Federal Accountability

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. 

Alongside multistate coalition, warns of devastating impacts to children nationwide

OAKLAND — California Attorney General Rob Bonta today continued his defense of birthright citizenship by co-leading a coalition of 24 attorneys general in filing an amicus brief in Trump v. Barbara at the U.S. Supreme Court. On his first day in office in 2025, President Trump issued an order seeking to end birthright citizenship for children born in the United States to immigrant parents. Attorney General Bonta immediately co-led a coalition in filing a lawsuit challenging the order and repeatedly obtained nationwide preliminary injunctions that blocked this executive order from ever taking effect. The Supreme Court is now considering the validity of this order in a separate case brought by a class of children who would lose citizenship under the order. In today’s brief, Attorney General Bonta and the coalition urge the Supreme Court to find the executive order in violation of the Citizenship Clause, binding Supreme Court precedent, and the Immigration and Nationality Act. 

“For nearly our entire nation’s history, we have recognized that those born here, subject to our laws, are Americans, fully and equally. The text of the Constitution and more than a century of precedent make clear: birthright citizenship is a right, and President Trump cannot undo that by fiat,” said Attorney General Bonta. “Every branch of government, across Administrations, has affirmed birthright citizenship, and the U.S. Supreme Court should uphold that right.”

Since the beginning of our nation’s history, the United States has followed the common law tradition that those born on U.S. soil are subject to its laws and are citizens by birth. Although the U.S. Supreme Court’s decision in Dred Scott denied birthright citizenship to the descendants of enslaved people, the United States in 1868 adopted the Fourteenth Amendment to protect citizenship for children born in the country. The Fourteenth Amendment’s Citizenship Clause explicitly promises that “[a]ll persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside.” The Supreme Court affirmed this constitutional guarantee in 1898 in United States v. Wong Kim Ark, holding that all children born in the United States, including those born to immigrants, were citizens.    

Now, the Trump Administration seeks to strip hundreds of thousands of children born each year of their ability to fully and fairly be a part of American society as rightful citizens, with all the benefits and privileges, including an estimated 24,500 children born annually in California. These children would lose their most basic rights and be forced to live under the threat of deportation. Some babies will be stateless, lacking a home country to return to. 

The executive order would also severely harm California and other states by jeopardizing federal funding for essential programs that they administer, such as Medicaid and the Children’s Health Insurance Program; these programs are conditioned on the citizenship and immigration status of the children they serve. Yet, these children would still require healthcare, education, and social services, forcing states to absorb the costs. If the order went into effect, states would be required — on little notice and at considerable expense — to immediately begin modifying their operation and administration of benefits programs to account for this change. 

Even more alarming, although the order that President Trump signed indicates it would only apply to babies born within the United States after 30 days from the date of the order, there is no reason to believe that the Trump Administration would stop there if the Supreme Court were to side with its theories.

Attorney General Bonta leads the coalition in filing the brief along with New Jersey Attorney General Jennifer Davenport, Washington Attorney General Nick Brown, and Massachusetts Attorney General Andrea Joy Campbell. They are joined by the attorneys general of Arizona, Colorado, Connecticut, Delaware, Hawai'i, Illinois, Maine, Maryland, Michigan, Minnesota, Nevada, New Mexico, New York, North Carolina, Oregon, Rhode Island, Vermont, Virginia, Wisconsin, and the District of Columbia, along with the City and County of San Francisco.

Lawsuit also challenges Secretary Kennedy’s appointments to key federal vaccine panel

OAKLAND — In partnership with Arizona Attorney General Kris Mayes, California Attorney General Rob Bonta today announced co-leading a multistate lawsuit against the Trump Administration over unprecedented changes that were recently made to the childhood immunization schedule, which will make people sicker and strain state resources. Health and Human Services (HHS) Secretary Robert F. Kennedy, Jr., Acting Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) Director Jay Bhattacharya, and the CDC and HHS are named as defendants. Filed in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California, the complaint challenges a January 5, 2026 "Decision Memo" by the CDC that stripped seven childhood vaccines — those protecting against rotavirus, meningococcal disease, hepatitis A, hepatitis B, influenza, COVID-19, and respiratory syncytial virus (RSV) — of their universally recommended status. The lawsuit also challenges Secretary Kennedy's unlawful replacement of the Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices (ACIP), the expert federal panel that has guided U.S. vaccine policy for decades. The coalition of 14 attorneys general and the Governor of Pennsylvania is asking the court to declare the new vaccine schedule and the new ACIP appointments unlawful, and to enjoin, vacate, and set aside both the new immunization schedule and the ACIP appointments.

“The Trump Administration’s attacks on science are irresponsible and dangerous. Undermining confidence in vaccines will lead to lower vaccination rates and more infectious disease. It will also drive-up costs for states, including increased Medicaid spending and new expenses to combat misinformation and revise public health guidance,” said Attorney General Rob Bonta. “Public health decisions must remain grounded in truth and facts. That’s why, for the 59th time, I’m taking the Trump Administration to court. My fellow attorneys general and I cannot sit on the sidelines while lives are put at risk and our laws are broken.”

“California is going back to court because the Trump Administration is violating federal law and pushing a reckless, unscientific childhood vaccine schedule that puts kids’ lives at risk. These changes ignore decades of medical evidence and will lead to outbreaks of diseases we’ve already beaten,” said Governor Gavin Newsom. “We will not stand by while politics overrides science and endangers our children. Just as we’ve done before, we’re standing up — alongside 14 other states — to defend the law, protect public health, and keep our kids safe.”

Among children born in the U.S. between 1994 and 2023, researchers have estimated that routine childhood vaccinations prevented approximately 508 million cases of illness, 32 million hospitalizations, and over 1.1 million deaths, generating $2.7 trillion in societal savings. This remarkable achievement has been made possible in large part by leading medical scholars and public health experts who have served on the ACIP and established the science-based childhood vaccination schedule that federal agencies, states, and parents have confidently relied on for decades.

Secretary Kennedy is among the most prominent anti-vaccine activists in the country and has significantly contributed to eroding trust in safe and effective vaccines. During Secretary Kennedy’s confirmation process, he made numerous promises in an apparent effort to address concerns about his longstanding anti-vaccine views. One of those promises was that he would not alter the ACIP. The ACIP is a 17-member federal advisory board to the CDC that, under the Federal Advisory Committee Act (FACA), must be “fairly balanced in terms of the points of view represented and the functions to be performed,” and not be “inappropriately influenced by the appointing authority or by any special interest[.]” The ACIP develops recommendations for routine immunization of both pediatric and adult populations, which become official CDC policy upon approval by the CDC Director. Once adopted into the CDC immunization schedule, the ACIP’s recommendations determine which vaccines are covered under several federal supported immunization programs.

In a Wall Street Journal opinion column published on June 9, 2025, and ironically titled “HHS Moves to Restore Public Trust in Vaccines,” Secretary Kennedy abruptly announced that he was dismissing all 17 ACIP members. He subsequently appointed new ACIP members. At least nine of the 13 current ACIP members lack the expertise or professional qualifications required for the role, and a majority have publicly expressed views aligned with Secretary Kennedy's well-documented opposition to vaccines. Among other things, Secretary Kennedy failed to issue the required Federal Register notice, to follow FACA’s “fairly balanced” requirement, and to appoint individuals with scientific qualifications as required by ACIP's own charter. 

On December 5, 2025, the ACIP members unlawfully appointed by Secretary Kennedy then voted 8 to 3 to reverse nearly 30 years of CDC policy recommending that the hepatitis B vaccine be universally administered at birth as part of a three-dose series. The hepatitis B vaccine is up to 90 percent effective in preventing perinatal infection when administered within 24 hours of birth. However, the Trump Administration’s reliance on even the unlawfully reconstituted ACIP was temporary. Last month, then-Acting CDC Director Jim O’Neill — who has no medical or scientific background — signed off on a “Decision Memo” that demoted seven vaccines from the universally recommended childhood vaccination schedule to a lesser status that invites confusion and uncertainty. The Decision Memo was not based on any new scientific evidence, any recommendation by a lawfully constituted ACIP, or any systematic review of the available data. Instead, it relied primarily on superficial comparisons to purported "peer countries" — particularly Denmark, which has universal healthcare and a small, homogenous population — while ignoring the fundamental differences between those nations and the United States, as well as the overwhelming evidence supporting the effectiveness of the CDC’s pre-Kennedy childhood immunization schedule.

In response to the lack of science-based leadership from the federal government, California Governor Gavin Newsom announced the creation of the West Coast Health Alliance to create and promulgate communications to the public and to healthcare providers regarding the West Coast Health Alliance’s shared, collective recommendations.

Joining Attorneys General Bonta and Mayes in filing today’s lawsuit are the attorneys general of Colorado, Connecticut, Delaware, Maine, Maryland, Michigan, Minnesota, New Jersey, New Mexico, Oregon, Rhode Island, Wisconsin, and the Governor of Pennsylvania.  

Motion asks court to require FEMA to restore critical disaster resilience program and make billions in funding available to the communities relying on them

OAKLAND — California Attorney General Rob Bonta today joined a coalition of 22 states and the District of Columbia in filing a motion asking the U.S. District Court for the District of Massachusetts to enforce its December 11, 2025 order that prohibited the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) from terminating the Building Resilient Infrastructure and Communities (BRIC) program and directed the agency to promptly take all steps necessary to reverse the termination. For the past 30 years, the BRIC program has provided communities across the nation with resources to proactively fortify their infrastructure against natural disasters. By focusing on mitigation and community resilience, the program has saved lives, reduced injury, protected property, and saved money that would have otherwise been spent on post-disaster costs.   

“FEMA’s BRIC program is critical. It has earned bipartisan support because the funding helps communities prepare for disasters before they strike,” said Attorney General Bonta. “Late last year, my fellow attorneys general and I successfully blocked the Trump Administration’s unlawful attempt to shut down the BRIC program. We are now returning to court to ensure that the order we secured is fully enforced. We need to know why there’s been a failure to comply — it is unacceptable.”   

On July 16, 2025, Attorney General Bonta and the coalition filed a lawsuit to prevent FEMA from terminating its BRIC program — an action that had already delayed, scaled back, and cancelled hundreds of mitigation projects across the country depending on this funding. On December 11, 2025, the coalition won their case. The court declared the termination of this congressionally mandated program unlawful and ordered FEMA to promptly take all steps necessary to reverse the termination.  

Over two months have passed and the federal government has offered no indication that they have complied with the court order. FEMA’s regional offices lack information about whether and when it will resume the BRIC program, and some have indicated that FEMA is taking a “wait and see” approach — contrary to the clear terms of the court’s order. During this time, the federal government has not identified any concrete steps that it has taken to reverse the BRIC termination.  

Attorney General Bonta and the coalition are asking the court to enforce the December 11 order by requiring the federal government to make pre-disaster mitigation funds available as required by statute, communicate the status and next steps for current BRIC projects to the states, communicate the reversal of the BRIC termination to all relevant stakeholders, and file status reports with the court outlining any actions taken or planned to comply with the order.  

Over the past four years, FEMA has selected nearly 2,000 projects to receive roughly $4.5 billion in BRIC funding nationwide. In California, projects that have been awarded funding include: 

• A project in City of Rancho Palos Verdes to reduce geologic landslide movement that threatens most of the City’s residents and infrastructure, including a major arterial roadway that provides community and emergency access, sanitation sewer lines located along this roadway, electric and communication lines, potable water lines, and gas lines. Without this project, landslide movement will continue to threaten critical infrastructure, damage homes and property, and endanger lives. 
• A project in the City of Sacramento to mitigate flooding of five major interchanges, 3.9 miles of a major interstate highway, a runway at an airport, surface streets, 27,000 housing units, and more. Among other things, the project would have improved floodwall sections, improved levee sections, and relocated a pump station. 
• A project in Kern County to seismically retrofit the Kern Valley Healthcare District’s hospital that provides acute care and emergency medical services to a remote population in the mid-northern region of the Kern River Valley area. Unless seismically retrofitted, the hospital may soon need to close. This would force hundreds of thousands of Californians to seek services at hospitals over two hours away.

Joining Attorney General Bonta in filing this motion are the attorneys general of Arizona, Colorado, Connecticut, Delaware, the District of Columbia, Illinois, Maine, Maryland, Massachusetts, Michigan, Minnesota, New Jersey, New Mexico, New York, North Carolina, Oregon, Rhode Island, Vermont, Wisconsin, Washington, and the governor of the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania, and the governor of the Commonwealth of Kentucky.

OAKLAND — California Attorney General Rob Bonta issued the following statement in response to the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Illinois granting his motion for a temporary restraining order, which blocks the Trump Administration from terminating more than $600 million in Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) grants for 14 days. The planned cuts exclusively target four Democratic-led states: California, Colorado, Illinois, and Minnesota. The attorneys general of each of those states filed a lawsuit yesterday alleging that the funding cuts would irreparably harm their states and are based on political animus. The court’s accompanying opinion states, in part, that “recent statements plausibly suggest that the reason for the direction is hostility to what the federal government calls ‘sanctuary jurisdictions’ or ‘sanctuary cities.’”

“I’ve said it before, and I’ll say it again: If President Trump and those who work for him want to stop losing in court, they should stop breaking the law,” said Attorney General Bonta. “My fellow attorneys general and I will continue standing up for public health and the well-being of the people we serve. We are confident that the facts and the law favor a permanent block of these reckless and illegal funding cuts.”

Previous attempts by Trump Administration to withhold federal funds from Democratic states have ended in defeat

OAKLAND — Alongside the attorneys general of Colorado, Illinois, and Minnesota, California Attorney General Rob Bonta today filed a lawsuit against the Trump Administration for illegally planning to cut more than $600 million in Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) grants, with more cuts potentially to come. On Monday, the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) notified Congress of its intention to terminate the grants exclusively in four Democratic-led states: California, Colorado, Illinois, and Minnesota. The targeted grants fund essential public health infrastructure, as well as testing and treatment for lethal diseases like HIV. Among the four states, California faces the largest share of the proposed funding cuts. Filed in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Illinois, the lawsuit alleges that the funding cuts would irreparably harm the states and are based on political animus. The attorneys general have also filed a motion for a temporary restraining order to block the funding cuts from taking effect.

“President Trump is resorting to a familiar playbook. He is using federal funding to compel states and jurisdictions to follow his agenda. Those efforts have all previously failed, and we expect that to happen once again,” said Attorney General Bonta. “Still, all Americans should be outraged. President Trump is not above the law, but he continues to act as if he is. My fellow attorneys general and I will not be silenced. We will continue taking him to court any time he takes unlawful actions.” 

President Trump, on social media and in comments to the media, has repeatedly threatened to withhold funding from states whose policies he disagrees with. Earlier this month, the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) issued a Targeting Directive, ordering the CDC to cut over $600 million in public-health funding from California, Colorado, Illinois, and Minnesota. Monday’s HHS Notification carries out the Targeting Directive.

The largest grant program targeted for termination is the Public Health Infrastructure Block Grant (PHIG). This program operates in all 50 states — not just in California, Colorado, Illinois, and Minnesota. California and its local public health departments, including the Counties of Santa Clara and Los Angeles, use PHIG funds to strengthen their workforce and ensure that the workforce can perform core functions necessary to protect public health, including disease surveillance and infectious disease control, emergency preparedness and response, laboratory and pharmacy capacity, food security, and support for communities to respond to health risks and emergencies. In California, the largest PHIG grant at issue totals $180 million, of which $130 million is still outstanding.

In today’s lawsuit, the attorneys general argue that the planned funding cuts violate the Administrative Procedure Act’s requirement of reasoned decisionmaking and exceed the agencies’ statutory authority and the U.S. Constitution by imposing retroactive conditions on funding.

OAKLAND — California Attorney General Rob Bonta today secured a court order that continues blocking the Trump Administration’s illegal attempt to freeze over $10 billion in federal funding for childcare and family assistance programs. Last month, the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) imposed a funding freeze exclusively on five Democratic-led states — California, New York, Colorado, Illinois, and Minnesota — on the sole basis of unsupported claims of “serious concerns about widespread fraud and misuse of taxpayer dollars.” To protect the Congressionally-authorized funds that support critical services, the attorneys general of the five states sued HHS on January 8 in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York, challenging the funding freeze as well as HHS’s extraordinarily broad requests for data and documents related to the states’ use of the funding. Less than 24 hours later, Attorney General Bonta and his colleagues secured a temporary restraining order, which blocked the funding freeze and requests for data and documents for 14 days. On January 16, the attorneys general filed a motion for a preliminary injunction to ensure the court’s protections remain in effect while the litigation proceeds. On January 23, Judge Vernon Broderick extended the temporary restraining order for an additional 14 days. Today, he granted the states’ motion for a preliminary injunction, continuing to preserve over $10 billion in funding “until a decision on the merits in this case[.]”

“We are pleased that the court has once again sided with us. The Trump Administration’s actions are not only unlawful — they are cruel, targeting the most vulnerable among us,” said Attorney General Bonta. “My fellow attorneys general and I will not relent in this case, and we are confident that we will ultimately prevail in permanently blocking the unlawful funding freeze.”

The funding at issue benefits millions of Californians — including children, families, seniors, and individuals with disabilities — through Temporary Assistance for Needy Families, the Child Care and Development Fund, and the Social Services Block Grant. Of the $10 billion, approximately $5 billion was frozen in California alone by the Trump Administration.