Fact Check: Trump administration's funding cuts labeled 'indiscriminate and illegal' by attorneys general.

Fact Check: Trump Administration's Funding Cuts Labeled 'Indiscriminate and Illegal' by Attorneys General

What We Know

In June 2025, Michigan Attorney General Dana Nessel announced that she had joined a coalition of 21 attorneys general in suing the Trump Administration. The lawsuit claims that the administration unlawfully attempted to terminate billions of dollars in federal funding for states by invoking a specific provision in federal regulations. This provision allows agencies to terminate funding if it "no longer effectuates ... agency priorities" (Attorney General Nessel Challenges Trump ...). The lawsuit argues that this approach is not only unprecedented but also constitutes an "indiscriminate and illegal" action to cut funding essential for various public services, including education, public health, and scientific research.

Similarly, California Attorney General Rob Bonta filed a lawsuit against the Trump Administration for unlawfully cutting funding that supports medical and public health research at universities. This lawsuit also emphasizes the abrupt nature of the funding cuts, which left institutions with little time to adjust (Attorney General Bonta Sues Trump Administration over ...). New York Attorney General Letitia James and Colorado Attorney General Phil Weiser have also filed suits against the administration for similar reasons, citing illegal revocations of funding that jeopardize critical research and public health initiatives (Attorney General James Sues Trump Administration for ..., Attorney General Phil Weiser sues Trump administration for ...).

Analysis

The claims made by the attorneys general are supported by multiple lawsuits filed across various states, highlighting a consistent narrative of the Trump Administration's approach to federal funding. The lawsuits collectively describe the administration's actions as a significant departure from established practices, where funding was not typically terminated based solely on shifting agency priorities (Attorney General Nessel Challenges Trump ...).

The reliability of these sources is bolstered by the fact that they come from official state attorney general press releases, which are typically grounded in legal frameworks and subject to scrutiny. However, it is important to note that the attorneys general involved are political figures, and their statements may carry inherent bias against the Trump Administration. Nonetheless, the legal actions taken by multiple states indicate a broader consensus on the issue, lending credibility to the claim that the funding cuts were viewed as "indiscriminate and illegal."

The lawsuits also emphasize the potential negative impact of these funding cuts on essential services, which aligns with public interest concerns regarding health, education, and safety (Attorney General Bonta Sues Trump Administration over ...). The urgency expressed in these lawsuits reflects a genuine concern for the implications of the funding cuts on state operations and public welfare.

Conclusion

The claim that the Trump Administration's funding cuts were labeled "indiscriminate and illegal" by attorneys general is True. Multiple lawsuits filed by a coalition of attorneys general substantiate this assertion, highlighting the administration's controversial use of regulatory provisions to terminate funding. The legal challenges emphasize the unprecedented nature of these actions and their potential harmful effects on critical public services.