By Ian Iglesias
OAKLAND, CA – California Attorney General Rob Bonta has joined 21 attorneys general in filing a forceful legal challenge against the Trump administration’s mass firing of federal workers and dismantling of key federal agencies. In an amicus brief filed this week in American Federation of Government Employees, AFL-CIO, et al. v. Trump, the coalition supports a request for a Temporary Restraining Order (TRO) to stop what Bonta has called an “illegal ransacking of federal agencies.”
“The illegal ransacking of federal agencies and the mass firing of federal workers that make these agencies run has sown tremendous chaos, instilled distrust among the American people, and caused deep harm to our country,” Bonta said in a press release. “Beyond the on-the-ground impacts we are seeing, the continued uncertainty surrounding the fate of various federal agencies has a real and lasting impact on states that must devote substantial time and resources to prepare for agencies that may or may not cease to exist.”
According to the brief, the Trump administration lacks legal authority to unilaterally dismantle or defund agencies created and funded by Congress. The attorneys general argue that by bypassing congressional appropriations and firing tens of thousands of federal workers, the administration is violating foundational principles of constitutional separation of powers. The brief asserts that “the Trump Administration does not have the power to incapacitate a department that Congress created, nor can it decline to spend funds that were appropriated by Congress for that department.”
The coalition’s filing highlights the downstream impacts of federal dysfunction on states and local governments, particularly in the realms of public safety, emergency response, environmental protection, and healthcare. The mass layoffs, the attorneys argue, directly undercut the ability of state agencies to partner with federal entities. The brief outlines numerous federal-state collaborations now at risk, including the U.S. Geological Survey’s support in identifying and assessing landslide hazards, FEMA’s role in tsunami hazard mitigation and disaster infrastructure response, national suicide prevention and mental health hotlines operated by the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services (HHS), USDA teams addressing outbreaks of food-borne pathogens, and FEMA’s coordination with states and municipalities in providing temporary housing and emergency services.
Bonta’s latest legal move is part of a broader campaign of litigation aimed at resisting what he calls the Trump administration’s “firing rampage.” This week, Bonta filed a separate lawsuit challenging the termination of approximately 10,000 full-time HHS employees, the controversial consolidation of 28 HHS divisions into just 15, and the shuttering of five of the agency’s ten regional offices. The lawsuit follows earlier legal action taken by Bonta challenging the blanket termination of probationary federal employees and mass layoffs within the Department of Education. These firings, critics argue, are designed to paralyze government functions and erode public faith in the legitimacy of civil service. In previous court filings, Bonta warned that such tactics “create a governance vacuum in critical domains such as health, education, and infrastructure—domains where states rely heavily on federal partnership.”
The attorneys general also raised alarm over the dismantling of the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau (CFPB), a move they say “rapidly and substantially increases the burden on state agencies to protect consumers.” Two amicus briefs were submitted opposing what Bonta characterized as the effective “shutdown” of the CFPB through work suspensions and staff terminations.
Additionally, Bonta filed an amicus brief last month challenging operational changes within the Social Security Administration (SSA), which include staffing cuts, field office closures, and the closure of vital departments. According to the brief, these actions “hampered SSA’s ability to help older adults and persons with disabilities access the benefits and services they depend on.” “These changes don’t just represent bureaucratic reshuffling,” Bonta warned. “They inflict tangible harm on millions of vulnerable residents who rely on government assistance.”
The broader legal and constitutional issue at play centers on the Trump administration’s claim that it can unilaterally dismantle or disable federal departments through mass terminations and defunding tactics. In their brief, the attorneys general argue that this is not only unlawful but represents a dangerous concentration of power in the executive branch. As stated in the filing: “The President cannot cancel congressionally appropriated funds or dissolve statutory agencies by executive order. Such a move overrides legislative intent and undermines the checks and balances essential to constitutional governance.” The brief further explains that the harms inflicted by the administration’s actions are not speculative—they are “immediate and ongoing,” placing states in a defensive posture where they must brace for the collapse of essential intergovernmental partnerships.
Bonta is joined in the filing by attorneys general, including from Washington, Arizona, Colorado, Connecticut, Delaware, Hawaii, Illinois, Maryland, Maine, Michigan, Minnesota, Nevada, New Jersey, New Mexico, New York, North Carolina, Oregon, Rhode Island, Vermont, and the District of Columbia. The coordinated legal response underscores how deeply concerned state leaders are about what they describe as an unlawful and ideologically driven campaign to erode federal capacity.
“If left unchecked,” the brief concludes, “these actions will set a precedent that permits future administrations to defund and dismantle any federal program that does not align with their partisan agenda.”
