report, circulated last July and cited throughout EPA’s proposal, was met with an outpouring of criticism from scientists. And the group violated federal law so profoundly that even the Trump administration was “not contesting” the merits of legal challenges. Consistent with the administration’s failed attempt to contort science, it continues to seek to overrule decades of scientific consensus on climate change. Last month, EPA repealed the Endangerment Finding and eliminated all existing and future federal greenhouse gas standards for vehicles.

This federal rescission will cause an unprecedented disruption to 15 years of regulatory progress. As the nation’s largest source of greenhouse gas emissions, the transportation sector will see increasing climate-destabilizing pollution, while American investment in future technologies, new factories, and jobs will decline, undermining U.S. leadership in this sector as well as in addressing climate change.

In the lawsuit, California and the coalition allege that EPA’s rescission of the Endangerment Finding violates the Clean Air Act as well as the Administrative Procedure Act. Specifically, the coalition highlights that EPA’s rescission rests on the flawed assertion — soundly rejected by the Supreme Court — that it lacks legal authority to regulate greenhouse gas emissions and ignores overwhelming and longstanding scientific evidence that greenhouse gases endanger public health and welfare. The coalition also argues that the rule’s elimination of all existing and future federal greenhouse gas emission standards for vehicles violates the agency’s legal obligations and its fundamental responsibility to protect public health and welfare from environmental harm. 

In August 2025, following the Trump Administration’s initial proposal to rescind the Endangerment Finding, Attorney General Bonta testified before the EPA, highlighting the illegality of the proposed rescission and the agency’s reliance on flawed and unscientific sources to deny climate change. In the fall of 2025, he co-led a coalition of 23 attorneys general and seven counties and cities in submitting two comment letters, urging the EPA to abandon this illegal proposal.

Attorney General Bonta co-leads the lawsuit alongside the attorneys general of Massachusetts, New York and Connecticut. They are joined by the attorneys general of Arizona, Colorado, Delaware, Hawai‘i, Illinois, Maine, Maryland, Michigan, Minnesota, New Jersey, New Mexico, Nevada, North Carolina, Oregon, Rhode Island, Vermont, Virginia, Washington, Wisconsin, the District of Columbia. In addition, this challenge is joined by Pennsylvania Governor Josh Shapiro; City of Boston, Massachusetts; City of Chicago, Illinois; City of Cleveland, Ohio; City of Columbus, Ohio; City and County of Denver, Colorado; City of Los Angeles, California; City of New York, New York; City and County of San Francisco, California; County of Santa Clara, California; and Harris County, Texas.

OAKLAND — As part of a coalition of 16 attorneys general, California Attorney General Rob Bonta filed a motion asking the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Washington to enforce its December 19, 2025 order, which required the U.S. Department of Education (Department) to set aside its unlawful discontinuation decisions on school mental health funding programs established by Congress and to issue new decisions in full compliance with the law. On March 2, 2026, the Department decided to only award grantees six months of funding instead of providing funding for the full year, as is standard practice. The Department’s decision to deny grantees’ access to a full year of funding violates the Court’s order because the decision will effectively end some grantee projects and severely burden many other grantees. Without the certainty of a full year of funding, some grantees will lose essential staff and will be unable to properly plan and budget for the fall semester.

“The Trump Administration’s noncompliance must come to an end. In California and nationwide, grantees have issued layoff notices, and even though they take effect months later, the ongoing uncertainty complicates planning and staffing for critical programs that support students’ mental health,” said Attorney General Bonta. “My fellow attorneys general and I will not give the Trump Administration a free pass. We urge the Court to hold the Administration fully accountable for failing to comply with its order.”

Spurred by episodes of devastating loss from school shootings, Congress established and funded the Mental Health Service Professional Demonstration Grant Program (MHSP) in 2018 and the School-Based Mental Health Services Grant Program (SBMH) in 2020 to increase students’ access to mental health services. On or about April 29, 2025, the Department notified grantees — including state education agencies, local education agencies, and institutes of higher education — that their grants would be canceled for allegedly conflicting with the Trump Administration’s priorities. In the press, the Trump Administration admitted that it targeted the States’ grants for their perceived diversity, equity, and inclusion (DEI) efforts. In July 2025, Attorney General Bonta and the coalition filed a lawsuit against the Department over the discontinuation of the grants, and in December 2025, the coalition secured a permanent decision declaring that the Department acted illegally and requiring the Department to make new continuation decisions.

In the motion to enforce, Attorney General Bonta and the coalition assert that:

• The Department is continuing to violate the Court’s order. In their most recent act of noncompliance, the Department put new, unnecessary rules in place that achieve the same result as canceling some grants and severely hinder other grantees’ ability to serve students.
• By claiming the grants “will continue under protest,” the Department is making grantees jump through unnecessary hoops — like filling out complicated reimbursement forms that historically have only been required for grantees who mismanaged funds and forcing grantees to submit a meaningless performance report before any new data is available.
• The Department has also threatened to withhold six months of funding that grantees would have normally received and need for the fall semester. 

MHSP addresses the shortage of school-based mental health service providers by awarding multi-year grants to projects that expand the pipeline for counselors, social workers, and psychologists through partnerships between institutes of higher education and local educational agencies. SBMH funds multi-year grants to increase the number of professionals that provide school-based mental health services to students through direct hiring and retention incentives. The ultimate goal of the programs is to permanently bring 14,000 additional mental health professionals into U.S. schools.

The programs have been an incredible success. In their first year, the programs provided mental and behavioral health services to nearly 775,000 elementary and secondary students nationwide. Sampled projects showed real results: a 50% reduction in suicide risk at high-need schools, decreases in absenteeism and behavioral issues, and increases in positive student-staff engagement. Data also showed recruitment and retention efforts are working — in the first year of the programs, nearly 1,300 school mental health professionals were hired and 95% of those hired were retained. Importantly, these newly hired school-based mental health providers were able to create an 80% reduction in student wait time for services. The grants have helped schools hire hundreds of psychologists, counselors, and social workers who have served thousands of students, including in the state’s most economically disadvantaged and rural communities. By all markers, these programs work. 

Joining Attorney General Bonta in filing the motion are the attorneys general of Washington, Colorado, Connecticut, Delaware, Illinois, Maine, Maryland, Massachusetts, Michigan, New Mexico, New York, Nevada, Oregon, Rhode Island, and Wisconsin.

OAKLAND — California Attorney General Rob Bonta today issued the following statement on a decision by the U.S. Court of Appeals for the First Circuit upholding a preliminary injunction in multistate litigation, co-led by California, challenging the Office of Management and Budget’s $3 trillion federal funding freeze. At risk in California was an estimated $168 billion in annual federal funding. 

“Today, the First Circuit affirmed what we all know to be true: The Trump Administration’s sweeping directive to unilaterally freeze all federal funding in its first days in office was deeply harmful, reckless, and wholly unreasoned,” said Attorney General Bonta. “Since this case was first filed, state attorneys general have stood together dozens more times to successfully block the President’s unlawful actions. Whether it’s Medicaid, clean energy, disaster recovery, or education funding at risk — or in this case, all of the above — we won’t back down, and we won’t stop winning. As Attorney General, I’ll continue to stand up for Californians up and down the state against whatever the President throws at us next.” 

OAKLAND — California Attorney General Rob Bonta today issued a statement on a decision by the U.S. District Court for the District of Massachusetts to grant a temporary restraining order blocking the Trump Administration’s burdensome new requirements that colleges and universities submit data linking race to admissions, financial aid, and student performance. While the Trump Administration claims to be seeking this data to assist it in enforcing Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, which prohibits discrimination based on race, its unprecedented new demands make it all but impossible for colleges and universities to submit usable data for review. Instead, the coalition is concerned that this unreliable data will be used to initiate costly and harmful investigations and enforcement actions against colleges and universities to further partisan political ends.  

“With the way this Administration has aggressively worked to roll back civil rights protections, its recent claims of wanting to enforce civil rights laws are more than a little fishy,” said Attorney General Bonta. “I’m pleased the court has put a temporary stop to the Trump Administration’s unprecedented and unrealistic demands for mass troves of education data while we continue to make our case.” 

HUD guidance eviscerates enforcement of fair housing laws 

OAKLAND — Co-leading a coalition of 16 attorneys general, California Attorney General Rob Bonta today announced a lawsuit against the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) over guidance it issued that significantly weakens fair housing protections and makes it harder to hold landlords accountable for discrimination. The Fair Housing Act (FHA), a federal law, prohibits discrimination based on seven protected traits: (1) race, (2) color, (3) national origin, (4) religion, (5) sex, (6) familial status, (7) disability. Critically, the FHA establishes a floor — not a ceiling — for protection against housing discrimination, meaning that states can expand the scope of protections beyond what the FHA mandates. Many states have chosen to do so. For example, California also provides fair housing protections for traits such as gender, gender identity, sexual orientation, marital status, ancestry, source of income, and veteran or military status. HUD generally refers housing discrimination complaints to state and local agencies for potential action. However, HUD issued guidance in September 2025 threatening to decertify those agencies — thereby cutting off complaint referrals and funding — if they consider protections other than those required by the FHA, while simultaneously imposing new unlawful funding conditions. Filed in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California, the lawsuit by the attorneys general alleges that the guidance violates the Administrative Procedure Act and the U.S. Constitution and threatens to dismantle a crucial mechanism for combating housing discrimination. They ask the court to halt the Trump Administration’s implementation of the guidance.

“All levels of government — local, state, and federal — should be laser focused not only on building more housing, but also ensuring that everyone can access a home free from discrimination. Unfortunately, the Trump Administration thinks otherwise. HUD, without legal authority, is effectively undermining state laws that offer stronger protections than federal law,” said Attorney General Bonta. “My fellow attorneys general and I are united in our answer: not on our watch. HUD’s guidance is unlawful and would only roll back the progress we’ve made to keep our families safe from discrimination that limits where they can live.”

Congress enacted the FHA in 1968 to address the pervasive nationwide problem of housing discrimination and tasked HUD with enforcing this landmark civil rights law. Recognizing the scope of the challenge, Congress envisioned a strong partnership between HUD and state and local agencies. This partnership has operated for decades through the Fair Housing Assistance Program (FHAP). Through the FHAP, HUD funds state and local agencies whose fair housing laws are substantially equivalent to — that is, provide at least the same protections as — the FHA, and refers housing discrimination complaints to them. State and local agencies use FHAP funds to process housing discrimination complaints, train staff, and engage in community outreach and education.

In addition to requiring state and local agencies to weaken their fair housing laws, the HUD guidance at issue establishes a number of conditions that they must meet to qualify for FHAP funding, including:

• Disparate impact condition. HUD’s guidance prohibits state and local agencies from pursuing claims premised on disparate impact liability, even where state law expressly recognizes disparate impact as a cognizable theory of liability. Disparate impact liability prohibits discrimination based on the effects of a housing policy, even if the intent of the policy was not to discriminate.
• Anti-abortion condition. HUD’s guidance imposes an abortion-related funding condition on state and local agencies. The guidance, however, fails to explain what it means to “facilitate” or “promote” abortion, how FHAP agencies might do so, or why this condition unrelated to the administration of fair housing law is being imposed upon FHAP funding recipients.
• Immigration condition. HUD’s guidance prohibits FHAP funding from being used to “subsidize” or “promote” illegal immigration. However, the guidance does not explain what those terms mean.
• Gender ideology condition. HUD’s guidance prohibits state and local agencies from using funds to promote “gender ideology.” However, the definition of “gender ideology” is so imprecise that states and FHAP agencies would be required to guess what it means.

The attorneys general note that these conditions come after HUD gutted its own fair housing enforcement capabilities by slashing its headcount and significantly reducing the number of housing discrimination cases it charges. The agency also fired employee whistleblowers after they publicly sounded the alarm about its decimation of fair housing enforcement. 

In California, the California Civil Rights Department (CRD) collaborates with HUD under the FHAP. CRD does critical work to protect Californians from discrimination in housing. For example, in December 2025, CRD announced reforms at more than two dozen apartment complexes across California following an undercover fair housing test that identified evidence of potential discrimination against applicants who have previously been involved with the criminal justice system. HUD’s guidance prohibits CRD and other state and local agencies from pursuing these claims if they want to continue receiving FHAP funding.

Attorney General Bonta and Illinois Attorney General Kwame Raoul are co-leading today’s lawsuit. Joining them are the attorneys general of Arizona, Colorado, Connecticut, Delaware, the District of Columbia, Hawaii, Maine, Maryland, Massachusetts, Michigan, New Jersey, Rhode Island, Vermont, and Washington.

OAKLAND — California Attorney General Rob Bonta today issued the following statement in response to the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Illinois’s decision granting a preliminary injunction that continues to block the Trump Administration from terminating more than $600 million in public health funding from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. The planned funding cuts exclusively target four Democratic-led states: California, Colorado, Illinois, and Minnesota. The attorneys general of each of those states filed a lawsuit last month alleging that the cuts would irreparably harm their states and are based on political animus.

“Public health funding is not a political bargaining chip,” said Attorney General Bonta. “Over and over, courts have shut down the Trump Administration’s efforts to punish states that have adopted policies it disagrees with. This case is no different. The President should be ashamed of himself. We’re talking about funding that protects children from lead poisoning, that is used for the testing and treatment of HIV, and that allows us to track disease outbreaks. With this order, this funding will continue to flow — and we won’t stop fighting until these cuts are blocked for good.” 

OAKLAND — California Attorney General Rob Bonta and Governor Gavin Newsom today announced filing a motion to block implementation of President Trump’s latest efforts to impose illegal tariffs on products purchased by American consumers and businesses. The motion, filed by a coalition of 24 states, asks for summary judgment or, in the alternative, a preliminary injunction. Earlier this month, California and the coalition filed a lawsuit challenging President Trump’s imposition of global tariffs using Section 122 of the Trade Act of 1974, an archaic, never-before-used law.

“President Trump has inflicted illegal tariff after illegal tariff on the American people — taxes that are weighing heavily on consumers and small businesses nationwide. The President’s taxes are increasing prices amid a crisis of affordability and inflicting chaos on the American economy,” said Attorney General Rob Bonta. “My office has challenged the President’s illegal tariffs every time and every step of the way because this issue matters tremendously to Californians and families across the U.S. Today, we ask the Court of International Trade to put an end to Trump’s obnoxious second attempt to illegally tax Americans — consumers and businesses need relief now.”

“These tariffs are nothing more than a tax on working families — shifting the burden of Trump’s failed trade negotiations onto folks who are already struggling to make ends meet. Trump keeps throwing out illegal, reckless policies, hoping something sticks, while everyday Americans pay the price," said Governor Gavin Newsom. "Trump’s tariffs were overturned by the Supreme Court, so now he’s inflicting new tariffs on Californians and all Americans like a toddler throwing a temper tantrum. Chaos is not leadership. And we deserve better.” 

For more than a year, President Trump has unlawfully attempted to impose tariffs on essential goods purchased by American consumers and businesses. Attorney General Bonta and Governor Newsom previously challenged the President’s imposition of tariffs under the International Emergency Economic Powers Act of 1977. And last month, the U.S. Supreme Court struck down President Trump’s imposition of tariffs under IEEPA, declaring them illegal.

The President is now attempting to use a different law that has never been used before — Section 122 of the Trade Act of 1974 — and has imposed 10% tariffs on most products worldwide, allegedly in response to trade deficits. But those tariffs are illegal, too. Section 122 allows tariffs only when there are “fundamental international payments problems” that require special measures to deal with “large and serious balance-of-payments deficits.” But there are no such deficits: A trade deficit is not a balance-of-payments deficit. 

Today’s motion asks the U.S. Court of International Trade to order federal agencies to stop collecting the latest round of illegal tariffs. Economic analysis submitted to the court shows that state governments in the 24 plaintiff states stand to pay at least $748 million per year in additional costs due to the tariffs. The case is entitled State of Oregon, et al., v. Trump, et al. and is pending before a three-judge panel of the U.S. Court of International Trade (CIT). The court has scheduled in-person oral argument on the states’ motion for 10:00 a.m. EDT on Friday, April 10, 2026, in its ceremonial courtroom in New York City.

The case is led by Attorney General Bonta, Oregon Attorney General Dan Rayfield, Arizona Attorney General Kris Mayes, and New York Attorney General Letitia James. Also joining the lawsuit are the attorneys general of Colorado, Connecticut, Delaware, Illinois, Maine, Maryland, Massachusetts, Michigan, Minnesota, Nevada, New Jersey, New Mexico, North Carolina, Rhode Island, Vermont, Virginia, Washington, Wisconsin, and the Governors of Kentucky and Pennsylvania.

OAKLAND — California Attorney General Rob Bonta today co-led a multistate coalition in filing a lawsuit challenging the Trump Administration’s burdensome new requirements that colleges and universities submit data linking race to admissions, financial aid, and student performance. While the Trump Administration claims to be seeking this data to assist it in enforcing Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, which prohibits discrimination based on race, its unprecedented new demands make it all but impossible for colleges and universities to submit usable data for review. Instead, the coalition is concerned that this unreliable data will be used to initiate costly and harmful investigations and enforcement actions against colleges and universities to further partisan political ends.  

“The Trump Administration is on a fishing expedition — demanding unprecedented amounts of data from our colleges and universities under the guise of enforcing civil rights law,” said Attorney General Bonta. “This is the same administration, I’ll remind you, that gutted the U.S. Department of Education’s Office of Civil Rights, leaving thousands of civil rights complaints and investigations in limbo. This latest sham demand threatens to turn a reliable tool into a partisan bludgeon. California is committed to following the law — and we’re going to court to make sure the Trump Administration does the same.”

On August 7, 2025, President Trump directed the U.S. Department of Education to expand the Integrated Postsecondary Education Data System (IPEDS), an already-required survey, to address alleged concerns about race-conscious admissions practices in violation of the U.S. Supreme Court’s decision in Students for Fair Admissions v. President and Fellows of Harvard College. The new survey section would collect a broad range of data on undergraduate and graduate admissions, financial aid, and student outcomes, including data disaggregated by race and sex, on 1) the institutions’ applied, admitted, and enrolled cohorts, disaggregated by admission test score, GPA, family income, Pell Grant eligibility and parental education; 2) average high school grade point average and admission test scores; and 3) the count of students admitted via early action, early decision, or regular admissions. Additionally, the survey would include data about students receiving financial aid, including the average amount, cost of attendance, graduation rates, and graduates’ final cumulative grade point average.

Collecting this data would require colleges and universities to undertake new, costly, and burdensome data collection efforts on an unreasonable timeframe and is unlikely to yield high quality data or achieve the U.S. Department of Education’s stated goals. Attorney General Bonta led a similar coalition in submitting multiple comment letters expressing broad concerns with the proposed overhaul to IPEDs last year. These comments were ignored, and the U.S. Department of Education finalized the policy, turning IPEDS from a reliable tool for methodical statistical reporting to a mechanism for law enforcement and the furthering of partisan policy aims.

In today’s lawsuit, Attorney General Bonta and the coalition argue that the data collection demand is contrary to law and arbitrary and capricious. Whereas past changes to IPEDS data collection methods have undergone rigorous advance vetting to ensure they were not overly burdensome and produced targeted, useful information, this dramatic overhaul of IPEDS occurred virtually overnight. Never before has IPEDS sought retroactive data; never before has IPEDS sought such a vast array of data; and never before has the U.S. Department of Education so quickly effected a major change to IPEDS. Now, without court intervention, the Trump Administration’s unrealistic demands leave institutions of higher education in an impossible position: hastily compile this data, knowing it will suffer from inconsistencies that may lead to costly investigations and enforcement action, or fail to comply, and face penalties.

Attorney General Bonta co-leads this lawsuit with Massachusetts Attorney General Andrea Joy Campbell and Maryland Attorney General Anthony Brown. They are joined by the attorneys general of Colorado, Connecticut, Delaware, Hawai’i, Illinois, Nevada, New Jersey, New York, Oregon, Rhode Island, Vermont, Virginia, Washington, and Wisconsin.

Multistate coalition also criticizes other planned changes by Trump Administration 

OAKLAND — California Attorney General Rob Bonta today joined a coalition of 21 attorneys general in submitting a comment letter to the U.S. Department of Commerce opposing the U.S. Census Bureau’s recently announced changes to the 2026 Operational Test. Operational tests are not new; they are a standard part of preparing for the next decennial count — here, the 2030 Census — and allow new methods, technologies, and procedures to be evaluated. However, the Trump Administration is pursuing changes that threaten the integrity and accuracy of this process. Specifically, the Census Bureau is proposing to use a longer-than-normal questionnaire that includes a citizenship question; to conduct the 2026 Operational Test between April and September in just two sites, rather than the six sites previously identified; and to have United States Postal Service (USPS) workers conduct in-person interviews for the Operational Test, rather than Census Bureau workers. In the letter, the attorneys general highlight the deficiencies of the Census Bureau’s current plans and urge the Trump Administration to reverse course.

“President Trump has repeatedly attempted to politicize the census. During his first term in office, he tried adding a citizenship question to the 2020 Census, but my office sued and the U.S. Supreme Court ultimately blocked that unlawful effort. Last year, he posted on social media that he did not want all individuals, regardless of immigration status, to be counted in the 2030 Census — even though the U.S. Constitution clearly requires it. And now, his Census Bureau wants to move forward with a test survey that not only includes a citizenship question and other problematic changes, but that also undermines proper preparation for the 2030 Census,” said Attorney General Bonta. “We have fought tooth and nail to ensure that California receives both the congressional representation and federal funding we are entitled to. With today’s comment letter, my fellow attorneys general and I are continuing to stand up for the rule of law and calling out the Trump Administration for jeopardizing a fair and accurate 2030 Census. The proposed changes are illegal and must be withdrawn.”

In the comment letter, Attorney General Bonta and the coalition raise concerns about the Census Bureau’s plans, including that:

• The Notice announcing the proposed changes — entitled “Agency Information Collection Activities; Submission to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for Review and Approval; Comment Request; 2026 Operational Test in Support of the 2030 Census” — does not comply with procedural requirements under the Administrative Procedure Act (APA). In presenting the changes as a notice, rather than as a proposed rule, the Census Bureau improperly bypasses the fulsome notice and comment procedures required by the APA. This circumvention of the APA is not proper.
• The Notice states that the Census Bureau proposes to use the American Community Survey (ACS) Methods Panel, which includes the ACS questionnaire, for the 2026 Operational Test. The ACS questionnaire, however, is a poor substitute for the decennial Census questionnaire. The questions asked by the ACS are meaningfully different and require significantly more time to answer than those in the recent census forms. While, as the Census Bureau has reported, “the main function of the U.S. decennial census is to provide counts of people for the purpose of congressional apportionment, the primary purpose of the [ACS] is to measure the changing social and economic characteristics of the U.S. population — our education, housing, jobs, and more.”
• Moreover, the use of the ACS questionnaire includes a citizenship question. Numerous tests and studies, including those conducted by the Census Bureau itself, demonstrate that the inclusion of a citizenship question is likely to reduce response rates, particularly for non-citizen, Hispanic, and Asian communities.
• The Notice also states that “the Test will evaluate and assess the use of [USPS] staff to increase efficiency in various capacities typically performed by temporary Census Bureau field workers.” The Notice, however, fails to explain the source and nature of these efficiencies, and is silent as to some of the problems that the plan to use USPS staff will cause. For example, Postal workers are not legally required to maintain confidentiality of individual data and are indeed permitted to share such information with a broad range of recipients under many different scenarios. In contrast, Census workers are strictly prohibited from sharing individuals’ data with any entity or person for any reason beyond the statistical objectives of the census.
• The two sites chosen — Spartanburg, South Carolina and Huntsville, Alabama — meet few of the Census Bureau’s stated criteria for test sites. In particular, the remaining two sites are poorly suited to test the Census Bureau’s operational efforts to improve response rates among hard-to-count populations.

In filing the comment letter, Attorney General Bonta joins the attorneys general of Colorado, Connecticut, Delaware, the District of Columbia, Hawai‘i, Illinois, Maine, Maryland, Massachusetts, Michigan, Minnesota, Nevada, New Jersey, New Mexico, New York, Oregon, Rhode Island, Vermont, Washington, and Wisconsin.