Attorneys general in multiple states are withholding or heavily redacting records tied to an early legal strategy for challenging a second Trump administration, according to reporting by Adam Herbets of The Center Square.
The records dispute centers on what The Center Square describes as a coordinated effort nicknamed the “Project for Federal Accountability.” A confidential document obtained by the outlet reportedly shows at least 22 Democratic attorneys general discussing litigation plans as early as April 28, 2024 — months before President Donald Trump was reelected and before Vice President Kamala Harris entered the presidential race.
Since January 2025, roughly 100 multistate lawsuits have been filed against the Trump administration, according to The Center Square. The outlet reports that most attorneys general have declined to explain why litigation planning began so far in advance of policies that had not yet been implemented.
States cite privilege and public interest
The California Attorney General’s Office denied a public records request from The Center Square, saying release “would not be in the public interest.” Deputy Attorney General Liberty Sacker wrote that locating and reviewing potentially responsive records would impose an “undue burden” and said the request could cover emails tied to 82 lawsuits.
Sacker also said responsive communications would likely be exempt under attorney-client privilege, attorney work product, official information privilege, deliberative process privilege, pending litigation exemptions, investigative files exemptions, or related protections.
Nevada Attorney General Aaron Ford’s office said the requested files could not be released because they are protected by “common interest privilege.” The Maryland Attorney General’s Office cited similar reasoning and said release of emails or attachments would be “contrary to the public interest,” according to The Center Square.
Common interest agreements can allow government lawyers in different states to coordinate legal strategy while attempting to preserve confidentiality. The Center Square reports that confidential records show Maryland and Nevada signed such an agreement in May 2024, while California signed a copy that did not include a date.
Retired judge questions the legal basis
Thomas Moukawsher, a retired Connecticut judge, told The Center Square that records involving hypothetical lawsuits over hypothetical policies should not automatically be shielded from the public through a common interest agreement.
“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.”
He added: “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.”
Colorado quoted a $61,641 records fee
The Center Square said it has appealed denials and filed additional requests for records created before the common interest agreement.
In Colorado, the attorney general’s office said emails related to the Project for Federal Accountability could be released if The Center Square pays an estimated fee of about $61,641.
“Please advise how you wish to proceed,” Communications Director Lawrence Pacheco wrote, according to the outlet.
David Cuillier, director of the Freedom of Information Project at the University of Florida’s Brechner Center for the Advancement of the First Amendment, criticized high public-records fees in comments to The Center Square.
“We should not be charging people to see what their government is doing,” Cuillier said. He compared records access to attending a city council meeting or voting, saying governments should not impose prohibitive costs on basic civic oversight.
The Center Square also reported that in a separate request involving outside counsel receipts, Colorado’s attorney general’s office increased its quoted fee from $290 to $5,130 after the outlet agreed to pay the initial amount and after Attorney General Phil Weiser won his Democratic primary for governor.
Cuillier called that increase “outrageous” and “crazy.” Pacheco has declined to explain how Colorado calculates such fees, according to The Center Square, saying state law does not require him to answer questions.
Some records released, but heavily redacted
The New York and Washington attorney general’s offices have released some records, but The Center Square described them as highly redacted and largely illegible. The outlet said it is appealing those redactions.
Oregon’s attorney general’s office has identified more than 1,000 emails discussing the Project for Federal Accountability before Trump took office, according to The Center Square. Those records have not yet been provided or formally denied, the outlet reported.
Eliot Richardson, CEO of the nonpartisan group Run Down The Middle, declined to comment on the lawsuits themselves but urged more transparency around public records costs.
“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.”
The Center Square reported that attorneys general in more than two dozen jurisdictions, including Arizona, California, Colorado, Connecticut, Delaware, Hawaii, Illinois, Maryland, Massachusetts, Michigan, Nevada, New York, Oregon, Pennsylvania, Washington, D.C., and Wisconsin, had either not supplied records or declined to comment before publication.
