How is Gavin Newsom’s $50M Legal Slush Fund to ‘Trump-Proof’ the State Faring?

Back in early February, California Governor Gavin Newsom signed legislation authorizing a $50 million legal slush fund to “Trump-proof” the state against the President.

However, Gov. Newsom claimed the funding was not to be used for “immigration related legal services,” but the bill actually does, as the Globe reported:

“SBX1-2 amends the Budget Act to add funding for Legal Services, including $25 million for legal assistance for Californians and immigrant communities.”

We suggested that this would not weather well – and so did California Assemblyman Carl DeMaio, who warned, “Californians need protection from Gavin Newsom — not Donald Trump. It is utterly hypocritical for Gavin Newsom to say he wants to protect the rights of Californians from attack – when this is the same guy who has a terrible record of abusing power and imposing laws and regulations that federal courts have repeatedly ruled to be unlawful and unconstitutional.”

Even President Donald Trump weighed in on Truth Social, posting:

Now, 6 months later, California Attorney General Bonta announced that he has “filed 37 lawsuits, leading or co-leading 23 of them, and separately filed more than 40 amicus briefs in support of other litigation against the Trump Administration.”

“Appropriates up to $25 million for the purpose of defending the state against enforcement and legal actions taken by the federal government.

In the Attorney General’s report to the California Legislature regarding Senate Bill X-1-1, he lays out what he has been doing, also complaining that the Legislature is being cheap in doling out the funds they promised:

Between January 20, 2025 through July 30, 2025, the Department filed 36 lawsuits challenging presidential administration actions, each described below in Subsection B. As of July 30, 2025, the Department has also filed 47 amicus briefs in support of lawsuits brought by other parties challenging the federal government. The Department has also issued 15 regulatory comment letters, in addition to public guidance, in response to actions taken by the federal government. The $5 million in SBX1-1 funds that the Department has received to date has contributed to—but in no way has been sufficient to cover—the costs of the litigation summarized below. (emphasis CA Globe)

While AG Bonta has joined the state into 25 of the multi-state lawsuits, he’s filed a few of his own on behalf of the State of California against the Trump administration. In all of the other cases Bonta is just one of many states participating.

These 12 California lawsuits are from Bonta’s mandatory August 1st report to the California Legislature, and most object to the Trump administration’s cut to federal funding received by California:

California v. Dep’t of Education, No. 25-cv-10548, D. Mass. (Teacher Preparation Grants) This case challenges the Department of Education’s unlawful termination of significant grant funding for K-12 teacher preparation programs, valued at roughly $148 million for California programs that address the State’s teacher shortage.

The district court entered a temporary restraining order, which the government appealed. The Supreme Court issued a stay of that order on April 4, 2025, concluding that the government was likely to prevail on a jurisdictional argument. The multistate coalition has since filed an amended complaint and the government has filed a motion to dismiss, which remains pending. It appears the Trump administration will win this one.

California v. Trump, No. 25-cv-10810, D. Mass. (Elections Executive Order) California is leading a challenge in this case to President Trump’s unlawful executive order that purports to dramatically rework the manner of conducting federal elections without any input from Congress. The executive order sought to impose a narrow, draconian, and legally unsupported interpretation of federal election day statutes that would have upended mail balloting procedures in many States, including California. It likewise sought to impose a documentary proof of citizenship requirement for voters who chose to register to vote in federal elections using the federal mail-in registration form.

On June 12, 2025, the district court granted the multistate coalition’s motion for a preliminary injunction, enjoining all challenged aspects of the executive order. The government filed a motion to narrow the scope of the injunction in early July, which remains pending. This will be a fight, but the federal government should prevail because of federal elections.

California v. Trump, No. 25-cv-03372, N.D. Cal. (Tariffs) This litigation challenged President Trump’s illegal effort to impose tariffs under the International Emergency Economic Powers Act of 1977. The tariffs challenged under the lawsuit will reduce U.S. economic output by more than $178 billion, reduce labor supply by 546,000 full-time equivalent jobs, and lower after-tax incomes on average by nearly a full percentage point. The loss to California’s economy, as the nation’s largest importer and second-largest exporter, would be $25 billion, with job losses of more than 64,000.

California filed its case in the Northern District of California. The government argued that the case belonged before the Court of International Trade. The court agreed with the federal government’s jurisdictional argument but, at California’s request, it dismissed the case instead of transferring it. This procedural mechanism permitted the Department to appeal the lower court’s order to the Ninth Circuit, where the case remains pending. The Ninth Circuit granted California’s request for an expedited appeal on June 18, 2025. AG Bonta tried to get this case before the Court of International Trade! It now sits with the Ninth Circuit… anything could happen.

California v. Dep’t of Transportation, No. 25-cv-00208, D.R.I. (DOT Funding Conditions) This is another lawsuit challenging unlawful funding conditions, here immigration assistance conditions imposed by the Department of Transportation (DOT). California receives over $15.7 billion in grant funding from DOT to support and maintain the roads, highways, railways, airways, and bridges that connect our communities and carry State residents to their workplaces and their homes. Neither the purpose of these grants, nor their grant criteria, are in any way connected to immigration enforcement.

The district court granted the plaintiff states’ motion for a preliminary injunction on June 19, 2025 and denied the federal government’s request for a stay of that order. This is another case where California objects to the federal government cutting federal funding to California. 

California v. Dep’t of Justice, No. 25-cv-04863, N.D. Cal. (Title IX/AB 1955) In this case, the Department filed a lawsuit against the federal Department of Justice in anticipation of imminent legal retaliation against California’s school systems related to their compliance with longstanding state anti-discrimination laws that provide for K-12 student participation in sports consistent with gender identity. The case asks the district court to uphold California’s antidiscrimination law and prevent the federal government from taking retaliatory action, such as withholding or conditioning federal funding, over the State’s refusal to comply with the federal government’s unlawful demand that school districts certify they will not comply with California law. The Department filed this lawsuit on June 9, 2025. This is California’s attempt to continue to allow biological boys playing against girls in women’s sports. California will lose. 

Newsom v. Trump, No. 25-cv-04870, N.D. Cal. (Federalization of National Guard) In this emergency litigation, the Department represents both Governor Newsom and the State of California in an action challenging orders purporting to federalize the California National Guard for 60 days under 10 U.S.C. § 12406 and to deploy the U.S. Marines to the greater Los Angeles area. The federal government’s orders came without authorization from the governor and against the wishes of local law enforcement.

The Department filed this case on June 9, 2025, and followed it with a request for a temporary restraining order on June 10, 2025. After a hearing on June 12, 2025, the district court granted the Department’s request for a temporary restraining order. The federal government immediately appealed and obtained a stay of the district court’s order from the Ninth Circuit. That appeal is being briefed. The case proceeds in the district court on issues that were not a part of the temporary restraining order. The court granted the Department’s request for expedited discovery on June 25, 2025. The Department filed a motion for a preliminary injunction and both sides will submit supplemental briefing on that motion at the conclusion of the expedited discovery period. Federalization of National Guard, which President Trump sent in to Los Angeles during the rioting and ICE protests. 

California v. United States of America, No. 25-cv-04966, N.D. Cal. (Congressional Review Act/Clean Air Act Waivers) This case challenges the unprecedented and unlawful use of the Congressional Review Act to upend California’s clean vehicles program, specifically the Advanced Clean Cars II, Omnibus, and Advanced Clean Trucks standards. California applies these standards pursuant to congressionally authorized preemption waivers under the Clean Air Act. If California is prevented from enforcing these vehicle emission standards, it will result in the loss of significant economic and public health benefits, costing California taxpayers an estimated $45 billion in preventable health care costs. Losing these standards would also undermine market certainty for vehicle manufacturers, stifling innovation and job creation, including in the electric vehicle sector, which has been a growing source of high-paying green jobs and investment. A multistate coalition led by California filed this case on June 12, 2025. There was nothing ever “groundbreaking” about California’s or the EPA’s Advanced Clean Fleets rule. CARB aimed to achieve a total zero-emissions truck and bus fleet by 2045, as well as have at least 1.6 million zero-emission medium- and heavy-duty trucks operating in the state by 2048. California will lose this, eventually. 

California v. Dep’t of Health and Human Services, No. 3:25-cv-05536, N.D. Cal. (Medicaid Data Disclosure) This litigation, advanced by a multistate coalition led by California, challenges the Department of Health and Human Services’s unsupported decision to provide unfettered access to individual personal health data to the Department of Homeland Security. California’s Medi-Cal program provides healthcare coverage for one out of three Californians, including more than two million noncitizens. Noncitizens include green card holders, refugees, individuals who hold temporary protected status, and Deferred Action for Childhood Arrival recipients. Not all noncitizens are eligible for federally funded Medi-Cal services, and so California uses state-only funds to provide a version of the Medi-Cal program to all eligible State residents, regardless of their immigration status. The transfer of data to the Department of Homeland Security is creating fear and confusion that will lead noncitizens and their family members to disenroll, or refuse to enroll, in emergency Medicaid for which they are otherwise eligible, leaving states and their safety net hospitals to foot the bill for federally mandated emergency healthcare services. The lawsuit, filed on July 1, 2025, asks the court to enjoin the Department of Health and Human Services from transferring personally identifiable Medicaid data to the Department of Homeland Security or any other federal agency, and to enjoin the Department of Homeland Security from using this data to conduct immigration enforcement. Newsom confessed in March that California’s low-income Medi-Cal is insolvent. As California Congressman Kevin Kiley noted, “the cost of Newsom’s policy of giving free coverage to every illegal immigrant in the state has ballooned to $9.5 billion, and he’s now asked for a $3.4 billion “loan” just to continue making payments for this month.”

California v. McMahon, No. 1:25-cv-000329, D.R.I. (Department of Education funding cuts) On behalf of 23 states and two governors, California is co-leading this action challenging the Department of Education’s funding freeze to six longstanding education programs. Impacted programs include education for migrant children and English learners; programs that promote effective classroom instruction, improve school conditions and the use of technology in the classroom; community learning centers that offer students a broad range of opportunities for academic and extracurricular enrichment; and adult education and workforce development efforts. In California, an estimated $939 million in federal education funding is frozen. The multistate complaint and motion for preliminary injunction were both filed on July 14, 2025. This appears to be another lawsuit about the Trump admin cutting federal funding to California: $939 million in federal education funding is frozen. 

California v. Kennedy, No. 1:25-cv-12019, D. Mass. (Affordable Care Act rulemaking) California is co-leading this multistate action challenging an unlawful final rule promulgated by the HHS and Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services that would create significant barriers to obtaining healthcare under the Affordable Care Act (ACA). The final rule would make substantial changes to the operation of the ACA marketplaces, including adding new bureaucratic barriers, imposing an automatic monthly charge on all automatically reenrolled consumers who qualify for $0 premiums, and shortening the open enrollment period for signing up for health coverage. The administration estimates that it will cause up to 1.8 million people to lose their health insurance, while causing millions more to pay increased insurance premiums and out-of-pocket costs like co-pays and deductibles. The final rule also excludes coverage of gender-affirming care as an essential health benefit under the ACA. It will significantly drive up the costs incurred by states in providing healthcare, including increasing state expenditures on Medicaid, uncompensated emergency care, and funding other services provided to newly uninsured residents. California has approximately two million ACA plan enrollees, the third highest of any state. The multistate coalition filed the complaint and motion for a preliminary injunction on July 17, 2025, seeking to prevent the challenged portions of the final rule from taking effect in their states before the August 25 effective date. Gov. Newsom expanded Medi-Cal to cover all illegal aliens. The bills are coming due and Newsom is overdrawn – with no checks left.

California v. Dep’t of Agriculture, No. 3:25-cv-06310 N.D. Cal. (SNAP Data Sharing) California is leading this multistate lawsuit challenging the U.S. Department of Agriculture’s (USDA) demand that states turn over personal and sensitive information about millions of Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP) recipients. SNAP is a federally funded, state-administered program that provides billions of dollars in food assistance to tens of millions of low-income families across the country. SNAP applicants provide their private information on the understanding, backed by longstanding state and federal laws, that their information will not be used for unrelated purposes. USDA has suggested that it could withhold administrative funding for the program if states fail to comply — effectively forcing states to choose between protecting their residents’ privacy and providing critical nutrition assistance to those in need. California receives roughly $1 billion a year to administer the program. The lawsuit argues this demand violates multiple federal privacy laws and the U.S. Constitution. The lawsuit was filed on July 28, 2025.

California v. Dep’t of Health and Human Services, No. 1:25-cv-12118 D. Mass (Defunding Planned Parenthood) California leads this multistate lawsuit challenging the “Defund Provision” targeting Planned Parenthood in the sweeping federal budget reconciliation law (“Big Beautiful Bill”). The Defund Provision is a direct attack on the healthcare access of millions of low-income Americans, disproportionally affecting women, LGBTQ+ individuals, and communities of color. This provision specifically blocks Medicaid reimbursements for essential healthcare services provided at Planned Parenthood health centers, such as cancer screenings, birth control, and sexually transmitted infections testing. The lawsuit was filed on July 29, 2025. Congress defunded Planned Parenthood. It was legal to do so. California will lose this. 

The Globe will continue to update this article and California’s feeble attempt to “Trump Proof” the state.