Federal Accountability

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.

OAKLAND — California Attorney General Rob Bonta and Governor Gavin Newsom today, along with a coalition of 22 attorneys general and the states of Kentucky and Pennsylvania, announced a new lawsuit challenging President Trump’s imposition of global tariffs using Section 122 of the Trade Act of 1974. The lawsuit, to be filed today in the Court of International Trade, argues that the President’s use of Section 122 to impose tariffs is illegal because the President’s justifications for its use do not fall within the limited circumstances required by the statute. Attorney General Bonta and Governor Newsom previously challenged the President’s imposition of tariffs under the International Emergency Economic Powers Act of 1977 (IEEPA). And last month, the U.S. Supreme Court struck down President Trump’s imposition of tariffs under IEEPA, declaring them illegal.

“American consumers and business owners have made it clear they do not want tariffs, yet President Trump has tried over and over again to implement them. This time, the President is attempting to use an obscure law as a tool for his tariffs, and is yet again, going about it illegally,” said Attorney General Bonta. “This is not new terrain for California, but it is exasperating. Why is President Trump — who ran on the promise of making life more affordable for families — breaking the law to raise the cost of living for Americans? California has challenged the illegal imposition of tariffs time and time again because this question matters enormously for Californians who are already struggling with rising costs. For the 60th time since he took office, we’ll see the President in court."  

“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.” 

BACKGROUND 

The President’s regime of unlawful tariffs has made the affordability crisis worse for millions of Americans and has sent shockwaves through financial markets, businesses, and consumers in every corner of the globe — including in California, which is the fourth-largest economy in the world and the country’s largest importer and second-largest exporter among the 50 states. A recent Yale report found that the tariffs led to the average family losing $1,751 dollars last year. 

On February 20, 2026, the Supreme Court ruled that the tariffs President Trump imposed under IEEPA were unlawful. That same day, the President issued a proclamation claiming authority under Section 122 of the Trade Act of 1974 to impose a 10% tariff on most products and countries worldwide. The next day, President Trump announced he would be raising these these tariffs to 15%. Tariffs under this statute cannot exceed 15% and are limited to 150 days, after which the President must seek congressional approval.

Section 122 Tariffs 

Section 122 authorizes the President to impose tariffs under a very specific set of circumstances, namely when fundamental international payments problems require special import measures to restrict imports. Section 122 tariffs are allowed only when such fundamental payment problems require special measures under three conditions: (1) to deal with large and serious balance-of-payments deficits, (2) to prevent an imminent and significant depreciation of the dollar, or (3) to cooperate with other countries in correcting international financial disequilibrium. 

President Trump justifies invoking Section 122 on four grounds including (1) ongoing trade deficits, (2) negative primary income balance, (3) decline in the net international-investment position of the United States, and (4) persistent deficit of the balance on secondary income. Not a single one of the four justifications offered by the President are circumstances where Section 122 tariffs would be legal and appropriate.

Additionally, Section 122 requires tariffs be applied in a nondiscriminatory manner among countries and uniformly across products. Because the Proclamation exempts many goods from Canada, Mexico, Costa Rica, and other countries, it violates the Section 122 requirement that the tariffs be applied consistently with the principle of nondiscriminatory treatment. Because the Proclamation also includes 84 pages of product exceptions, it also violates the requirement that the tariffs be applied uniformly across products. The lawsuit also includes a claim against U.S. Customs and Border Protection arguing that the agency guidance announcing its implementation of the President’s Proclamation is illegal under the Administrative Procedure Act (APA).

The case is led by California Attorney General Rob 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. 

California has worked to challenge the President’s illegal tariffs on all fronts. Last year, Attorney General Bonta and Governor Newsom filed a lawsuit challenging President Trump’s unlawful use of power to impose tariffs without the consent of Congress. Attorney General Bonta has filed an amicus brief in the Court of International Trade in Oregon v. Trump as well as in the D.C. Circuit in Learning Resources, Inc. v. Trump, cases challenging President Trump’s illegal imposition of tariffs, and filed an amicus brief in the U.S. Supreme Court in Learning Resources Inc. v. Trump. In addition, he has hosted roundtable discussions in San Francisco and Los Angeles with business leaders on the front lines of the tariff war to discuss the impacts of tariffs on industries across California.

Multistate coalition pushes back on federal rules that allow employers to restrict access to birth control 

OAKLAND — California Attorney General Rob Bonta today joined a coalition of 22 attorneys general in filing an amicus brief with the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit in support of a lawsuit filed by Pennsylvania and New Jersey concerning reproductive rights. Specifically, the brief backs the two states in opposing the first Trump Administration’s 2017 and 2018 regulations that undermine the Affordable Care Act’s (ACA) guarantee of no-cost contraception coverage by employer healthcare plans. The regulations expand religious exemptions and create moral exemptions that allow employers to strip workers of guaranteed, no-cost coverage for birth control and other contraceptive care and services. California led a parallel challenge to the first Trump Administration’s rollback of the contraceptive mandate and that case remains pending before the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California. The regulations were stayed during the Biden Administration while the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services considered issuing new rulemaking, which Attorney General Bonta supported.

“Decisions about using birth control should be made by women and their doctors — not dictated by their bosses. California has long embraced that principle, and we have no intention of backing down,” said Attorney General Bonta. “My fellow attorneys general and I are urging the Third Circuit to affirm the lower court’s decision that struck down the Trump Administration’s unlawful regulations.” 

More than 80% of women ages 18 to 49 report having used some form of contraception in the past 12 months. With contraception costing an average of $584 per user per year, these unlawful regulations could shift an estimated $73.8 million in costs to individuals who rely on contraceptive care, creating significant barriers to accessing safe, effective healthcare.

In the brief, Attorney General Bonta and the coalition argue that:

• The regulations threaten contraceptive coverage for hundreds of thousands of women, putting at risk their health and the economic and public health of the states generally.
• States will face significant financial strain as they are forced to expend millions of dollars for replacement contraceptive care and services through state-funded programs.
• The regulations deepen already prevalent racial, gender, and income disparities. People of color and people with low incomes are disproportionately likely to live in “contraceptive deserts,” or areas that lack reasonable access to the full range of contraceptive care.
• Access to birth control and contraceptive care has been substantially reduced in the years since these regulations were first implemented, and this harm will be exacerbated if the regulations remain in place because of changes in the landscape for reproductive healthcare.

Joining Attorney General Bonta in filing this brief are the attorneys general of Arizona, Colorado, Connecticut, Delaware, the District of Columbia, Hawaiʻi, Illinois, Maine, Maryland, Massachusetts, Michigan, Minnesota, Nevada, New Mexico, New York, North Carolina, Oregon, Rhode Island, Vermont, Virginia, and Washington.

Trump Administration targeting four Democratic-led states for their refusal to participate in federal immigration enforcement 

OAKLAND — California Attorney General Rob Bonta yesterday challenged the Trump Administration’s threatened cuts to $900 million in transportation funding and withholding of over $1.3 billion in disaster relief funding to four Democratic-led states. Since taking office, the Trump Administration has made numerous attempts to strip funds from states whose policies it disagrees with, including those that refuse to use their limited resources to assist with the President’s inhumane mass deportation agenda. Along with the attorneys general of Illinois, Colorado, and Minnesota, Attorney General Bonta seeks to amend an existing lawsuit filed last month that challenges the Trump Administration’s illegal plans to cut more than $600 million in health grants to also cover this new targeted funding, which includes long-delayed disaster aid, funding for freight and highway projects, and funding to expand access to electric vehicle charging along major transportation corridors and in underserved communities. 

“The Trump Administration continues to punish those states it does not like. But California will not be bullied into participating in the President’s mass deportation campaign,” said Attorney General Bonta. “We’re talking about funds that help communities up and down the state, in rural and urban areas, recover from disasters and support new transportation infrastructure. These funds are not a bargaining chip. The President must back away from this latest misguided attack, or he can expect to face yet more losses in court.”

BACKGROUND

The Trump Administration has repeatedly attempted to condition receipt of unrelated federal funding on participation in federal immigration enforcement. Attorney General Bonta previously challenged — and secured final court rulings blocking — the Trump Administration’s attempt to impose immigration enforcement conditions on transportation, homeland security, and crime victims funding. The Trump Administration also backed down in the face of litigation challenging its attempt to impose other immigration-related conditions on funding for organizations that provide wraparound support to victims of crimes. 

President Trump’s latest threats to withhold federal funding from states whose policies he disagrees with are no different. Last month, the Office of Management and Budget issued a directive ordering the Centers for Disease Control to cut over $600 million in public-health funding from California, Colorado, Illinois, and Minnesota. Attorney General Bonta, along with the other state attorneys general, filed a lawsuit and, within 24 hours, secured a court order temporarily blocking these cuts. The attorneys general have since confirmed OMB’s expansion of this directive to include the U.S. Department of Transportation and Federal Emergency Management Agency. 

The lawsuit, which the attorneys general are expanding to include threatened disaster relief and transportation funding, argues that the planned funding cuts violate the Administrative Procedure Act’s requirement of reasoned decision-making and exceed the agencies’ statutory authority and the U.S. Constitution by violating the separation of powers and imposing retroactive conditions on funding.

OAKLAND — California Attorney General Rob Bonta today led a coalition of 20 attorneys general in filing a comment letter strongly objecting to the U.S. Small Business Administration's (SBA) interim final rule that seeks to preempt state and local permitting requirements under certain conditions following a declared disaster. To carry out this preemption, the interim final rule invites contractors to self-certify their own compliance with local building, health, and safety codes for building activities funded by SBA’s Disaster Loan Program. In addition to being plainly unlawful under federalism principles, the SBA self-certification program is vague and poorly suited for maintaining health and safety standards. In the comment letter, the coalition asserts that the interim final rule’s illegal, drastic, and unnecessary objectives will sow confusion and create significant safety risks that interfere with the needs of those harmed by natural disasters. 

“Public safety is my first, second, and third priority. As communities in California and across the country rebuild after devastating natural disasters, speed matters, but so do safety, health, and quality,” said Attorney General Bonta. “Evidence already shows that state and local governments have been doing their part to streamline permitting times and building codes for those affected by natural disasters. This interim final rule doesn’t make recovery quicker; it makes recovery more dangerous. I urge the Trump Administration to rescind it. If President Trump and those who work for him really want to be helpful, they should authorize the $34 billion that Californians need to recover from the Palisades and Eaton fires — just as every past president has provided assistance to Americans of all political stripes.” 

SBA’s Disaster Loan Program was established through the Small Business Act of 1958. Through this program, SBA offers different types of loans to help disaster survivors, among other things, repair or replace residential and commercial property damaged or destroyed in Presidentially-declared disasters. On January 23, 2026, President Trump signed Executive Order 14377, which attacked California and local governments in Los Angeles County for alleged delays in the wildfire recovery process and instigated SBA’s issuance of the interim final rule. Six days after President Trump issued the executive order, SBA issued the interim final rule. It took effect immediately without advance notice or any opportunity for public comment. 

Except for the few federal statutes that regulate construction on a national basis, government regulation of construction for the public health, safety, and welfare has been left to state and local governments for generations. Congress did not grant SBA authority to override any state and local laws, let alone those having to do with the core local function of permitting. Permitting regulations are within the purview of state and local police power, and they do not frustrate the core objectives of SBA’s Disaster Loan Program.

Evidence from recent disasters shows that state and local permits are not causing an undue delay in the disbursement and use of SBA funds. Several factors unmentioned by SBA, including delayed or insufficient insurance payouts or high out-of-pocket costs, contribute significantly to the rate of rebuilding. Further, permitting times have accelerated dramatically with local agencies approving home rebuilding permits nearly three times as fast as permits for homes in the five years before the fires. The interim final rule presents no evidence to the contrary but nevertheless attempts to undermine state and local requirements that promote efficient and safe disaster recovery.

In the comment letter, Attorney General Bonta and the coalition assert that:

• The interim final rule unlawfully exceeds SBA’s statutory authority because Congress has not delegated preemption power to SBA.
• The interim final rule is arbitrary and capricious because no evidence supports its claim that state and local permitting requirements conflict with the Disaster Loan Program. 
• The interim final rule is arbitrary and capricious because it is vague and will result in significant and disruptive legal uncertainty in the aftermath of disasters. Specifically, it does not clearly define what it means for a state or local requirement to constitute a “but-for cause” of a delay. Accordingly, it is hard to know when state or local permitting rules would be preempted.
• The interim final rule was unlawfully promulgated and violated the Administrative Procedure Act’s requirement to provide notice and allow for public comment.
• The interim final rule was promulgated against the dictates of Executive Order 13132, a separate executive order signed by President Bill Clinton in 1999 that instructs federal agencies to be guided by federalism principles.

In filing this letter, Attorney General Bonta leads the attorneys general of Arizona, Colorado, Connecticut, Delaware, Hawai‘i, Illinois, Maine, Massachusetts, Michigan, Minnesota, Nevada, New Jersey, New York, North Carolina, Oregon, Rhode Island, Vermont, Washington, and the District of Columbia.