Federal Accountability

OAKLAND — California Attorney General Rob Bonta today, as part of a multistate coalition, filed a lawsuit challenging the U.S. Department of Justice’s (U.S. DOJ) new condition prohibiting recipients of various public safety and victim services grants from using funding to provide legal services to undocumented immigrants. Many of the organizations that receive these funds provide critical wraparound services to victims of domestic violence, sexual assault, child abuse, human trafficking, and elder abuse — services that could be described as “legal” under U.S. DOJ’s vague definition — irrespective of an individual’s immigration status. This new condition, which also requires state agencies to certify to their subgrantees compliance, puts at risk at least $94 million in current funding to California and potentially hundreds of millions of dollars in future funding. In the lawsuit, Attorney General Bonta and the coalition argue that this new condition violates the Spending Clause, is arbitrary and capricious, and is contrary to law, and as such, should be declared unlawful and set aside.   

“The Trump Administration continues to push forward policies that make our communities less safe,” said Attorney General Bonta. “U.S. DOJ’s vague new condition would force organizations to upend their services knowing they still could very well fail to meet U.S. DOJ’s impossible demands and end up in the Trump Administration’s crosshairs. I wish President Trump would stop creating problems where there are none — and focus his energy on policies that actually reduce crime and protect public safety. I’m grateful to the dozens of organizations and program across California that use this funding to provide legal services and support to victims of crime, and in doing so, also help bring the perpetrators of those crimes to justice.”

In July 2025, the Office for Victims of Crime, an agency housed within U.S. DOJ and charged with administering Victims of Crimes Act (VOCA) grants, declared that states would be unable to access VOCA funds unless they agree to broadly support and assist the U.S. Department of Homeland Security’s federal immigration enforcement activities. These grants are unrelated to federal civil immigration enforcement and are used by states to protect public safety and provide critical resources and services to victims and survivors of crime, including victims of domestic violence. The next month, Attorney General Bonta joined a multistate coalition in challenging the Trump Administration’s attempt to unlawfully impose these immigration enforcement requirements.

After the multistate coalition filed that lawsuit, U.S. DOJ announced that it was imposing an “Unallowable Costs” restriction across multiple grants, including VOCA and Violence Against Women Act (VAWA) funding, stating that award funds could not be used to support or provide legal services to any “removable alien or any alien otherwise unlawfully present in the United States,” with some limited exceptions.  

In 2024, California subgrantees used victim assistance funds to serve nearly 1 million Californians, including supporting more than 100,000 victims and families on various civil legal matters. Among other things, this funding supports crisis intervention, counseling and advocacy, emergency shelter, and transitional housing assistance. It also supports law enforcement initiatives such as training officers on trauma-informed and victim-centered responses; developing specialized domestic violence or sexual assault units; and improving evidence collection in sexual assault and domestic violence cases.

The “legal” support provided by VOCA and VAWA funding includes helping individuals file police reports and protective orders; applying for victim compensation and assisting with divorce or other parental visitation issues; asserting employment rights, providing debt relief, and addressing identity theft; accompanying victims to emergency medical care, forensic exams, and law enforcement interviews; and providing advice on obtaining housing, counseling, and emergency financial assistance. 

In the lawsuit filed today in the U.S. District Court for the District of Rhode Island, Attorney General Bonta and the coalition assert that the “Unallowable Costs” condition:

• Violates the Spending Clause of the U.S. Constitution: The condition applies to existing grants, meaning the states had no opportunity to consider the condition before accepting their award. Moreover, the condition ambiguously restricts “legal services” without specifying the types of services that are subject to its restriction, leaving the state and their subgrantees to guess at which services are covered and will require them to implement onerous processes for verifying the immigration statuses of all clients before services can be offered.
• Is “Arbitrary and Capricious” in Violation of the Administrative Procedure Act: The Trump Administration has offered no explanation for the new condition — let alone a reasonable and well-reasoned one.
• Is “Contrary to Law” in Violation of the Administrative Procedure Act: The condition is in direct conflict with governing regulations providing that eligibility for services “is not dependent on the victim’s immigration status.”

Attorney General Bonta joins the attorneys general of New York, Colorado, Illinois, Rhode Island, Arizona, Connecticut, Delaware, Maine, Maryland, Massachusetts, Michigan, Minnesota, Nevada, New Jersey, New Mexico, Oregon, Vermont, Washington, Wisconsin, and the District of Columbia in filing the lawsuit.  

A copy of the lawsuit is available here. 

Funding is vital for California’s efforts to prevent, prepare for, protect against, and respond to acts of terrorism and other emergencies 

OAKLAND – California Attorney General Rob Bonta today secured a temporary restraining order blocking the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) from reallocating vital homeland security funding away from California and other states — and toward states with policies with which the Trump Administration agrees. Yesterday, Attorney General Bonta and a coalition sued the Trump Administration after their states received award notifications over the weekend 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.

“Over and over, the courts have stopped the Trump Administration’s illegal efforts to tie unrelated grant funding to state policies,” said Attorney General Bonta. “It’s a little thing called state sovereignty, but given the President’s propensity to violate the Constitution, it’s unsurprising that he’s unfamiliar with it. California uses the grant funding at stake in our lawsuit to protect the safety of our communities from acts of terrorism and other disasters — meaning the stakes are quite literally life and death. This is not something to play politics with. I’m grateful to the court for seeing the urgency of this dangerous diversion of homeland security funding.”

On January 20, 2025, President Trump directed DHS to “ensure that so-called ‘sanctuary’ jurisdictions do not receive access to Federal funds” ignoring the fact that multiple courts have upheld laws like California’s SB 54 as constitutional and consistent with federal immigration law and firmly rebuking the Trump Administration’s attempts to condition federal funds on assistance with immigration enforcement. Just last week, the U.S. District Court for the District of Rhode Island issued a permanent injunction in California’s lawsuit blocking the Trump Administration’s effort to unlawfully impose immigration enforcement requirements on billions of dollars in annual DHS grants. Yet, DHS and FEMA remain undeterred from continuing to attempt to carry out the President’s directive. 

On Saturday, September 27, FEMA issued award notifications for its single largest grant program — the Homeland Security Grant Program. Consistent with federal law, FEMA had previously issued notices of funding opportunity preliminarily allocating the funding among state recipients based on each jurisdiction’s “relative threat, vulnerability, and consequences from acts of terrorism.” According to that notice, California could expect to receive approximately $165 million in grant funding. However, when California received the grant notification, the award was only $110 million, reflecting a 33% reduction. While California and the coalition are still gathering information, a defining factor of whether a state received an increase or decrease from anticipated funding appears to be whether a state was a so-called “sanctuary” jurisdiction or not. In short, the current Administration appears to be taking money from its perceived “enemies” and reallocating it to its “friends” — in violation of the Administrative Procedure Act and the U.S. Constitution.    

A copy of the court's order is available here. 

Trump Administration continues attack on state rights, putting public safety at risk 

OAKLAND – California Attorney General Rob Bonta today, as part of a multistate coalition, sought emergency relief from the U.S. District Court for the District Court of Rhode Island to stop 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. For decades, California has relied on this 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. On Saturday, however, 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. In filing the lawsuit, Attorney General Bonta and the coalition assert that this reallocation exceeds FEMA’s statutory authority, is arbitrary and capricious, and violates the U.S. Constitution. 

“The Trump Administration is setting a record as one of the most anti-law enforcement, anti-public safety administrations in America’s history,” said Attorney General Bonta. “Tell me, how does defunding California’s efforts to protect against terrorism make our communities safer? President Trump doesn’t like that we won’t be bullied into doing his bidding, ignoring our sovereign right to make decisions about how our law enforcement resources are best used to protect our communities. We secured a permanent injunction last week blocking the Trump Administration’s illegal efforts to condition this funding, and today, we’re seeking emergency relief to keep them from unlawfully diverting Congressionally-appropriated homeland security funding away from our state without justification and apparently because they don’t like our commitment to public safety. Unlike this President, I will always step up and defend California’s safety.” 

The Trump Administration seeks to reduce California’s funding for two Homeland Security Grant Programs. The State Homeland Security Program assists state, local, and tribal efforts in building, sustaining, and delivering capabilities necessary to prevent, prepare for, protect against, and respond to acts of terrorism. The Urban Area Security Initiative assists high-threat, high-density urban areas in addressing terrorism threats. Specifically, these program grants enhance cybersecurity, support infrastructure security enhancements, and fund trainings and exercises designed to test and improve emergency preparedness and terrorism prevention. These funds are also utilized to procure specialized equipment including detection systems for chemical and biological agents, specialized response vehicles, personal protective equipment for first responders, security cameras, and warning systems, among other uses. Congress created these federal grant programs and appropriates billions of dollars each year to ensure they are fully funded to meet the nation’s needs. And for decades, the U.S. Department of Homeland Security (DHS) and its sub-agency, FEMA have operated these programs evenhandedly — until the Trump Administration. 

On January 20, 2025, his first day in office, President Trump directed DHS to “ensure that so-called ‘sanctuary’ jurisdictions do not receive access to Federal funds.” The President deemed certain states and jurisdictions in “lawless insurrection,” despite the fact that courts have upheld laws like California’s SB 54 as constitutional and consistent with federal immigration law and firmly rebuked the Trump Administration’s attempts to condition federal funds on assistance with immigration enforcement. Just last week, the U.S. District Court for the District of Rhode Island issued a permanent injunction in California’s lawsuit blocking the Trump Administration’s effort to unlawfully impose immigration enforcement requirements on billions of dollars in annual DHS grants. Yet, DHS and FEMA remain undeterred from continuing to attempt to carry out the President’s directive. 

On Saturday, September 27, FEMA issued award notifications for its single largest grant program — the Homeland Security Grant Program, which totals approximately $1 billion in funds annually. Consistent with federal law, FEMA has previously issued notices of funding opportunity preliminarily allocating the funding among state recipients based on each jurisdiction’s “relative threat, vulnerability, and consequences from acts of terrorism.” According to that notice, California could expect to receive approximately $165 million in grant funding. However, when California received the grant notification, the award was only $110 million, reflecting a 33% reduction. Some states saw even sharper cuts: Illinois received a 69% reduction in funding, and New York received a 79% reduction. At the same time, many other states saw increases to their allocation upwards of 100%. While the states are still gathering information, a defining factor appears to be whether a state was a so-called “sanctuary” jurisdiction or not. In short, the current Administration appears to be taking money from its perceived “enemies” and reallocating it to its “friends.”  

In their lawsuit, Attorney General Bonta and the coalition argue that the reallocation of this grant funding is unlawful and should be vacated and set aside. The Homeland Security Act requires DHS and FEMA to allocate Homeland Security Grant Programs funds using objective, risk-based criteria. Instead, the reallocation appears to rest on another factor: California and other states’ domestic policies about how to best utilize their domestic law-enforcement resources. The reallocation also is arbitrary and capricious in violation of the Administrative Procedure Act, withdrawing hundreds of millions of dollars from states like California with no explanation and based on factors Congress did not intend DHS to consider. Finally, the reallocation violates the Constitution, by baselessly treating California differently from other states. 

In their motion for a temporary restraining order, Attorney General Bonta and the coalition ask the court for immediate, emergency relief requiring FEMA to rescind the award notifications and blocking FEMA from disbursing funding that would then potentially be unavailable to California and other states if they are successful in the litigation.

Attorney General Bonta joins the attorneys general of Illinois, New Jersey, Rhode Island, Connecticut, Delaware, the District of Columbia, Massachusetts, Minnesota, New York, Vermont, and Washington in filing the lawsuit and motion for emergency relief. 

A copy of the lawsuit is available here. 

OAKLAND – California Attorney General Rob Bonta today secured a permanent injunction from the U.S. District Court for the District of Rhode Island blocking the Trump Administration’s effort to unlawfully impose immigration enforcement requirements on billions of dollars in annual U.S. Department of Homeland Security (DHS) grants. In issuing a permanent injunction, the Court found that the Trump Administration’s attempt to impose this new set of conditions across a range of grant programs was arbitrary and capricious, exceeded the Trump Administration’s legal authority, and violated the Spending Clause of the U.S. Constitution. 

“Today, a court definitively rebuked the Trump Administration’s illegal efforts to withhold critical public safety funding from states that refuse to carry out his mass deportation agenda,” said Attorney General Bonta. “This permanent injunction is a huge win in our case that will protect funding for our communities to defend against terrorist attacks and prepare for emergencies. This is a good day for the rule of law and public safety.” 

California receives funding from DHS to prepare for, protect against, respond to, and recover from terrorist attacks and other catastrophes. This includes counterterrorism grants, grants that allow states to prepare for terrorism in high-concentration urban areas, emergency preparedness grants, cybersecurity grants, and many others that are similarly not connected to civil immigration enforcement. State and local law enforcement already work closely with federal agencies on the counterterrorism measures that these grants fund.  

A copy of the court’s order is available here. 

OAKLAND — Co-leading a coalition of 22 attorneys general and the state of Pennsylvania, California Attorney General Rob Bonta today filed a motion for a preliminary injunction to block the Trump Administration from enforcing the “Defund Provision” within the recently enacted federal budget bill (“Big Beautiful Bill”). The Defund Provision excludes certain health centers, including Planned Parenthood health centers, from receiving federal Medicaid reimbursements. Among other things, these centers provide essential healthcare services to low-income patients, such as cancer screenings, testing and treatment of sexually transmitted infections (STIs), and birth control. After filing suit over the Defund Provision on July 29, 2025, the coalition is now asking the U.S. District Court for the District of Massachusetts to grant its motion for a preliminary injunction because the States are likely to succeed on the merits, the Defund Provision would result in irreparable harm to the States if allowed to stay in effect, and the balance of equities and the public interest favor the States. In a related lawsuit, Planned Parenthood Federation of America, Inc. v. Kennedy, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the First Circuit issued an unpublished order on September 11, 2025 granting the Trump Administration’s request to allow the Defund Provision to go into effect. 

“For years and years, the attacks on Planned Parenthood have been relentless. With the Defund Provision in President Trump’s so-called ‘Big Beautiful Bill,’ those attacks have escalated to an all-out assault. Let me be clear: Our coalition’s support for Planned Parenthood and other health centers providing essential reproductive healthcare is resolute,” said Attorney General Rob Bonta. “We are asking the court to grant our motion for a preliminary injunction because the stakes have never been higher. These centers provide critical healthcare services for low-income patients across the country — our states, and the health of our people, will suffer immensely if the Defund Provision is allowed to remain in effect.” 

“Right now, access to abortion and reproductive health care in California hangs in the balance. All 109 Planned Parenthood health centers in California are currently prohibited from being reimbursed for any of the services they provide to patients on Medi-Cal. As a trusted provider in the Medi-Cal program, Planned Parenthood health centers continue to provide care to these patients, but given over 80% of Planned Parenthood patients in California are Medi-Cal enrollees, this is unsustainable and greatly jeopardizes sexual and reproductive health care access in the state,” said Planned Parenthood Affiliates of California CEO and President Jodi Hicks. “If the Defund Provision remains in effect, Planned Parenthood health centers in California will be forced to reduce services, scale back hours, or close their doors — cutting off access to live-saving health care services for our most vulnerable communities. As we continue to weather these attacks by the Trump Administration, PPAC is grateful to California Attorney General Rob Bonta and other state attorneys general for their ongoing efforts to halt this devastating federal defund and ensure people can continue to access the essential health care they need and deserve, including at Planned Parenthood health centers.” 

The coalition’s lawsuit alleges that the Defund Provision violates the U.S. Constitution’s Spending Clause due to the lack of clear notice and the inclusion of unconstitutional provisions. Specifically, it is evident that Planned Parenthood health centers are the clear target of the Defund Provision, but Congress failed to adequately define (1) the full scope of providers that qualify as “prohibited entities” and (2) the timing of the prohibition on federal reimbursements to such entities. Moreover, the Defund Provision constitutes a change that the States could not have anticipated when joining Medicaid. Throughout the sixty-year history of Medicaid, States — not the federal government — have determined whether providers “qualify” for the Medicaid program.  

In its motion for a preliminary injunction, the coalition underscores that:

• The Defund Provision is already impacting the States through increased administrative burdens and compliance costs. For example, the States have had to restructure their claims-processing infrastructure to try to accommodate the Defund Provision’s requirements.  
• The Defund Provision’s ambiguity has resulted in the States having to field questions from providers and draft guidance in an attempt to address the ambiguities.  
• The Defund Provision will also result in significant increases in the States’ healthcare expenses. For example, treatment for later-stage breast and cervical cancer is much more expensive than screenings and early or preventative treatment. Further, Planned Parenthood treats a high volume of patients, and other healthcare centers not targeted by the Defund Provision will not be able to absorb the influx of patients. 

In filing the motion for a preliminary injunction, Attorney General Bonta — along with the attorneys general of Connecticut and New York — lead the attorneys general of Colorado, Delaware, Hawaii, Illinois, Maine, Maryland, Massachusetts, Michigan, Minnesota, Nevada, New Jersey, New Mexico, North Carolina, Oregon, Rhode Island, Vermont, Washington, Wisconsin, and the District of Columbia, as well as the state of Pennsylvania. 

A copy of the motion for a preliminary injunction can be found here. In support of its motion for a preliminary injunction, the coalition also submitted a declaration from Megan L. Kavanaugh, Principal Research Scientist at the Guttmacher Institute. That declaration can be found here.

OAKLAND – California Attorney General Rob Bonta secured a temporary restraining order late yesterday blocking the U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) from cutting off California and other states’ funding to administer the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP) while briefing on their litigation continues. SNAP is a federally funded, state-administered program that provides billions of dollars in food assistance to tens of millions of low-income families across the country each year. In July 2025, Attorney General Bonta led a multistate coalition in suing USDA, arguing that its demand that states turn over SNAP data violates multiple federal privacy laws and the U.S. Constitution. The coalition later asked the court for emergency relief after USDA threatened to withhold crucial administrative funding that states depend on to run the SNAP program if the states do not turn over the demanded data.

“No Californian should have to choose between putting food on the table and allowing their personal, private data to be fed into the President’s mass surveillance database,” said Attorney General Bonta. “That is not what Californians agreed to when they signed up for the SNAP program. This court order is a first step in blocking the Trump Administration’s latest effort to bully states into breaking the law and breaking public trust. We will not turn over our residents’ personal, private data to be misused by this Administration.”

A copy of the order is available here.

OAKLAND — California Attorney General Rob Bonta today issued a statement on the decision by the U.S. District Court for the District of Massachusetts to deny the Trump Administration’s motion to dismiss in State of California v. Donald Trump. On April 3, 2025, Attorney General Bonta co-led a coalition of 19 attorneys general in filing a lawsuit against the Trump Administration over Executive Order No. 14248 (Executive Order), an unconstitutional, antidemocratic, and un-American attempt to impose sweeping voting restrictions. On June 13, 2025, the coalition secured a preliminary injunction blocking unlawful provisions of the Executive Order. The preliminary injunction remains in effect following today’s decision. 

“I’ve said it before, and I’ll say it again: Donald Trump is not king. He cannot unilaterally impose voting restrictions across the country — that’s why my fellow attorneys general and I took him to court earlier this year,” said Attorney General Bonta. “I’m pleased that the U.S. District Court for the District of Massachusetts has now emphatically rejected the Trump Administration’s effort to dismiss our lawsuit. We continue to believe in the strength of our case and remain as committed as ever to protecting the right to vote.” 

A copy of the decision can be found here.

OAKLAND — California Attorney General Rob Bonta today filed an amicus brief in support of D.C. Attorney General Brian Schwalb’s lawsuit challenging the Trump Administration’s unlawful deployment of National Guard troops to the District of Columbia. Attorney General Bonta and Maryland Attorney General Anthony Brown led a coalition of 22 attorneys general in asserting that the deployment of National Guard troops without the consent of D.C. is unlawful, unconstitutional, and undemocratic. Domestic use of the military has long been recognized as antithetical to American values. While California and D.C. were the first places subjected to unlawful federalized deployments, President Trump has made clear that this is the beginning — not the end — of the military occupation of American cities. In the brief, Attorney General Bonta and the coalition urge the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia to grant a preliminary injunction and make clear that the Constitution prohibits the use of soldiers as local law enforcement. 

“The President continues to use National Guard servicemembers to carry out his own personal political agenda — recklessly tearing down two-and-a-half-centuries of guardrails that have prevented the military from occupying American streets,” said Attorney General Bonta. “This is not a President who cares about public safety; instead, President Trump has undermined it at every turn, sending National Guard troops with no training to engage in civilian law enforcement and pulling them away from their work fighting wildfires and engaging in counter-drug enforcement at the border. I am proud to stand with 22 attorneys general in support of D.C.’s lawsuit, as my office continues to fight the unlawful federalization and deployment of military troops in California.”

The experience of California, as the first state to experience President Trump’s deployment of the National Guard without its Governor’s consent, serves as a warning of the harm caused by a continuous military presence in a state. For more than three months, federalized California National Guard troops have been deployed in California’s communities. During this time, the troops’ presence has stoked fear among Californians, causing the public to stay home, fail to report for work, and avoid areas where the military is deployed. The use of federalized National Guard troops has damaged trust between local law enforcement and the community, as troops have been tasked with civilian law enforcement and were widely present during immigration raids in the first few weeks of their deployment. These troops were diverted away from essential state functions, like fighting wildfires. In June 2025, the majority of California’s Guard’s specialized fire crews were diverted from their wildfire-fighting task force in the midst of peak fire season and instead deployed into the streets of Los Angeles. 

With California’s recent experience as a lesson, Attorney General Bonta and the coalition argue that:

• Using the military for local law enforcement, as the President has done in the D.C., upsets the careful balance between civilian and military authority set forth in the Constitution.
• The deployment of National Guard troops infringes on the police powers reserved to States and localities. The Constitution establishes a federal government of limited, enumerated powers — general police power is not among them.  
• National Guard troops are not prepared to engage in civilian law enforcement, lacking training in criminal procedure, civil rights, criminal investigation, and de-escalation. This introduces complications and dangers to both the public and the troops engaging with them. 
• States need the National Guard to be available for vital natural disaster and security functions.

Attorney General Bonta is committed to holding President Trump and his administration accountable for overreaching their authority under the law and infringing on Californians’ constitutional rights. In June, Attorney General Bonta and Governor Newsom filed a lawsuit challenging the Trump Administration’s unlawful orders to federalize the California National Guard and utilize National Guard troops and the Marines for civilian law enforcement in Los Angeles in violation of the Posse Comitatus Act. That same week, the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California granted California emergency relief, blocking the federalization order and returning command of the California National Guard to Governor Newsom; that order is currently stayed by the Ninth Circuit pending appeal. In August, the Attorney General’s Office presented evidence of Posse Comitatus Act violations during a three-day trial before the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California. The Court subsequently granted a permanent injunction enjoining the Trump Administration from engaging in the same or similar activity in the future. The Court’s order is temporarily paused while the Ninth Circuit considers the federal government’s motion for a stay.

Attorneys General Bonta and Brown lead the attorneys general of Arizona, Colorado, Connecticut, Delaware, Hawaiʻi, Illinois, Maine, Massachusetts, Michigan, Minnesota, Nevada, New Jersey, New Mexico, New York, North Carolina, Oregon, Rhode Island, Vermont, Washington, and Wisconsin in filing the brief. 

A copy of the amicus brief is available here. 

OAKLAND — California Attorney General Rob Bonta today secured a preliminary injunction blocking the Trump Administration from imposing cruel new restrictions on access to public benefit programs based on immigration status while litigation continues. Programs include Head Start, childcare services for low-income people, adult education, mental health and substance use disorder programs, and shelters for at-risk youth and domestic violence survivors, among others. After filing a lawsuit in July 2025, the multistate coalition had subsequently secured an agreement temporarily preventing the Trump Administration from implementing various agency notices significantly expanding federal public benefit ineligibility based on immigration status before today, September 10, 2025. 

“With today’s decision, vital education, nutrition, and health programs like Head Start — and the families who rely on their services — can breathe a sigh of relief,” said Attorney General Bonta. “The Trump Administration continues to pull the rug out from under California families just trying to get by, but we’re fighting back. We’re grateful that a district court has put a stop to this cruel new directive while our litigation continues.” 

The decision by the U.S. District Court for the District of Rhode Island ensures that millions of families can continue to access critical services without fear of denial or disruption while our litigation continues. With this ruling, the court acknowledges that the Trump Administration likely violated the Administrative Procedure Act and the Constitution by issuing sweeping new mandates without lawful rulemaking, grossly misreading the Personal Responsibility and Work Opportunity Act, and failing to consider the devastating impacts on states and communities.  

A copy of the court's order is available here. 

OAKLAND — California Attorney General Rob Bonta and Massachusetts Attorney General Andrea Joy Campbell today co-led a coalition of 22 attorneys general in submitting a comment letter opposing the Department of Veterans' Affairs (VA) proposed federal rule that would eliminate veterans’ and their families’ access to abortion care. In 2022, the Biden Administration implemented the “Reproductive Health Services” Rule (the Rule), which currently allows veterans and their survivors and dependents to access abortion services at VA health care centers in situations where the patient’s life or health is threatened and in cases of self-reported rape or incest. The Rule also permits veterans and their survivors and dependents to access abortion counseling at VA health centers. After the Trump Administration indicated it was reviewing the Rule and held meetings with other stakeholders on the Rule, a coalition of attorneys general — including the Office of Attorney General Bonta — met with VA officials and the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) on April 8, 2025 to express why rolling back the Rule would cause harm to veterans and their families. On August 4, 2025, the Trump Administration published a proposed rule to formally undo the Biden Administration’s Rule. The comment letter is submitted in response to the VA’s invitation for public comment.  

“Earlier this year, my fellow attorneys general and I urged the Trump Administration to protect access to abortion care for veterans and their families in cases of rape, incest, and when the life or health of the woman is at risk. We also urged the Trump Administration to protect access to abortion counseling. Despite our commonsense positions, the Trump Administration has decided to continue its relentless attacks on reproductive healthcare,” said Attorney General Bonta. “As I have said before, medical decisions should be made by patients and their doctors — free from political interference. I’m proud to be co-leading my fellow attorneys general in calling on the Trump Administration to withdraw its proposed rule, which is both extreme and unjustified by any legal rationale.” 

On September 2, 2022, in the wake of the U.S. Supreme Court’s decision in Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health Organization, which overturned Roe v. Wade, the Biden Administration’s VA announced the interim version of the Rule. On October 11, 2022, Attorney General Bonta led a coalition of 23 attorneys general in filing a comment letter supporting the VA’s efforts to increase reproductive freedom. After receiving public comment, the VA finalized the Rule on March 4, 2024. Since the Dobbs decision, at least 19 states have banned or restricted abortion care, while others are still proposing new restrictions.  

In the letter, the attorneys general write that: 

• The proposed rule presents an unclear standard as to when, if at all, VA physicians can provide abortion care. Specifically, the proposed rule’s preamble insists that it will allow VA physicians to provide lifesaving care — in circumstances “when a physician certifies that the life of the mother would be endangered if the fetus were carried to term” — while the proposed regulatory text bans abortion care for veterans entirely. Generally, where there is a discrepancy between the preamble and the regulatory text, the regulatory text controls. In addition, to the extent that the VA carves out an exception for the lives of pregnant survivors and dependents, it fails to set out a process by which individuals may take advantage of the exception.
• The proposed rule is extreme in its formulation and is out of step with existing abortion exceptions on the state and federal level. Although exceptions themselves are problematic and often difficult to administer, the VA’s proposed changes would mark a substantial and inhumane departure from decades of policy protecting the health and lives of pregnant patients and the autonomy of pregnant patients who have experienced rape and incest.
• The proposed rule is inadequately justified. It falsely claims that the VA does not have legal authority to provide abortion care, obfuscates other federal abortion policy in order to establish congressional intent for a VA abortion ban where there is none, and relies on political considerations instead of medical ones. 

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

A copy of the comment letter can be found here.