---
source_url: https://courthousenews.com/four-states-sue-to-block-trumps-600m-political-hit-list-of-public-health-cuts/
---

(CN) — Four Democrat-led states filed a federal lawsuit Wednesday seeking to block the Trump administration from cutting over $600 million in Center for Disease Control and Prevention grants. The states argue the cuts are part of a campaign of retribution against jurisdictions that disagree with the administration’s immigration and overall political agenda.
“This action is lawless. It violates the Administrative Procedure Act’s requirement of reasoned decision-making, and it exceeds the agencies’ statutory authority,” the states said in the complaint. “Even more fundamentally, it violates basic tenets of our constitutional order.”
In the [complaint](https://www.courthousenews.com/wp-content/uploads/2026/02/States-complaint-on-cut-funding.pdf), filed in the Northern District of Illinois, that state, along with California, Colorado and Minnesota, claim the Office of Management and Budget spent January developing a “hit list” of grants to be stripped from them before informing Congress on Monday of the “devastating” funding cuts.
While the federal government claims it’s terminating the grants due to “inconsistency with agency priorities,” the states say the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention’s own priorities of “strengthening the public health system” and “modernizing infrastructure” are the exact goals of the grants targeted by the cuts.
“Plaintiff states will be unable to replace the lost federal dollars with their own money, especially because the cuts are immediate, made without warning or time to plan, and in the middle of funding cycles,” the states said in the complaint. “The result will be preventable deaths, injuries, and needless suffering due to HIV and other disease outbreaks the states can no longer track.”
“We’re not going to pay sanctuary cities anymore. They can sue us and maybe they’ll win, but we’re not giving money to them anymore as of the beginning of the month,” Trump said.
The states claim the Trump administration’s actions and statements of animosity against sanctuary areas proves the funding cut directive was based on “political animus” rather than a legitimate policy change — adding that this decision is clearly another attempt to coerce the states into abandoning policies the president disagrees with.
“As many Americans were reminded during the Covid-19 pandemic, public health is a matter of life and death,” the states said in the complaint. “A pandemic does not respect the differences between citizens and noncitizens.”
The largest grant program targeted for termination is the [Public Health Infrastructure Grant](https://www.cdc.gov/infrastructure-phig/about/index.html) — a program that has operated in all 50 states since 2022, funding critical infrastructure and workforce needs across the nation.
The funding cuts to this program, and others, will force layoffs of hundreds of essential public health workers, the states say.
“Defendants’ notification to Congress is silent as to how 46 out of 50 substantially identical PHIG grants could be compatible with agency priorities, while the remaining four are not,” the states said.
Minnesota said the directive would claw back over $42 million in grants already awarded to the state and lead to the layoffs of 57 employees who monitor disease outbreaks in rural areas.
The state’s critical grant funding, which could be terminated as early as Thursday, allows states to track disease outbreaks, maintain and improve their data systems, and collect basic public health data — in addition to providing employment for hundreds of trained medical professionals.
“Once again, the Trump administration is unlawfully trying to stop our own tax dollars from coming back to Minnesota to improve health and well-being across our state,”**** Minnesota Attorney General Keith Ellison [said in a press release](https://www.ag.state.mn.us/Office/Communications/2026/02/11_PublicHealthGrants.asp). “These cuts only serve to continue Donald Trump’s campaign of revenge and retribution against the people of Minnesota.”
Aside from what Minnesota calls an obvious attack on a Democrat-led jurisdiction, the state said the directive violates the Constitution and the Administrative Procedure Act because it is “arbitrary” and “capricious” and exceeds federal authority.
Illinois stands to lose funding for 99 Department of Public Health employees and 55 contracts related to lead poisoning and emergency prep, while California said cuts would disrupt more than 400 positions, including epidemiologists and nurses working in underserved areas, as well as programs for youth violence prevention.
Colorado said loss of funding would degrade diabetes care for low-income residents and eliminate resources for rural communities that lack local health care providers.
Prior to the announcement of the funding cuts, the states say the OMB requested data on 14 “disfavored” jurisdictions, identifying them as potential targets. Nearly all of these states appeared on the “[list of sanctuary jurisdictions](https://onclickscan.trustifi.com/api/o/v1/scan/link/fffca6/31021a/68c701/e36eed/594843/42cf65/a7cc9e/c0e518/e8666a/ef542d/85972d/627493/9a11d6/1f4096/1d247f/d2db2c/c76385/d6cbf0/edfe50/704292/918fa7/f74404/f35f1a/3fdbea/f4d24f/1b8972/3f8ba5/9de5f1/c5129b/da7352/881966/99653d/7c5116/af3101/632c1b/3c0925/313f1e/fc8906/d1babc/00f7b1/6524c1/962a5e/e08a46/bddcbf/3804c7/972a2f/c45273/2f2cc1/51450d/ab5ef8/c17c29/bb9861/361295/d116de/13a8ab/b6839a/5653d7/52f177/dff359/953e6a/f97819/0d742f/af9b01/0cd43a/4d554b/02998a/d6ba2f/7a53b1/e8ebe8/7ff313/1bd035/f48d14/252dee/8409ce/da992f/021051/a9a742/43bd30/faeff4/e6914b/de27a1/2951a4/e24d8e/8cbecd/4c7cdb/08baf0/7cf33a/fb9f91/1e2311/4f3d50/58198d/f71bd8/0c1619/1a1439/4403b3/f25b2e/5ddad7/fd5d3d/63689d/bd60f1/66142f/242f6d/1f457a/4ce30f/180b63/5a51e8/150917/611d8f/515011/2a6870/554beb/fa62dd/7dca8d/75be08/f5d392/9c88ef/35e481/fe631e/668a88/468e6f/7da018/145df0/028cb4/3e6ee5/633a72/7a909f/9285b7/bd427e/1f)” published by the Department of Justice on Aug. 5.
The states have asked the court to issue an immediate restraining order to prohibit implementation of the directive.
The defendant government departments did not immediately respond to requests for comment Wednesday evening.
Subscribe to our free newsletters
Our weekly newsletter Closing Arguments offers the latest about ongoing trials, major litigation and rulings in courthouses around the U.S. and the world, while the monthly Under the Lights dishes the legal dirt from Hollywood, sports, Big Tech and the arts.