Inside the Coordinated Attempt to Take Down Trump

Well, this certainly puts those post-Inauguration Day lawsuits in a different light.

At least 22 Democratic state attorneys general reportedly signed a “common interest agreement” in 2024 as they prepared for the possibility of another Donald Trump administration. According to The Center Square, the effort eventually became known as the “Project for Federal Accountability.”

And here’s the thing: This wasn’t thrown together after Trump won the election. It wasn’t a frantic response to something he did after taking the oath of office.

The agreement reportedly dates to roughly three months before then President Joe Biden even dropped out of the 2024 presidential race and then Vice President Kamala Harris became the Democratic nominee.

Trump hadn’t won yet. Biden was still running.

The lawyers were already getting organized.

The project later appeared in then-New Jersey Gov. Phil Murphy’s 2025 budget, according to National Journal Hotline reporter Zach Blackburn. Yet Blackburn noted that Murphy didn’t mention the “Project for Federal Accountability” when publicly presenting that budget in February.

Meanwhile, The Center Square reported that most of the attorneys general who signed the agreement have declined to answer questions about it. Others have played down either the timing or the significance of their advance preparations.

Now, stay with me, because this is where the numbers become difficult to wave away.

Since Trump returned to office, Democratic attorneys general have sued his administration nearly 100 times.

California Attorney General Rob Bonta has reportedly participated in 82 of those lawsuits. Colorado Attorney General Phil Weiser has joined at least 75. Washington Attorney General Nick Brown has joined 70, while Arizona Attorney General Kris Mayes has participated in 46.

That’s not an occasional disagreement with Washington.

That’s a litigation machine running at full speed.

Critics call it “lawfare.” Former GOP national spokeswoman Madison Gesiotto Gilbert went further, arguing after The Center Square report that the coordinated campaign “was about nullifying the voters.”

That is her characterization, and it is worth separating the politics from the legal facts. Planning litigation against a potential administration isn’t proof that any particular lawsuit is frivolous or illegitimate. States regularly challenge federal administrations in court, and Republican attorneys general have certainly coordinated lawsuits against Democratic presidents.

But here’s what makes this story interesting: Democratic officials themselves aren’t really denying that they prepared in advance.

Maryland Attorney General Anthony Brown told The Center Square that the planning started “as soon as it was clear that Trump was going to get the nomination.”

There it is.

“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.”

That’s considerably more revealing than pretending the date on the agreement doesn’t matter.

Arizona Attorney General Mayes’ office offered the latter defense.

“There is nothing particularly significant about that date,” communications director Richie Taylor said, adding that Arizona enters common-interest agreements with Republican and Democratic attorneys general depending on the litigation.

Fair enough. A common-interest agreement is a legal coordination mechanism, not evidence of wrongdoing by itself.

But when 22 Democratic attorneys general coordinate before an election, Trump subsequently wins, and those same state legal operations participate in nearly 100 lawsuits against his administration, people are going to ask whether they were preparing to challenge individual unlawful actions or preparing for a courtroom war regardless of what happened.

And then we get to the fundraising.

Former Utah Attorney General Mark Shurtleff told The Center Square that campaigns for attorney general have used opposition to Trump as a reason for donors to open their wallets.

“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 makes California Attorney General Rob Bonta’s description of the lawsuits as “apolitical” a little harder to swallow without qualification.

Bonta insists the explanation is much simpler.

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

Bonta also predicted the cases would survive and promised more litigation.

“Trump shows no sign of slowing down, so we will continue to sue him.”

And there, ladies and gentlemen, is the real dispute.

Bonta says Democratic attorneys general are defending the law against an administration they believe repeatedly exceeds its authority. Trump’s allies see a coordinated political opposition campaign being conducted through state attorneys general’s offices, planned before voters had even finished choosing their president.

Courts will have to judge the merits of each lawsuit individually. Some may succeed. Others may fail. The existence of advance planning doesn’t settle those cases.

But it does settle one question.

This wasn’t spontaneous.

Democratic attorneys general were discussing Trump, coordinating possibilities and preparing their legal response while the 2024 campaign was still unfolding. Brown has now said so explicitly.

Then Trump won.

Then came nearly 100 lawsuits.

You can call that prudent preparation. You can call it partisan lawfare. You can argue over every case from now until the next election.

But you can’t credibly describe the resulting legal offensive as something nobody saw coming.

They were preparing for it before Trump ever got the keys to the White House back.