Democrat State AGs Secretly Planned Wave of Lawfare Against Trump

President Donald Trump has endured an unprecedented campaign of legal warfare from Democratic prosecutors and elected officials determined to obstruct his agenda.

Now, a confidential document reportedly reveals that Democratic state attorneys general began preparing their coordinated legal offensive months before voters returned Trump to the White House—and even before Democrats knew who their own presidential nominee would be.

Nearly two dozen state attorneys general began organizing potential litigation against a future Trump administration as early as April 2024, according to a document obtained by The Center Square.

The agreement was reportedly signed approximately three months before former President Joe Biden abandoned his reelection campaign and then-Vice President Kamala Harris became the Democratic nominee. It also came roughly seven months before Trump won the election and nine months before he began his second term.

Since January 2025, state attorneys general have filed nearly 100 lawsuits challenging actions taken by the Trump administration.

The document reportedly identifies the coordinated operation as the “Project for Federal Accountability.”

Former Utah Attorney General Calls Timing Unusual

Former Utah Attorney General Mark Shurtleff, who served as a Republican but has since said he frequently supports Democratic candidates, told The Center Square that the timing of the agreement was highly unusual.

Shurtleff served as Utah’s attorney general from 2001 to 2013 and participated in multistate agreements involving active litigation. However, he said he had never witnessed state officials prepare legal challenges so far in advance against an administration that had neither been elected nor taken office.

“That’s not normal at all,” Shurtleff told the outlet. “It’s a big selling point now.

“I get lots of emails from people running for attorney general, lots of texts and emails saying, ‘We’ve got to stop President Trump’ or ‘We’ve got to work together as state attorneys general. That’s why you need to give me money!’ and vice versa,” he continued.

“It goes both ways… I don’t think that’s the best use of an attorney general’s time.”

The reported agreement raises serious questions about whether the resulting lawsuits represent independent responses to specific federal actions or components of a prearranged political strategy designed to cripple Trump’s presidency through the courts.

Democratic Attorneys General File Dozens of Cases

Not every attorney general involved in the broader effort has joined every lawsuit. Different state offices have also assumed leadership roles in separate cases.

California Attorney General Rob Bonta has reportedly participated in 82 lawsuits against the Trump administration. Colorado Attorney General Phil Weiser has joined at least 75, Washington Attorney General Nick Brown has participated in 70 and Arizona Attorney General Kris Mayes has joined 46.

At a Tuesday news conference, Bonta insisted that the litigation was “apolitical.” He said California had spent approximately $19 million pursuing the cases and promised that his office would continue bringing challenges whenever it considered them justified.

“If (Trump) doesn’t want to get sued, all he has to do is follow the law,” Bonta said.

“I don’t think our cases are likely to be dismissed… Trump shows no sign of slowing down, so we will continue to sue him,” he added, per report.

Those remarks, combined with the previously undisclosed planning agreement, are likely to reinforce conservative concerns that Democratic prosecutors are using taxpayer-funded litigation as a permanent political resistance operation.

Confidentiality Built Into the Agreement

The document was reportedly titled “PRIVILEGED & CONFIDENTIAL COMMON INTEREST AGREEMENT” and included provisions intended to keep certain information surrounding the coordinated lawsuits away from the public.

According to the agreement, the participating parties “wish to pursue their common interest concerning Federal Accountability issues and litigation(s) addressing such issues, while avoiding any waiver of the confidentiality of those privileged materials.”

That language indicates the attorneys general wanted to coordinate their legal work while protecting their communications and related materials from disclosure.

The Center Square reported: “At least 22 Democratic attorneys general appear to have signed the common interest agreement. Zero Republican attorneys general appear to have signed it.”

Questions About Courts and Political Strategy

Just Security, a law and policy publication affiliated with New York University, reports that 11 lawsuits challenging the Trump administration have ended in favor of the plaintiffs. Four have been dismissed or otherwise resolved in favor of the federal government, while numerous additional cases remain pending.

The geographic and judicial venues selected for these lawsuits could also face growing scrutiny. Critics of the Democratic legal campaign may question whether state officials are strategically filing cases in jurisdictions where they expect favorable rulings from judges appointed by Democratic presidents.

Regardless of the outcome of any individual case, the reported timeline exposes a broader political reality: Democratic attorneys general were preparing to fight Trump’s administration in court before Americans had even voted to return him to office.

State attorneys general have a duty to defend their residents and uphold the Constitution. But transforming their offices into taxpayer-funded extensions of partisan opposition threatens to blur the line between legitimate legal oversight and coordinated political sabotage.