On February 11, 2026, a coalition of attorneys general from California, Colorado, Illinois, and Minnesota initiated a federal lawsuit in Illinois aimed at preventing the Trump administration from cutting over $600 million in public health grants from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC). This legal action claims that the funding cuts represent political retaliation against states opposing the administration’s immigration policies and their sanctuary statuses.
The programs facing funding termination include critical initiatives like HIV prevention, disease tracking, and health equity. Illinois Governor JB Pritzker condemned these actions as a “slap in the face” to public health. With the grants scheduled to expire at the end of the month, the urgency of the situation is palpable.
California Attorney General Rob Bonta reacted strongly to the cuts, suggesting that President Trump is employing a “familiar playbook.” He accused the administration of using federal funding as leverage to coerce states into compliance with its agenda. “Those efforts have all previously failed, and we expect that to happen once again,” Bonta asserted. He also stressed the importance of upholding the law: “All Americans should be outraged. President Trump is not above the law, but he continues to act as if he is.”
Pritzker’s comments underscored the harmful impact on the lives of residents. He stated, “Rather than making life easier and more affordable for our families, Donald Trump is stripping critical public health funding.” He emphasized the importance of the funding as vital to the efforts of public health leaders in Illinois who have been working to strengthen health infrastructure.
Illinois Attorney General Kwame Raoul joined the criticism, arguing that the cuts do not relate to federal immigration law and are intended to harm public health programs. Raoul’s statement highlighted the consequences for leaders in public health who rely on federal support to tackle significant health issues, such as lead poisoning and HIV. “The president is blatantly targeting states that are disfavored for political reasons,” he claimed, underscoring the belief that the actions taken are politically motivated rather than being in the interest of public health.
The Illinois Department of Public Health (IDPH) Director, Dr. Sameer Vohra, expressed concern about the adverse effects these cuts would have. He suggested that they would undermine efforts to support local health departments and reduce HIV rates along with other necessary programs. “These cuts target programs that benefit the health of all Illinois residents,” Vohra wrote, pointing to the broader implications for health support across the state.
Minnesota Attorney General Keith Ellison also voiced his discontent, alleging that the Trump administration is unlawfully attempting to withhold tax dollars that should aid health improvements in Minnesota. Ellison framed the cuts as part of a wider campaign of “revenge and retribution” against populations that he claimed the president is supposed to serve. “Minnesotans can rest assured that I will do everything in my power to protect our state from the president’s efforts to inflict pain and suffering,” he stated, emphasizing his commitment to challenging the funding cuts.
Overall, the lawsuit filed by these states highlights a significant conflict between state governors and the federal government over public health funding. The attorneys general are positioning themselves as defenders of public health initiatives crucial for local communities, underscoring the contentious relationship with the Trump administration. These developments suggest an ongoing struggle over the prioritization of health policy amidst broader political disagreements.
"*" indicates required fields
