Colorado officials ready legal defense fund against Trump cuts and potential investigations

Colorado legislators are fast-tracking the creation of a $4 million fund to help Gov. Jared Polis’ office defend against actions by the Trump administration — including potential criminal investigations — as policymakers grapple with frozen funding and uncertainty from the federal government.

Using money from the federal Infrastructure Investment and Jobs Act, House Bill 1321 would establish a fund to be used for hiring staff or contractors to defend against threats to federal funding that’s due to the state. The money could also be spent on reimbursing the Colorado Attorney General’s Office, should its attorneys have to defend state leaders and employees against legal and criminal proceedings filed against them. That would include potential inquiries from Congress.

Should the $4 million prove insufficient, the bill would also allow Polis’ office to accept gifts, grants and donations to add to the fund — meaning that the state could essentially use crowdfunding to defend itself and its funding streams from the Trump administration.

The measure comes as hundreds of millions of dollars set to flow to Colorado have been abruptly frozen — and, in most cases, unfrozen — by the federal government in the weeks since President Donald Trump returned to office.

Attorney General Phil Weiser has filed or joined more than a dozen lawsuits against the Trump administration, related both to funding concerns and to other actions undertaken by the president.

“Clearly, with this very expansive approach to funding freezes and alterations or cancellations of multiple grant programs, the state is in need of additional capacity to adequately defend the interests of Colorado citizens,” House Speaker Julie McCluskie, the Democratic leader who’s sponsoring the bill, told a legislative committee Tuesday morning.

While the federal government has largely reversed its initial January widespread funding freeze, other program dollars destined for Colorado are in limbo or have been lost.

More than $230 million in health grants have been rescinded — sparking another lawsuit — and Weiser’s office is part of more litigation challenging the freezing of Federal Emergency Management Agency money. A federal judge found the latter was a covert effort by the Trump administration to withhold money from Democrat-led states.

The bill was introduced in the state House on Friday night and cleared an initial committee vote Tuesday morning. It’s also being sponsored by Rep. Shannon Bird, the vice chair of the powerful Joint Budget Committee.

In a statement in response to an interview request, Weiser said the state was experiencing “an unprecedented number of illegal actions that threaten our state and the rights of Coloradans” under the Trump administration. He said he’d also asked the legislature to provide money for three more lawyers in his office, in addition to the $4 million proposed in HB-1321.

Polis’ office said in a statement Tuesday: “We believe that to properly defend the free state of Colorado from unlawful and adverse actions taken against the state, protect Coloradans and state employees, and generally prepare for the uncertain federal environment ahead, it’s critical to ensure we have adequate resources to meet the moment.”

Thus far, the governor has taken an even-handed approach with Trump — encouraging some increased immigration actions, offering praise of top Trump health official Robert F. Kennedy Jr., and speaking favorably about some of billionaire Elon Musk’s efforts to cut government spending.

But Polis has been more critical of Trump’s economic policies, including his recent tariff announcements, and of actions that threaten or freeze state funding.

“Making sure that we’re ready to go”

Bird and McCluskie said the bill wasn’t proposed in response to any imminent or expected criminal or congressional investigations. The U.S. Department of Justice has filed lawsuits against some Democrat-run cities and states over their immigration policies, though the agency has not yet pursued any similar action against Colorado.

Bird said the state would use part of the money to build up capacity in its agencies for responses to documentation or investigative requests from federal authorities.

“We are anticipating more (funding freezes), so we’re making sure that we’re ready to go and defend what we legitimately have expectations to receive,” she said. “Coloradans ought to understand that.”

Denver Mayor Mike Johnston was called before Congress to discuss his city’s immigration policies, but the funding from HB-1321 likely could not be used to defend individual cities, municipal leaders or their employees, Bird said.

Before the mayor’s trip to testify to a congressional committee last month, the city approved a $2 million contract with a Washington, D.C., lawyer to help Johnston navigate the hearing. The contract also covers help for Denver officials during the ongoing congressional investigation of several cities.

The fear of additional cuts — or other adverse actions by the federal government — has been a prominent undertone during the first three months of the legislative session. House Democrats formed four working groups late last year to prepare for impacts from Trump’s return to the White House, and lawmakers recently introduced a bill aimed at better protecting immigrants without proper legal status from federal authorities.

Republicans have seized on threats

Polis’ staff has told lawmakers that the governor doesn’t want to pass legislation that would make the state a target for the Trump administration. The president has already taken special notice of the Colorado Capitol: He criticized a portrait of him hanging in the building last month, prompting a rapid response from Polis and legislative leaders to remove the painting.

In the House, Republican lawmakers have used the risk of federal funding cuts to try to amend controversial bills. On a prominent gun-control measure, for instance, Republican legislators tried to insert an amendment that would invalidate the new law unless federal officials confirmed they wouldn’t strike federal funding because of the law’s passage.

On Tuesday, all four Republican members of the House Appropriations Committee voted against the bill, though it still passed and is now bound for the House floor.

Rep. Stephanie Luck, a Penrose Republican, asked McCluskie about any expected criminal investigations and if the state would defend local authorities — like mayors or law enforcement agencies — if the “federal administration were to follow through with threats of bringing charges” against them.

“I think it would be premature for me to forecast again what might be coming forward,” the speaker replied. “But I do believe the state has an obligation to defend both programs and contracts that are currently established, and (to make) sure any commitments the state has made — that we meet our obligation and that we fully respond to any specific attacks on those programs.”

_____