Colorado’s Attorney General Phil Weiser has joined other states in legal challenges to executive actions by the Trump administration.
Multiple attorneys general have joined together to file lawsuits to block federal funding freezes, cuts to agencies like the National Institute of Health, efforts to block gender-affirming care for trans youth, and the latest one, cuts to the Department of Education workforce and programs.
KGNU’s Verity Matthews spoke with Weiser about these lawsuits and what they mean for Colorado.
Phil Weiser: It's a painful moment for me every time I bring one of these lawsuits because we're seeing illegal actions that are harming Coloradans. The funding freeze has touched so many parts of our state.
There is an effort in the Grand Valley, the western part of our state, to bury utility lines to avoid wildfire risk, and they're waiting on their funds. They're victims of domestic violence who are suffering and their funds are at risk. We're also talking about funding from the Federal Emergency Management Agency.
We need the government to comply. We've won a motion to compel compliance. We're keeping a close eye on this. We want our folks in Colorado to know we've got your back. If you are owed federal money and you're not getting it, we want you to let our office know about it. You can reach out to us at COAG.GOV.
The other one you mentioned is NIH funding. It's another source of funding that we rely on in Colorado. We went to CSU and CU Boulder and CU Anschutz, that's not counting other organizations like National Jewish, and asked 'how much money would this NIH cut impact you?' and they said 90 million. That's a cut that's overnight with no explanation, with no chance for any input. That's not how our system works.
Agencies like the NIH need to be willing to listen to people, need to offer an explanation. They can't make these decisions willy-nilly, costing jobs, undermining life-saving medical research, and hurting our educational institutions.
So that's why we're in court on these two separate cases. One is about the cross-the-board unilateral cut that the executive branch sought to do. The opinion written by the judge was very strong, mentioning that this was an affront of our separation of powers system. The executive branch can't simply violate the law and can't undermine congressional spending. And the second one is involving a decision by the National Institutes of Health, which is essentially a rash, quick decision to terminate spending that we rely on in Colorado in a way that is arbitrary and illegal.
Verity Matthews: Right, and how about the 14th Amendment's directive granting birthright citizenship? Where are we on that right now?
Weiser: The first case that we filed was actually after an executive order on the inauguration day, and the order said, birthright citizenship — which is a promise made in the 14th Amendment of the Constitution, if you're born here, you're a citizen — the executive order said it's over.
And that is quite a threat to the fabric of a republic that says, as a national motto, E pluribus unum. Out of many, we're one.
This is personal for me. I'm the child of refugees who came here. My mom was actually naturalized before I was born, so I wasn't a birthright citizen, but I easily could have been.
And this is a promise that has been upheld by the Supreme Court well over 100 years ago. The idea that this president would try to revoke that commitment and override the Constitution is also hard to behold. So we went to court. We have a preliminary injunction in that case as well. There's a parallel case that also has a preliminary injunction.
The way it works is when you get a preliminary injunction, it may be appealed and so they're likely to be appeals. But I'll tell you, this preliminary injunction case is not a closed case. The Constitution spells this out in the 14th Amendment. That's how it's always been understood and the judge in Washington appointed by President Reagan, who viewed this case, said it was the most unconstitutional action he'd ever seen in 40 years on the bench.
Matthews: Going back to the issue of health care we have learned that your office has joined a lawsuit challenging the criminalization of gender-affirming care. What does the AG's office hope to accomplish by joining this lawsuit, and why is it particularly important for Coloradans who generally enjoy socially liberal laws and policies?
Weiser: One of the painful elements that we're facing (is) we're not seeing an administration that believes in states' rights or federalism.
I could imagine, as some reported the Dobbs decision, which overturned Roe vs. Wade. 'Oh, we're leaving these issues to the states. And if states want to provide legal support for reproductive health care, then the federal government is going to leave them alone.' That's unfortunately not the world we're in.
We've seen a lot of efforts that are not leaving issues to our state, but are trying to tell us what to do. And we're going to stand up for the right of Colorado to protect the freedom of all Coloradans. This case involves when a doctor and parents are providing gender-affirming care, helping a child stay alive. And the stories I've heard from parents and from kids around how gender-affirming care is life-saving — it's very meaningful.
I've got friends who have told me their child is alive because they're able to get access to this care. And doctors who say, 'We're committed to being very careful about when and how we offer such care. And we believe it is life-saving.'
That is also the state law we have here in Colorado that protects this care, as you know. Well, the federal government was trying to say 'We're gonna withhold all funding to Colorado hospitals if they provide this care.'
That's why I joined the lawsuit. I'm one of four states in this lawsuit and we got a preliminary injunction from a federal judge saying that this executive order that is threatening to withhold funding is illegal, is unconstitutional, and as a result of our lawsuit, both Denver Health and Children's Hospital here have resumed providing this care after they had decided they couldn't provide it anymore because of the executive order.
What we're seeing on multiple fronts is, what I'll call an intimidation campaign, with executive orders that threaten to withhold funding that is not based in law, that does not respect states' rights, and that harms Coloradans. And my job as attorney general is to defend the rule of law, to defend our sovereignty as a state, and to protect Coloradans.
And so all the cases we've talked about, you can see whether it's standing up for gender-affirming care, for citizens who are citizens because they were born here, for the funding that we depend on, this is not for me because I think it's necessarily the thing I most want to be doing, or it's fun to be doing. It's because it's what I have to do. It's my job.
Matthews: Attorney General Phil Weiser. I want to thank you for taking time out of your busy schedule to talk with us today. Thank you again so much for your time.
Weiser: Thank you for having me.
Copyright 2025 KGNU.
This story was shared via Rocky Mountain Community Radio, a network of public media stations in Colorado, Wyoming, Utah, and New Mexico, including Aspen Public Radio.