admin
A new report lifts the curtain on what looks a lot like a secret playbook: at least 22 Democratic state attorneys general reportedly signed a “common interest agreement” before the 2024 presidential election to coordinate lawsuits against a future Trump administration. They called it the “Project for Federal Accountability.” If true, this isn’t politics as usual — it’s politics as a pre-planned legal ambush.
What the “Project for Federal Accountability” reportedly was
The document, signed before the election, allegedly committed Democratic AGs to act together if President Trump won. That’s a striking admission: state legal officers agreeing in advance to mount legal attacks on a properly elected federal government. They called it a common interest agreement — a phrase that sounds routine until you learn it was arranged months before voters went to the polls.
A coordinated lawfare machine
Who signed on and how many lawsuits followed
Reporters say at least 22 Democratic attorneys general signed the agreement. Since the Trump administration’s inauguration, states led or joined by those AGs have filed nearly 100 lawsuits against federal policy. California Attorney General Rob Bonta has signed onto some 82 suits, Colorado’s Phil Weiser about 75, Washington’s Nick Brown around 70, and Arizona’s Kris Mayes roughly 46. Those are not casual numbers — they are a full-court press, and it was apparently planned in advance.
Claims, denials and a few too-familiar explanations
When called out, many AGs declined to talk or offered coy responses. Some tried to “downplay the timing” or point out that common interest agreements exist across party lines. Cute. California’s AG insisted his lawsuits are “apolitical” and told President Trump to “follow the law” if he wants to avoid being sued. Meanwhile, one Maryland AG admitted they started planning “as soon as it was clear” Trump would be the nominee. Planning is fine. Planning a coordinated legal campaign against an incoming administration while hiding it from the public is not.
Why voters should care and what should happen next
Electoral legitimacy depends on fair outcomes and visible rules. Voters deserve to know if their state lawyers are quietly drafting strategies to overturn or hobble a future president. This isn’t about defending policy positions — it’s about whether offices meant to protect the rule of law were converted into partisan weapons. Lawmakers and ethics boards should demand transparency: release the agreement, explain fundraising tied to the effort, and hold hearings. If we don’t shine a light on this, the next election will look less like a contest of ideas and more like a prewritten legal script.
