Four Democratic attorneys general, sitting in their offices from New York to California with state flags and books behind them, announced a new lawsuit on Thursday, alleging the president, yet again, had broken the law by attempting to create new tariffs without congressional approval.

It’s a now familiar scene for the group of top law-enforcement officials who have collectively filed more than 50 lawsuits against the Trump administration, serving as a counterweight to the president’s quest to expand his power and circumvent the constitution.

They’ve protected billions of dollars for their states. They’ve stopped or stalled policies that would have cut food benefits during a government shutdown, closed health programs and job training, curtailed funds for crime victims, ended birthright citizenship, cut off funds for schools, and kept illegal tariffs in place.

At a time when some institutions and elected leaders have chosen to play nice with the Trump administration, the 23 Democratic attorneys general have done the opposite.

“We know the most impactful elected position right now is the Democratic AG,” said Andrea Campbell, the attorney general of Massachusetts.

Their lawsuits have a high success rate: about 80% have gotten a temporary restraining order or preliminary injunction, Arizona attorney general Kris Mayes estimated. She has signed on to nearly 40 lawsuits filed by Democratic attorneys general against the administration.

Joint lawsuits by attorneys general aren’t new. Republican attorneys general have banded together on suits against Democratic administrations, and they currently have filed joint briefs to defend Trump policies. Cross-partisan groups of attorneys general often work collaboratively on lawsuits over opioids or predatory businesses.

But the sheer number of lawsuits in the past year-plus from Democratic attorneys general outpaces prior efforts. The scope of their legal work is broad – and growing. Just recently, the actor Mark Ruffalo on social media called on state attorneys general to band together to fight the potential Paramount/Warner Bros merger, and California attorney general Rob Bonta responded that he is “in conversation with” his attorney general colleagues about the issue.

The almost two dozen Democratic attorneys general and their staffs have met regularly since before Trump returned to the White House. Even before Trump won in November 2024, they were preparing for a potential Trump presidency, combing through his comments and Republican plans like Project 2025 to prepare the kinds of lawsuits they expected to file.

When Trump started his second presidency with an executive order that sought to reverse birthright citizenship, disallowing those born in the US by foreign parents from being citizens, the Democratic attorneys general sued him the next day, one group of many that brought suit. The order was blocked by the courts and will be heard by the US supreme court in April.

Part of the group’s success comes from its preparation, but, several attorneys general told the Guardian, they wouldn’t be winning so much if the Trump administration wasn’t blatantly breaking the law.

“I’d like to say that we’re winning these cases because we’re all a bunch of Johnnie Cochrans or Perry Masons or whatever,” Minnesota attorney general Keith Ellison said. “But the truth is, what he’s doing is patently illegal, and a 1L law student would know it.”

The attorneys general’s offices have added lawyers and refocused staff to focus on federal accountability, finding that the cost of Trump’s lawlessness exceeds the costs of additional attorneys.

“He’s taking money out of our state,” said Ellison, who has filed more than 50 lawsuits against the Trump administration since last January. “One thing we cannot do is just let them pick Minnesota’s pocket.”

Meanwhile, their Republican colleagues are entirely absent, even when the issue at hand, like massive tariffs on local businesses, also affect red states.

“They’ve been just uninterested and supine, and I think they’re secretly rooting for us, because when we deliver a victory and get tariffs struck down, their residents benefit, their businesses benefit,” Bonta said in a recent press conference.

While some cases resulted in reversals of policies for all states or blocked them from taking effect nationwide, the US supreme court limited universal injunctions in mid-2025, meaning only states signed on to litigation can receive relief in a given case.

“So it has never before been so important to have an attorney general willing to stand up for consumers and citizens as it is today,” Mayes said. “If you don’t have a Democratic AG, you are going to get hurt by the Trump administration. And the irony of all of this is that it is the Republican AGs and their states that are getting pummeled by Trump because they’re not getting the same relief that we are.”

The Democratic AGs often implore their Republican colleagues to join their lawsuits and protect money that would be coming to their states, but they know the political dynamics – namely, a vindictive president willing to rally his followers against them – come into play.

“I know they care about their states, but they’re afraid,” Delaware attorney general Kathy Jennings said. “They’re flat-out afraid. There’s nothing else I can say about it, except that they will not stand up to this man for fear of repercussions that either they personally will be faced with or that their constituents will face.”

Adam Piper, the executive director of the Republican Attorneys General Association (Raga), said Republican attorneys general sued the Biden administration multiples times “to make America safer, energy more affordable, and our border more secure” while the Democratic attorneys general have “prioritized political witch hunts against President Trump”.

“These different approaches make it clear that Attorneys General are on the frontline of the policy fights that impact Americans the most – making AG races the most important statewide contests this November,” Piper said.

---

A few of the Democratic AGs served for at least part of Trump’s first term, but they knew his second term would be different. There would be few, if any, dissenting voices around the president to stall his plans. He would be more prepared to enact the laundry list of policies he’d been touting on the campaign trail. They better understood that Trump’s bluster wasn’t just words – his projecting should be taken seriously.

The attorneys general began talking in early 2024 and met regularly to map out how they would respond on key issues.

They met in person that year to go through Project 2025 and other plans Trump had made public, Ellison said. They split into groups to focus on rule of law, immigration, chools, LGBTQ+ and trans rights, diversity. They discussed and wrote memos about how they could show they had standing to sue. They talked about which states to file lawsuits in, based on where they believed they had advantages, he said.

Their full-court press against Trump began right when he took office, and it hasn’t waned since.

“We were geared up,” said Jennings, of Delaware. “We were ready, and we’ve stayed ready each and every day since then.”

Their plan included public engagement. They set out on town halls across the country, which doubled as a way to collect evidence for current and future cases, and rally their supporters to get more involved in fighting back. While Americans have since joined mass protests and boycotts, there was little public resistance when the attorneys general began their town halls in early 2025. A Minnesota town hall in March was standing room only, and the AGs received standing ovations.

The attorneys general still meet regularly, as often as twice a week via video, Mayes said. Their staffs are in communication daily.

These meetings allow them to share what’s happening on the ground in their states, said Oregon attorney general Dan Rayfield. Sometimes, an issue might be more isolated, but usually when an issue is raised, other states are seeing it too, he said.

They collectively decide which states will lead on a given case, usually according to who has the expertise and availability.

“The reality of the AG world is that New York and California are the big dogs – they really do have way more people than the rest of us,” Ellison said. “And so oftentimes they’re contributing more, according to their ability. But then there’s a lot of states that punch above their weight.”

For Campbell, doing nothing was never an option. She does her work because she believes in service and helping people, and she has a responsibility to protect Massachusetts residents and the state’s economy – and the rule of law in general.

“We’re exercising courage to stand up, not only for our residents, but for the constitution,” she said. “And we know without a constitution, you can’t have a functioning state economy.”