admin
The latest leak — a “privileged and confidential” agreement — blows open a secret plan by Democratic attorneys general to build a coordinated lawsuit machine aimed at President Trump. The document, tied to a so-called “Project for Federal Accountability,” shows state AGs were plotting legal attacks months before voters decided the presidency. Taxpayers paid for much of the planning, and most of the records were redacted to hide who said what. That should make every citizen uneasy.
What the document actually shows
The confidential common-interest agreement lays out a private network of at least 22 Democratic attorneys general who divided up research, stored pre-drafted briefs in a “brief bank,” and coordinated legal strategy aimed at the Trump administration. The planning started in the spring of 2024 — well before President Trump took any second-term actions. Not a single Republican AG appears in the document. The agreement was written to block public disclosure and keep opposing counsel from seeing the collaboration. In plain English: they built a secret lawsuit network and bankrolled it with state money.
Why this is not just “lawyering”
These are not random lawsuits filed on the fly. This was a deliberate, organized effort to litigate against a specific administration. California Attorney General Rob Bonta and others insist it’s just legal work. That’s cute. Meanwhile, the paper trail shows California alone has spent millions, and other states have set aside funding to hire staff for the project. When you plan to sue a president before he does anything, it’s not neutral lawyering — it’s political warfare, using taxpayer funds as ammo.
Legal cover that smells like politics
The use of a “privileged” common-interest pact to hide coordination raises real legal and ethical questions. Retired judges and former attorneys general have already said this is unusual and troubling. Public-records requests returned heavily redacted files, which only ratchets up suspicion. If the goal was accountability, why cloak it in secrecy and spend public money before a single policy was enacted? The answer looks political, not legal.
What should happen next
State legislatures and watchdogs should demand transparency and audits of how taxpayer dollars were used. There should be a clear line between campaigning and government litigation. If Democratic attorneys general want to fight policies they disagree with, fine — run for office or make the case publicly. But hiding a pre-planned, taxpayer-funded attack under legal privilege is not what voters signed up for. Citizens deserve clarity, honest accounting, and an end to using the courts as a political strike force.
