AGs conceal records tied to longstanding plans to sue Trump

(The Center Square) – Attorneys general across the United States are using a range of strategies to withhold 2024 emails discussing the longstanding plan to file lawsuits against the second Trump Administration over potential policies that had not yet been implemented.

A “confidential” document obtained by The Center Square shows at least 22 Democratic attorneys general plotted litigation against President Donald Trump as early as April 28, 2024 — three months before Vice President Kamala Harris announced her run for president and approximately seven months before Trump was reelected.

The coordinated effort has a nickname, the “Project for Federal Accountability.” It appears to have borne fruit, with approximately 100 multistate lawsuits filed against the Trump Administration since January 2025.

Most attorneys general have declined to explain why they started planning litigation so far in advance. They have also withheld thousands of emails that would provide additional context.

According to the California Attorney General’s Office, a request from The Center Square for public records was denied because releasing the files “would not be in the public interest.”

“Locating and reviewing all potentially responsive records would impose an undue burden,” wrote Deputy Attorney General Liberty Sacker. “Your request could encompass emails pertaining to 82 lawsuits… We anticipate that any responsive email communications would be exempt from disclosure pursuant to the attorney-client privilege, the attorney work product doctrine, the official information privilege, the deliberative process privilege, the pending litigation exemption, and/or the investigative files exemption.”

According to Nevada Attorney General Aaron Ford, the files cannot be released “because the requested records are protected by common interest privilege.”

The Maryland Attorney General’s Office cited the same reasoning for withholding records, adding that the release of emails or attachments would be “contrary to the public interest.”

Common interest agreements are one way for attorneys general to try and prevent their litigation strategies from being made public when they coordinate across states. Confidential records obtained by The Center Square show the Maryland Attorney General’s Office and Nevada Attorney General’s Office signed a common interest agreement on May 20 and May 21, 2024, respectively. The California Attorney General’s Office also signed it, but the date was left blank.

But records related to hypothetical lawsuits over hypothetical policies that might (or might not) be implemented by a presidential candidate should not be withheld from the public under a common interest agreement, according to Thomas Moukawsher, a retired judge in Connecticut.

“Parties with the same interests need to be able to speak with their lawyers confidentially,” Moukawsher said. “What is their common interest? We can’t establish what their common interests are… If I was sitting as a judge on the case, I’d say you need to have something a little more specific… I despise Donald Trump, but he’s entitled to the law as much as anyone else is.”

The Center Square has appealed each denial and filed additional requests for records predating the common interest agreement.

What if we pay $61,641?

According to the Colorado Attorney General’s Office, emails related to the Project for Federal Accountability could be released upon payment of a fee.

“The estimated cost to complete this request is approximately $61,641,” wrote Communications Director Lawrence Pacheco. “Please advise how you wish to proceed.”

Transparency advocates across the country have expressed disappointment in Colorado Attorney General Phil Weiser for repeatedly trying to keep controversial records behind an insurmountable paywall.

“They get to pick and choose now whether they want to release records just by charging some outlandish fee, and the only way anybody can challenge it is to go to court. Few people are going to hire an attorney to do that,” said David Cuillier, director of the Freedom of Information Project at University of Florida’s Brechner Center for the Advancement of the First Amendment. “We should not be charging people to see what their government is doing. Just like we don’t charge a cover charge to attend a city council meeting, do we? No. That would be ridiculous! We don’t charge people to vote, even though elections are expensive. That would be ridiculous!”

Pacheco’s job responsibilities include responding to the media, but he has repeatedly declined to answer how the Colorado Attorney General’s Office calculates its fees, stating nothing in state law requires him to answer questions.

Colorado law requires fees to be “reasonable,” but the Colorado Attorney General’s Office interpretation of that law is that they are not legally required to explain the reasoning.

In response to a similar request for outside counsel receipts, the Colorado Attorney General’s Office upgraded its fees from $290 to $5,130. The increase occurred after The Center Square agreed to pay and after Weiser won his Democratic primary for governor.

“I’ve never heard of that. Outrageous. It’s crazy,” Cuillier said. “Apparently the word is out in government that you can ignore your local newspaper and TV stations: Screw them.”

The Center Square asked if Weiser reserves the right to, again, raise his price tag by more than 17x upon agreement to pay the $61,641. Pacheco did not respond.

Eliot Richardson, CEO of Run Down The Middle, said he did not want to comment on the specifics of the lawsuits but urged more transparency. His organization is nonpartisan and is dedicated to “fighting against the extremes” of politics.

“Government shouldn’t be done in secret,” Richardson said. “If the government is going to charge a fee for things, including public records, there should be transparency about what drives that fee… You wouldn’t go to a restaurant, get a check that isn’t itemized, with no prices on the menu, and just expect to pay it. You want to know what you’re paying for.”

What about the other states?

Both the New York Attorney General’s Office and Washington State Attorney General’s Office have released some records, although they are highly redacted and largely illegible. The Center Square is appealing the redactions.

According to the Oregon Attorney General’s Office, it has identified more than 1,000 emails discussing the Project for Federal Accountability prior to Trump taking office. So far, the records have not been provided or denied for release.

Attorneys general in Arizona, California, Colorado, Connecticut, Delaware, Hawaii, Illinois, Maine, Maryland, Massachusetts, Michigan, Minnesota, Nevada, New Jersey, New Mexico, New York, North Carolina, Oregon, Pennsylvania, Rhode Island, Vermont, Virginia, Washington, Washington, D.C., and Wisconsin have either not supplied records or otherwise declined to comment prior to the publication of this story.