On Monday, the president’s former personal lawyer was sworn in as the country’s top lawyer. As the history books will note, by all appearances, Attorney General Todd Blanche got the job because of his fealty to President Donald Trump and past work defending him in the courtroom. As Blanche said during his confirmation hearing: “I’m his lawyer,” before correcting himself to say, “was his lawyer.”
His elevation from the president’s defense lawyer to the nation’s chief law enforcement officer presents an unusually stark test of a longstanding principle: that the Department of Justice exercises its investigative and prosecutorial authority in the interests of the United States, rather than the personal or political interests of the president.
This concern is not merely one of appearances. If the Justice Department is unwilling to investigate credible allegations of corruption involving the president, senior administration officials, or politically connected private actors, a critical component of the nation’s accountability system is shattered.
This is a daunting challenge for the rule of law in America. But it’s also one our system is, by accident or design, relatively well prepared to handle. Federal prosecutors are not the only public officials to enforce laws against corruption, fraud, bribery, and related misconduct. There are, if you count each state, territory, and the District of Columbia, 56 other attorneys general — all of whom also have a sworn, paramount responsibility to the rule of law and to protect their residents from criminal and other illegal depredations. Add in district attorneys, and there are somewhere around 2,300 independent prosecutorial offices, all led by prosecutors who swore an oath to represent the people and uphold the Constitution.
This is their moment.
State attorneys general and local district attorneys can not only fill the void left by the retreating federal government, but also directly combat some types of corruption involving the Trump administration, from apparent market scams to pay-to-play deals. In fact, while the Department of Justice’s federal jurisdiction is limited to powers authorized by Congress and enumerated in the Constitution, states possess broad police powers to enforce the law in their jurisdictions.
State attorneys general have already emerged as an important check on potentially unlawful federal action, successfully challenging administration policies involving federal funding, elections, health care, and other areas. While most of those cases have been brought by blue states, many red states have seen the litigation benefit their own residents. That said, litigation defending states against federal overreach is only one tool they can use. While blue state law enforcement leaders have done a remarkable job defending the interests of their states and citizens against illegal federal actions targeting those states, they can now move from defense to offense against brazen corruption. Here are four things that state and local prosecutors can be doing to fill the gap created by corruption-enabling federal authorities:
First, they can and should bring cases to stop, pause, or even just slow down corrupt unlawful conduct. State attorneys general have long used coordinated civil enforcement to address corporate misconduct, from the tobacco and opioid litigation to multistate antitrust actions against pharmaceutical and technology companies. The best example of this so far in the current administration is the state-led litigation that has paused the Paramount-Warner Brothers merger on antitrust grounds in the face of credible allegations of corrupt influence and conflicts of interest. After the Trump administration sought to accelerate the corporate consolidation, 12 state attorneys general sued, successfully halting the merger until at least 2027 or unless a court rules otherwise.
Second, they can pursue criminal accountability for wrongdoing. This includes prosecutions of federal officials — which, yes, certain states can absolutely pursue in some circumstances. But in many cases, the more obvious targets will also be the private counterparties that pay a bribe or engage in extortion or fraud. In January 2026, California Attorney General Rob Bonta and Governor Gavin Newsom issued formal guidance emphasizing that state and local law enforcement retain authority to investigate potential state-law crimes committed by federal officials. If the president accepts a bribe from a crypto company, the state where it’s headquartered may have a difficult time prosecuting the president. But the crypto company? States may be able to pursue an investigation into that company under state bribery, fraud, conspiracy, or related criminal statutes. Even abuses of the pardon power can’t shield them because the president’s pardon power only extends to federal offenses, not violations of state law.
Third, they should examine whether existing civil enforcement and asset-recovery authorities can reach conduct connected to corruption. States have powerful anti-fraud, securities, consumer-protection, and unfair-competition laws that can provide remedies even when criminal prosecution is unavailable or impracticable. California’s Unfair Competition Law, for example, permits the Attorney General and certain local prosecutors to seek injunctions, civil penalties, and orders restoring money or property acquired through unlawful, unfair, or fraudulent business practices. New York’s Martin Act gives the Attorney General broad authority to investigate and bring civil or criminal actions involving securities fraud. These authorities may give state prosecutors pathways to seize illicit assets (such as proceeds from fraud or bribes) even without criminal convictions, though such cases may be harder to prove against federal officials themselves. If, for example, officials are involved in fraud or insider trading, states could potentially step in to recover those ill-gotten gains. These tools may be especially promising in states like New York, California, and Illinois that have strong consumer protection laws and also are disproportionately home to financial industries and markets.
Fourth and finally, they can use their investigative tools to shift incentives and deter participation in federal corruption. Investigative letters and subpoenas can serve as a powerful reminder of the consequences of illicit activity, as can the possibility that state and local contracting may be at risk for companies engaged in federal corruption through false claims certifications. A coalition of red state attorney generals used this approach in 2022 and 2023 when they targeted BlackRock and other asset managers over their Environmental, Social, and Governance (ESG) investment policies. These attorneys general, along with red state chief financial officers, wrote letters, issued subpoenas, and threatened to end longstanding investments into BlackRock, State Street, and Vanguard unless they walked back their commitments to ESG investments and participation in climate finance coalitions. In 2024, a coalition of Republican-led states went further and sued BlackRock, State Street, and Vanguard on antitrust grounds. All three firms ultimately exited the major climate coalitions, with BlackRock citing “legal inquiries from various public officials.”
Beyond attorneys general and district attorneys, there’s also a role for other state actors. State lawmakers can use their subpoena powers to investigate corruption cases in order to inform legislative work strengthening state laws. Governors can ensure that attorneys general have the funding and political backing they need for extensive lawsuits. State tax authorities can pursue financial misdeeds and corruption within their borders, for example cracking down on undeclared income. State financial officers can use their economic powers over state investments, pensions, and procurement to avoid and discourage corrupt activities.
That’s not to say this will be easy. State laws vary in who they apply to and what conduct they cover. And various immunity doctrines may provide defenses to high-level federal officials. So state governments should consider whether new laws can enhance combating federal corruption — for example, criminal analogs to federal civil rights laws that prevent constitutional violations like discriminating against people because of their political participation. These would be analogous to the new Universal Constitutional Remedies Acts many states have recently enacted to enable accountability for civil rights violations by federal officials.
Of course, this all should be done by states in ways that adhere to key principles that undergird our Constitution and the rule of law. That includes making investigative and charging decisions based on the facts and the law; fulfilling duties of candor and disclosure; adhering to court orders; and, critically, upholding the cardinal principle of equal justice under the law. The case for greater state enforcement is not that state officials should become political adversaries of a presidential administration. It is that independent enforcement can provide an additional safeguard when there are serious questions about whether another part of the system will enforce anti-corruption laws impartially. State and local enforcement should therefore function as a complement to federal enforcement and, when necessary, as a backstop to it, not a partisan substitute.
Some of the shift required is simply one of attitude. For generations, the federal government and DOJ have been a key bulwark against state-level corruption and civil rights violations. So defenders of the rule of law across the United States — state law enforcement included — had perhaps grown a little too complacent with law enforcement that was tilted toward the federal end of our federal system. But now we are in a different era, where the federal government poses more danger than defense to upholding the law. So it is critical to keep in mind that the federal government has never had a monopoly over the rule of law. And indeed, states have always had a responsibility to check and counterbalance the federal government when it overreaches.
The two of us spent decades working in local and federal government — Alison in New York City and State, Justin in federal government — and we saw the virtues of this productive tension first hand. Law enforcement works best not when it’s a mandate from on high, from the U.S. Attorney General downwards, but rather when it’s a push and pull between local, state, and federal actors. Competition, tension, and collaboration between various levels has helped our legal system overcome some of its historic shortcomings, such as federal interventions downward on corruption and enforcement of civil rights laws, or state prosecutions upwards on financial crimes.
This is, after all, what the founders intended. As Hamilton wrote in Federalist 28:
“Power being almost always the rival of power, the general government will at all times stand ready to check the usurpations of the state governments, and these will have the same disposition towards the general government. The people, by throwing themselves into either scale, will infallibly make it preponderate. If their rights are invaded by either, they can make use of the other as the instrument of redress.”
State and local governments have long upheld the rule of law separate and independent from the federal government. It’s time for them to prove that, when required, they can do so even against the federal government.
