Federal Accountability

OAKLAND — California Attorney General Rob Bonta today, alongside a multistate coalition of attorneys general, submitted a comment letter opposing the United States Forest Service’s (USFS) proposed revisions to the Travel Management Rule (TMR), aimed at opening the country’s National Forests to increased motorized vehicle use. The current TMR, established in 2005, provides guidelines and standards for where motorized vehicles can and cannot travel within National Forests, which reduces user conflicts and protects the environment. Now, the USFS is proposing to remove restrictions and open more roads (including dirt/gravel roads) and trails to motorized use, continuing its rollbacks of rules and safeguards that protect our National Forests. In today’s comment letter, Attorney General Bonta and the coalition highlight how the Trump Administration’s proposed revisions threaten vulnerable ecosystems, undermine years of careful recreational planning, and jeopardize clean water resources and wildlife habitat. 

“The health and wellbeing of our protected lands will not be run over by the President’s overreaching political agenda. California is home to renowned forests and cherished ecosystems that must be preserved and shared responsibly,” said Attorney General Bonta. “The facts overwhelmingly show that more roadbuilding and motorized vehicle usage in our forests will fragment and destroy wildlife habitats, degrade water quality, and increase the risk of wildfires. We have a responsibility to preserve and protect the great outdoors, and we’re urging this Administration to immediately rethink its course of action.”

Established in 2005, the current TMR aims to protect the National Forests by designating roads, trails, and areas expressly open or closed to recreational vehicle use. Among other things, the rule was implemented to protect wildlife, promote clean watersheds, and reduce conflicts between visitors using passenger and off-road vehicles and visitors traveling on foot, bicycle, or horseback. The TMR further provided for public input and Tribal coordination in designating roads, trails, and areas open and closed to various types of recreation that are published in maps for each National Forest.

This August, in response to an Executive Order from the Trump Administration, the USFS announced its intent to revise this rule. The proposed revisions would open and remove restrictions on existing roads and establish new roads and trails for motorized vehicle use in the National Forests, including the 20 National Forests in California, the Sequoia National Forest and Tahoe National Forest included. The proposal also builds on the Trump Administration’s recent proposal to rescind the USFS’s Roadless Rule, which currently prevents road construction and timber harvesting in unfragmented stretches of National Forest land nationwide. The proposed rescission of both rules demonstrates a coordinated and flagrant attack on publicly-owned forest lands that would open millions of acres to road construction, logging, and other development.

In the comment letter, Attorney General Bonta and the coalition urge the USFS to rescind its proposal and assert that: 

• The USFS should examine a reasonable range of alternative strategies to its proposal.
• The USFS must comply with NEPA by considering all environmental impacts of revising the TMR in its Environmental Impact Statement.
• The USFS must comply with other statutory requirements, including under the Endangered Species Act and the National Historic Preservation Act.
• The USFS should provide for more public participation in this proposal, which would have broad, nationwide impacts on our National Forests.
• The USFS should not have initiated the TMR rulemaking at the same time it is proposing to roll back the Roadless Rule, because the USFS cannot assess the environmental impacts and implementation feasibility of the proposed revisions to the TMR until it has decided what action to take on the Roadless Rule.  

In sending today’s comment letter, Attorney General Bonta joins the attorneys general of New Mexico, Colorado, Oregon, Minnesota, Washington, and Wisconsin.

Here is a copy of the comment letter. 

OAKLAND — California Attorney General Rob Bonta announced co-leading a coalition of 22 attorneys general and the Governor of the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania in urging U.S. Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) Secretary Robert F. Kennedy, Jr. to keep federal vaccine recommendations grounded in science and medical evidence. In a letter responding to HHS’s request for information on vaccine recommendations and shared clinical decision-making, the coalition warns that HHS’s actions over the past year — including efforts to weaken the childhood vaccine schedule and sideline the experts responsible for developing federal vaccine recommendations — have created confusion and made it harder for states to rely on federal public health guidance. The letter urges HHS to halt additional changes that could lower vaccination rates and leave more people vulnerable to preventable disease.

“The Trump Administration cannot point to public distrust as a reason to change vaccine policy while ignoring how its own actions have fueled that distrust. It’s pure hypocrisy,” said Attorney General Bonta. “My fellow attorneys general and I will continue to hold HHS accountable when it attempts to undermine public health.” 

In the letter, Attorney General Bonta and the coalition urge HHS to:

• Examine its own role in undermining public trust through its recent changes to vaccine policy. HHS has not identified a change in the scientific evidence on vaccine safety or effectiveness that would justify overhauling the current recommendation categories. Instead, the coalition points out that recent federal actions have contributed to the very public distrust HHS says it wants to address.
• Preserve the Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices’ (ACIP) role in setting vaccine recommendations. ACIP is a 17-member federal advisory body whose science-based recommendations form the bedrock of federal vaccine policy, as Congress intended, and serve as a cornerstone of state health codes. In June 2025, Secretary Kennedy dismissed all 17 ACIP members and quickly reconstituted it with new members who did not undergo the typical vetting process. The coalition warns that replacing ACIP with the Task Force for Safer Childhood Vaccines, which HHS reinstated in August 2025 after nearly three decades of dormancy, would undermine ACIP’s critical role. The 2025 reconstitution of ACIP is also the subject of ongoing litigation.
• Retain the current vaccine recommendation categories. Under the current three-tiered recommendation structure for vaccines — routine, risk-based, and Shared Clinical Decision-Making (SCDM) — most vaccines are routinely recommended, while SCDM allows providers and patients or caregivers to weigh a vaccine’s benefits and risks based on individual circumstances. These categories have historically provided clear, efficient, and evidence-based guidance for states’ public health and Medicaid programs. The coalition notes that the RFI specifically asks about SCDM after HHS recently moved to expand its use, including for the hepatitis B vaccine birth dose, without identifying new scientific evidence to support the changes. SCDM is appropriate only in limited circumstances, and its misuse threatens public health.

The letter comes as Attorney General Bonta continues challenging the Trump Administration’s changes to federal vaccine policy. In February 2026, he co-led a multistate lawsuit challenging the administration’s overhaul of the childhood immunization schedule. This month, a federal judge ruled that the coalition has standing to challenge the CDC’s changes to the childhood immunization schedule.

Joining Attorney General Bonta in the letter are the attorneys general of Arizona, California, Colorado, Connecticut, Delaware, Hawaiʻi, Illinois, Maine, Maryland, Massachusetts, Michigan, Minnesota, Nevada, New Jersey, New Mexico, New York, Oregon, Rhode Island, Vermont, the Commonwealth of Virginia, Washington, and Wisconsin, and the Governor of the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania.

OAKLAND — As part of a coalition of 24 attorneys general, California Attorney General Rob Bonta submitted a comment letter opposing a proposed Trump Administration rule that would unlawfully force states to change how they fund Medicaid. 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. States use Medicaid provider taxes — healthcare-related taxes levied on providers and other healthcare entities — to help finance their share of Medicaid costs. A proposed rule by the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services (CMS), intended to implement the One Big Beautiful Bill Act, would significantly limit states’ ability to use provider taxes and force them to find other ways to cover Medicaid costs. In doing so, CMS goes beyond what Congress required in the One Big Beautiful Bill Act.

“The One Big Beautiful Bill Act is already having serious consequences for Americans across the country and will continue to do so, and now the Trump Administration is trying to make matters worse,” said Attorney General Bonta. “This proposed rule would restrict states’ use of provider taxes and force them to find other ways to pay their share of Medicaid costs. It is unlawful and should be withdrawn or significantly changed.”

According to KFF, CMS projects no enrollment losses as a result of the proposed rule, while the Congressional Budget Office estimated that the changes could leave 1.2 million more people uninsured by 2034, raising questions about the proposed rule’s impact on coverage. The comment letter identifies several additional concerns, including that the proposed rule:

• Would improperly interfere with state regulation of health insurers. For the first time, CMS would penalize states for collecting taxes and payments from health insurance companies by reducing the amounts the states would receive for Medicaid. This would violate the law, threaten states’ Medicaid programs, and improperly interfere with states’ regulation of health insurance.
• Improperly applies new limits to collection of taxes and payments from health insurers. The One Big Beautiful Bill Act imposes new limits on some taxes and payments collected by states. CMS’s proposed rule would apply those limits to taxes and payments on health insurers, but that is neither required nor allowed under the One Big Beautiful Bill Act.  
• Eliminates a 30-year-old safety valve. CMS has also proposed to change its criteria for determining when taxes and payments will reduce federal Medicaid contributions. But some of these criteria were written into federal law by Congress and can’t be changed by CMS.
• Piles on costly new paperwork. States could have to reconstruct financial records going back to mid-2025 and build entirely new reporting systems from scratch. 

In submitting the comment letter, Attorney General Bonta joins the attorneys general of Arizona, Colorado, Connecticut, Delaware, the District of Columbia, Hawaii, Illinois, Maine, Massachusetts, Maryland, Michigan, Minnesota, Nevada, New Jersey, New Mexico, New York, North Carolina, Oregon, Rhode Island, Vermont, Virginia, Washington, and Wisconsin.

NEW YORK CITY — California Attorney General Rob Bonta and the California Energy Commission (CEC) today filed a lawsuit against the Trump Administration and Invenergy, a California offshore wind leaseholder, over the Administration’s unlawful buyout of Invenergy’s California offshore wind energy lease. Under the alleged settlement agreement announced on June 17, 2026, the U.S. Department of the Interior (DOI) will unlawfully reallocate more than $111 million in federal taxpayer dollars to pay Invenergy to abandon its lease in the Morro Bay Wind Energy Area off the Central California coast. The buyout also requires the company to cause its corporate affiliates to invest the same amount in out-of-state fossil fuel or geothermal projects that will do nothing to support California’s energy economy. If allowed to proceed, the taxpayer-funded buyout threatens to set back California’s offshore wind industry, undermining public investments in ports’ offshore wind capacity and damaging supporting industries and clean energy jobs that support working families. In the lawsuit, California argues that DOI’s buyout deal with Invenergy violates the Constitution and numerous federal laws, including the Administrative Procedure Act (APA), Coastal Zone Management Act, National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA), Judgment Fund Act, and Outer Continental Shelf Lands Act (OCSLA), which is intended to give California a say in the offshore wind leasing program and prevent corrupt backroom deals.

“At a time when we need more reliable, clean energy, President Trump is trying to send $111 million to his fossil fuel industry friends and wants taxpayers and working families to cover the tab. This outrageous abuse of taxpayer dollars will damage the offshore wind industry and create unnecessary obstacles to clean and reliable energy powering our homes and economies,” said Attorney General Rob Bonta. “During Climate Week and all year round, we’re focused on sustainable energy, mitigating environmental impacts, and taking action when our clean energy future is attacked. California is not here to foot the bill — we have the receipts and we’re asking the court to strike down this blatantly unlawful deal.”

“As leaders gather for Climate Week NYC to discuss the urgent need for clean, domestic energy, the Trump administration is unlawfully using taxpayer dollars to coerce companies to abandon it,” said California Energy Commission Chair David Hochschild. “California is challenging these reckless and illegal backroom deals and holding the companies that participate in them accountable. We will vigorously defend clean energy and the good-paying jobs and economic opportunity that are at stake for our communities.”

California’s offshore wind strategic plan calls for the state to develop 25 gigawatts of offshore wind power by 2045, enough to power roughly 25 million homes and provide about 13% of the state’s electricity supply, to accelerate California’s clean energy transition, create local manufacturing jobs, and drive economic development. Since federal offshore wind energy development planning began off California's coast a decade ago, the state has worked with federal agencies, developers, tribes, labor groups, ports, fishermen, local governments, and communities to prepare for offshore wind development. California has invested more than $100 million to ready California’s ports, transmission systems, and industries to support offshore wind generation. Cancelled offshore wind projects threaten to deprive California of more than 174,750 jobs, infrastructure investment, and long-term economic development.

This agreement marks another step in the Trump Administration’s ongoing attempt to cancel offshore wind projects and replace them with fossil fuel energy projects, including lease buyout deals with Golden State Wind LLC and RWE U.S. Offshore. In 2022, after a competitive auction for offshore wind energy leases, Invenergy paid the U.S. over $111 million to purchase an offshore wind lease in the Morro Bay Wind Energy Area off the Central California Coast for development of a project up to two gigawatts in capacity, with additional commitments of more than $30 million for workforce training, supply chain development, and benefits to local communities like fishermen’s associations. But on June 17, 2026, DOI announced it would cancel the lease through a taxpayer-funded agreement with Invenergy that purportedly “settles” litigation that Invenergy never brought, challenging action that DOI never took. DOI claims that unspecified national security concerns justified a lease cancellation, even though the federal government previously reviewed and approved the lease area after years of analysis and consultation with the U.S. Department of Defense. In July 2026, the California Department of Justice and CEC sent a Notice of Intent to Sue, which provided a 60-day window for DOI and Invenergy to cure any violations before California filed suit to stop this unlawful buyout.

In today’s lawsuit, California alleges that DOI’s buyout deal with Invenergy violates numerous federal laws, including the OCSLA and APA, because it uses a sham settlement to bypass the rules that Congress set down for the offshore energy leasing program, including stakeholder participation rights for affected states like California and a cap on how much the government can pay to a developer when it cancels a lease. California also argues that the deal violates the Judgment Fund Act, federal funding laws, and the Constitution because the $111 million payment was not a settlement to resolve an existing lawsuit. Instead, it was a fabricated arrangement designed to justify the unlawful cancellation of another offshore wind lease. California is asking the court to strike down the blatantly unlawful agreement and to stop the administration from implementing this illegal deal.

The attorneys general of New York, Connecticut, Delaware, Maine, Massachusetts, New Jersey, Rhode Island, and Vermont also filed two joint lawsuits today challenging additional lease buyouts. First, the states filed suit challenging lease buyouts between DOI and Invenergy subsidiaries that were announced at the same time as the California Invenergy buyouts and cover three leases off the coasts of New York, New Jersey and Maine at a total cost of over $653 million. The east coast states also filed a second suit challenging a $765 million lease buyout between DOI and Bluepoint Wind, LLC concerning a lease off the coast of New York and New Jersey.

OAKLAND — California Attorney General Rob Bonta today, alongside a multistate coalition, secured a final court order blocking the Trump Administration’s cruel restrictions on access to public benefit programs based on immigration status. At-risk programs included Head Start, childcare services for low-income families, adult education, mental health and substance use disorder programs, and shelters for underserved youth and domestic violence survivors. In today’s summary judgment order, the U.S. District Court for the District of Rhode Island found that the restrictions on public benefit programs violated the Administrative Procedure Act and enjoined various federal agencies from implementing these restrictions. 

“With today’s decision, families across California can breathe a little easier,” said Attorney General Bonta. “The Trump Administration’s heartless anti-immigration campaign has created real fear and confusion among immigrant families and families nationwide. These families would only be worse off if its cruel restrictions on programs like Head Start went into effect. Today, we mark another win for working families and the rule of law. We will continue to fight to protect access to essential programs that deliver childcare, healthcare, nutrition, and education assistance — and defend against future overreach by this administration.” 

Since 1997, the federal government has interpreted The Personal Responsibility and Work Opportunity Reconciliation Act (PRWORA) to permit states’ use of federal funds for certain programs that serve communities based on need regardless of immigration status. These programs work precisely because there are few barriers. This includes services such as: 

• The Head Start Program, which is designed to help break the cycle of poverty by providing young children from families with low incomes a comprehensive program to meet their emotional, social, health, nutritional, and educational needs. 
• Short-term shelter or housing assistance for people who are unhoused, for survivors of domestic violence, or for at-risk youth.
• Soup kitchens, community food banks, senior nutrition programs such as Meals on Wheels, and other such community nutritional services for persons requiring special assistance.
• Medical and public health services (including treatment and prevention of diseases and injuries) and mental health, disability, or substance use treatment services.   

In July 2025, Attorney General Bonta joined a multistate coalition in suing the Trump Administration over its abrupt decision to restrict access to more than a dozen public benefit programs based on immigration status. In September 2025, Attorney General Bonta and the coalition secured a preliminary injunction blocking the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, Department of Labor, Department of Justice, and Department of Education from implementing various program notices. The U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) subsequently issued its own notice attempting to apply eligibility restrictions to various affordable housing programs, and in December 2025, the multistate coalition added HUD and its Secretary as defendants in their litigation, and subsequently secured an agreement with HUD to stay enforcement of its agency notice until the district court issued a final merits judgment on the lawsuit.  

Attorney General Bonta is committed to standing up for California’s immigrant communities. Earlier this month, he sued to block the Trump Administration’s new rule dramatically expanding the ability of immigration officials to use participation in public benefits programs as grounds to deny lawful permanent residency. He previously issued guidance to help California immigrants better understand their rights and protections under the law and avoid immigration scams. You can find more on the California Department of Justice’s work to protect California immigrants at oag.ca.gov/immigrant.

OAKLAND — California Attorney General Rob Bonta yesterday secured a decision by the U.S. District Court for the District of Oregon permanently blocking the Trump Administration from penalizing states like California for errors resulting from the U.S. Department of Agriculture’s erroneous guidance unlawfully restricting eligibility for the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP). 

“There is no excuse for defending sloppiness, particularly sloppiness that would have ripped vital food assistance away from eligible families in need,” said Attorney General Bonta. “Yesterday, a court agreed, vacating the Trump Administration’s erroneous guidance and ensuring California is not penalized for the Administration’s mistakes. As Attorney General, I’ll always stand up for and stand with California families doing their best to make ends meet.” 

Last year, Attorney General Bonta and a multistate coalition sued the Trump Administration, arguing that the U.S. Department of Agriculture’s October 31, 2025, guidance erroneously excluded certain lawfully residing non-citizens from SNAP eligibility, when they in fact are eligible when they become lawful permanent residents. Additionally, the Administration refused to provide the states the required 120-day grace period that follows the issuance of new guidance. On December 9 and 10, the Trump Administration issued further guidance clarifying that certain lawfully residing non-citizens are in fact eligible for SNAP when they become lawful permanent residents, but it continued to refuse to provide the required grace period. 

OAKLAND — California Attorney General Rob Bonta yesterday secured a final court order from the U.S. District Court for the District of Massachusetts finding the Trump Administration’s termination of grant funding for K-12 teacher preparation programs unlawful. Beginning in February 2025, California institutions received letters purporting to terminate grants totaling at least $148 million in critical funding to address the state’s ongoing teacher shortage through teacher preparation programs. These programs are designed to create a pipeline for teachers serving rural and urban communities and teaching harder-to-fill positions like math and science and have been shown to increase teacher retention rates and ensure that educators remain in the profession beyond the crucial first five years. California led a multisite coalition in challenging the terminations, and yesterday, the court granted its motion for summary judgment, finding the Trump Administration's termination of these grants arbitrary and capricious and contrary to law in violation of the Administrative Procedure Act (APA). 

“Since Day One, the Trump Administration has pursued an anti-education agenda, repeatedly attempting to slash funding to undermine teacher training, student mental health, classroom technology, and more. Once again, a court said no,” said Attorney General Bonta. “There is nothing more important that our students' educational future — and their success relies on ensuring we’re continuing to train up the teachers of tomorrow.” 

In 2024, more than 400,000 teaching positions in the U.S. — representing about one in eight of all teaching positions nationwide — were vacant or filled by uncertified teachers. When schools are unable to find qualified teachers, students suffer. Teacher shortages can result in larger class sizes, cancelled courses, or classes staffed with teachers less able to teach a subject.

To address the nationwide teacher shortage, especially for hard-to-fill subject areas, like math, science, and special education, and in hard-to-staff school districts in rural and urban areas, Congress established and allocated funding pursuant to the Teacher Quality Partnership and Supporting Effective Educator Development grant programs to train teachers, create a new teacher pipeline, and improve teacher quality. The U.S. Department of Education subsequently awarded and obligated funds to states’ public universities and associated nonprofits grants under these programs to do exactly what Congress mandated — provide teacher training, placement, and retention, and new teacher pipeline development in the states.

Beginning on February 7, 2025, the U.S. Department of Education terminated, with immediate effect, hundreds of millions in grants awarded to K-12 teacher preparation programs in California and nationwide. In California alone, the Department provided notice of termination of grants with a total value of at least $148 million in funding across a number of grants. These terminations have been felt across California schools, who rely on these programs to bring teachers into their classrooms. Yesterday’s court order blocks these harmful terminations on a moving forward basis.

Attorney General Bonta led this lawsuit with Massachusetts Attorney General Andrea Campbell and New Jersey Attorney General Jennifer Davenport. They were joined by the attorneys general of Colorado, Illinois, Maryland, New York, and Wisconsin in filing the lawsuit.

OAKLAND — California Attorney General Rob Bonta submitted a comment letter pointing out the many flaws in the U.S. Bureau of Land Management’s (BLM) Draft Environmental Assessment (EA) that insufficiently evaluates the environmental consequences of an oil and gas lease sale covering nearly 36,000 acres in Central California. The proposed lease sale of 44 parcels — 43 in the Bakersfield Planning Area and one in the Central Coast Planning area — is the latest development in a long-running attempt to open new parts of California to oil and gas drilling. This proposed lease sale is subject to environmental review under the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA), but BLM violated the law’s requirement to take a hard look at the environmental consequences of leasing this land to oil and gas operators. In particular, BLM failed to consider the public health impacts of leasing parcels that are close to residences, schools, and hospitals and the impact on water supply and quality, air quality, and sensitive habitats and species. Attorney General Bonta asserts that this EA is another insufficient environmental review that puts politics and profits over legal requirements, to the further detriment of vulnerable communities.

“Once again, the Trump Administration is pushing to expand oil and gas development into additional areas of California, continuing a pattern that favors fossil fuel interests at the expense of public health and the environment. This lease sale would place a greater burden on communities that already experience severe air pollution, while ignoring the thorough environmental review required by law,” said Attorney General Bonta. “California’s land belongs to the people, not to special interest groups seeking to profit from them. My office remains committed to protecting our communities and resources and will continue to call out any action that threatens our environment and jeopardizes public health.” 

Background

On July 2, 2026, BLM announced plans to hold an oil and gas lease sale in December 2026, of nearly 36,000 acres in Kern, Kings, Fresno, and San Luis Obispo Counties. On August 21, 2026, BLM published a Draft EA for the proposed lease sale. The Draft EA relies on prior planning documents and environmental analyses that would collectively open up around 2 million acres of land across 20 counties in California to oil and gas operations. The Attorney General commented in opposition to these plans in March 2026, also arguing that the environmental analyses for the plans were deficient. BLM finalized these plans in June.  

If finalized, the lease sale would impact some of the most pollution-burdened communities in California. Public health impacts include increased mortality and morbidity — particularly adverse perinatal and respiratory outcomes — as well as economic harms from medical costs and lost productivity. The Draft EA also assumes that some hydraulic fracturing will occur despite the technique being phased out in California and fails to consider state law that limits drilling near homes and schools, as well as state efforts to combat climate change. Approximately 16 of the parcels BLM proposes to lease fall within California’s 3,200-foot public health and safety setback, established under Senate Bill 1137 to protect the health of communities from the harmful effects of drilling near homes, schools, and other sensitive locations. Despite this, the Draft EA includes no discussion of the specific impacts that leasing these parcels may have on nearby communities. 

In the comment letter, Attorney General Bonta argues that the Draft EA for the 44-parcel lease sale is deficient for many reasons, including because BLM: 

• Based the Draft EA on other inadequate assessments that rely on flawed data and that do not analyze the specific impacts associated with the proposed lease sale.
• Failed to consider recent science and data or adequately analyze the harms from oil and gas development — especially those related to water quality and quantity, air pollution, and the outsized public health harms to communities near oil and gas operations, who are disproportionately low-income communities and communities of color.
• Failed to consider reasonable alternatives to its proposed actions, including those that would protect more public lands and limit or mitigate the harms to nearby communities.

OAKLAND — California Attorney General Rob Bonta issued the following statement after the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia granted a coalition of states’ request for a preliminary injunction halting the Trump Administration’s attempt to obtain the sensitive personal information of drivers who have either a commercial driver’s license or commercial driver’s permit required to drive large, heavy, or hazardous commercial vehicles. In August, Attorney General Bonta joined a coalition in suing the Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration (FMCSA) after it threatened to withhold funding to the American Association of Motor Vehicle Administrators (AAMVA) if it did not comply with demands for commercial driver data including drivers’ names, license numbers, licensing states, and more. A week later, the coalition's request for a temporary restraining order was granted. Now, the preliminary injunction bars FMCSA from unlawfully obtaining this data as the litigation continues.

“A federal court issued a preliminary injunction once again blocking the Trump Administration’s unlawful attempt to seize personal, sensitive data on commercial drivers,” said Attorney General Bonta. “This ruling ensures that Americans’ privacy rights remain protected as our case continues. California will continue to stand up for the rule of law and work to protect the privacy of Californians and commercial drivers across the country.”  

BACKGROUND

AAMVA operates a federally mandated system called the Commercial Driver’s License Information System (CDLIS). States use CDLIS to search for specific individuals applying for a commercial driver’s license, which is required to operate large, heavy, or hazardous commercial vehicles, such as semi-trucks, as opposed to a standard driver’s license that allows a driver to operate a passenger vehicle. CDLIS allows states, for example, to confirm that a person applying for a commercial driver’s license does not have such a license in another state. The federal government has historically used the information system to search for records on an individual basis, but FMCSA threatened to withhold funding for AAMVA and terminate the cooperative agreement under which CDLIS exists and operates, subject to demands for the records of millions of people in the system.

In August 2026, Attorney General Bonta and a multistate coalition challenged the demand for CDLIS data, arguing that it is unconstitutional, exceeds the Trump Administration’s authority, and violates the federal Driver's Privacy Protection Act along with the federal Privacy Act. This new order blocks the broad demand for information while litigation continues.

OAKLAND — Co-leading a coalition of 21 attorneys general, California Attorney General Rob Bonta yesterday filed an amicus brief in support of a lawsuit challenging the U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA)’s thinly veiled attempt to drive large numbers of employees to resign by forcing them to move across the country. The brief supports a motion for a preliminary injunction in American Federation of Government Employees, AFL-CIO, et al. v. Trump, et al., a case pending in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California. Attorney General Bonta and the coalition argue that USDA’s “reorganization” would not benefit the agency or the states. Instead, it would harm California and other states that partner with USDA on essential programs to prevent wildfires, protect food safety and security, and administer food assistance to our most vulnerable residents.

In the brief, the coalition urges the Northern District of California to protect states from this imminent harm by continuing to block the USDA’s wrongheaded and cruel reorganization plan. Attorney General Bonta and the coalition join the American Federation of Government Employees, AFL-CIO, the City and County of San Francisco, the County of Santa Clara, and many other labor organizations, counties, municipalities, nonprofits, and member organizations around the country challenging the proposed USDA reorganization. 

“The Trump Administration is trying to force essential public servants to choose between uprooting their lives — in many cases, by moving across the country — or losing their jobs,” said Attorney General Bonta. “If allowed to proceed, this reckless plan would make it harder for states to prevent wildfires, protect our food supply, and provide nutrition assistance to families who need it. The court has already blocked this plan, and we firmly believe it should stay blocked.” 

California and local governments across the state depend upon the USDA Forest Service (Forest Service) for wildfire prevention, wildfire response, land-management partnerships, and scientific expertise. As Forest Service personnel are pushed out, the agency will have reduced capacity and lose specialized expertise, exposing California lands and communities to unnecessary harm. Since 2025, California alone has battled more than 13,000 wildfires that scorched over 800,000 acres of land, including heartbreaking disasters like the Palisades and Eaton Fires that devastated the Los Angeles area. The California Department of Forestry and Fire Protection and municipal firefighting departments rely on their strong partnership with the Forest Service to protect California’s residents and communities from wildfire. The proposed USDA reorganization threatens Forest Service readiness, risking further harm to California residents who already are anxious about wildfire hazards.   

California also relies on USDA Food and Nutrition Administration (FNA) personnel for program administration, guidance, funding, oversight, and coordination. The reorganization threatens California’s ability to efficiently administer critical nutrition-assistance programs like the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP), the Special Supplemental Nutrition Program for Women, Infants, and Children (WIC), child and school-based nutrition programs, and nutrition-related disaster assistance. CalFresh and other California agencies depend on FNA staff to help provide these vital benefits to our most vulnerable residents. The USDA reorganization nearly ensures that experienced FNA staff will leave the agency, depriving all states of benefits assistance that FNA must provide.  

Similarly, California and other states rely on USDA research agencies for information and data concerning agriculture, food production, conservation, pests, plant and animal health, and food safety. The USDA plans to close the flagship Beltsville Agricultural Research Center (BARC) in Maryland, which has been the home of the Agricultural Research Service and is widely regarded as one of the most advanced and influential agricultural research centers in the world. Shuttering this lab would harm not just agriculture, but public health. Scientists at BARC are currently studying cyclospora, a foodborne parasite that can cause severe illness. The United States is currently in the midst of the worst cyclospora outbreak on record. Every scientist on at least one cyclospora project at BARC has declined to move across the country and will instead be forced to resign from USDA, leaving the future of this crucial research uncertain. 

The Trump Administration has repeatedly tried to dramatically slash protections and programs that states and people rely on, including food safety, environmental protection, natural disaster funding, and funding for victims of crime. In the case of USDA, over 75% of employees at some programs have stated they were more likely to leave the agency than uproot their lives and relocate, in many cases to new offices or facilities hundreds of miles away that are ill-equipped to support their core job functions. This reorganization would force large numbers of employees to choose between moving across the country despite family and personal obligations — and in many cases taking a significant pay cut — or quitting their jobs. The coalition’s brief highlights the harms to public health and safety that would follow and urges the court to protect these programs and employees.

This brief was led by the attorneys general of California, Maryland, and Washington. They were joined by the attorneys general of Arizona, Connecticut, Delaware, the District of Columbia, Hawai’i, Illinois, Maine, Massachusetts, Michigan, Minnesota, Nevada, New Jersey, New Mexico, New York, Oregon, Rhode Island, Vermont, and Virginia.