The lawsuit challenges USDA's attempt to impose conditions on billions in federal funding for critical nutrition programs including school lunch, WIC, SNAP, and other food assistance programs that serve Connecticut's most vulnerable populations. The new funding conditions, which took effect December 31, 2025, require states to comply with Trump administration policies related to gender identity, diversity, immigration and fair athletic opportunities for girls and women.
According to the attorneys general, USDA has threatened harsh penalties if states do not comply with the agency's "vague and expansive funding conditions" that are unrelated to the purpose of USDA funding. The coalition argues that USDA does not fully identify or limit which policies states must comply with, leaving states "at the mercy of the administration for enforcement of the new conditions."
The lawsuit seeks a court order blocking USDA from implementing or enforcing what the coalition calls illegal funding conditions. The challenged programs include the school lunch program that feeds about 30 million children nationwide, the Special Supplemental Nutrition Program for Women, Infants and Children (WIC), the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP), The Emergency Food Assistance Program (TEFAP), and the Volunteer Fire Capacity Program.
The legal challenge comes as part of broader tensions between Democratic-led states and the Trump administration over federal funding tied to immigration and social policies. USDA programs not only provide nutrition assistance but also strengthen the American food ecosystem, support national security through domestic agriculture, fund university research, and support firefighting programs that save lives and infrastructure.
"Trump's message to Connecticut—fall in line with extreme MAGA ideology, or your families go hungry," said Attorney General Tong. "Trump wants states to sign hateful pledges that have absolutely nothing to do with food assistance. These conditions are plainly unlawful, and we're suing to ensure Connecticut gets every penny of USDA funding that our taxpayers paid for and our families need to put food on the table."
The coalition alleges the Trump administration violated the Spending Clause by imposing coercive conditions without clear notice and violated the Administrative Procedure Act because the conditions are arbitrary, capricious, unconstitutional, contrary to law and beyond USDA's statutory authority. The case represents a significant test of federal power to attach ideological conditions to essential funding programs.
Joining Connecticut in the lawsuit are attorneys general from California, Colorado, Delaware, the District of Columbia, Hawaii, Illinois, Maine, Maryland, Massachusetts, Michigan, Minnesota, New Jersey, New Mexico, New York, Oregon, Rhode Island, Vermont, Virginia, Washington and Wisconsin—representing a coordinated blue-state response to the administration's funding strategy.