A full-blown legal revolt is underway as 17 attorneys general move to block the Trump administration from illegally freezing billions of dollars in infrastructure funding that Congress already approved. In a lawsuit filed Tuesday, the states take direct aim at the Department of Transportation for halting money meant to build out the nation’s electric vehicle charging network—without repealing the law that authorized it.
At its core, the case asks a simple but explosive question: can a president kill a federal program just by refusing to spend the money?
The states argue the answer is no.
The lawsuit, filed in the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Washington, accuses the DOT and the Federal Highway Administration of unlawfully stopping approvals under two EV charging programs created by the Infrastructure Investment and Jobs Act, a bipartisan law passed in 2021. According to the complaint, funding approvals under those programs have been “categorically and indefinitely” frozen since the spring of 2025, with no public explanation and no formal repeal from Congress, Newsweek reports
The programs at issue—the Charging and Fueling Infrastructure (CFI) Discretionary Grant Program and the Electric Vehicle Charger Reliability and Accessibility Accelerator Program—were designed to pump billions of dollars into a nationwide charging network. States rely on that funding to plan construction, hire contractors, and coordinate long-term transportation projects. When the money stops, everything else grinds to a halt.
The plaintiffs include the attorneys general of California, Colorado, Washington, Arizona, Delaware, Illinois, Maryland, Massachusetts, Michigan, New Jersey, New York, Oregon, Rhode Island, Vermont, and Wisconsin, along with the District of Columbia. Pennsylvania Governor Josh Shapiro is also a plaintiff. California Governor Gavin Newsom, the California Department of Transportation, and the California Energy Commission joined as additional plaintiffs.
California Attorney General Rob Bonta framed the lawsuit as a defense of constitutional authority, not a partisan attack.
“This isn’t about party politics,” Bonta said. “It’s about the future of our country, our economy and our planet.”
The lawsuit argues that the Trump administration’s refusal to approve new funding amounts to an unlawful impoundment of congressionally appropriated money. Under the Constitution, Congress controls federal spending. The executive branch does not get to veto laws by simply refusing to carry them out.
Colorado Attorney General Phil Weiser underscored that point, saying “whether you do it expressly directly or implicitly indirectly, you can’t withhold mandated funds.”
This legal fight didn’t come out of nowhere. Earlier this year, many of the same states sued the administration over the National Electric Vehicle Infrastructure (NEVI) Formula Program, which involved $5 billion in EV charger funding. In June, a federal judge issued a preliminary injunction in that case, ruling that the administration’s suspension of NEVI funds was likely unlawful and ordering the restoration of roughly $1 billion to participating states.
That ruling now hangs over the new lawsuit—and suggests the administration is repeating a strategy that’s already landed it in legal trouble.
According to the complaint, DOT’s funding freeze has already delayed or suspended charging projects that were underway and thrown future construction plans into doubt. States say they’re being forced to shelve projects, renegotiate contracts, and absorb rising costs while waiting for money Congress already promised.
President Donald Trump has been openly hostile to federal EV charger spending. In a February 7, 2025 letter, he criticized the policy as “…an incredible waste of taxpayer dollars.”
But the states argue that policy disagreements don’t give the president the authority to block spending unilaterally.
Bonta was blunt about what’s at stake: “The President continues his unconstitutional attempts to withhold funding that Congress appropriated to programs he dislikes… California will not back down, not from Big Oil, and not from federal overreach.”
He also warned about the real-world fallout of the funding freeze, saying, “This is just another reckless attempt that will stall the fight against air pollution and climate change, slow innovation, thwart green job creation, and leave communities without access to clean, affordable transportation.”
As the case moves forward, the Trump administration is expected to challenge the lawsuit, likely arguing that the dispute doesn’t belong in federal district court. The states may seek a preliminary injunction to force the Department of Transportation to resume approving funding while the case is litigated.
Before anything else happens, a judge will have to decide whether the freeze constitutes unlawful agency action or a contractual dispute—a decision that could determine whether the case moves forward at all. Any ruling is almost certain to be appealed, setting the stage for a prolonged legal battle while billions in infrastructure money remain locked up.
While EV chargers are the immediate flashpoint, the implications are far broader. If a president can sidestep Congress by quietly freezing approved funds, it reshapes the balance of power in Washington and injects uncertainty into every federal grant program states rely on.
For now, the states are drawing a line. And this lawsuit is their warning shot.
