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

• Michigan Attorney General Dana Nessel has involved Michigan in six multistate federal lawsuits against the Trump administration since Jan. 20
• Legal actions so far include challenges to Trump’s push to limit birthright citizenship, federal funding and staffing cuts and Elon Musk’s role.
• Cases are still pending, but some of the challenges have resulted in temporary restraining orders or reversals of Trump’s plans

In the two months since Republican President Donald Trump started his second term, Democratic Michigan Attorney General Dana Nessel has filed or joined six multistate lawsuits against his administration.

The challenges take aim at Trump’s stated goal to reduce government costs and several have resulted in court-ordered pauses or reversals of his administration’s actions while lawsuits are pending.

Nessel says her efforts could save Michiganders “untold billions” and cost the state almost nothing. Critics contend she’s politicized the office.

Trump and his allies maintain that the president has the right to overhaul the federal government and cut costs. His administration is fighting the suits Nessel is involved in and other suits challenging his actions in federal courts across the country. 

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

As with many lawsuits involving politics, perceptions about the suits are divided along partisan lines: Republicans accuse Nessel of wasting resources with the suits, while Democrats say her office is standing up for Michigan taxpayers.

Here’s a synopsis of the legal battles against the Trump administration that Nessel has taken on or joined alongside other states since the president took office. 

Birthright citizenship

Nessel and 16 other Democratic attorneys general sued the Trump administration the day after he took office to challenge an executive order aimed at limiting birthright citizenship, which guarantees citizenship to anyone born in the United States regardless of their parents’ immigration status. 

Birthright citizenship stems from the 14th Amendment, a post-Civil War change granting citizenship rights to former slaves that has since been interpreted to include children of immigrants born on US soil. 

Trump has long sought to limit the scope of birthright citizenship. In the first hours of his second administration, he instructed US agencies to stop recognizing children born of parents living in the country illegally or on a temporary basis as US citizens. 

The lawsuit from state officials is among several pending legal challenges to Trump’s executive order and asserts that the administration cannot unilaterally change the policy. 

Multiple courts have blocked the order from taking effect. Trump has appealed to the Supreme Court. 

Federal funding freeze

A proposed federal grant freeze by the Trump administration prompted a speedy legal challenge from Nessel and other state attorneys general. 

The state of Michigan received nearly $33 billion in federal funding in the fiscal year 2024, while its 83 counties received $131 million. 

In a Jan. 28 memo, Trump officials proposed a “temporary” pause to root out wasteful spending. State and local governments and nonprofits feared the freeze could jeopardize K-12 programs, law enforcement, senior benefits, university grants and other federally funded programs including Medicaid and Social Security. 

Michigan is one of 22 states named in a lawsuit claiming the freeze would result in “immediate and devastating harm” and unlawfully interfere with congressionally approved funds. 

Federal courts have blocked the Trump administration from moving forward, though Nessel and others accused federal agencies last month of not immediately complying with the order.  

Medical, public health research

On Feb. 10, Nessel’s office announced she was co-leading a multistate lawsuit challenging proposed widespread funding cuts to federally funded medical and public health research at universities and major research institutions. 

The suit, joined by 22 other states, and separate legal challenges from research institutions argue a planned change to a National Institutes of Health policy covering “indirect” expenses of research would disrupt potentially lifesaving clinical trials and result in layoffs and lab closures.

Historically, indirect cost reimbursements have been negotiated between the government and research institutions and can cover anything from utility costs to infrastructure or additional staffing needs. 

The Trump administration is seeking a $4 billion annual cut by capping indirect reimbursements at 15% above direct research costs. 

The NIH noted that private foundations only allow 10% in indirect costs payments and argued that the new 15% rate “will allow grant recipients a reasonable and realistic recovery of indirect costs.” 

Researchers say grants from other sources are structured so that some things considered to be indirect costs by the federal government are instead included as direct costs.

Should the change take effect, Michigan universities would take an estimated $200 million hit. Currently, MSU gets 57% on top of every dollar of direct research grants from NIH, U-M gets 56%, and Wayne State 54%. The University of Michigan receives the third-most NIH funds among US universities.

A federal judge temporarily blocked the change while the lawsuit proceeds. 

DOGE 

Nessel is also co-leading a 14-state coalition in challenging Trump’s delegation of executive power to billionaire Elon Musk, who is running the new Department of Government Efficiency or DOGE. 

Musk was tasked by Trump with identifying savings opportunities across federal government agencies. Since the department’s creation, Musk and allies have claimed millions of dollars in savings through government lease terminations and cancellations of grants or government contracts. 

The lawsuit, filed Feb. 13, argues that Trump violated the Constitution by failing to get congressional approval to create a federal department and giving Musk sweeping authority over government operations.

Nessel and other attorneys general involved in the suit are asking federal courts to invalidate Musk’s previous actions and bar him from giving orders to anyone in the executive branch outside of DOGE.

Federal firings

The Trump administration’s mass layoffs of probationary federal employees across several government agencies prompted another lawsuit from Nessel and 19 other state attorneys general. 

In Michigan, federal workers at veteran care facilities, forestry workers and Great Lakes scientists were among those who found themselves out of a job as the Trump administration worked to quickly shrink the federal workforce and drive down costs. 

Since the coronavirus pandemic, the federal deficit has doubled to nearly $1.8 trillion. The number of federal workers has grown to 3 million from 2.75 million since 2015.

State officials challenging the cuts argue the mass firings were unlawful and would mean significant cost burdens for states with large federal workforce populations if allowed to stand. 

Recent court rulings ordered the federal government to reinstate thousands of affected workers and award them back pay, though uncertainties remain as many of the impacted employees await further instructions or are placed on administrative leave.

Department of Education cuts

The latest lawsuit against the Trump administration that Michigan is named on involves major cuts to the federal Department of Education.

This month, the Trump administration announced intentions to roughly halve the department’s workforce starting March 21 through firings, resignations and retirements. Trump signed an order Thursday to all but eliminate the department.

Secretary of Education Linda McMahon framed the initial workforce reduction as a “commitment to efficiency, accountability and ensuring that resources are directed where they matter most: to students, parents and teachers.” 

The March 13 lawsuit filed by a coalition of 21 attorneys general claims the mass layoffs would leave the department unable to perform essential functions, such as coordinating resources for special needs students, processing financial aid or handling civil rights complaints.  

The coalition asked the court to stop the Trump administration from moving forward, arguing that gutting the department is unconstitutional without congressional approval.

Involvement in other suits 

As of mid-March, the Michigan Attorney General’s Office has also joined other states in submitting amicus briefs for 12 other cases involving federal policy.

Among them: 

• opposition to Trump’s proposed changes to the refugee resettlement program
• support of a challenge to the administration’s ban on transgender people serving in the military 
• a request that the US Supreme Court uphold Medicaid recipients’ right to seek care from Planned Parenthood and other abortion providers.

The state of Michigan is not directly involved in those legal challenges, but the so-called “friend of the court” briefs can be considered by judges when reviewing the case in question.