Is Michigan’s Trump-fighting attorney general politicizing the office or saving Michiganders?

• Michigan Attorney General Dana Nessel has joined six multistate lawsuits against the Trump administration since taking office
• Legal violations, likelihood of harm to Michigan residents have guided Nessel’s decisionmaking on whether to sign onto lawsuits
• Republican critics question use of resources, argue Nessel shouldn’t impede the will of voters by blocking Trump’s policy goals

Six years into her tenure as Michigan’s attorney general, Dana Nessel has found herself back where she started — at the center of a flurry of lawsuits challenging President Donald Trump’s executive actions and policy priorities. 

Nessel ran and won in 2018 on a progressive policy slate and quickly developed a penchant for challenging the then-first-term president. 

Since Trump took office a second time on Jan. 20, Nessel has filed or signed onto six multistate lawsuits with other Democratic attorneys general seeking to stop the administration’s widespread cost-cutting measures, federal employee firings and efforts to roll back birthright citizenship for children of immigrants.

“Candidly, I did not expect when I ran for reelection in 2022 to be in the same position that I was in my first term in office,” Nessel told Bridge Michigan, adding, “My philosophy hasn't really changed.” 

Related: Six ways Michigan’s Dana Nessel is challenging Donald Trump’s agenda

Nessel is quick to acknowledge that Trump won the popular vote — and the state of Michigan — fair and square. But, she said, “that does not give him the discretion to violate the law or the Constitution. 

“When I see these legal infractions, as we see on a daily basis, I think it's incumbent on me as the state attorney general to take action,” she said. “So we have, on quite a few occasions.” 

The attorney general’s strategy has gotten mixed reviews in Lansing, where many legislative Democrats have urged her on and Republicans have accused her of politicizing her office. 

Among the critics: former Attorneys General Mike Cox and Bill Schuette, who told a state House committee Wednesday that Nessel should leave her personal political views out of the legal system. 

“If she thinks it's a dumb idea to get rid of the Department of Education … that's a policy debate which she's allowed to — and she should — voice her opinion on,” Cox told lawmakers, noting that he personally would rather see federal education funding flowing to local school districts. 

“But when you use the power of the office in order to forward that goal, which isn't central to the governance of Michigan or isn't central to protecting the people of Michigan, that's a misuse of the office,” said Cox, who is eyeing a run for governor in 2026. 

Responding to the comments during a separate state Senate panel later that day, Nessel said her willingness to challenge the Trump administration in ways her predecessors wouldn’t have is why she ran for office. 

“I ran for this office to protect the people of the state of Michigan against trespasses committed against them by the federal government, and I will do that each and every time,” Nessel said. 

Picking battles

Asked about her legal strategy when it comes to suing the federal government, Nessel said she’s tried to focus her department’s efforts on what she sees as blatant violations of law that directly impact Michigan residents. 

Nessel said she has passed on lawsuits other states have brought against the Trump administration, noting her office generally avoids joining suits if the harm is speculative. In other instances, she said, there’s no legal pathway to challenge the president’s authority. 

“There's a lot of things that the Trump administration has done that I think are deeply damaging to us in the state of Michigan, but I don't have legal authority to do anything about,” Nessel said, citing tariffs and ongoing trade tensions with Canada. 

But in several instances, Nessel has felt compelled to act, most recently joining a lawsuit against the Trump administration’s actions to dramatically downsize the Department of Education (Trump signed an order Thursday to all but eliminate that department). 

The state is also leading multistate legal battles challenging billionaire Elon Musk’s actions at the Department of Government Efficiency and proposed reimbursement cuts at the National Institutes of Health that could lead to multimillion-dollar budget hits for Michigan universities. 

In some cases, the challenge has resulted in temporary pauses or reversals of Trump policies while the case moves through the courts. 

“Had we not brought these actions and had these policies been able to go through as planned by the executive, the damage to Michiganders is just absolutely irreparable and unsustainable,” Nessel said. “I don't know if the public necessarily knows how much harm would have come to them.” 

Outside of the courtroom, Nessel said her office has also had to spend significant time walking state agencies through the potential impacts of Trump’s actions on Michigan, such as executive orders denouncing “radical indoctrination” in schools and possible cuts to grant funding.

‘A real danger’

Cox, the former Republican attorney general, and other critics argue that the court challenges brought by Nessel and other Democratic attorneys general are in some cases blocking initiatives a majority of Michigan voters supported. 

He said the multistate legal strategy often relies on filing lawsuits in a “friendly” lower court with the goal of getting a nationwide injunction, effectively blocking the president’s priorities while courts deliberate the challenge. 

“The people elected President Trump to enforce a particular policy, and the people of the nation are denied execution of policy,” Cox told lawmakers Wednesday. “It presents a real danger.”

He argued that some legal challenges from states pending in federal courts, including an ongoing fight to reverse Trump’s decision to lay off thousands of probationary employees, “has very little or nothing to do with the state of Michigan.” 

State Sen. Thomas Albert, R-Lowell, defended the federal government’s efforts to rein in costs on Wednesday, citing the nation’s $36 trillion national debt and telling Nessel that “inflation and reckless spending is hurting people."

But state Sen. Veronica Klinefelt, D-Eastpointe, said there’s a better way to scale back government spending than to arbitrarily fire scores of federal employees. 

“If you’re going to give a signal that a percentage has to be cut, have somebody that knows something about that department in there making those decisions,” she said, thanking Nessel for getting involved in the lawsuit challenging employee firings. 

To fund, or not to fund?

A handful of other state legislatures have specifically allocated funding to their attorneys general to challenge Trump — including Hawaii and California, the latter of which has sued the new administration eight times already and sued the federal government 123 times during Trump’s first term, according to the nonprofit newsroom CalMatters. 

Nessel said she doesn’t expect the same treatment in Michigan, instead highlighting her department’s austere approach. So far, she estimates her department has spent $2,433 on the federal suits related to requesting Michigan attorneys be allowed to practice in other states. 

No new staff have been hired for the express purpose of challenging the Trump administration, she said, though she acknowledged staff are often working long hours over nights and weekends to stay on top of the new suits in addition to their regular duties. 

Some Republican critics aren’t buying it. State Rep. Matt Maddock, a Milford Republican and longtime Trump ally, recently suggested on social media that Nessel is “pulling this crap to get attention and to bill us more money.”

Nessel countered that she’s saved Michigan “an untold billions of dollars in losses” by standing in the way of Trump’s orders and policy priorities.