Federal Accountability

OAKLAND — California Attorney General Rob Bonta today issued the following statement after a three-judge panel of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the First Circuit unanimously affirmed a lower court’s decision, which permanently barred the Trump Administration from decimating funds that support cutting-edge medical and public health research at universities and research institutions across the country — including at the University of California (UC) and at the California State University (CSU). The funds at issue — known as “indirect cost” reimbursements — cover expenses to facilitate biomedical research, such as lab, faculty, infrastructure, and utility costs. As part of a coalition of 22 attorneys general, Attorney General Bonta sued the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) and the National Institutes of Health (NIH) on February 10, 2025 to block the attempted funding cuts from taking effect.

“The Trump Administration wanted to eviscerate funding for medical research that helps develop new cures and treatments for diseases like cancer, diabetes, and Alzheimer’s. Let that sink in: Life-saving research — proudly happening at UCs and CSUs across our state — was under attack,” said Attorney General Bonta. “My fellow attorneys general and I stepped in to stop these illegal actions. The district court sided with us, and now, the First Circuit has, too. We’re starting the new year by building on our previous successes and securing yet another important victory against the Trump Administration.”

On Friday, February 7, 2025, the NIH announced in Supplemental Guidance that it would abruptly slash indirect cost rates to an across-the-board 15% rate, which is significantly less than the cost required to perform critical medical research. The NIH purported to make this cut effective the very next business day, Monday, February 10, giving universities and institutions no time to plan for the enormous budget gaps they would be facing. Less than six hours after Attorney General Bonta filed suit against the Trump Administration on February 10, the U.S. District Court for the District of Massachusetts issued a temporary restraining order against NIH, barring its attempts to cut the critical research funding. The court subsequently issued a nationwide preliminary injunction, which was converted into a permanent injunction at the parties’ request. The Trump Administration appealed that ruling to the First Circuit. 

In today’s decision, the First Circuit wrote that “the public-health benefits of NIH-funded research are enormous” and concluded that:

• “[T]he district court properly exercised subject-matter jurisdiction over the plaintiffs' claims,” and
• “NIH’s attempt, through its Supplemental Guidance, to impose a 15% indirect cost reimbursement rate violates the congressionally enacted appropriations rider and HHS’s duly adopted regulations.”

OAKLAND — California Attorney General Rob Bonta secured a multistate settlement agreement with the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) that permanently resolves claims made in a lawsuit he co-led in April challenging the Trump Administration’s unlawful delays in reviewing National Institutes of Health (NIH) grant applications. As part of the agreement, which remains subject to court approval, HHS commits to resuming the usual process for considering NIH grant applications on a prompt, agreed-upon timeline. The aforementioned lawsuit filed by Attorney General Bonta also alleged that NIH had terminated large swaths of already-issued grants for projects that are currently underway based on the projects’ perceived connection to “diversity, equity, and inclusion (DEI),” “transgender issues,” “vaccine hesitancy,” and other topics disfavored by the current Administration. Today’s agreement limits NIH from applying those directives while reviewing applications for new grants.

“I am pleased that the Trump Administration has agreed to stop delaying the review process for NIH grants. That, of course, should have never happened in the first place, and it’s why my fellow attorneys general and I took the Administration to court earlier this year,” said Attorney General Bonta. “Going forward, we remain committed to ensuring HHS fulfills its obligations under the agreement.”

NIH grant applications typically undergo several rounds of rigorous review by subject-matter experts and agency officials who assess each proposal’s scientific merit in light of funding availability and agency priorities. Earlier this year, the Administration took the unprecedented step of cancelling upcoming meetings for the agency’s review panels and delaying the scheduling of future meetings. The Administration also indefinitely withheld issuing final decisions on applications that had already received approval from the relevant review panels, leaving the plaintiff states awaiting decisions on billions of dollars in requested research funding.  

As a result of the Administration’s delays and terminations, the states alleged that their public research institutions experienced significant harm. In California, NIH funding creates over 50,000 jobs and billions of dollars in economic activity. Over the decades, this funding has brought humanity the eradication of polio, discovery of genes that cause breast and ovarian cancer, and the transformation of HIV from a fatal disease into one people can live with.

Today’s agreement complements the coalition’s victory in an earlier phase of the lawsuit, in which the plaintiff states challenged unlawful directives that targeted NIH projects based on their perceived connection to “DEI,” “transgender issues,” “vaccine hesitancy,” and other topics disfavored by the Trump Administration. The U.S. District Court for the District of Massachusetts found for the plaintiff states and set aside the unlawful directives; a hearing on the federal government’s appeal of that decision is scheduled for January 6, 2026.

Joining Attorney General Bonta in reaching this settlement are the attorneys general of Arizona, Colorado, Delaware, Hawaiʻi, Maryland, Massachusetts, Minnesota, Nevada, New Jersey, New Mexico, New York, Oregon, Rhode Island, and Wisconsin.

Following Supreme Court decision, Trump Administration withdraws motion to stay, allows lower court order ending the extended federalization of the California National Guard to go fully into effect 

OAKLAND – California Attorney General Rob Bonta today celebrated the Trump Administration’s decision to withdraw its legal effort to block an order by the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California ending the continued federalization and deployment of California National Guard troops in and around Los Angeles. The Trump Administration’s capitulation comes on the heels of a ruling by the U.S. Supreme Court in a related case, Illinois v. Trump, rejecting its nearly limitless conception of presidential authority to federalize the National Guard and the activities those troops can engage in.  

The deployment of California National Guard troops ended earlier this month after the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit refused to pause the District Court’s preliminary injunction order with respect to the deployment, but the troops remained federalized. With today’s filing, the Trump Administration agrees to allow the District Court’s order with regard to the federalization of these troops to go into effect, allowing for the return of command of these troops to Governor Newsom for the first time since they were initially federalized in early June. 

“For six months, California National Guard troops have been used as political pawns by a President desperate to be king. From the political display in MacArthur Park to their unlawful participation in indiscriminate immigration raids, the militaristic deployment of National Guard troops to Los Angeles streets has left lasting scars in Angeleno communities. There is a reason our founders decided military and civilian affairs must be kept separate; a reason that our military is, by design, apolitical,” said Attorney General Bonta. “Now, in the face of a stinging rebuke by the U.S. Supreme Court, the Trump Administration is backing away from its efforts to federalize and deploy California National Guard troops. I’m incredibly proud of my team who worked nights and weekends to defend the Constitution and bring about an end of the President’s unlawful overreach of executive power. While our rule of law remains under threat, our democratic institutions are holding. My office is not backing down — and we’re ready for whatever fights lie ahead.”

OAKLAND — California Attorney General Rob Bonta today celebrated a ruling by the U.S. Supreme Court rejecting the Trump Administration’s nearly limitless conception of presidential authority to federalize the National Guard and the activities those troops can engage in. In rejecting the Trump Administration’s request for a stay in Illinois v. Trump, the Supreme Court leaves in place a temporary court order blocking the deployment of federalized National Guard troops in Chicago, Illinois, finding the Trump Administration failed to establish that “regular forces” — the military — were unable to execute the law. The Supreme Court further finds that 10 U.S.C. 12406 does not authorize the President to use the Guard for protective functions at federal property and that the military had no lawful role to play in executing the laws either.

“We’ve argued for months against the Trump Administration’s sweeping militarized vision of America. The Supreme Court has now agreed, rejecting the Trump Administration’s unprecedented invocation of a seldom-used statute to justify the limitless deployment of National Guard troops on American soil,” said Attorney General Bonta. “Today, Americans can breathe a huge sigh of relief. While this is not necessarily the end of the road, it is a significant, deeply gratifying step in the right direction. We plan to ask the lower courts to reach the same result in our cases—and we are hopeful they will do quickly.” 

OAKLAND — California Attorney General Bonta today joined a multistate amicus brief in support of the plaintiffs in Global Nurse Force, et al. v. Trump, who are challenging the Trump Administration’s unlawful policy imposing a $100,000 fee on new H-1B visa petitions. H-1B visas allow U.S. employers to hire highly skilled foreign national workers in roles that require specialized skills, including as physicians, researchers, nurses, and other vital workers, to alleviate nationwide labor shortages. The new fee would create a costly barrier for employers, especially public sector and government employers, trying to fill these positions. In the brief, the attorneys general urge the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California to grant a preliminary injunction blocking the policy, arguing that it is contrary to the public interest, as it would make it harder to address workforce shortages, weaken the economy, and disrupt essential services. Attorney General Bonta separately led a coalition of 20 attorneys general in challenging the Trump Administration’s unlawful H-1B policy in a lawsuit filed earlier this month.

“The Trump Administration’s $100,000 visa fee imposes unnecessary and unlawful financial burdens on public employers and will leave essential positions in critical sectors unfilled,” said Attorney General Bonta. “My office has challenged this fee in court, and today, we’re supporting a related challenge. We won’t stop fighting to protect our world-class universities, schools, and hospitals, which thrive by attracting and retaining skilled talent from around the world.”

The H-1B visa program allows employers to petition for high-skilled foreign workers to temporarily fill positions in specialty occupations that require at least a bachelor’s degree. In petitioning for an H-1B worker, the employer must submit an application, certified by the U.S. Department of Labor, that employment of the H-1B worker will not negatively affect the wages and working conditions of similarly employed U.S. workers. Congress limits the number of H-1B visas available each year for most private employers, with the current cap set at 65,000, with an exemption of 20,000 for individuals with a master’s degree or higher. Many government and non-profit research organizations are exempt from the 65,000-person cap to ensure that the organizations are fulfilling their public service missions. 

Since its inception, the H-1B visa program has been continually tailored by Congress to carry out its purpose of meeting employers’ labor needs, while protecting the interests of American workers to ensure that they are not wrongfully displaced. Congress has repeatedly enhanced enforcement, increased penalties, and legislated on fees for H-1B petitions to prevent misuse of the program. Given its careful structure, the H-1B program has proven to be massively beneficial to the United States. H-1B workers and their dependents contribute $86 billion annually to the economy - and pay $24 billion in federal and payroll taxes, on top of $11 billion in state and local taxes.

On September 19, 2025, the Trump Administration imposed an unprecedented $100,000 fee for new H-1B visa petitions, undermining the very purpose of the H-1B visa by making it harder to address severe labor shortages in critical fields such as education and healthcare and ultimately worsening the staffing crisis. As implemented by the U.S. Department of Homeland Security, through a series of written documents, the policy affects any application filed after September 21, 2025, and grants the Secretary of Homeland Security broad discretion to determine which petitions are subject to the fee or are exempt from it, raising concerns that the enforcement could be applied selectively against employers disfavored by the Trump Administration.

The $100,000 visa fee is devastating for all states, including California, and threatens the quality of education, healthcare, and other core services available to our residents. For example, the United States faces a nationwide teacher shortage, and in the 2024-2025 school year, 74% of school districts in the U.S. reported having trouble filling open positions, particularly in special education, physical sciences, ESL or bilingual education, and foreign languages. Educators are the third-largest occupation for H-1B visa holders, with nearly 30,000 educators on the visas, and nearly a thousand colleges and universities employ hundreds of H-1B personnel to support their research and education missions. Because K-12 schools, colleges, and universities are generally government or non-profit entities, they are incapable of absorbing an additional $100,000 for each H-1B hire. Ultimately, American students will be harmed by larger class sizes, less time with teachers, cuts to programs and course offerings, compromising the quality of education in California. 

Hospitals and other healthcare centers also rely on the H-1B visa program to hire physicians, surgeons, and nurses, often in low-income and working-class neighborhoods. About 11.4 million Californians — roughly one quarter of California’s population — live in areas with primary care shortages. Over the years, nearly 23,000 H-1B physicians worked in underserved communities. The United States is projecting a shortfall of 86,000 physicians by 2036. There will not be enough doctors to care for older adults, many of whom suffer increased rates of chronic disease and have other complex medical needs. In California, access to specialists and primary care providers in rural areas is already extremely limited and projected to worsen as physicians retire and these communities struggle to attract new doctors. At a time when many hospitals are already facing cuts in health insurance subsidies and reduced Medicaid payments, a $100,000 fee for H-1B healthcare workers is simply not feasible. As a result of the fee, these institutions will be forced to operate with inadequate staffing leading to decreases in the quality of patient care, increased errors, wait times, and mortality rates, and even facility closures. 

In filing the amicus brief, Attorney General Bonta joins the attorneys general of Arizona, Colorado, Connecticut, Delaware, the District of Columbia, Hawai’i, Illinois, Maine, Maryland, Massachusetts, Michigan, Minnesota, Nevada, New Jersey, New Mexico, New York, North Carolina, Oregon, Rhode Island, Vermont, Washington, and Wisconsin.

OAKLAND — California Attorney General Rob Bonta today secured a permanent injunction stopping the unlawful reallocation of hundreds of millions of dollars in Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) Homeland Security Grant Program funding away from states like California based on their adoption of policies the Trump Administration does not like. 

“Over and over, the courts have rebuked the Trump Administration’s unlawful attempts to punish states for adopting policies it doesn’t like,” said Attorney General Bonta. “The Trump Administration may go down in history as the most anti-public safety administration in history, yanking funding that states like California use to help us prepare for and protect against terrorism and other threats. I’m gratified the court saw through the President’s flimsy excuses and issued an order that ensures we get the funding we’re legally entitled to.” 

For decades, California has relied on Homeland Security Grant Program funding to prevent, protect against, respond to, and recover from terrorism and other catastrophes. And across each presidential administration, this funding had been allocated even-handedly and on the basis of need and risk, as required by Congress. Yet in September, California and other states received award notifications that were significantly lower than anticipated — without justification and seemingly based on their states’ decision to use their law enforcement resources to protect public safety rather than assist in federal immigration enforcement. 

Attorney General Bonta and a coalition promptly sued and secured a temporary restraining order stopping the unlawful reallocation of the homeland security funding while their litigation continued. The coalition later amended the complaint to include FEMA’s attempt to impose an illegal new condition on Emergency Management Performance Grants requiring states to certify to their current populations — instead of relying on census data—making an impossible ask for data the states do not have in order to receive critical emergency management funding. 

Today’s decision resolves the case, vacating the unlawful agency actions and granting permanent injunctive relief to the Plaintiff States, subject to appeal. The decision orders FEMA to re-issue award letters to the states that reflect the amounts the states were originally set to receive and removes the unlawful population certification requirement.

The Consumer Financial Protection Bureau was created to protect consumers from unfair, deceptive, and abusive acts or practices, and from discrimination by Big Corporations. 

OAKLAND — California Attorney General Rob Bonta co-led a coalition of 22 attorneys general in filing a lawsuit challenging the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau’s (CFPB) Acting Director’s unlawful decision not to fund the agency’s operations, preventing it from performing legally mandated functions. The lawsuit, filed in the U.S. District Court for the District of Oregon, challenges the decision by CFPB Acting Director Russell Vought to refuse to request the necessary funding for the agency from the Federal Reserve, in violation of the Dodd-Frank Wall Street Reform and Consumer Protection Act (Dodd-Frank Act). The CFPB was created to protect consumers in the financial marketplace, and it performs critical functions necessary to the functioning of the financial system. For 14 years, the CFPB has served as an invaluable partner to state attorneys general and state banking regulators, as an enforcer, regulator, and resource for consumers. Shortly after taking office, the Trump Administration launched a campaign of destruction and systemic shuttering of the CFPB, threatening catastrophic harm to hardworking families and consumer financial markets nationwide. Today's lawsuit challenges the latest step in the Trump Administration campaign to shutter the agency.

“President Trump seems intent on making life more unaffordable for Americans — whether by withholding food assistance, pushing policies that would make energy more expensive, or by placing chaotic tariffs on essential items. At the same time, the Administration continues to abandon its responsibility to protect and defend American consumers being taken advantage of by Big Corporations, dismantling the agency that stands up for consumers against big banks, debt collectors, and credit reporting companies,” said Attorney General Bonta. “The Trump Administration’s latest effort to destroy the CFPB means that hundreds of thousands of consumer complaints will fall on deaf ears. If you have ever had issues with your car loan, mortgage loans, or bank fees, if you have ever disputed a credit score error and expected to have the federal government on your side, this impacts you. By refusing to fund the CFPB, even when legal and appropriate funding mechanisms are available, the Trump Administration has sharpened its message that it does not care about affordability, that it does not care to be on the side of families and working Americans. California cares. With this lawsuit, we demand that the federal government keep up its side of the deal by lawfully funding the Bureau and its critical work.”  

BACKGROUND

After the 2008 financial crisis, Congress enacted the Dodd-Frank Act, establishing the CFPB as a federal financial regulator whose first priority is protecting consumers. The CFPB is tasked with enforcing numerous federal consumer protection statutes and enacting regulations to further these efforts. 

As the cornerstone of federal consumer financial protections for 14 years, the CFPB has been an invaluable enforcement partner to California, working to protect hardworking families and make the marketplace fairer here in California and across the country, returning over $20 billion to Americans since its creation. Among other important functions, the CFPB maintains a publicly available online complaint handling system and database through which consumers can submit complaints about financial products and services and receive responses from regulated entities.   

The Trump Administration has taken a series of actions intended to debilitate the CFPB, including issuing a suspension of work across the agency, terminating probationary employees, attempting to issue reduction in force notices to 90% of the CFPB’s workforce — a move that was swiftly blocked by the courts. The continued gutting of the CFPB leaves no oversight over large, national banks and credit unions, guts oversight of payday lenders, the mortgage markets, and credit reporting agencies — and dramatically shrinks the Bureau’s supervisorial oversight of the markets for auto finance, consumer reporting, debt collection, and international money transfer services — leaving millions of consumers unprotected. 

THE LAWSUIT 

On November 10, the CFPB gave notice that it would not request funding from the Federal Reserve to continue its operations based on legal analysis it had received from U.S. DOJ advising that it could not lawfully draw funds from the Federal Reserve because the Federal Reserve is “unprofitable.” The CFPB also stated it has sufficient funds to operate until at least December 31, 2025. At that time, the CFPB is expected to imminently cease operations, including taking its online consumer complaint handling system and database offline.   

U.S. DOJ’s interpretation of the statute has been widely criticized by consumer advocates as well as former CFPB and Federal Reserve officials as being unlawful. The attorneys general argue U.S. DOJ’s advice comes from a misreading of language in the Dodd-Frank Act authorizing the CFPB to draw its funding from “the combined earnings of the Federal Reserve System.” The CFPB and U.S DOJ’s conclusion that the term “combined earnings of the Federal Reserve System” refers to the Federal Reserve’s profits, calculated by subtracting its interest expenses from its revenues, is an incorrect and unlawful interpretation.  

In the lawsuit today, the attorneys general allege that CFPB’s refusal to seek funding to continue its operations, including operating its consumer complaint database is ultra vires, contrary to law, and arbitrary and capricious as the Dodd-Frank Act clearly provides a mechanism for funding the CFPB to perform its statutorily mandatory functions — which include: 

• Rooting out unfair, deceptive, or abusive acts or practices by writing rules, supervising companies, and enforcing the law;
• Enforcing laws that outlaw discrimination in consumer finance;
• Taking consumer complaints;
• Enhancing financial education;
• Researching the consumer experience of using financial products; and
• Monitoring financial markets for new risks to consumers.  

The attorneys general argue that CFPB’s failure to seek funding for continued operations, including operations of its consumer complaints database, will harm consumers and result in the above statutorily mandated functions not being performed. The attorneys general ask the court to declare this action unlawful and ensure CFPB is properly funded.

Attorney General Bonta is leading this lawsuit along with the attorneys general of New York, Oregon, New Jersey, and Colorado. They are joined by the attorneys general of Arizona, Connecticut, Delaware, the District of Columbia, Hawai‘i, Illinois, Maine, Maryland, Massachusetts, Michigan, Nevada, New Mexico, North Carolina, Rhode Island, Vermont, and Wisconsin. 

Attorney General Bonta has been an outspoken critic amid the attempts of the Trump Administration’s CFPB to shrink its responsibilities and has submitted amicus briefs in Mayor and City Council of Baltimore v. Consumer Financial Protection Bureau and in National Treasury Employees Union v. Vought, lawsuits challenging the Trump Administration’s efforts to dismantle the CFPB.

OAKLAND — California Attorney General Rob Bonta today celebrated a decision from the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Washington, which declared that the U.S. Department of Education acted illegally by discontinuing grants awarded through Congressionally-established school mental health funding programs. The decision requires the Department to issue new funding decisions to 21 grantees in California. Because the Department has not identified any concerns with the grantees’ performance, the Department will likely resume funding to the grantees, including tens of millions of dollars to support high-need, low-income, and rural California schools. This funding is critical to students’ well-being, safety, and academic success. Today’s decision vacates the Trump Administration’s directive to halt these grants and brings the lawsuit by the attorneys general to a final resolution, subject to appeal. 

“The courts have once again agreed with states nationwide and halted the Trump Administration’s illegal actions. This time, the President tried mightily to rip away funding that supported the mental health of our most vulnerable students. California and our sister states stepped in, and we are proud to have secured a court ruling permanently barring the U.S. Department of Education from withholding mental health funding from schools for any reason that does not have to do with grantees’ performance,” said Attorney General Bonta. “These mental health programs do critical work to ensure students not only succeed but thrive. California is committed and at the ready to defend our future generations from attack by an Administration intent on breaking the law. Today, we’ve done just that.”

Today’s decision also permanently blocks the U.S. Department of Education from deciding whether to continue funding to grantees based on new priorities or information that is not relevant to grantees’ performance and specifies that the Department cannot deny an award based on performance issues that were caused by the Department’s unlawful actions challenged in this case and their disruptive effects.

In July, Attorney General Bonta joined a coalition of 16 attorneys general in suing the Trump Administration over their discontinuation of these grants, and in October, the coalition secured a preliminary injunction blocking the Department from discontinuing grants and stating that the Trump Administration's actions were likely unlawful. 

BACKGROUND

Spurred by episodes of devastating loss from school shootings, Congress established and funded the Mental Health Service Professional Demonstration Grant Program (MHSP) in 2018 and the School-Based Mental Health Services Grant Program (SBMH) in 2020 to increase students’ access to mental health services. MHSP addresses the shortage of school-based mental health service providers by awarding multi-year grants to projects that expand the pipeline for counselors, social workers, and psychologists through partnerships between institutes of higher education and local educational agencies; and SBMH funds multi-year grants to increase the number of professionals that provide school-based mental health services to students through direct hiring and retention incentives. The ultimate goal of the programs is to permanently bring 14,000 additional mental health professionals into U.S. schools.

The programs have been an incredible success. In their first year, the programs provided mental and behavioral health services to nearly 775,000 elementary and secondary students nationwide. Sampled projects showed real results: a 50% reduction in suicide risk at high-need schools, decreases in absenteeism and behavioral issues, and increases in positive student-staff engagement. Data also showed recruitment and retention efforts are working – in the first year of the programs, nearly 1,300 school mental health professionals were hired and 95% of those hired were retained. Importantly, these newly hired school-based mental health providers were able to create an 80% reduction in student wait time for services. The grants have helped schools hire hundreds of psychologists, counselors, and social workers who have served thousands of students, including in the state’s most economically disadvantaged and rural communities. By all markers, these programs work.

Despite these successes, on or about April 29, 2025, the Department sent boilerplate notices to grantees, including state education agencies, local education agencies, and institutes of higher education, claiming that their grants conflicted with the Trump Administration’s priorities and would not be continued. The Department pledged to reallocate funds based on new priorities of “merit, fairness, and excellence in education,” providing little to no insight into the basis for the discontinuances, which threatened to destroy projects years in the making. However, in the press, the Trump Administration admitted that it targeted Plaintiff States’ grants for their perceived diversity, equity, and inclusion (DEI) efforts, which the court agreed today was not a legal basis for discontinuing these grants.

OAKLAND — California Attorney General Rob Bonta, California Governor Gavin Newsom, the California Department of Transportation (Caltrans), and the California Energy Commission (CEC), today co-led a coalition of 17 attorneys general and the State of Pennsylvania in filing a lawsuit against the Trump Administration for unlawfully suspending two bipartisan grant programs for electric vehicle charging infrastructure that would reduce pollution, expand access to clean vehicles, and create thousands of green jobs. Without any explanation or notice, the U.S. Department of Transportation (USDOT) has quietly refused to approve any new funding under two electric vehicle charging infrastructure programs created in the Infrastructure Investment & Jobs Act (IIJA): Charging and Fueling Infrastructure Program (CFI) and the Electric Vehicle Charger Reliability and Accessibility Accelerator (Accelerator) Program (together, the EV Charging Infrastructure Programs). In the lawsuit, California and the coalition allege that these unexplained and secretive actions violate the constitutional separation of powers, as the funding was approved by bipartisan majorities in Congress. 

“The Trump Administration’s illegal attempt to stop funding for electric vehicle infrastructure must come to an end,” said Attorney General Rob Bonta. “This is just another reckless attempt that will stall the fight against air pollution and climate change, slow innovation, thwart green job creation, and leave communities without access to clean, affordable transportation. While the Administration is busy finding ways for their Big Oil donors to profit, California will continue to fight for its people, environment, and innovation.”

"The Trump Administration is unlawfully withholding funds from the Bipartisan Infrastructure Law — investments Congress approved to build America's EV charging network, reduce pollution, and create thousands of good-paying jobs. We won't stand for it," said Governor Gavin Newsom. "California will defend the Constitution, our communities, and the future we're building. With 2.4 million zero-emission vehicles on our roads and critical projects ready to move forward, we're taking this to court."

“California is committed to continuing to scale up electric vehicles and ensure a reliable and affordable EV charging network for all. By doing this, we can help reduce air pollution and increase our energy independence," said CEC Chair David Hochschild. "Our state has made great progress and now has more public EV charge plugs than we have gasoline nozzles. We expect the bipartisan-approved federal funding to continue to support this important infrastructure.” 

“These grant programs are critical to building a sustainable modern transportation network in California," said Dina El-Tawansy, Director of the California Department of Transportation. "The electric vehicle charging funding they provide will enhance freight movement, improve convenience for drivers, and accelerate California’s mission to build a cleaner and more reliable system for all travelers.”

In 2022, Congress passed the Infrastructure Investment and Jobs Act (IIJA), also known as the Bipartisan Infrastructure Law. Like the National Electric Vehicle Infrastructure (NEVI) Formula Program, the CFI and Accelerator programs are five-year programs created by IIJA for building or repairing EV chargers. USDOT and the Federal Highway Administration have refused all new obligations of funds under both programs since the spring of 2025. Specifically, the CFI program directs $2.5 billion in discretionary funding to States and local governments for EV charging and hydrogen fueling infrastructure, while the Accelerator program awards grants, through NEVI appropriations, to States and localities for EV charger repair and maintenance. Together, they provide $179.8 million in federal funds to California state agencies for building and maintaining a network of publicly accessible, fast, and reliable EV chargers that is critical to California’s EV adoption and climate goals. 

California continues to lead the nation in the adoption of zero-emission vehicles (ZEVs) and the development of supporting infrastructure to rapidly deploy funds to develop and ensure a reliable and easy-to-use charging network. To date, over 2.4 million ZEVs have been sold in California, including thousands of electric trucks, delivery vans, and buses that CFI-funded chargers would support along California’s critical goods movement corridors. 

The suspension of the EV Charging Infrastructure Programs has detrimentally impacted States by stalling planned charging station projects, delaying infrastructure build-out, and creating financial uncertainty. Specifically in California, the following awards are at stake: $59.3 million CFI award to Caltrans to buildout a freight corridor for medium- and heavy-duty electric vehicles; $55.9 million CFI award to CEC for zero-emission freight transportation along key California freight corridors and around California’s major ports; and $63.1 million Accelerator award to Caltrans for repair and replacement of non-operational EV chargers.

The complaint filed today alleges that the Trump Administration’s refusal to spend the funds that Congress appropriated for EV infrastructure is unlawful because it violates the separation of powers and violates the Administrative Procedure Act. The programs were created by statute, and federal agencies have a duty to faithfully execute those statutes. The complaint asks the court to declare the defendants’ actions unlawful and to permanently stop the Administration from withholding these funds. 

Attorney General Bonta co-led the lawsuit with the attorneys general of Washington and Colorado and was joined in the filing by the attorneys general of Arizona, Delaware, District of Columbia, Illinois, Maryland, Massachusetts, Michigan, New Jersey, New York, Oregon, Rhode Island, Vermont, Wisconsin, and the State of Pennsylvania.

A copy of the lawsuit is available here.

OAKLAND — California Attorney General Rob Bonta today secured a decision by the U.S. District Court for the District of Oregon blocking the Trump Administration from penalizing California for any errors resulting from the U.S. Department of Agriculture’s erroneous guidance unlawfully restricting eligibility for the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP). After a four-hour hearing, the district court orally granted the Attorney General’s motion for a preliminary injunction and delayed the end of the grace period through April 9, 2026, ensuring that errors caused by the faulty, unlawful guidance do not result in hefty fiscal penalties for California. Last month, 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 excludes certain lawfully residing non-citizens from SNAP eligibility, when they in fact are eligible when they become lawful permanent residents. 

On December 9, 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. However, the Administration refuses to provide the states the required 120-day grace period for mistakes caused by the erroneous guidance. Under the “Big Beautiful Bill,” these errors can result in massive fiscal penalties. The district court today agreed with the states that the grace period, which under federal regulations is supposed to go into effect after the agency issues implementing guidance, such as the guidance at issue here, should be applied.

“The holiday season is a time of kindness and generosity. Unfortunately, this President has decided to play the Grinch,” said Attorney General Bonta. “That’s not what America stands for. As families struggle to make ends meet, we’re going to keep fighting for vital programs like SNAP that allow them to put food on the table — even when it means taking the President to court. Because of our lawsuit, the Trump Administration issued new guidance ensuring that legal permanent residents will not be wrongfully denied SNAP benefits and, with today’s court order, we’ve made sure that the states do not pay the price for this Administration’s delayed and incorrect guidance.”

Attorney General Bonta has vigorously defended SNAP benefits from attacks by the Trump Administration. During the recent government shutdown, Attorney General Bonta sued USDA to force them to fund November SNAP benefits. Not one, but two federal district courts determined that the Trump Administration acted unlawfully. And when the Administration responded by asking the U.S. Supreme Court to pause one court’s order requiring USDA to pay full benefits, Attorney General Bonta vigorously challenged that request, which was ultimately withdrawn after the government reopened. The SNAP program is now fully funded through September 2026.