Federal Accountability

Since January 2025, the Trump Administration has baselessly relied on a single subclause buried deep in federal regulations to slash billions in previously awarded grant funding

OAKLAND — California Attorney General Rob Bonta today secured a decision by the U.S. District Court for the District of Massachusetts barring the Trump Administration’s use of a single subclause buried in federal regulations to terminate billions of dollars in grant funding to the states. The Trump Administration has claimed that five words in this subclause —  “no longer effectuates . . . agency priorities” — provide federal agencies with unfettered authority to withhold funding any time they no longer wish to support the programs for which Congress has appropriated funding. In today’s decision granting summary judgment, the Court finds that the subclause does not allow the Trump Administration to terminate awards based on new “priorities” that differ from those in place at the time the grants were issued. As such, the Court vacates the Trump Administration’s decision to invoke the subclause as grounds for terminating grants based on a subsequent change in agency priorities and permanently bars the Trump Administration from invoking the subclause in that manner in the future.   

“Since taking office, the Trump Administration has used a single subclause buried deep in federal regulations as its sole justification to withhold billions of dollars in federal funding to California,” said Attorney General Bonta. “It has done so in clear violation of the law and with uncaring disregard for the real impact these dollars have on our peoples’ daily lives. This funding directly supports public safety, addresses food insecurity, and protects public health. With today’s victory, we’ve closed this much-misused avenue for withholding federal funding to California. Time and again, this Administration has used federal funding as a political bludgeon, and we’ll continue to partner with states across the country to fight to defend against President Trump’s next round of attacks.”

BACKGROUND

With the stroke of a pen, federal agencies ranging from the U.S. Department of Justice to the Environmental Protection Agency to the Department of Labor have deprived California and other states of essential funding they rely on to combat violent crime and protect public safety, equip law enforcement, educate students, safeguard public health, protect clean drinking water, conduct life-saving medical and scientific research, address food insecurity, ensure access to unemployment benefits, and much more. Federal agencies have done all of this without advance notice, without explanation to the state recipients, and in direct contravention of the will of Congress.  

In their lawsuit, Attorney General Bonta and a coalition of 24 states argued that federal agencies’ invocation of the subclause to terminate grant funding runs counter to the Office of Management and Budget’s (OMB) own interpretation of its regulations. When OMB first promulgated the subclause in 2020, it made clear that the language did not authorize federal agencies to arbitrarily terminate grants based on subsequent changes to their priorities. Indeed, the coalition is not aware of a single instance prior to January 2025 in which a federal agency relied on the subclause to terminate a grant on the grounds that agency priorities had changed after the award of the grant. Since January 2025, however, federal agencies across the Trump Administration have asserted that the subclause provides them with a blank check to terminate grants already awarded to states based on newly identified agency priorities — even when those priorities conflict with the priorities identified by Congress or by the agency at the time of the grant award. Today’s decision forecloses the subclause’s future use by the Trump Administration to terminate similar grant funding.

OAKLAND — California Attorney General Rob Bonta today joined a multistate coalition in supporting the District of Columbia’s motion to dismiss a Trump Administration lawsuit seeking to enjoin D.C. bar disciplinary proceedings against former Acting Assistant Attorney General Jeffrey Bossert Clark. In May 2026, the Administration filed a complaint claiming that the bar-disciplinary proceedings violated the Supremacy Clause and Article II of the U.S. Constitution. In the amicus brief, Attorney General Bonta and the coalition argue that attorney discipline dates back to English common law and that no federal attorney should be immunized from ethical standards and rules.

“U.S. DOJ attorneys should not get special treatment or be exempt from the same disciplinary systems all practicing attorneys are subject to,” said Attorney General Bonta. “It’s commonsense and longstanding legal practice. No matter what this Administration might wish, no one is immune from the rule of law.”

In 2021, the Chair of the Senate Committee on the Judiciary submitted a formal complaint to the D.C. Office of Disciplinary Counsel (ODC) about former federal Acting Assistant Attorney General Jeffrey Bossert Clark, relating to efforts to overturn the 2020 presidential election. The ODC’s role is to investigate and prosecute allegations of misconduct against D.C.-licensed attorneys. In July 2022, based on that referral and ODC’s own investigation, ODC initiated bar-disciplinary proceedings against Mr. Clark.

In May 2026, the Trump Administration filed a complaint against the District of Columbia, the D.C. Court of Appeals, ODC, the D.C. Board on Professional Responsibility, and officials from those institutions. In it, the Administration effectively seeks to implement a proposed rule that would undercut state bar-disciplinary proceedings against federal attorneys by allowing U.S. DOJ to request that such proceedings be suspended until the U.S. DOJ were to first conduct its own review of its own attorneys, including if they violated any ethics rule while engaged in federal duties. Attorney General Bonta and a coalition submitted comments opposing this proposed rule earlier this year. 

In the amicus brief, Attorney General Bonta and the coalition argue that Congress made clear in the McDade-Murtha Amendment, 28 U.S.C. § 530B, that federal attorneys are subject to state regulation where they reside and practice law and that states and the District of Columbia have police powers under the Tenth Amendment to regulate attorneys licensed to practice within their borders. The coalition also explains that the U.S. Supreme Court has held that federal courts must refrain from interfering with ongoing state proceedings under the Younger abstention doctrine. And the coalition highlights that a successful challenge could result in federal attorneys being shielded from disciplinary proceedings, no matter how egregious their conduct. In application, this would provide federal attorneys with blanket immunity from disciplinary proceedings for professional misconduct. 

Attorney General Bonta joins the attorneys general of Colorado, Minnesota, Arizona, Connecticut, Delaware, Hawai'i, Illinois, Maine, Maryland, Massachusetts, Michigan, New Jersey, New York, North Carolina, Oregon, Rhode Island, Vermont, Virginia, and Washington. 

Multistate coalition challenges Trump Administration’s attempt to circumvent court order by recharacterizing grant discontinuations as terminations

OAKLAND — As part of a coalition of 15 attorneys general, California Attorney General Rob Bonta today filed a lawsuit challenging the U.S. Department of Education's (the Department) latest attempt to terminate federal funding that helps schools recruit and train mental health professionals. Congress established the Mental Health Service Professional Demonstration Grant Program and the School-Based Mental Health Services Grant Program following the school shootings in Parkland, FL and Uvalde, TX to help address shortages of school-based counselors, psychologists, social workers, and other mental health professionals, particularly in high-need schools. After Attorney General Bonta and a coalition of attorneys general successfully blocked the Department’s earlier effort to discontinue these grants, the Department announced a new plan to end the funding under a different regulation, prompting today's lawsuit. In California, the Department's initial action threatened nearly $200 million in funding statewide. 

“The Trump Administration is once again trying to take critical mental health funding away from the schools that need it most,” said Attorney General Bonta. “Congress made clear that students across the country deserve access to these services. That’s why we’re going back to court.”

In July 2025, Attorney General Bonta and 15 other attorneys general filed a lawsuit challenging the Department’s discontinuation of the grants. The Department initially asserted that the grants conflicted with the Trump Administration’s new priorities because they support diversity, equity, and inclusion (DEI). A federal district court ruled in favor of the attorneys general, holding that the Department acted arbitrarily, capriciously, and contrary to law, and in December 2025, permanently enjoined the Department from implementing the grant terminations “through any means.” Though the Department appealed, the Ninth Circuit also twice denied the Department's requests to stay the district court’s orders while the appeal proceeded. Despite admitting that most of the grants should have been continued, the Department decided to only award grantees six months of funding instead of providing funding for the full year, as is standard practice, and to make grantees jump through unnecessary hoops to access funds. 

Even after the adverse court rulings, the Department announced a new attempt to terminate the grants under a different regulation. By calling this a termination rather than a discontinuation, the Administration seeks to circumvent the court’s order, which required them to continue these important mental health grants. Although Attorney General Bonta and the coalition continue to fight this attempt to circumvent the court’s order, they have filed this new lawsuit to prevent these planned terminations and cover any gaps that would threaten this funding. 

In today’s lawsuit, filed in the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Washington, the coalition argues that the Department's latest effort exceeds its legal authority, and threatens funding that schools use to provide mental health services for students. The attorneys general have also moved for a preliminary injunction to prevent the grants from being terminated.

In filing today’s lawsuit, Attorney General Bonta joins the attorneys general of Colorado, Connecticut, Delaware, Illinois, Maine, Maryland, Massachusetts, Michigan, New Mexico, New York, Oregon, Rhode Island, Washington, and Wisconsin.

OAKLAND — As part of a coalition of 21 attorneys general and two governors, California Attorney General Rob Bonta today filed a lawsuit challenging the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development's (HUD) Fiscal Year 2026 Notice of Funding Opportunity (NOFO) for the Continuum of Care (CoC) Program. CoC is the federal government’s flagship program for funding affordable housing and other services for individuals at risk of and experiencing homelessness. The coalition alleges that HUD’s 2026 CoC NOFO seeks to steer funding away from permanent supportive housing projects, despite a federal court order issued last week blocking HUD’s 2025 CoC NOFO, which sought to divert more than $3 billion in federal funding from those projects. Congress has also acted to protect renewal funding for those projects.

“The Trump Administration is once again trying to undermine HUD's longstanding Housing First approach that has kept and continues to keep our most vulnerable residents housed,” said Attorney General Bonta. “Congress and the courts have made clear that funding for permanent supportive housing must be protected. We will continue fighting to ensure that those who have secured housing stability do not lose it.”

Permanent supportive housing provides long-term housing stability, transitional housing provides temporary shelter intended as a bridge to permanent housing, and supportive service-only projects provide services without housing assistance. In today’s complaint, which was filed in the U.S. District Court for the District of Rhode Island, the coalition argues that:

• HUD’s 2026 CoC NOFO illegally attempts to limit funding for permanent housing by setting aside approximately $1.3 billion for transitional housing and supportive service-only projects. The set-aside would effectively cap permanent housing funding below levels necessary to maintain existing projects. The National Alliance to End Homelessness estimates this could put at least 97,000 residents of CoC-funded permanent housing at risk of losing their housing.
• New scoring criteria in HUD’s 2026 CoC NOFO unlawfully penalizes applicants for continuing to follow HUD’s longstanding Housing First approach by steering funding away from proven low-barrier housing that helps people exit homelessness and toward programs that impose conditions before individuals can access housing.
• These new policies fundamentally undermine CoC’s goal of ensuring that individuals and families who have exited homelessness are not forced back onto the streets, as well as Congress’s directive that HUD prioritize renewal funding to support that same objective. 

In filing today’s complaint, Attorney General Bonta joins the attorneys general of Arizona, Colorado, Connecticut, Delaware, the District of Columbia, Illinois, Massachusetts, Maryland, Maine, Michigan, Minnesota, New Jersey, New Mexico, New York, Oregon, Rhode Island, Vermont, Virginia, Washington, Wisconsin, and the governors of Kentucky and Pennsylvania.

OAKLAND — California Attorney General Rob Bonta today co-led a coalition of 24 attorneys general in filing a comment letter opposing a United States Postal Service (USPS) proposed rule that would facilitate the president’s efforts to exert greater control over elections and restrict mail-in voting. The coalition urges USPS to withdraw the proposed rule, which would create a centralized list of voter information and result in eligible voters who are not on that list being denied delivery of their ballots, essentially giving the federal government control over elections conducted by mail.  

“Mail-in voting is safe, secure, and essential to ensuring participation in our democracy. It is used by Americans of every party and background, including the President himself,” said Attorney General Bonta. “The U.S. Constitution assigns responsibility for administering elections primarily to the states, and the proposed rule would unlawfully shift control to the federal government. We urge USPS to withdraw it and protect access to the ballot box.”
 
On March 31, 2026, President Trump signed an executive order attempting to establish a national list of eligible voters and directing USPS, an independent federal agency, to transmit mail ballots only to those on the list. In the order, the President threatened states and elections officials with criminal prosecution and the loss of federal funding if they do not comply with his demands.  

A federal judge struck down that executive order last week in a lawsuit co-led by Attorney General Bonta, with the order applying to 24 states total. On Wednesday, a federal judge ruled in a separate case that the proposed rule violated a settlement between USPS and the NAACP. Nevertheless, USPS has so far not rescinded its proposed rule to implement Trump’s illegal executive order.

In the comment letter, the attorneys general argue that: 

• The proposed rule violates the federal court’s order, which enjoins USPS from finalizing the proposed rule, and amounts to an unconstitutional power grab by the federal government. 
• The Constitution does not allow the President to unilaterally impose changes to federal election procedures, particularly without an act of Congress permitting him to do so. 
• The proposed rule conflicts with USPS’s governing statutes and other federal voting laws. 

The proposed rule would enact these unconstitutional changes before the 2026 election. Implementing these changes would require states to upend their existing election administration procedures for upcoming elections and conduct statewide voter education mere months before the beginning of mail voting for the 2026 general election. Such drastic and rapid changes would undoubtedly create confusion, chaos, and distrust in state election systems, threatening to disenfranchise eligible voters. 

The comment letter was co-led by Attorney General Bonta and the attorneys general of Massachusetts, Nevada, and Washington. They were joined by the attorneys general of Arizona, Colorado, Connecticut, Delaware, the District of Columbia, Hawai‘i, Illinois, Maine, Maryland, Michigan, Minnesota, New Jersey, New Mexico, New York, North Carolina, Oregon, Rhode Island, Vermont, Virginia, and Wisconsin.

OAKLAND — California Attorney General Rob Bonta today celebrated an order from U.S. District Court for the District of Massachusetts vacating the Trump Administration’s illegal rule which would have denied Public Service Loan Forgiveness (PSLF) eligibility to employees of organizations deemed by the Trump Administration to have a “substantial illegal purpose.” Had it gone into effect, the rule could have empowered the Administration to strip PSLF eligibility from organizations engaged in important, legal activities, such as providing legal services to immigrants, providing gender-affirming care to minors, participating in Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion (DEI) initiatives, or engaging in civil protest and the right to assembly. The PSLF program is critical in recruiting nurses, first responders, teachers, military personnel, and others working in public service careers, both in government and the nonprofit sectors. The order today found the U.S. Department of Education regulations are contrary to law and promulgated in excess of statutory authority, are arbitrary and capricious, and violate the First Amendment of the U.S. Constitution. 

“A court has thrown out the Trump Administration’s illegal attempt to go back on the federal government’s word and rip away public service loan forgiveness from people doing work the President doesn’t like. Millions of Americans shaped their lives and took on deep financial burdens based on the promise that, if they dedicated their lives to public service and made student loan payments for 10 years, their government would support them,” said Attorney General Bonta. “We challenged the Administration’s illegal action in court last year because our public servants deserve what was promised. Today’s decision is a strong rebuke of the Trump Administration’s continued efforts to weaponize the federal government. We’ll continue to fight to protect public servants and uphold our democratic institutions.”

BACKGROUND

In 2007, a bipartisan Congress under the Bush Administration created PSLF to encourage college graduates to work in the public sector, where salaries are often lower than at for-profit companies. The PSLF program enables public servants who work in eligible government and nonprofit roles to have their qualifying federal student loans forgiven after 10 years of qualifying service and payments. It helps public service employers recruit and retain skilled workers who might otherwise be forced to turn to private sector employment to afford to pay their student loans. Many California state employees are eligible for, actively pursuing, or have already benefited from PSLF as a means of managing the significant student debt that they incurred in preparing for skilled public service careers. 

In November 2025, Attorney General Bonta co-led a coalition of 22 attorneys general in filing a lawsuit challenging U.S. Department of Education regulations that could exclude people with federal student loans from PSLF eligibility based on whether their employers engage in actions that the Trump Administration deems to have a “substantial illegal purpose.” The vagueness of the rule could have empowered the Trump Administration to target politically disfavored conduct and could have threatened PSLF eligibility for organizations that are engaged in longstanding and legal activities. The rule created uncertainty as to who was an eligible employer and would have deterred student borrowers from entering public service. The resulting uncertainty of the rule was expected to undercut the state’s ability to recruit and retain skilled employees.

OAKLAND — California Attorney General Rob Bonta and a coalition of 18 other attorneys general and the governors of Kentucky and Pennsylvania yesterday won their case challenging the Trump Administration’s illegal conditions on billions of dollars in funding that community organizations across the country rely on to provide housing and services for families experiencing homelessness. In November 2025, Attorney General Bonta joined the coalition in suing the Trump Administration to protect more than $3 billion in Continuum of Care (CoC) funds that were jeopardized by illegal new conditions imposed by the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD). These funds support vital resources for those most at risk of homelessness, such as veterans, persons with disabilities, and transgender individuals. The U.S. District Court for the District of Rhode Island yesterday granted critical parts of the coalition’s motion for summary judgment, ruling that HUD’s conditions restricting CoC funding are unlawful and cannot be implemented. 

“Once again, the Trump Administration’s attempt to cut critical homelessness funding has been rejected,” said Attorney General Bonta. “We should be focused on helping more people on our streets move into stable housing, not undermining the programs that are working to make that happen. So long as HUD continues to pursue efforts to roll back its long-standing Housing First approach, we will stand firm in defending it.”  

In November 2025, HUD issued a Notice of Funding Opportunity (NOFO) containing illegal conditions on CoC grants that threatened funding that coalitions of community organizations receive to provide housing and other support for those experiencing homelessness. The Administration imposed a cap on the amount of CoC funds that can support permanent supportive housing. If enacted, this cap would have slashed CoC funds for permanent supportive housing by two-thirds and put an estimated 170,000 people at risk of losing their homes. After the lawsuit was filed, HUD withdrew the November NOFO but issued a new December 2025 NOFO that largely kept the same challenged funding conditions, so the coalition expanded its challenge to include both notices. 

HUD also imposed other conditions, barring CoC funds from organizations that acknowledge the existence of transgender or nonbinary individuals and excluding programs that provide services for mental disabilities. Attorney General Bonta and the coalition argued in their lawsuit that these conditions violate the Administrative Procedure Act and Congress’ constitutional power to control spending. 

In a decision on Attorney General Bonta and the coalition’s motion for summary judgment, the court yesterday ruled that HUD’s November 2025 and December 2025 NOFOs violate the Administrative Procedure Act and set aside both notices, preventing HUD from implementing the unlawful funding conditions.

Joining Attorney General Bonta in filing this lawsuit were the attorneys general of Arizona, Colorado, Connecticut, Delaware, Illinois, Maine, Maryland, Massachusetts, Michigan, Minnesota, New Jersey, New York, Oregon, Rhode Island, Vermont, Washington, Wisconsin, and the District of Columbia, as well as the governors of Kentucky and Pennsylvania.

OAKLAND — California Attorney General Rob Bonta today celebrated a decision by the U.S. Supreme Court affirming the constitutional right to birthright citizenship and striking down President Trump's executive order purporting to terminate that right. Attorney General Bonta co-led a multistate coalition in challenging the executive order just one day after the President took office. 

"Today's decision affirms a foundational tenet of American democracy: that every child born in this country, no matter their background, is equal under the law and can pursue the American Dream," said Attorney General Bonta. "It's unconscionable that just hours after swearing to uphold the Constitution, President Trump attempted to rewrite history and the clear text of the 14th Amendment with an executive order seeking to end birthright citizenship. The Supreme Court's decision today is a reminder that, no matter what he might wish, Trump is not a king. I'm proud to have led a multistate coalition to defend birthright citizenship. Rest assured: we will continue to fight to uphold the rights and freedoms guaranteed by the U.S. Constitution against tyranny in all its forms."

BACKGROUND

On his first day in office in 2025, President Trump issued an executive order seeking to end birthright citizenship for children born in the United States to undocumented parents or parents who are here on a legal, temporary basis. Attorney General Bonta immediately co-led a multistate coalition in filing a lawsuit challenging the order and repeatedly obtained nationwide preliminary injunctions that blocked this order from ever taking effect.

The Supreme Court considered the validity of this order in a separate case, Trump v. Barbara, brought by a class of children who would lose citizenship under the order. Attorney General Bonta co-led another coalition of attorneys general in filing an amicus brief in support of the plaintiffs in that case.

OAKLAND — Co-leading a coalition of 24 attorneys general and two governors, California Attorney General Rob Bonta today filed a lawsuit over the Trump Administration's unlawful implementation of new Medicaid work requirements included in the One Big Beautiful Bill Act. Specifically, the lawsuit challenges provisions of an interim final rule published by the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) and Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services (CMS) on June 3, 2026. Medicaid is the nation’s safety net healthcare program for low-income Americans and is jointly funded by states and the federal government, with the federal government providing at least 50% of the cost of services.

Congress created exemptions from Medicaid’s work requirements to ensure that people with serious illnesses and disabilities do not lose coverage or face interruptions in care. Despite months of working with states on implementation, CMS surprised states with the interim final rule, “Community Engagement Requirement for Certain Individuals,” which adopted a new interpretation of key terms like “medically frail” and makes it harder for medically vulnerable individuals to be excused from the work requirements. While the work requirement provision applies beginning January 1, 2027, states must notify Medicaid recipients about these changes by August 31, 2026, and need significant lead time to prepare those communications. They cannot wait for CMS to address the deficiencies through the ongoing rulemaking process. As a result, the coalition is seeking to block implementation of the interim final rule’s illegal provisions and to have them ultimately struck down. States had already made substantial investments in reliance on the plain language of the One Big Beautiful Bill Act and CMS’s prior guidance and now face the risk of harsh financial penalties for noncompliance with the interim final rule.

“People with serious illnesses or disabilities already face major challenges in their daily lives — they shouldn’t also have to worry about losing their healthcare because of work requirements or related barriers. That was Congress’s will, and it must be respected,” said Attorney General Bonta. “Time and again, the Trump Administration has pursued policies that threaten the most vulnerable among us. The interim final rule is the latest example. We won't stop fighting back.”

The interim final rule makes other changes that increase administrative burdens, create unnecessary red tape, and put eligible people at risk of losing their health coverage — including those who are already working or qualify for an exemption. The rule disregards substantial evidence that should have been considered, fails to adequately evaluate reasonable alternatives, and does not give states clear or workable guidance. Past Medicaid work requirement programs have shown that added red tape causes eligible people to lose coverage, placing greater strain on state Medicaid programs, safety net providers, and emergency rooms, while increasing costs as more medically frail residents become uninsured.

States raised concerns with CMS about potential last-minute changes. For instance, Medi-Cal, California’s Medicaid program, contacted CMS to express California’s “significant concerns should CMS materially alter its prior guidance on Medicaid work requirements in the forthcoming interim final rule.” California explained that it had “relied extensively on CMS’s preliminary guidance over the last several months to design, build, and operationalize major programmatic, systems, and staffing changes in order to comply with H.R. 1 by January 1, 2027.”

In today’s lawsuit, the coalition alleges that the interim final rule:

• Unlawfully narrows Congress's protections for medically frail Medicaid recipients.
• Violates the Administrative Procedure Act by ignoring substantial evidence that work reporting requirements cause eligible individuals to lose healthcare coverage because of administrative barriers rather than a failure to work.
• Fails to adequately consider the significant harms that will be imposed on states, Medicaid beneficiaries, healthcare providers, and state healthcare systems.
• Unconstitutionally coerces states by imposing new compliance requirements after states had already begun implementing the One Big Beautiful Bill Act based on the statute’s plain language and CMS's prior guidance. 

The lawsuit was co-led by Attorney General Bonta, Massachusetts Attorney General Andrea Joy Campbell, and New Jersey Attorney General Jennifer Davenport. They were joined by the attorneys general of Arizona, Colorado, Connecticut, Delaware, the District of Columbia, Hawai‘i, Illinois, Maine, Maryland, Michigan, Minnesota, Nevada, New Mexico, New York, North Carolina, Oregon, Rhode Island, Vermont, Virginia, Washington, and Wisconsin, and the governors of Kentucky and Pennsylvania.

OAKLAND — As part of a coalition of 19 attorneys general and two governors, California Attorney General Rob Bonta filed a supplemental complaint challenging the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development's (HUD) Fiscal Year (FY) 2026 Notice of Funding Opportunity (NOFO) for the Continuum of Care (CoC) Program. CoC is the federal government’s flagship program for funding affordable housing and other services for individuals at risk of and experiencing homelessness. With this filing, the coalition is addressing HUD's latest unlawful actions and updating its existing case, which was filed in November 2025 in response to the 2025 CoC NOF, allowing the U.S. District Court for the District of Rhode Island to efficiently resolve all related claims in one proceeding. In December 2025, the coalition secured a preliminary injunction blocking HUD from implementing the 2025 CoC NOFO, and in April 2026, secured another victory when HUD abandoned its appeal of the preliminary injunction. The coalition alleges that HUD’s new funding notice once again seeks to steer funding away from permanent housing projects, despite a federal court order blocking HUD's previous attempt and Congress’ subsequent action protecting renewal funding for those projects.

“A federal court has already blocked HUD’s unlawful attempt to defund permanent housing projects that are home for more than 400,000 people. Congress has made clear that those projects must be funded at adequate levels,” said Attorney General Bonta. “Instead of following the law, the Trump Administration is again trying to reverse HUD’s decades-long policy of prioritizing housing before advancing other goals. This would jeopardize housing for thousands of people and put them at risk of returning to the streets. We will not stand idly by."

Despite the court victories and Congress’ action, HUD issued a FY 2026 CoC NOFO in June 2026 that again limits funding for permanent housing by setting aside approximately $1.3 billion for transitional housing and supportive service-only projects. In the supplemental complaint, the coalition argues that the set-aside would effectively cap permanent housing funding below levels necessary to maintain existing projects. The National Alliance to End Homelessness estimates this could put at least 97,000 residents of CoC-funded permanent housing at risk of losing their housing. Well over 80% of CoC funds currently go to support permanent housing. The complaint also challenges new scoring criteria that penalize applicants for continuing to follow HUD’s longstanding Housing First approach. The criteria steer funding away from proven low-barrier housing that gets people off the streets and toward programs that impose conditions before people can access housing. The new policies fundamentally undermine CoC's goal of ensuring that individuals and families who have exited homelessness are not forced back onto the streets and Congress’ directive that HUD prioritize renewal funding to achieve this goal.

In filing the supplemental complaint, Attorney General Bonta joins the attorneys general of Arizona, Colorado, Connecticut, Delaware, the District of Columbia, Illinois, Massachusetts, Maryland, Maine, Michigan, Minnesota, New Jersey, New York, Oregon, Rhode Island, Vermont, Washington, Wisconsin, and the governors of Kentucky and Pennsylvania.