Attorney General Bonta Files Lawsuit Challenging Trump Administration’s Attempt to Impose Discriminatory Conditions on Billions in USDA Grant Funding

OAKLAND — California Attorney General Rob Bonta, co-leading a coalition of 21 attorneys general, today filed a lawsuit challenging the Trump Administration’s attempt to impose new discriminatory conditions on U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) grants. The conditions would require federal funding recipients to comply with vague, hateful, and unrelated policies on immigration, gender ideology, transgender athletes, and diversity, equity, and inclusion. Although USDA has refused to confirm the specific grants or programs to which it intends to apply the new conditions, all of these grants and programs should be untethered from partisan politics, so they can provide critical lifelines to vulnerable communities, families, and children through school lunches, Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP) funding, and other essential programs. In the lawsuit, filed in the U.S. District Court for the District of Massachusetts, Attorney General Bonta and the coalition argue that the new conditions violate both the U.S. Constitution and the Administrative Procedure Act (APA) by exceeding USDA’s statutory authority, attaching vague conditions to funding, failing to provide a reasoned explanation or follow procedural requirements, and threatening billions of dollars in critical funding. 

“This attack on vital programs is just another line item in the President’s long list of failed attempts to weaponize essential funding as a political bargaining chip. It was illegal before, and it’s still illegal now,” said Attorney General Bonta. “Instead of helping vulnerable families and children, President Trump is attempting to use funds as leverage for other points on his political to-do list. Except, this isn’t leverage — it’s funding to help families and children. We don’t wake up looking to fight against the Trump Administration; we’re fighting for Californians. Unfortunately, all too often, those end up being the same fight. Once again, we will see this Administration in court.”

California and other states rely on billions in annual federal funding to feed students, infants, mothers, and families through programs like SNAP and other child nutrition programs, which are set by statutory formula and cannot be made subject to terms and conditions like those USDA is attempting to impose here. That includes about 30 million children — more than one in three children nationwide — who participate in school lunch programs. Last fiscal year, in California alone, the state Department of Education received over $2 billion in child nutrition funding and the state Department of Social Services received five grants, ranging from just under $1 billion to slightly over $1.3 billion each, to support SNAP. Two other programs provided $800 million and $850 million that both went to the California Department of Public Health for Women, Infants, and Children (WIC) services. These important funds are now at risk because of vague and unreasoned partisan conditions.

On December 31, 2025, USDA issued new vague terms and conditions for federal awards with a variety of problematic policies. These conditions adhere to a variety of Presidential Executive Orders including those pertaining to gender ideology, immigration status, athletic opportunities for transgender athletes, and diversity, equity, or inclusion. Many of the conditions violate agency obligations, disregard procedural steps, or are so vague that they cannot be implemented. Taken together these conditions reflect an illegal and unconstitutional effort to use federal grantmaking as a policy enforcement tool.  

In today’s lawsuit, Attorney General Bonta and the coalition ask the court to hold that USDA’s conditions are unlawful and to permanently enjoin USDA from attaching the challenged conditions to funds. Attorney General Bonta and the coalition argue that USDA: 

• Cannot hold billions of dollars hostage to coerce states’ compliance with vague funding terms because the Constitution’s Spending Clause requires federal funding conditions to be unambiguous.
• Lacks authority to impose such policies, which are beyond what is justified by any existing federal law.
• Cannot argue that the conditions flow from its own reinterpretation of Title VI and Title IX without conceding that it violated the APA’s rulemaking requirements.
• Is attempting to impose arbitrary and capricious funding conditions that will irreparably harm the states. 

Attorney General Bonta has repeatedly challenged the Trump Administration’s unlawful attempts to impose illegal conditions on unrelated grant funding — and has won repeatedly. Last year, he secured final court orders blocking the Trump Administration from imposing immigration enforcement conditions on transportation and homeland security funding. He also sued the Trump Administration over its attempt to impose discriminatory gender conditions on healthcare funding. Previously, Attorney General Bonta secured a key victory blocking the Trump Administration from illegally conditioning Victims of Crime Act grant funding. 

Attorney General Bonta and the attorneys general of Massachusetts, Wisconsin, and Illinois led today’s lawsuit and were joined by the attorneys general of Colorado, Connecticut, Delaware, the District of Columbia, Hawaii, Maine, Maryland, Michigan, Minnesota, New Jersey, New Mexico, New York, Oregon, Rhode Island, Vermont, Virginia, and Washington.