Attorneys general from across the United States began coordinating a legal strategy as early as April 2024 to file lawsuits against a potential second Trump administration. A confidential document obtained by The Center Square shows at least 22 Democratic attorneys general discussed the plan, nicknamed the “Project for Federal Accountability,” three months before Vice President Kamala Harris announced her presidential run and roughly seven months before former President Donald Trump secured reelection.

Multistate Litigation and Record Withholding

Since January 2025, the coordinated effort appears to have produced roughly 100 multistate lawsuits targeting policies the Trump administration might pursue. Most of the participating attorneys general have declined to explain why they began planning litigation so far in advance, and they have withheld thousands of emails that could provide additional context.

Requests for the records have been denied by several states. California’s Attorney General’s Office said releasing the files “would not be in the public interest,” adding that locating and reviewing potentially responsive records would impose an undue burden. Deputy Attorney General Liberty Sacker cited multiple privileges—including attorney‑client, work‑product, official‑information, deliberative‑process, pending‑litigation, and investigative‑files exemptions—as reasons for withholding the emails.

Nevada Attorney General Aaron Ford invoked the common‑interest privilege, while Maryland’s Attorney General’s Office similarly argued that disclosure would be contrary to the public interest.

Common‑Interest Agreements and Legal Opinions

Common‑interest agreements allow state attorneys general to coordinate litigation strategies without making those discussions public. Records show that Maryland and Nevada signed such agreements in May 2024, and California also signed, though the date was left blank.

Retired Connecticut judge Thomas Moukawsher argued that records concerning hypothetical lawsuits over hypothetical policies should not be shielded by a common‑interest agreement. “Parties with the same interests need to be able to speak with their lawyers confidentially,” he said, adding, “I despise Donald Trump, but he’s entitled to the law as much as anyone else is.”

Colorado’s Fee Request Raises Transparency Concerns

The Colorado Attorney General’s Office indicated that releasing the Project for Federal Accountability emails would cost approximately $61,641. Communications Director Lawrence Pacheco wrote that the fee estimate was based on the volume of records, but he declined to explain the calculation method, noting that state law does not require such disclosure.

Transparency advocates, including David Cuillier of the Freedom of Information Project at the University of Florida’s Brechner Center, criticized the fee as an “outlandish” barrier that effectively prevents public scrutiny. Cuillier compared the practice to charging a cover fee for a city‑council meeting, calling it “ridiculous.”

Colorado law requires fees to be “reasonable,” yet the Attorney General’s Office has not provided a rationale for its pricing. In a separate matter, the office increased fees for outside‑counsel receipts from $290 to $5,130 after The Center Square agreed to pay and after Attorney General Phil Weiser won his Democratic primary for governor.

Responses from Other States

New York and Washington state attorneys general have released some records, though they are heavily redacted and often illegible. Oregon’s Attorney General’s Office reported identifying more than 1,000 emails discussing the Project for Federal Accountability before Trump took office, but those records have not yet been provided or denied.

Attorneys general in Arizona, California, Connecticut, Delaware, Hawaii, Illinois, Maine, Massachusetts, Michigan, Minnesota, New Jersey, New Mexico, North Carolina, Pennsylvania, Rhode Island, Vermont, Virginia, Washington, D.C., and Wisconsin have either not supplied records or declined to comment.

Calls for Greater Openness

Eliot Richardson, CEO of the nonpartisan watchdog Run Down The Middle, urged more transparency, stating that government should not operate in secrecy and that any fees charged for public records should be clearly itemized.

The Center Square has appealed each denial and filed additional requests for records predating the common‑interest agreements, continuing its effort to bring the coordination and its costs into the public view.

Original reporting: KTBS 3 (Shreveport) — read the source article.