But how long can he and other AGs resist Trump’s overreach?
In every corner of Minnesota, Attorney General Keith Ellison’s office has become a bulwark in what he casts as a constitutional struggle, one state-led lawsuit at a time.
Across rural counties and in the halls of state agencies, his team is quietly but persistently pressing back against a federal administration he argues is attempting to override lawful norms. With more than 40 cases filed to date, Ellison says the stakes are not abstract — they are billions of dollars in funds Minnesota is entitled to, as well as the protections of civil rights he vows to defend.
“We’ve recovered money for the state…well ahead of $2 billion,” Ellison told me. He paused, then added, “We’re north of $2 billion right now.” That sum comes from forcing the federal government to release withheld funds without the sweeping conditions the administration attempted to impose.
Under conditions he calls unconstitutional overreach, Minnesota, he says, has been asked to convert local law enforcement into de facto immigration agents, or lose emergency management money. He refused and says he is winning in court.
But the legal drama is not confined to dollars. Ellison describes being part of a broader coalition with 23 other state attorneys general waging parallel fights over issues ranging from birthright citizenship to education funding cuts. He frames it as a clash over the 14th Amendment and the principle that no president is above the law.
“We’ve been fighting for the 14th Amendment, birthright citizenship, which the President has attacked,” Ellison said.
At times, the conflict turns personal. Ellison recounts executive orders that target diversity, equity, and inclusion programs, or retaliate against law firms for representing clients the administration dislikes. But powerful pushback has already emerged.
In March, President Trump signed a series of executive orders aiming to punish law firms by revoking attorneys’ security clearances, canceling their government contracts, or barring them from federal buildings. Trump called one of those orders “an absolute honor to sign.”
“We can keep more energy to fight than he has energy to try to tear down the Constitution.”
But judges responding to lawsuits have described the orders as chilling to speech and legal advocacy. One federal judge permanently blocked the order against Perkins Coie as “unconstitutional retaliation.” Another struck down a punitive order targeting WilmerHale, warning that the coercive measures undermined the independence of the bar. Those rulings have served as legal shields for the attorneys general’s strategy, a strategy Ellison embraces.
Ellison’s activism isn’t limited to high-profile constitutional fights. He is also confronting more everyday threats to Minnesotans: consumer fraud, deceptive practices, and attacks on disability rights. He points to the mass firings of federal workers, many of whom were in Schedule A status favoring hiring of individuals with disabilities.
The administration’s abrupt cuts to research reimbursements also drew his ire: “Trump attacks are not just about funding,” he said. “He’s coming directly for people’s jobs.” He says his office successfully sued to reinstate many improperly dismissed workers.
At public events across the state, Ellison calls on ordinary citizens to participate: Report when promised funding doesn’t arrive, submit stories when local projects stall, speak out when data privacy is threatened.
“Going to court and fighting them in court works,” he told a crowd in St. Cloud, reminding listeners that “the best weapon is human solidarity.” On other occasions, he has urged residents to peacefully protest, host teach-ins, even stage poetry slams or concerts to raise awareness.
The tone is defiant but steady. “I got well over four years, so I can keep going longer than he can keep going,” Ellison told me. He frames the choice in clear terms: “We can keep more energy to fight than he has energy to try to tear down the Constitution.” Across Minnesota, his team is preparing even longer campaigns ahead, confident that the courts will rarely be the final battlefield.
What remains uncertain is how far the White House will push. Ellison, leaning into the institutional frontlines, warns of dangers to the rule of law; but he insists that organized, sustained state action paired with public vigilance can resist executive overreach.
“I don’t wake up in the morning just to sue Trump,” he said. “I’d rather not sue Trump. I wish he’d just obey the law.” But for now, he says, suing is the work that must be done.
Jasmine McBride welcomes reader responses at jmcbride@spokesman-recorder.com.