Coalition argues federal overreach in tying transportation and safety funds to immigration enforcement
A coalition of 20 state attorneys general, led by California Attorney General Rob Bonta, has filed two federal lawsuits against the Trump administration, accusing it of unlawfully coercing states to support federal immigration enforcement by tying unrelated grant funding to compliance.
The lawsuits challenge new conditions placed on billions of dollars in federal grants from the U.S. Department of Transportation and the Department of Homeland Security. The coalition argues that the funding—designated for critical infrastructure, counterterrorism, and emergency preparedness—has no legitimate link to immigration policy.
“President Trump doesn’t have the authority to unlawfully coerce state and local governments into using their resources for federal immigration enforcement,” Bonta said in a statement Tuesday. “His latest attempt to bully them into doing so is blatantly illegal.”
Among the states joining California in the legal action are New York, Illinois, New Jersey, Hawaii, and Oregon, along with 15 others across the country. Together, they represent a broad geographic and political coalition unified in opposition to what they describe as executive overreach
The lawsuits argue that only Congress has the constitutional power to allocate federal funding, and that conditioning grant disbursements on immigration compliance bypasses legislative authority. The grants in question support roadway maintenance, airport operations, emergency services, and terrorism preparedness—not immigration enforcement.
“The President is threatening to yank funds to improve our roads, keep our planes in the air, prepare for emergencies, and protect against terrorist attacks if states do not fall in line with his demands,” Bonta said. “He’s treating these funds, which have everything to do with the safety of our communities, as a bargaining chip.”
The legal challenge signals a renewed escalation in tensions between the Trump administration and states that have pushed back on its hardline immigration policies. Several of the suing states are considered “sanctuary jurisdictions,” where local officials limit cooperation with federal immigration agents.
This latest legal fight echoes past litigation during Trump’s first term, when similar attempts to restrict public safety grants to compliant jurisdictions were struck down in court. Legal experts expect these new lawsuits to test the limits of executive power and could shape the future of federal-state relations.
The Trump administration has not yet responded publicly to the lawsuits. The outcome of the cases could have sweeping implications for how presidents use federal funding as leverage in policy disputes.
