Massachusetts AG Andrea Campbell’s Legal Battle Against Trump Costs Taxpayers

Massachusetts Attorney General Andrea Campbell has been actively pursuing legal action against the Trump administration, claiming that her efforts protect the interests of Massachusetts residents. However, her use of taxpayer-funded expenses has sparked a heated debate regarding the legitimacy of such spending and her political aspirations.

Campbell’s office has filed 29 lawsuits against former President Trump’s administration, asserting that these legal challenges are necessary to combat what she describes as “cruel and unlawful actions.” According to a report by the Boston Herald, the attorney general’s office has utilized state-issued credit cards for various expenditures related to these lawsuits, totaling approximately $288,146 in Fiscal Year 2025 alone. Notably, her office spent $19,564 on expenses related to Washington, D.C., including hotel accommodations and conference fees.

Controversial Spending Patterns

In a recent analysis, it was revealed that Campbell’s office allocated $5,361 on hotel stays in D.C. during the latter half of the last fiscal year. Critics, including the Massachusetts Republican Party and fiscal watchdogs, have raised concerns about the implications of such spending. The attorney general’s office received a 12% budget increase, bringing its total allocation for fiscal year 2026 to $83 million, intended to bolster its legal efforts against the Trump administration.

Campbell defended her spending, stating that the costs incurred in fighting the Trump administration are “largely administrative court costs.” She emphasized that the legal battles serve to preserve rights and billions in federal funding against illegal attacks. In a statement, Campbell noted, “The return on the small cost of that work makes it an excellent and historically important investment.”

One significant legal victory occurred recently when a federal judge in Boston blocked the Trump administration’s attempt to end birthright citizenship for children of undocumented immigrants, a case that Campbell’s office had initiated. The attorney general argued that Trump’s order was unconstitutional and jeopardized essential funding for health insurance services.

Political Aspirations Under Scrutiny

Critics have drawn parallels between Campbell’s actions and those of her predecessor, Maura Healey, who sued the Trump administration 96 times during his first term. Healey’s record reflects a strong commitment to legal challenges against federal policies, with a success rate of 77% in those cases.

John Milligan, Executive Director of the Massachusetts Republican Party, expressed concerns about Campbell’s motivations, stating, “Attorney General Campbell has done what many thought impossible: She is on pace to surpass her predecessor’s politicization of an office that once stood for protecting consumers.” He highlighted her spending habits, which included a notable $13,627 during a conference in France last July and other trips across various states.

The scrutiny around Campbell’s activities also extends to her recent travels to attend conferences and forums, including a trip to the Caribbean for the Attorney General Alliance’s annual conference. These expenditures have raised questions about whether her focus should be on local issues rather than engaging in political battles at the national level.

Republican gubernatorial candidates have criticized Campbell’s priorities, suggesting that her efforts should concentrate on enforcing legislative audits, as indicated by a recent ballot question supported by 72% of Massachusetts citizens. They argue that her spending on travel and legal disputes detracts from her responsibilities as the state’s chief law enforcement officer.

Campbell’s office maintains that the legal actions taken against the Trump administration are vital for the protection of Massachusetts residents and their rights. Her commitment to these lawsuits is evident, as she continues to testify and advocate for issues impacting the state.

With her office’s legal battles ongoing, the implications of Campbell’s spending and her motivations remain a topic of intense debate. As the political landscape evolves, the outcomes of her lawsuits and her approach to governance will be closely watched by both supporters and critics alike.