California Attorney General Rob Bonta has filed 83 lawsuits against the Trump administration over an 18-month period, expending more than $20 million from a designated fund to counter what the state describes as federal overreach. This figure excludes over 120 amicus briefs California has submitted in cases led by others, as well as numerous lawsuits in which federal authorities have sued California and the state has mounted legal defenses.
Bonta released these details in an annual report to the California Legislature, emphasizing the state’s commitment to protect funding streams and programs affected by changes implemented under the Trump administration. He stated that the administration’s policies have adversely impacted healthcare, education, reproductive and gender rights, environmental protections, immigration, and social services.
Legal experts note that many individuals affected by these federal policy changes lack the resources or access to challenge them independently. UCLA law professor Richard Abel described the difficulties faced by vulnerable populations, many of whom are undocumented or fearful of legal engagement, underscoring the state’s unique role in defending against these measures.
Bonta’s office estimates that their efforts have preserved approximately $207 billion in funding for California programs. Several ongoing cases demonstrate the state’s focus on protecting vulnerable groups, often without widespread public awareness of potential losses.
Examples include California’s participation in Massachusetts v. Department of Agriculture, which challenged Trump administration rules conditioning USDA food program grants on compliance with policies tied to immigration status and ideological viewpoints. A preliminary injunction issued in June prevented those rules from taking effect, securing continued food assistance for many recipients.
Other cases involve challenges to the administration’s attempts to reduce child welfare funds in New York v. Administration for Children & Families, cut mental health grants in Washington v. Department of Education, and slash transportation and public health funding targeted at Democratic-led states in Illinois v. Vought.
In a notable instance, California successfully defended against a federal subpoena seeking five years of Medi-Cal application records to support an immigration investigation in the Central Valley. A judge denied enforcement of the subpoena in March, but the government has since appealed to the Ninth Circuit. Bonta’s office maintains that releasing such sensitive information could compromise the privacy and safety of medical beneficiaries.
California is also contesting efforts to eliminate in-state tuition benefits for Dreamers—undocumented immigrants who arrived as children—arguing that resisting these federal moves reflects a broader commitment to building inclusive communities. UCLA law professor Hiroshi Motomura indicated that such litigation is about more than legal victories; it counters restrictive federal narratives and promotes social cohesion.
While legal challenges may not permanently halt all federal actions, Bonta and allied Democratic attorneys general have created substantial legal infrastructure to hold the administration accountable. Their work, largely invisible to the public, continues to safeguard essential programs and services for Californians amid ongoing political and policy conflicts.