Federal Accountability

OAKLAND — California Attorney General Rob Bonta, as part of a coalition of 19 attorneys general, today announced filing an amicus brief in Pacito v. Trump in support of a challenge to the suspension of refugee entry and application processing, and the stop work orders for refugee resettlement agencies. In their brief, the attorneys general argue that the Trump Administration's Refugee Ban and Refugee Funding Suspension are unlawful, misrepresent the concerns and interests of states, and undermine states’ ongoing efforts to successfully assimilate and integrate newly arrived refugees.

“The foundation of our nation was built by people seeking to create a better life away from persecution,” said Attorney General Bonta. “Refugees are not a burden — they're a benefit to states. Refugees contribute to our communities both socially and economically as business owners, doctors, teachers, and neighbors. In California, we are home to approximately 50,000 refugee entrepreneurs who bring in an estimated $1.9 billion in business income collectively. The actions by the Trump Administration are unlawful and directly undermine the efforts of states like California to welcome people into our communities.”

Each year, thousands of refugees are admitted into the United States and welcomed into communities across the country where they can connect with services, resources, and members of their family or cultural community; these resources help them not just adjust but thrive. During the first Trump Administration, President Trump issued an executive order requiring states and towns to opt in if they wanted to resettle refugees; despite the order being quickly enjoined, 42 states and more than 100 mayors elected to opt in. States recognize the benefits of refugee resettlement and are proud to be home to large and diverse refugee populations, whose presence not only enriches the social fabric of our states and local communities, but also promotes a vibrant economy.

The Refugee Ban, which imposes by executive order an indefinite suspension on all refugee entry and refugee application processing, conflicts with the established Refugee Act by suspending entry and final approvals even for “follow-to-join” refugees — the spouses or unmarried under-21-year-old children of admitted refugees — despite Congress’s judgment that those persons “shall” be entitled to admission so long as they are not specifically barred on other grounds.

The Refugee Funding Suspension, which relies on the President's executive order regarding foreign aid, suspends federal funding for resettlement agencies that help refugees apply for admission and help refugees who have been admitted into our country and are already present in the states. The suspension directly prevents agencies from fulfilling their statutorily mandated task of providing basic needs and ensuring economic self-sufficiency and effective resettlement of refugees.

In the amicus brief, the coalition urges the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Washington to grant a preliminary injunction preventing this order from going into effect, arguing that both the Refugee Ban and the Refugee Funding Suspension are unlawful and:

• Conflict and misrepresent states interests, ignoring states’ existing role in the distribution of refugees before their placements; and
• Harm states by disrupting critical work to assimilate and integrate refugees by depriving them of basic needs and essential services.

In filing the amicus brief, Attorney General Bonta joins the attorneys general of Washington, Massachusetts, Arizona, Colorado, Connecticut, Delaware, Hawaii, Illinois, Maine, Maryland, Michigan, Minnesota, Nevada, New Jersey, New York, Rhode Island, Vermont, and Wisconsin.  

A copy of the brief can be found here.

OAKLAND – California Attorney General Rob Bonta today, as part of a coalition of 20 attorneys general, filed an amicus brief in Talbott v. Trump in support of a challenge to President Trump’s executive order attempting to prohibit transgender servicemembers from serving in the military in any capacity. The plaintiffs in this case are six active-duty servicemembers and two individuals seeking enlistment. In the brief, the attorneys general argue that the executive order undermines our nation’s military, jeopardizes the ability of the National Guard to respond effectively to natural disasters and to ensure states’ security, and threatens states’ efforts to protect the rights of their LGBTQ+ communities.

“Today we are filing an amicus brief to protect the rights of the hard-working military servicemembers who have dedicated their life to service and to protecting our lives and our country. The Trump Administration’s decision to single out and discriminate against transgender servicemembers is an insult to all who serve; it’s also unlawful,” said Attorney General Bonta. “As home to approximately 2.8 million LGBTQ+ individuals, California will continue to stand up for the rights of our transgender community as they seek to live their lives as their authentic selves.”

California has the nation’s largest concentration of military personnel as well as military bases. If allowed to stand, this executive order would substantially impact California’s interests. California relies heavily on the California National Guard, which provides critical services for the state. This includes responding to national security threats and natural disasters, like the recent devastating fires in Los Angeles. Transgender servicemembers, like all other servicemembers, are qualified individuals who volunteer their lives to service, protecting and providing for our nation in times of need.

In the amicus brief, the coalition urges the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia to grant a preliminary injunction preventing this order from going into effect, arguing that banning transgender individuals from military service will:

• Harm National Guard recruitment efforts, jeopardizing states’ security and readiness;
• Undermine states’ institutions and efforts to uphold and protect the rights of their LGBTQ+ communities;
• Harm the states’ transgender veterans, active servicemembers, and those who wish to serve; and
• Weaken the military’s role as an inclusive institution by imposing discriminatory policies.

In filing the amicus brief, Attorney General Bonta joins the attorneys general of Vermont, Washington, Colorado, Connecticut, Delaware, Hawaii, Illinois, Maine, Maryland, Massachusetts, Michigan, Minnesota, Nevada, New Jersey, New York, North Carolina, Oregon, Rhode Island, and Wisconsin. 

A copy of the brief can be found here.

Musk was never elected, nominated, or confirmed — an affront to the U.S. Constitution

OAKLAND — California Attorney General Rob Bonta today joined a coalition of 14 attorneys general in filing a lawsuit that challenges Elon Musk’s unlawful exercise of power. In today’s lawsuit, the attorneys general argue that Mr. Musk, an unconfirmed, unelected government employee, is exercising authority that exceeds what the U.S. Constitution permits. In his commanding of the Department of Government Efficiency (DOGE), the lawsuit alleges, Mr. Musk is acting with at least as much authority as a “principal officer of the United States” — a position that only Congress can create and one that requires Senate confirmation. The lawsuit alleges that, by acting as a “principal officer,” Mr. Musk is acting in violation of the U.S. Constitution’s Appointments Clause, and the coalition seeks to immediately halt this unlawful exercise of power. 

“Elon Musk does not occupy a position that Congress created or that the Senate confirmed — Mr. Musk occupies a position the President made up. This is a clear and dangerous effort to bypass the nomination and confirmation process required under the Constitution. DOGE’s ransacking of federal agencies has sown tremendous chaos, instilled distrust among the American people, and has caused deep harm to our country,” said Attorney General Bonta. “Like a bull in a china shop, Mr. Musk is wielding an enormous amount of illegitimized power over sensitive systems and important government programs that are vital to the American way of life.”

In the lawsuit filed today, the attorneys general argue that Mr. Musk has unraveled federal agencies, accessed sensitive data, and caused widespread disruption for state and local governments, as well as critical systems American people rely on daily. By disrupting billions of dollars in federal funding essential for law enforcement, healthcare, education, and other critical services, Mr. Musk’s actions harm the states, including California. 

In filing today's lawsuit, Attorney General Bonta joins the attorneys general of New Mexico, Arizona, Michigan, Connecticut, Hawaii, Maryland, Massachusetts, Minnesota, Nevada, Oregon, Rhode Island, Vermont, and Washington.  

A copy of the complaint can be found here. A copy of the request for a TRO can be found here. 

OAKLAND – California Attorney General Rob Bonta today, along with the attorneys general of New Jersey, Massachusetts, Delaware, Colorado, Connecticut, Hawaii, Maine, Maryland, Michigan, Nevada, New York, and Vermont, and the City and County of San Francisco, issued a joint statement in response to a decision by the U.S. District Court for the District of Massachusetts granting a preliminary injunction against President Trump’s unconstitutional executive order terminating birthright citizenship. On January 21, 2025, Attorney General Bonta, New Jersey Attorney General Matt Platkin, and Massachusetts Attorney General Andrea Campbell led a coalition of 19 states in filing a lawsuit challenging the order.

“President Trump may believe that he is above the law, but today’s preliminary injunction sends a clear message: He is not a king, and he cannot rewrite the Constitution with the stroke of a pen. 

“The President and his allies made clear long before he was sworn in that they would pursue this illegal action, and our coalition was prepared to challenge it as soon as President Trump fulfilled this unconstitutional campaign promise on Inauguration Day.

“We immediately stood up for our Constitution, for the rule of law, and for American children across the country who would have been deprived of their constitutional rights – and today we delivered for them. This is not yet over, and we will continue to fight every single step of the way until President Trump is permanently prevented from trampling on the Fourteenth Amendment rights of all Americans.”

President Trump issued an executive order on January 20, 2025, fulfilling his campaign promise to end birthright citizenship, in violation of the Fourteenth Amendment of the United States Constitution and Section 1401 of the Immigration and Nationality Act. To stop the President’s unlawful action, which would have harmed hundreds of thousands of American children and their families, the coalition sued in the District of Massachusetts to invalidate the executive order and to enjoin any actions taken to implement it. The states requested immediate relief to prevent the President’s order from taking effect. The request was granted by Judge Leo Sorokin. 

Birthright citizenship dates back centuries—including to pre-Civil War America. Although the Supreme Court’s notorious decision in Dred Scott denied birthright citizenship to the descendants of slaves, the post-Civil War United States adopted the Fourteenth Amendment to protect citizenship for children born in this country. As the filings explain, the U.S. Supreme Court has repeatedly confirmed that birthright citizenship does not depend on the immigration status of the baby’s parents.

If allowed to stand, this order would have, for the first time since the Fourteenth Amendment was adopted in 1868, meant thousands of babies born each year in California who otherwise would have been citizens would no longer enjoy the privileges and benefits of citizenship. The children whose citizenship would be stripped by the President’s order would lose their most basic rights and would be forced to live under the threat of deportation. They would lose eligibility for a wide range of federal services and programs. They would lose their ability obtain a Social Security number and, as they age, to work lawfully. And they would lose their right to vote, serve on juries, and run for certain offices. Despite the Constitution’s guarantee of citizenship, thousands of children would — for the first time — lose their ability to fully and fairly be a part of American society as a citizen with all its benefits and privileges.

In addition to harming hundreds of thousands of residents, the President’s order would have significantly harmed the States themselves, too. Among other things, this order would cause the states to lose federal funding to programs that they administer, such as Medicaid, the Children’s Health Insurance Program, and foster care and adoption assistance programs, which all turn at least in part on the immigration status of the resident being served. States would also be required — at their considerable expense — to immediately begin modifying their operation and administration of benefits programs to account for this change, which would impose significant burdens on multiple agencies that operate programs for the benefit of the States’ residents. The States’ filings explain that they should not have to bear these dramatic costs while their case proceeds because the order is directly inconsistent with the Constitution, the Immigration and Nationality Act, and two U.S. Supreme Court decisions.

A copy of the court’s decision is available here. A copy of the preliminary injunction order is available here. 

OAKLAND — California Attorney General Rob Bonta today issued the following statement in response to the U.S. District Court for Massachusetts granting a temporary restraining order that bars the Trump Administration’s unlawful and drastic National Institutes of Health (NIH) funding cuts from taking effect. Attorney General Bonta, as part of a coalition of 22 attorneys general, announced suing the Trump Administration over the NIH funding cuts earlier today and sought the temporary restraining order at issue. The temporary restraining order is in effect within the Plaintiff States until further order from the court.

“I am pleased that the federal district court has promptly granted our request for a temporary restraining order. The Trump Administration unlawfully sought to eviscerate funding for medical research, and they are now blocked from doing so. My fellow attorneys general and I will be closely monitoring to ensure that the Trump Administration follows the court’s order. Public and private universities in California are doing life-saving research that would otherwise be disrupted.”

A copy of the court’s order granting the temporary restraining order can be found here.

State attorneys general continue to secure favorable decisions reining in Presidential overreach 

OAKLAND – California Attorney General Rob Bonta today issued the following statement in response to a decision by the U.S. District Court for the District of Rhode Island to enforce the court’s prior order preventing the Trump Administration from implementing its freeze of up to $3 trillion in federal funding. The decision follows a motion to enforce filed by state attorneys general on Friday in light of evidence that the Trump Administration was continuing to block the disbursement of important state funding, including funding under the Inflation Reduction Act and Infrastructure, Investment, and Jobs Act, and for the National Institutes of Health. 

“The Trump Administration continued to improperly freeze vital federal funding more than a week after a court ordered it not to, jeopardizing California’s efforts to strengthen domestic energy security and the construction of critical infrastructure projects,” said Attorney General Bonta. “No Administration is above the law. In every case we’ve filed to date, state attorneys general have successfully restrained the President’s abuse of executive power – and we will continue to hold him accountable; our democratic institutions depend on it. The court’s decision today is unequivocal: The Trump Administration must fully comply with the court’s order and immediately restore all federal funding while our litigation continues."

Attorney General Bonta is leading a coalition of 23 attorney general, along with the attorneys general of New York, Rhode Island, Massachusetts, and Illinois, in bringing this litigation.

A copy of the court’s decision in available here.

Coalition also seeks court order barring Trump Administration from implementing drastic funding cuts

OAKLAND — As part of a coalition of 22 attorneys general, California Attorney General Rob Bonta today announced filing a lawsuit against the Trump Administration, the Department of Health and Human Services, and the National Institutes of Health (NIH) for unlawfully decimating funds that support cutting-edge medical and public health research at universities and research institutions across the country. Filed in the U.S. District Court for Massachusetts, the lawsuit challenges the Trump Administration’s attempt to unilaterally cut “indirect cost” reimbursements at every research institution throughout the country, including at the University of California (UC) and at the California State University (CSU). Indirect cost reimbursements are based on each institution’s unique needs, negotiated with the federal government through a carefully regulated process, and then memorialized in an executed agreement. In addition to filing today’s lawsuit, the coalition is seeking a temporary restraining order to bar the Trump Administration’s action from taking effect.

“We are suing President Trump and his administration because they are once again violating the law. Let’s be clear about what they are seeking to do now: they want to eviscerate funding for medical research that helps develop new cures and treatments for diseases like cancer and Alzheimer’s,” said Attorney General Rob Bonta. “The stakes are especially high here in California. Ours is a state known as a national and global leader in life-saving biomedical research, and I will not allow the Trump Administration to jeopardize the extraordinary work being done right now by scientists, scholars, medical professionals, and other workers.”

“Like scores of institutions across the country, the University of California has relied on NIH grants to pursue life-saving research that benefits Americans nationwide,” said UC President Michael V. Drake, M.D. “Cuts of this magnitude would deal a devastating blow to our country’s research and innovation enterprise, undermine our global competitiveness, and, if allowed to go forward, will ultimately delay or derail progress toward treatment and cures for many of the most serious diseases that plague us today. We stand ready to fight to protect this critical investment in a healthier and more prosperous America.”

"Federal grant funding is vital to the CSU’s teaching and research mission, which addresses some of society’s most urgent challenges in health care, agriculture, water, fire prevention and cybersecurity,” said CSU spokesperson Jason Maymon. “The NIH’s drastic reduction in reimbursement for previously agreed upon administrative costs will leave the CSU’s 23 universities with millions in unfunded expenses, jeopardizing critical research and support systems needed for program success. This decision threatens not only groundbreaking research but also the future of student innovation and scientific progress."

"UAW 4811 is proud to support this suit because of its tremendous impact on our members and the critical research they do on projects ranging from cancer to Alzheimer's disease,” said UAW 4811 President Rafael Jaime.

This past Friday, February 7, the NIH announced it would abruptly slash indirect cost rates to an across-the-board 15% rate, which is significantly less than the cost required to perform cutting edge medical research. The NIH purported to make this cut effective the very next business day, Monday, February 10, giving universities and institutions no time to plan for the enormous budget gaps they are now facing. The reimbursements at issue cover expenses to facilitate biomedical research, like lab, faculty, infrastructure, and utility costs. Without immediate relief, this action could result in the suspension of lifesaving and life-extending clinical trials, disruption of research programs, staffing cuts, and laboratory closures. 

In today’s lawsuit, the attorneys general argue that the Trump Administration’s action violates the Administrative Procedure Act in multiple ways. For example, the attorneys general argue that the action is arbitrary and capricious and violates a directive Congress passed during President Trump’s first term to fend off his earlier proposal to drastically cut research reimbursements. That statutory language, still in effect, prohibits the NIH from requiring categorial and indiscriminate changes to indirect cost reimbursements.  

Most NIH-funding research occurs outside of federal government institutions such as both public and private universities and colleges. In California, this includes: 

• The University of California. The UC system has 21 health professional sciences schools, five NCI-designated cancer centers, and six academic medical centers widely recognized as among the best in the nation, and they are international leaders in the education of health professionals, in research that develops new cures and treatments, and in public service that provides healthcare for all Californians regardless of ability to pay. Federal funds are UC’s single most important source of support for its research, accounting for more than half of UC’s total research awards. In Fiscal Year 2023, UC received a total of over $2 billion in NIH contract and grant funding.
• The California State University. The CSU system is the largest public university system in the United States and consists of 23 campuses. In the last audited year, CSU campuses received approximately $158 million in NIH funds.  

The NIH is the primary source of federal funding for medical research in the United States. Medical research funding by NIH grants have led to innumerable scientific breakthroughs, including the discovery of treatment for cancers of all types, the first sequencing of DNA, and the development of the MRI. Additionally, dozens of NIH-supported scientists have earned Nobel Prizes for their groundbreaking scientific work. 

In filing today’s lawsuit, Attorney General Bonta joins the attorneys general of: Arizona, Connecticut, Colorado, Delaware, Hawaii, Illinois, Maine, Maryland, Massachusetts, Michigan, Minnesota, Nevada, New Jersey, New Mexico, New York, North Carolina, Oregon, Rhode Island, Vermont, Washington, and Wisconsin.

A copy of the lawsuit can be found here. 

Court finds DOGE access heightens risk of U.S. Treasury Department's vulnerability to hacking 

OAKLAND – California Attorney General Rob Bonta today issued the following statement on the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York's decision granting a temporary restraining order that immediately blocked Department of Government Efficiency (DOGE) associates from accessing Americans’ personal and private information while the states’ litigation proceeds. 

“Our country cannot afford to have people in the driver’s seat who move fast and break things, especially when the things they’re breaking are critical and sensitive systems that millions of Americans’ rely on. We are pleased the court swiftly granted our request to block unauthorized personnel, including DOGE associates, from accessing millions of Americans’ private and sensitive data,” said Attorney General Bonta. “The President does not hold the power to give Americans’ bank account and social security numbers to anyone he’d like — and as of Friday night, he must stop doing so.” 

Yesterday, Attorney General Bonta joined a coalition of 19 attorneys general in filing a lawsuit seeking to block DOGE associates from accessing sensitive Treasury Department material, including millions of Americans’ bank account and social security numbers. Hours after filing the lawsuit, the court responded by granting the requested temporary restraining order while the states seek a preliminary injunction.

While the order is in effect, the Trump Administration may not grant access to Treasury Department records to political appointees, special government employees, and any government employee from an agency outside the Treasury Department’s Bureau of Fiscal Services, including members of DOGE. Treasury Department material may not be accessed by any person outside of civil servants within the Bureau of Fiscal Services who have passed all background checks and security clearances. The order also directs any person prohibited above from having sensitive information, but who has accessed such information, records, and systems since January 20, 2025, to immediately destroy all copies of material. 

A copy of the decision is available here.

DOGE access blatantly violates Americans’ right to privacy

OAKLAND — California Attorney General Rob Bonta today filed a lawsuit challenging the Trump Administration’s decision to expand access to data maintained by the Treasury Department’s Bureau of the Fiscal Service (BFS). In today’s lawsuit, 19 attorneys general argue that this executive action has allowed people associated with the Department of Government Efficiency (DOGE) to access Americans’ personal and private information, including bank account and social security numbers. The lawsuit seeks to immediately halt improper access to this sensitive information while litigation proceeds. 

“President Trump’s and the Treasury Department’s actions to allow DOGE access to Americans’ private information is chilling and unconstitutional — and Americans are paying attention,” said Attorney General Bonta. “Millions entrust the federal government to carry out vital operations that people rely on every day. In doing so, we also entrust them with our sensitive and personal information. This week’s action is a breach of that trust and a gross and blatant power grab. The President does not hold the power to give Americans’ bank account and social security numbers to anyone he’d like. I am proud to stand with attorneys general around the country to demand the immediate halt to this violation of both trust and law.”

Since Inauguration Day, DOGE has infiltrated executive agencies with the goal of eliminating federal funding, services, and personnel. Starting last week, there have been reports of billionaire Elon Musk and his DOGE associates gaining an unprecedented level of access to vital payment systems of the U.S. Treasury, which provide access to Americans’ extremely sensitive information, like social security numbers. 

The Treasury Department payment systems — managed by BFS — are responsible for trillions of dollars in U.S. government payments. Millions of Americans rely on the support of these payments for services like health care, childcare, and other essential programs, like Social Security, Medicare benefits, veteran’s benefits, salaries for federal employees, and tax refunds. The Treasury Department’s payment systems are critical, sensitive, and incredibly vital. Given their critical importance to U.S. government operations, these systems have been highly regulated and tightly guarded — but with the election of Donald Trump, are no longer safe. 

In the complaint filed today, the attorneys general allege the Trump Administration has no constitutional, statutory, or regulatory authority to widen access to the BFS payment system for political appointees or special government employees, including members of DOGE. As such, the attorneys general seek both a temporary restraining order to immediately stop this practice and a permanent injunction barring political appointees, special government employees, and any government employee from an agency outside the Treasury Department from accessing BFS systems and Americans’ private personally identifying information. 

In filing the lawsuit today, Attorney General Bonta is joined by the attorneys general of New York, Arizona, Colorado, Connecticut, Delaware, Hawaii, Illinois, Maine, Maryland, Massachusetts, Minnesota, Nevada, New Jersey, North Carolina, Oregon, Rhode Island, Vermont, and Wisconsin. 

A copy of the complaint can be found here. A copy of the request for a temporary restraining order can be found here. 

In light of evidence of Trump Administration continuing to block state funding under the Inflation Reduction Act and Infrastructure, Investment, and Jobs Act, states file motion to enforce existing court order 

Preliminary injunction motion highlights the significant threats posed by the Trump Administration’s funding freeze, affecting access to food, healthcare, and crucial services that states provide  

More than $100 billion in Medicaid funding, tens of billions in infrastructure and climate funding, among the funding at risk in just California 

OAKLAND — California Attorney General Rob Bonta today led a coalition of 23 attorneys general in filing a motion to enforce and a motion for preliminary injunction in NY v. Trump, the ongoing lawsuit challenging actions by President Trump, the Office of Management and Budget (OMB), and federal agencies attempting to pause nearly $3 trillion in federal assistance funding allocated to the states that support critical programs and services that benefit the American people. The coalition today seeks to preliminarily enjoin the Trump Administration’s actions to impose a funding freeze, emphasizing the widespread and irreparable harm to states, which rely on billions of dollars of critical federal assistance for public services that ensure access to education, clean air and water, and health care and that support essential infrastructure projects.  

The motion further highlights the harm states face if funds under the Inflation Reduction Act (IRA) and Infrastructure, Investment, and Jobs Act (IIJA, also known as the Bipartisan Infrastructure Law) are not allocated as required by statute. IRA and IIJA funding strengthens domestic energy security, reduces energy costs, diversifies our domestic energy resources, rebuilds our domestic manufacturing economy, bolsters and modernizes critical infrastructure, and creates well-paying jobs while simultaneously reducing harmful pollution. Citing evidence of ongoing disruptions impacting disbursements to states, and federal funds that remain blocked under the IRA and IIJA despite the court’s Temporary Restraining Order (TRO), which remains in place, the coalition also seeks to enforce the TRO to require the Trump Administration to disperse these funds.  

“Let’s be crystal clear: the power of the purse belongs to Congress, not the President,” said Attorney General Bonta. “The Trump Administration’s dangerous and unconstitutional actions have created chaos and confusion across this country, and caused significant harm to states across the country and the millions of Americans who rely on federal funding, from children to the elderly. In yet another unlawful move, we have evidence that despite the Temporary Restraining Order we secured, the Trump Administration has continued to block funds needed for our domestic energy security, transportation, and infrastructure provided under the IRA and IIJA. We’re asking the court to enforce its order and ensure that the Trump Administration reinstates access to this critical funding. No one is above the law, and at the California Department of Justice, we will not waver in our commitment to uphold the law and ensure that necessary funding for critical programs and services in states across our country can continue.”

In just this fiscal year, California is expected to receive $168 billion in federal funds – 34% of the state’s budget – not including funding for the state’s public college and university system. This includes $107.5 billion in funding for California’s Medicaid programs, which serve approximately 14.5 million Californians, including 5 million children and 2.3 million seniors and people with disabilities. Additionally, over 9,000 full-time equivalent state employee positions are federally funded. As detailed in the preliminary injunction motion, without access to federal financial assistance, many states could face immediate cash shortfalls, making it difficult to administer basic programs like funding for healthcare and food for children and to address their most pressing needs.

Additionally, as of January 2025, California has been awarded $63 billion from the IIJA and nearly $5 billion from the IRA, not including funds going to California cities, air and water districts, or other political subdivisions. Due to ongoing disruptions impacting disbursements to states despite the court’s TRO, efforts that bolster clean energy investments, transportation, and infrastructure have been put at risk, including:

• The Home Electrification and Appliances Rebates Program, for which the IRA appropriates $4.5 billion to the Department of Energy. The rebate program, administered by state energy offices under final federal grants, subsidizes low- and moderate-income households’ purchase and installation of electric heat pump water heaters, electric heat pump space heating and cooling systems, and other home electrification projects. Thousands of California homeowners have signed up for these programs, received approvals, and even started installation in reliance on these rebates, and are stuck paying their contractors an extra $8,000 if our state energy offices cannot draw down funds. As of February 5, that remained the case: the home rebate grants were being held “for agency review.”

• The Solar for All program, administered by EPA and funded by the IRA’s Greenhouse Gas Reduction Fund, awarded $7 billion to 60 grantees to install rooftop and community solar energy projects in low-income and disadvantaged communities. These awards—all subject to final grant agreements—support the construction of cheap, resilient power in underserved neighborhoods, and provide particular protection to communities in which wildfire risk regularly causes utilities to de-energize transmission lines. As of February 5, numerous states in the coalition were unable to access their Solar For All grant accounts. 

• The Climate Pollution Reduction Grant program, administered by EPA and funded by a $5 billion IRA appropriation, supports states, tribes, and local governments in planning and implementing greenhouse-gas reduction measures. For example, the regional air district covering Los Angeles received a $500 million award, subject to a final grant agreement, to clean up the highly polluting goods movement corridor between the Imperial Valley's logistics hubs and warehouses to the Port of Los Angeles. As of February 5, this grant and other Climate Pollution Reduction Grants remained inaccessible. 

• The national air monitoring network and research program under Clean Air Act sections 103 to 105, which has been administered by EPA for the last sixty years to protect communities from dangerous pollution. The IRA appropriated $117.5 million to fund air monitoring grants under this program to increase states’ abilities to detect dangerous pollution like particulate matter (soot) and air toxics, especially in disadvantaged communities. These pollutants create a particular public health emergency in areas recovering from wildfires. As of February 5, air monitoring grants remained inaccessible. 

Amid evidence that the Trump Administration has continued to block these critical funds, in violation of the court's order, the attorneys general filed a motion to enforce to ensure that the funds are swiftly dispersed so that states can put them to use to protect for the health and well-being of their residents. 

Attorney General Bonta, along with the attorneys general of New York, Rhode Island, Massachusetts and Illinois, led the attorneys general of Arizona, Colorado, Connecticut, Delaware, the District of Columbia, Hawaii, Maine, Maryland, Michigan, Minnesota, Nevada, North Carolina, New Jersey, New Mexico, Oregon, Vermont, Washington, and Wisconsin in filing the motions.  

The motion to enforce and motion for a preliminary injunction is available here.