Long before Donald Trump returned to the White House, Democratic attorneys general across the country were already preparing for a legal war with a possible second Trump administration.
New reporting now provides a clearer picture of just how early that preparation began.
At least 22 Democratic attorneys general signed a “common interest agreement” connected to what became known as the “Project for Federal Accountability,” according to The Center Square. The agreement was reportedly signed in 2024, months before President Joe Biden abandoned his reelection campaign and before voters ultimately returned Trump to office.
The timing is significant because the agreement wasn’t assembled in response to actions Trump took after becoming president. It was part of an effort to prepare for potential litigation before the election had even been decided.
And once Trump took office, the lawsuits came quickly.
New Jersey’s legal battles with Trump are heating up, and Gov. Murphy wants to spend $1M to hire attorneys to resist the federal government in court. The “Project for Federal Accountability” is part of his proposed budget, but he won’t mention it during his budget address today pic.twitter.com/Hlp4PtYRgj
— Zach Blackburn (@zachblackburn23) February 25, 2025
Democratic attorneys general have participated in nearly 100 lawsuits challenging actions by the Trump administration since Inauguration Day, according to The Center Square.
California Attorney General Rob Bonta has reportedly joined 82 of those cases. Colorado Attorney General Phil Weiser has participated in at least 75, Washington Attorney General Nick Brown in 70 and Arizona Attorney General Kris Mayes in 46.
That doesn’t establish that any particular lawsuit is illegitimate. State attorneys general routinely sue the federal government, including administrations controlled by the opposing political party, and courts ultimately decide whether those challenges have legal merit.
But the existence of a coordinated pre-election agreement adds important context to the sheer volume of litigation that followed.
The “Project for Federal Accountability” subsequently surfaced in New Jersey’s state budget under Democratic Gov. Phil Murphy in early 2025. National Journal Hotline reporter Zach Blackburn noted that Murphy did not mention the project while publicly presenting his budget that February, despite its appearance in the budget documents.
The Center Square also reported that most attorneys general who signed the agreement declined to discuss it or answer questions about its purpose. Others have argued that there is nothing unusual about state legal offices coordinating ahead of potential litigation.
Arizona Attorney General Kris Mayes’ office took that position.
“There is nothing particularly significant about that date,” Mayes communications director Richie Taylor told The Center Square.
“The office has common interest agreements with Republican AGs as well as Democratic AGs, depending on the litigation.”
That is an important distinction. Common-interest agreements are not inherently suspicious. Attorneys working on related legal matters use them to coordinate while protecting privileged communications.
What makes this agreement politically interesting is what the participants were anticipating.
Maryland Attorney General Anthony Brown was unusually straightforward about that.
Brown told The Center Square that Democratic attorneys general began planning “as soon as it was clear that Trump was going to get the nomination.”
“We’re pleased that we responded before January 2025,” Brown said. “We talked through a host of possibilities, and we wanted to be prepared, not to get caught off guard.”
So there really isn’t much dispute over whether preparations occurred before Trump took office. Brown says they did.
They planned the lawfare before the election.
Nearly two dozen Democrat AGs signed a secret agreement in April 2024 to sue Trump if he won. They called it the “Project for Federal Accountability.”
Almost 100 lawsuits later. This was never about accountability — it was about… https://t.co/RyG1arLcFm
— Madison Gesiotto Gilbert (@madisongesiotto) August 7, 2026
The argument is over how those preparations should be characterized.
Critics describe the project as organized “lawfare” intended to obstruct an administration before voters had even decided whether Trump would return to office. Former Republican national spokeswoman Madison Gesiotto Gilbert argued that the coordinated effort amounted to an attempt at “nullifying the voters.”
The Democratic attorneys general offer a very different interpretation: They say they were preparing to challenge federal actions they believed could violate the law or exceed presidential authority.
Bonta defended his extensive litigation record Tuesday and rejected the suggestion that his lawsuits are partisan exercises.
“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,” he continued. “Trump shows no sign of slowing down, so we will continue to sue him.”
There is also a political fundraising dimension.
Former Utah Attorney General Mark Shurtleff told The Center Square that candidates for attorney general have explicitly invoked fighting Trump while soliciting campaign contributions.
“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!’” Shurtleff said.
That doesn’t determine whether the resulting lawsuits have legal merit, but it does make claims that the entire effort is “apolitical” considerably harder to accept at face value.
Political motivations and valid legal arguments can exist simultaneously. Democratic attorneys general can oppose Trump politically while also bringing cases that courts determine are justified. Likewise, extensive advance coordination doesn’t prove that every subsequent lawsuit was predetermined or frivolous.
But the newly disclosed agreement establishes something more concrete.
Democratic attorneys general weren’t caught by surprise when Trump won in 2024. They weren’t scrambling after Inauguration Day to figure out how they might respond to his administration.
They had already been talking, coordinating and preparing for the possibility of litigation while the presidential campaign was still underway.
Nearly 100 lawsuits later, Americans now have a better idea of just how extensive those preparations were.
