Federal Accountability

The Consumer Financial Protection Bureau was created to protect consumers from unfair, deceptive, and abusive acts or practices, and from discrimination by Big Corporations. 

OAKLAND — California Attorney General Rob Bonta co-led a coalition of 22 attorneys general in filing a lawsuit challenging the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau’s (CFPB) Acting Director’s unlawful decision not to fund the agency’s operations, preventing it from performing legally mandated functions. The lawsuit, filed in the U.S. District Court for the District of Oregon, challenges the decision by CFPB Acting Director Russell Vought to refuse to request the necessary funding for the agency from the Federal Reserve, in violation of the Dodd-Frank Wall Street Reform and Consumer Protection Act (Dodd-Frank Act). The CFPB was created to protect consumers in the financial marketplace, and it performs critical functions necessary to the functioning of the financial system. For 14 years, the CFPB has served as an invaluable partner to state attorneys general and state banking regulators, as an enforcer, regulator, and resource for consumers. Shortly after taking office, the Trump Administration launched a campaign of destruction and systemic shuttering of the CFPB, threatening catastrophic harm to hardworking families and consumer financial markets nationwide. Today's lawsuit challenges the latest step in the Trump Administration campaign to shutter the agency.

“President Trump seems intent on making life more unaffordable for Americans — whether by withholding food assistance, pushing policies that would make energy more expensive, or by placing chaotic tariffs on essential items. At the same time, the Administration continues to abandon its responsibility to protect and defend American consumers being taken advantage of by Big Corporations, dismantling the agency that stands up for consumers against big banks, debt collectors, and credit reporting companies,” said Attorney General Bonta. “The Trump Administration’s latest effort to destroy the CFPB means that hundreds of thousands of consumer complaints will fall on deaf ears. If you have ever had issues with your car loan, mortgage loans, or bank fees, if you have ever disputed a credit score error and expected to have the federal government on your side, this impacts you. By refusing to fund the CFPB, even when legal and appropriate funding mechanisms are available, the Trump Administration has sharpened its message that it does not care about affordability, that it does not care to be on the side of families and working Americans. California cares. With this lawsuit, we demand that the federal government keep up its side of the deal by lawfully funding the Bureau and its critical work.”  

BACKGROUND

After the 2008 financial crisis, Congress enacted the Dodd-Frank Act, establishing the CFPB as a federal financial regulator whose first priority is protecting consumers. The CFPB is tasked with enforcing numerous federal consumer protection statutes and enacting regulations to further these efforts. 

As the cornerstone of federal consumer financial protections for 14 years, the CFPB has been an invaluable enforcement partner to California, working to protect hardworking families and make the marketplace fairer here in California and across the country, returning over $20 billion to Americans since its creation. Among other important functions, the CFPB maintains a publicly available online complaint handling system and database through which consumers can submit complaints about financial products and services and receive responses from regulated entities.   

The Trump Administration has taken a series of actions intended to debilitate the CFPB, including issuing a suspension of work across the agency, terminating probationary employees, attempting to issue reduction in force notices to 90% of the CFPB’s workforce — a move that was swiftly blocked by the courts. The continued gutting of the CFPB leaves no oversight over large, national banks and credit unions, guts oversight of payday lenders, the mortgage markets, and credit reporting agencies — and dramatically shrinks the Bureau’s supervisorial oversight of the markets for auto finance, consumer reporting, debt collection, and international money transfer services — leaving millions of consumers unprotected. 

THE LAWSUIT 

On November 10, the CFPB gave notice that it would not request funding from the Federal Reserve to continue its operations based on legal analysis it had received from U.S. DOJ advising that it could not lawfully draw funds from the Federal Reserve because the Federal Reserve is “unprofitable.” The CFPB also stated it has sufficient funds to operate until at least December 31, 2025. At that time, the CFPB is expected to imminently cease operations, including taking its online consumer complaint handling system and database offline.   

U.S. DOJ’s interpretation of the statute has been widely criticized by consumer advocates as well as former CFPB and Federal Reserve officials as being unlawful. The attorneys general argue U.S. DOJ’s advice comes from a misreading of language in the Dodd-Frank Act authorizing the CFPB to draw its funding from “the combined earnings of the Federal Reserve System.” The CFPB and U.S DOJ’s conclusion that the term “combined earnings of the Federal Reserve System” refers to the Federal Reserve’s profits, calculated by subtracting its interest expenses from its revenues, is an incorrect and unlawful interpretation.  

In the lawsuit today, the attorneys general allege that CFPB’s refusal to seek funding to continue its operations, including operating its consumer complaint database is ultra vires, contrary to law, and arbitrary and capricious as the Dodd-Frank Act clearly provides a mechanism for funding the CFPB to perform its statutorily mandatory functions — which include: 

• Rooting out unfair, deceptive, or abusive acts or practices by writing rules, supervising companies, and enforcing the law;
• Enforcing laws that outlaw discrimination in consumer finance;
• Taking consumer complaints;
• Enhancing financial education;
• Researching the consumer experience of using financial products; and
• Monitoring financial markets for new risks to consumers.  

The attorneys general argue that CFPB’s failure to seek funding for continued operations, including operations of its consumer complaints database, will harm consumers and result in the above statutorily mandated functions not being performed. The attorneys general ask the court to declare this action unlawful and ensure CFPB is properly funded.

Attorney General Bonta is leading this lawsuit along with the attorneys general of New York, Oregon, New Jersey, and Colorado. They are joined by the attorneys general of Arizona, Connecticut, Delaware, the District of Columbia, Hawai‘i, Illinois, Maine, Maryland, Massachusetts, Michigan, Nevada, New Mexico, North Carolina, Rhode Island, Vermont, and Wisconsin. 

Attorney General Bonta has been an outspoken critic amid the attempts of the Trump Administration’s CFPB to shrink its responsibilities and has submitted amicus briefs in Mayor and City Council of Baltimore v. Consumer Financial Protection Bureau and in National Treasury Employees Union v. Vought, lawsuits challenging the Trump Administration’s efforts to dismantle the CFPB.

OAKLAND — California Attorney General Rob Bonta today celebrated a decision from the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Washington, which declared that the U.S. Department of Education acted illegally by discontinuing grants awarded through Congressionally-established school mental health funding programs. The decision requires the Department to issue new funding decisions to 21 grantees in California. Because the Department has not identified any concerns with the grantees’ performance, the Department will likely resume funding to the grantees, including tens of millions of dollars to support high-need, low-income, and rural California schools. This funding is critical to students’ well-being, safety, and academic success. Today’s decision vacates the Trump Administration’s directive to halt these grants and brings the lawsuit by the attorneys general to a final resolution, subject to appeal. 

“The courts have once again agreed with states nationwide and halted the Trump Administration’s illegal actions. This time, the President tried mightily to rip away funding that supported the mental health of our most vulnerable students. California and our sister states stepped in, and we are proud to have secured a court ruling permanently barring the U.S. Department of Education from withholding mental health funding from schools for any reason that does not have to do with grantees’ performance,” said Attorney General Bonta. “These mental health programs do critical work to ensure students not only succeed but thrive. California is committed and at the ready to defend our future generations from attack by an Administration intent on breaking the law. Today, we’ve done just that.”

Today’s decision also permanently blocks the U.S. Department of Education from deciding whether to continue funding to grantees based on new priorities or information that is not relevant to grantees’ performance and specifies that the Department cannot deny an award based on performance issues that were caused by the Department’s unlawful actions challenged in this case and their disruptive effects.

In July, Attorney General Bonta joined a coalition of 16 attorneys general in suing the Trump Administration over their discontinuation of these grants, and in October, the coalition secured a preliminary injunction blocking the Department from discontinuing grants and stating that the Trump Administration's actions were likely unlawful. 

BACKGROUND

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. 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; and 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.

Despite these successes, on or about April 29, 2025, the Department sent boilerplate notices to grantees, including state education agencies, local education agencies, and institutes of higher education, claiming that their grants conflicted with the Trump Administration’s priorities and would not be continued. The Department pledged to reallocate funds based on new priorities of “merit, fairness, and excellence in education,” providing little to no insight into the basis for the discontinuances, which threatened to destroy projects years in the making. However, in the press, the Trump Administration admitted that it targeted Plaintiff States’ grants for their perceived diversity, equity, and inclusion (DEI) efforts, which the court agreed today was not a legal basis for discontinuing these grants.

OAKLAND — California Attorney General Rob Bonta, California Governor Gavin Newsom, the California Department of Transportation (Caltrans), and the California Energy Commission (CEC), today co-led a coalition of 17 attorneys general and the State of Pennsylvania in filing a lawsuit against the Trump Administration for unlawfully suspending two bipartisan grant programs for electric vehicle charging infrastructure that would reduce pollution, expand access to clean vehicles, and create thousands of green jobs. Without any explanation or notice, the U.S. Department of Transportation (USDOT) has quietly refused to approve any new funding under two electric vehicle charging infrastructure programs created in the Infrastructure Investment & Jobs Act (IIJA): Charging and Fueling Infrastructure Program (CFI) and the Electric Vehicle Charger Reliability and Accessibility Accelerator (Accelerator) Program (together, the EV Charging Infrastructure Programs). In the lawsuit, California and the coalition allege that these unexplained and secretive actions violate the constitutional separation of powers, as the funding was approved by bipartisan majorities in Congress. 

“The Trump Administration’s illegal attempt to stop funding for electric vehicle infrastructure must come to an end,” said Attorney General Rob Bonta. “This is just another reckless attempt that will stall the fight against air pollution and climate change, slow innovation, thwart green job creation, and leave communities without access to clean, affordable transportation. While the Administration is busy finding ways for their Big Oil donors to profit, California will continue to fight for its people, environment, and innovation.”

"The Trump Administration is unlawfully withholding funds from the Bipartisan Infrastructure Law — investments Congress approved to build America's EV charging network, reduce pollution, and create thousands of good-paying jobs. We won't stand for it," said Governor Gavin Newsom. "California will defend the Constitution, our communities, and the future we're building. With 2.4 million zero-emission vehicles on our roads and critical projects ready to move forward, we're taking this to court."

“California is committed to continuing to scale up electric vehicles and ensure a reliable and affordable EV charging network for all. By doing this, we can help reduce air pollution and increase our energy independence," said CEC Chair David Hochschild. "Our state has made great progress and now has more public EV charge plugs than we have gasoline nozzles. We expect the bipartisan-approved federal funding to continue to support this important infrastructure.” 

“These grant programs are critical to building a sustainable modern transportation network in California," said Dina El-Tawansy, Director of the California Department of Transportation. "The electric vehicle charging funding they provide will enhance freight movement, improve convenience for drivers, and accelerate California’s mission to build a cleaner and more reliable system for all travelers.”

In 2022, Congress passed the Infrastructure Investment and Jobs Act (IIJA), also known as the Bipartisan Infrastructure Law. Like the National Electric Vehicle Infrastructure (NEVI) Formula Program, the CFI and Accelerator programs are five-year programs created by IIJA for building or repairing EV chargers. USDOT and the Federal Highway Administration have refused all new obligations of funds under both programs since the spring of 2025. Specifically, the CFI program directs $2.5 billion in discretionary funding to States and local governments for EV charging and hydrogen fueling infrastructure, while the Accelerator program awards grants, through NEVI appropriations, to States and localities for EV charger repair and maintenance. Together, they provide $179.8 million in federal funds to California state agencies for building and maintaining a network of publicly accessible, fast, and reliable EV chargers that is critical to California’s EV adoption and climate goals. 

California continues to lead the nation in the adoption of zero-emission vehicles (ZEVs) and the development of supporting infrastructure to rapidly deploy funds to develop and ensure a reliable and easy-to-use charging network. To date, over 2.4 million ZEVs have been sold in California, including thousands of electric trucks, delivery vans, and buses that CFI-funded chargers would support along California’s critical goods movement corridors. 

The suspension of the EV Charging Infrastructure Programs has detrimentally impacted States by stalling planned charging station projects, delaying infrastructure build-out, and creating financial uncertainty. Specifically in California, the following awards are at stake: $59.3 million CFI award to Caltrans to buildout a freight corridor for medium- and heavy-duty electric vehicles; $55.9 million CFI award to CEC for zero-emission freight transportation along key California freight corridors and around California’s major ports; and $63.1 million Accelerator award to Caltrans for repair and replacement of non-operational EV chargers.

The complaint filed today alleges that the Trump Administration’s refusal to spend the funds that Congress appropriated for EV infrastructure is unlawful because it violates the separation of powers and violates the Administrative Procedure Act. The programs were created by statute, and federal agencies have a duty to faithfully execute those statutes. The complaint asks the court to declare the defendants’ actions unlawful and to permanently stop the Administration from withholding these funds. 

Attorney General Bonta co-led the lawsuit with the attorneys general of Washington and Colorado and was joined in the filing by the attorneys general of Arizona, Delaware, District of Columbia, Illinois, Maryland, Massachusetts, Michigan, New Jersey, New York, Oregon, Rhode Island, Vermont, Wisconsin, and the State of Pennsylvania.

A copy of the lawsuit is available here.

OAKLAND — California Attorney General Rob Bonta today secured a decision by the U.S. District Court for the District of Oregon blocking the Trump Administration from penalizing California for any errors resulting from the U.S. Department of Agriculture’s erroneous guidance unlawfully restricting eligibility for the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP). After a four-hour hearing, the district court orally granted the Attorney General’s motion for a preliminary injunction and delayed the end of the grace period through April 9, 2026, ensuring that errors caused by the faulty, unlawful guidance do not result in hefty fiscal penalties for California. Last month, Attorney General Bonta and a multistate coalition sued the Trump Administration, arguing that the U.S. Department of Agriculture’s October 31, 2025, guidance erroneously excludes certain lawfully residing non-citizens from SNAP eligibility, when they in fact are eligible when they become lawful permanent residents. 

On December 9, the Trump Administration issued further guidance clarifying that certain lawfully residing non-citizens are in fact eligible for SNAP when they become lawful permanent residents. However, the Administration refuses to provide the states the required 120-day grace period for mistakes caused by the erroneous guidance. Under the “Big Beautiful Bill,” these errors can result in massive fiscal penalties. The district court today agreed with the states that the grace period, which under federal regulations is supposed to go into effect after the agency issues implementing guidance, such as the guidance at issue here, should be applied.

“The holiday season is a time of kindness and generosity. Unfortunately, this President has decided to play the Grinch,” said Attorney General Bonta. “That’s not what America stands for. As families struggle to make ends meet, we’re going to keep fighting for vital programs like SNAP that allow them to put food on the table — even when it means taking the President to court. Because of our lawsuit, the Trump Administration issued new guidance ensuring that legal permanent residents will not be wrongfully denied SNAP benefits and, with today’s court order, we’ve made sure that the states do not pay the price for this Administration’s delayed and incorrect guidance.”

Attorney General Bonta has vigorously defended SNAP benefits from attacks by the Trump Administration. During the recent government shutdown, Attorney General Bonta sued USDA to force them to fund November SNAP benefits. Not one, but two federal district courts determined that the Trump Administration acted unlawfully. And when the Administration responded by asking the U.S. Supreme Court to pause one court’s order requiring USDA to pay full benefits, Attorney General Bonta vigorously challenged that request, which was ultimately withdrawn after the government reopened. The SNAP program is now fully funded through September 2026. 

OAKLAND — California Attorney General Rob Bonta today celebrated a decision by the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit that​ blocks, for the time being, the deployment of California National Guard troops in Los Angeles. In issuing a partial administrative stay, the Ninth Circuit allows the first part of the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California’s order barring the deployment of California National Guard troops in Los Angeles to remain in effect for now, while pausing the second part of the order returning federalized California National Guard troops to the Governor’s command. 

“The Ninth Circuit’s decision means that, come Monday, there will be no National Guard troops deployed in California. Let me repeat: For the first time in six months, there will be no military deployed on the streets of Los Angeles,” said Attorney General Bonta. “While this decision is not final, it is a gratifying and hard-fought step in the right direction. California did not ask to be a testing ground for the President’s militarized vision of America. There is no crisis to justify the National Guard’s continued presence, and we look forward to continuing to prove that in court.” 

OAKLAND — California Attorney General Rob Bonta today led a coalition of 20 attorneys general in announcing a lawsuit challenging the Trump Administration over its unlawful policy imposing a $100,000 fee on new H-1B visa petitions. H-1B visas allow U.S. employers to hire highly skilled foreign national workers in roles that require specialized skills, including as physicians, researchers, nurses, and other vital workers, to alleviate nationwide labor shortages. The new fee would create a costly barrier for employers, especially public sector and government employers, trying to fill these positions. In the lawsuit, Attorney General Bonta and the coalition allege that the policy, which has been implemented by the Department of Homeland Security (DHS), is a clear violation of the law because it imposes a massive fee outside of the bounds of what is authorized by Congress and contrary to Congress’s intent in establishing the H-1B program, bypasses required rulemaking procedures, and exceeds the authority granted to the executive branch under the Administrative Procedure Act (APA). 

“As the world’s fourth largest economy, California knows that when skilled talent from around the world joins our workforce, it drives our state forward. President Trump’s illegal $100,000 H-1B visa fee creates unnecessary — and illegal — financial burdens on California public employers and other providers of vital services, exacerbating labor shortages in key sectors,” said Attorney General Bonta. “The Trump Administration thinks it can raise costs on a whim, but the law says otherwise. We are going to court to defend California’s residents and their access to the world-class universities, schools, and hospitals that make Californians proud to call this state home.”  

The H-1B visa program allows employers to petition for high-skilled foreign workers to temporarily fill positions in specialty occupations that require at least a bachelor’s degree. In petitioning for an H-1B worker, the employer must submit an application, certified by the U.S. Department of Labor, that employment of the H-1B worker will not negatively affect the wages and working conditions of similarly employed U.S. workers. Congress limits the number of H-1B visas available each year for most private employers, with the current cap set at 65,000, with an exemption of 20,000 for individuals with a master’s degree or higher. Since its inception, the H-1B visa program has been continually tailored by Congress to carry out its purpose of meeting employers’ labor needs, while protecting the interests of American workers to ensure that they are not wrongfully displaced. Congress has repeatedly enhanced enforcement, increased penalties, and legislated on fees for H-1B petitions to prevent misuse of the program. Congress has also adapted the program to ensure that it is especially beneficial to many government and non-profit organizations in fulfilling their public service missions, exempting them from the 65,000-person cap.

On September 19, 2025, President Trump issued a proclamation ordering an unprecedented $100,000 fee for new H-1B visa petitions, undermining the very purpose of the H-1B visa by making it harder to address severe labor shortages in critical fields such as education and healthcare and ultimately worsening the staffing crisis. As implemented by DHS through a series of written documents, the policy affects any application filed after September 21, 2025, and grants the Secretary of Homeland Security broad discretion to determine which petitions are subject to the fee or for an exemption, raising concerns that the enforcement could be applied selectively against employers disfavored by the Trump Administration.  

The $100,000 visa fee is devastating for all states, including California, and threatens the quality of education, healthcare, and other core services available to our residents. For example, the United States faces a nationwide teacher shortage and in the 2024-2025 school year, 74% of school districts in the U.S. reported having trouble filling open positions, particularly in special education, physical sciences, ESL or bilingual education, and foreign languages. Educators are the third-largest occupation for H-1B visa holders, with nearly 30,000 educators on the visas, and nearly a thousand colleges and universities employ hundreds of H-1B personnel to support their research and education missions. Because K-12 schools, colleges, and universities are generally government or non-profit entities, they are incapable of absorbing an additional $100,000 for each H-1B hire. 

Hospitals and other healthcare centers also rely on the H-1B visa program to hire physicians, surgeons and nurses, often times in low-income and working-class neighborhoods. Nearly 17,000 H-1B visas went to workers in medicine and health occupations in the 2024 fiscal year, and half of those were physicians and surgeons. Without foreign-trained physicians, the United States is projecting a shortfall of 86,000 physicians by 2036. There will not be enough doctors to care for older adults, many of whom suffer increased rates of chronic disease and have other complex medical needs. In California, access to specialists and primary care providers in rural areas is already extremely limited and is projected to worsen as physicians retire and these communities struggle to attract new doctors. As a result of the fee, these institutions will be forced to operate with inadequate staffing or divert funding away from other important programs to cover expenses. 

In today’s lawsuit, Attorney General Bonta and the coalition allege that the Trump Administration’s H-1B visa fee violates the APA and the U.S. Constitution. Fees associated with H-1B visas have long been established by DHS following the APA’s notice-and-comment process pursuant to congressional authority, which limits fees to the amount necessary to sustain the agency’s work. Typically, an employer filing an initial H-1B petition would expect to pay between $960 to $7,595 in regulatory and statutory fees. The Trump Administration’s $100,000 fee far exceeds the actual cost of processing H-1B petitions. By imposing this fee, the Administration is exceeding the fee-setting authority granted by Congress, which requires that fees be set based on the agency’s costs, rather than arbitrarily. Additionally, the Trump Administration issued the fee without going through the notice-and-comment process required by the APA and without considering the full range of impacts — especially on the provision of the critical services by government and nonprofit entities.

Attorney General Bonta and Massachusetts Attorney General Andrea Joy Campbell are leading the attorneys general of Arizona, Colorado, Connecticut, Delaware, Hawaii, Illinois, Maryland, Michigan, Minnesota, Nevada, North Carolina, New Jersey, New York, Oregon, Rhode Island, Vermont, Washington, and Wisconsin in filing the lawsuit. 

Please see here for a copy of the complaint. 

Court issues permanent injunction blocking Trump Administration from illegally shutting down the FEMA BRIC program

OAKLAND — California Attorney General Rob Bonta and a coalition of 20 states today secured a permanent injunction blocking the Trump Administration’s unlawful attempt to shut down the Federal Emergency Management Agency’s (FEMA) bipartisan Building Resilient Infrastructure and Communities (BRIC) program. Since 2020, FEMA has made billions of dollars available under the BRIC program to prepare for and mitigate the risks from disasters before they happen. California is the largest beneficiary of this program and could receive over a billion dollars for future projects that FEMA had selected for grant funding before the program was unlawfully terminated. 

“FEMA’s BRIC program provides critical funding that helps communities prepare for disasters before they strike,” said Attorney General Bonta. “The BRIC program has bipartisan support. It saves taxpayers money. It improves our infrastructure, and it protects our communities. It’s a win-win. That’s why we went to court to protect this program when the Trump Administration attempted to unlawfully shut it down. Today, the court ruled in our favor, issuing a final ruling that ensures this funding continues to flow to climate resilience projects across our state.”

In the aftermath of Hurricane Katrina, Congress passed a law mandating that FEMA must protect communities through four interrelated functions – mitigation, preparation, response, and recovery. The BRIC program is at the core of FEMA’s mitigation efforts. BRIC projects are required to be cost-effective, and a recent study concluded that every dollar FEMA spends on mitigation saves an average of six dollars in post-disaster costs. The BRIC program supports often difficult-to-fund projects, such as constructing evacuation shelters and flood walls, safeguarding utility grids against wildfires, protecting wastewater and drinking water infrastructure, and fortifying bridges, roadways, and culverts.   

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.

Today’s court decision affirms the coalition’s position that FEMA’s decision to abruptly terminate the BRIC program is in direct violation of Congress’s decision to fund it, and that the Executive Branch has no lawful authority to unilaterally refuse to spend funds appropriated by Congress. The judge also concluded that FEMA’s actions violate the Separation of Powers doctrine and the Administrative Procedure Act. The decision prevents FEMA from terminating the BRIC program and requires the restoration of these critical funds to the communities relying on them.   

Attorney General Bonta joins the attorneys general of Massachusetts, Washington, Arizona, Colorado, Connecticut, Delaware, Illinois, Maine, Maryland, Michigan, Minnesota, New Jersey, New Mexico, New York, North Carolina, Oregon, Rhode Island, Vermont, Wisconsin, the governors of Pennsylvania and Kentucky, and the District of Columbia.

Order returns command of remaining California National Guard troops in Los Angeles back to Governor 

OAKLAND — California Attorney General Rob Bonta today secured a decision by the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California ending the continued federalization and deployment of California National Guard troops in and around Los Angeles. After using isolated incidents of violence in June as a pretext to federalize the California National Guard, the Trump Administration implemented a months-long military occupation of the Los Angeles area, without any justification, and with no apparent end in sight. In an order today granting a preliminary injunction, the District Court said, “The Founders designed our government to be a system of checks and balances. Defendants, however, make clear that the only check they want is a blank one.” The District Court stayed its order until December 15, 2025. 

“Once again, a court has firmly rejected the President’s attempt to make the National Guard a traveling national police force,” said Attorney General Bonta. “For more than five months, the Trump Administration has held California National Guard troops hostage as part of its political games. But the President is not king. And he cannot federalize the National Guard whenever, wherever, and for however long he wants, without justification. This is a good day for our democracy and the strength of the rule of law.” 

BACKGROUND  

Attorney General Bonta is committed to holding President Trump and his Administration accountable for overreaching their authority under the law and infringing on Californians’ constitutional rights in their efforts to transform America into a military state and National Guard troops into the President’s personal police force.  

• Initial Federalization of California National Guard: In June, Attorney General Bonta and Governor Newsom filed a lawsuit challenging the Trump Administration’s unlawful orders to federalize the California National Guard and utilize National Guard troops for civilian law enforcement in Los Angeles in violation of the Posse Comitatus Act. That same week, the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California granted California emergency relief, blocking the federalization order and returning command of the California National Guard to Governor Newsom; that order is currently stayed by the Ninth Circuit pending appeal. 
• Posse Comitatus Act Violations: In August, the Attorney General’s Office presented evidence of Posse Comitatus Act violations during a three-day trial before the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California. The Court subsequently granted a permanent injunction enjoining the Trump Administration from engaging in the same or similar activity in the future. The Court’s order is temporarily paused while the Ninth Circuit considers the federal government’s motion for a stay. 
• Deployment of California National Guard Troops to Oregon: In October, Attorney General Bonta secured a final ruling blocking the unlawful deployment of California National Guard troops to Portland, Oregon over the objections of both states’ governors. Over the course of a three day trial, attorneys for the California Department of Justice, Oregon Department of Justice, and Portland City Attorney’s Office presented evidence and argued in court that the federalization and deployment of the Oregon National Guard and the cross-state deployment of the California National Guard to Portland was beyond the authority of the federal government and violates the Tenth Amendment of the U.S. Constitution.
• Supporting Other States’ Cases: Attorney General Bonta has previously supported Illinois Attorney General Kwame Raoul’s, Oregon Attorney General Dan Rayfield’s and D.C. Attorney General Brian Schwalb’s lawsuits challenging the Trump Administration’s unlawful deployment of National Guard troops to their cities. Most recently, Attorney General Bonta filed an amicus brief in the U.S. Supreme Court in Trump v. Illinois in support of Illinois’s lawsuit challenging the federalization and deployment of the Illinois National Guard to Chicago.

OAKLAND — California Attorney General Bonta today celebrated the decision from the U.S. District Court for the District of Massachusetts invalidating the Trump Administration’s action freezing the development of wind energy and declaring that action unlawful. Wind energy is a homegrown source of reliable, affordable energy that supports hundreds of thousands of jobs, creates billions of dollars in economic activity and tax payments, and already supplies more than 10% of the country’s electricity. Today’s decision vacates the Trump Administration’s “Day One” executive memorandum, which imposed an indefinite moratorium on offshore and onshore wind energy projects and brings the lawsuit filed by the attorneys general lawsuit to a final resolution subject to appeal. 

“Today, we celebrate another victory against the Trump Administration. A court has agreed with California and our sister states nationwide: The Trump Administration’s attempt to thwart states’ efforts to make energy more clean, reliable, and affordable for our residents is unlawful and cannot stand,” said Attorney General Bonta. “The Trump Administration seems intent on raising costs on American families at every juncture — and California is equally committed to challenging every one of its illegal attempts to make life more expensive for Californians.”

BACKGROUND: 

On January 20, 2025, President Trump issued an Executive Memorandum that, among other things, indefinitely halted all federal approvals necessary for the development of offshore and onshore wind energy projects pending an indefinite federal review of wind leasing and permitting practices. Pursuant to this directive, federal agencies stopped all permitting and approval activities related to onshore or offshore wind energy projects. 

In addition to relying on onshore wind energy, in California, there are also currently five federal offshore wind leases off of California’s coast. Two are located offshore by Humboldt, while the remaining three are offshore from Morro Bay. These new developments are designed to bring substantial amounts of clean energy to the grid, including enough to power 1.6 million homes and potentially more. The President’s directive would have not only derailed the transition to clean energy but would have also threatened to increase consumer energy costs and jeopardized the creation of thousands of union jobs and the increased economic activity to the Humboldt area.

In May, Attorney General Bonta joined a multistate coalition in suing the Administration, alleging that the President’s memorandum would harm states’ efforts to secure reliable, diversified, and affordable sources of energy to meet the increasing demand for electricity and help reduce emissions of harmful air pollutants, meet clean energy goals, and address climate change. The directive also presented a looming threat to the states’ significant investments in wind industry infrastructure, supply chains, and workforce development — investments that already total billions of dollars.

OAKLAND — California Attorney General Rob Bonta this week filed an amicus brief opposing the Trump Administration’s emergency appeal of a preliminary injunction order by the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia blocking the deployment of National Guard troops from D.C. and seven other states to D.C. Attorney General Bonta co-leads a coalition of 22 attorneys general and three governors in asserting that the deployment of National Guard troops without the consent of D.C. is unlawful, unconstitutional, and undemocratic. Domestic use of the military has long been recognized as antithetical to American values, and as California’s experience has shown, it is deeply damaging to state sovereignty, local economies, public safety, and troop morale. In the brief, Attorney General Bonta and the coalition urge the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit to uphold the lower court’s orders and make clear that the Constitution prohibits this unjustified deployment of the National Guard to police our communities.  

“President Trump is engaging in a sweeping effort to deploy National Guard troops to police American cities. This unprecedented abuse of presidential authority is unlawful, and it’s putting our communities at risk,” said Attorney General Bonta. “California has experienced first-hand the harms resulting from a continuous military presence. People scared to leave their homes. Local businesses losing customers. Distrust of law enforcement that makes our communities less safe. It’s past time the President ends this farce and allows National Guard troops to return to the essential roles they are actually trained for.” 

The experience of California, as the first state to experience President Trump’s deployment of the National Guard without its Governor’s consent, serves as a warning of the harm caused by a continuous military presence in a state. For more than five months, federalized California National Guard troops have been deployed in California’s communities. During this time, the troops’ presence has stoked fear among Californians, causing the public to stay home, fail to report for work, and avoid areas where the military is deployed. The use of federalized National Guard troops has damaged trust between local law enforcement and the community, as troops have been tasked with civilian law enforcement and were widely present during immigration raids in the first few weeks of their deployment. These troops were diverted away from essential state functions, like fighting wildfires or engaging in fentanyl interdiction. For example, in June 2025, the majority of the California National Guard’s specialized fire crews were diverted from their wildfire-fighting task force in the midst of peak fire season and instead deployed into the streets of Los Angeles.  

With California’s experience as a lesson, as well as the more recent experiences of Oregon and Illinois, Attorney General Bonta and the coalition argue that:

• Using the military for local law enforcement, as the President has done in the D.C., upsets the careful balance between civilian and military authority set forth in the Constitution.
• The deployment of National Guard troops infringes on the police powers reserved to States and localities. The Constitution establishes a federal government of limited, enumerated powers — general police power is not among them.  
• National Guard troops are not prepared to engage in civilian law enforcement, lacking training in criminal procedure, civil rights, criminal investigation, and de-escalation. This introduces complications and dangers to both the public and the troops engaging with them. 
• States need the National Guard to be available for vital natural disaster and security functions.

Attorney General Bonta is joined by the attorneys general of Maryland, Arizona, Colorado, Connecticut, Delaware, Hawaiʻi, Illinois, Maine, Massachusetts, Michigan, Minnesota, Nevada, New Jersey, New Mexico, New York, North Carolina, Oregon, Rhode Island, Vermont, Washington, and Wisconsin, as well as the governors of Kansas, Kentucky, and Pennsylvania in filing the amicus brief.