Michigan Attorney General Dana Nessel has once again stepped into the national spotlight, joining a coalition of Democratic attorneys general from 20 states and Washington, D.C. in a lawsuit filed August 20, 2025, to challenge the Trump administration’s latest set of restrictions on federal crime victim service funding. The move is the latest in a string of more than 30 multistate lawsuits targeting what Nessel and her colleagues describe as illegal and overreaching policy shifts by the federal government—this time, with direct implications for vulnerable crime victims and the organizations that serve them.
At the heart of the dispute is $37 million in federal grants that Michigan is set to receive this year under the Victims of Crime Act. These funds, part of nearly $1.3 billion distributed nationally, support a broad range of services—from medical expenses and funeral costs to domestic violence recovery centers, crime scene cleanup, and legal counsel for survivors of sexual assault and human trafficking. According to the Michigan Attorney General’s office, at least 115 organizations in the state rely on these grants, including high-profile recipients like the $7.3 million earmarked for survivors of the 2021 Oxford school shooting, $200,000 for Sara’s House/Place in Detroit, and $500,000 for Avalon Healing Center.
But this year, the Department of Justice attached new strings to the funding: any program that “impedes or hinders the enforcement of immigration law,” including those that don’t fully cooperate with the Department of Homeland Security, would be deemed ineligible. Additionally, recipients must certify that their programs exclude diversity, equity, and inclusion (DEI) components. These requirements, the lawsuit contends, are not only illegal but could have a chilling effect on the very services designed to support crime victims.
“The Trump administration has promised to be tough on crime, but if anything, they’re making us fundamentally less safe by threatening these victim services programs, which we so badly need,” Nessel told Bridge Michigan. She and her fellow attorneys general argue that the new mandates could force critical programs—like soup kitchens, mental health clinics, domestic violence shelters, and even the National Head Start Program—to shut down if they cannot comply with the documentation or verification now required. The lawsuit also warns that some U.S. citizens could be denied services if they lack the necessary paperwork, a point echoed by several advocacy groups and local officials.
The Trump administration, for its part, frames the restrictions as a matter of fairness. Health and Human Services Secretary Robert F. Kennedy Jr. said the changes are intended to restore “integrity to federal social programs” and “protect vital resources for the American people.” The Education, Agriculture, and Labor Departments have all announced similar changes in recent months, signaling a broad federal push to tie social service funding to immigration enforcement and citizenship verification.
Conservative officials, however, see the legal challenge as political grandstanding. “This latest [lawsuit] is just another in a long line,” said Sen. Jim Runestad, chair of the Michigan Republican Party. “The president wants cooperation with federal law enforcement on immigration … All she cares about is this virtue signaling with our tax dollars.” Runestad also argued that Nessel’s strategy diverts significant state attorney time and resources away from the pressing needs of Michigan residents. “Her job is protecting the people, but this social engineering and this virtue signaling is really at the core of her decisions,” he said.
For local prosecutors and service providers, the stakes are high. Midland County Prosecutor J. Dee Brooks, president of the Prosecuting Attorneys Association of Michigan, described the situation as fraught with uncertainty. His county receives about $147,500 annually to fund federally subsidized victim advocate positions and related services—positions he calls “absolutely essential” to day-to-day operations. “Not knowing what those requirements are, and that funding could be terminated at some point without really having a chance to address that, that’s certainly a concern,” Brooks said. He emphasized that victim advocates serve as the first line of communication with survivors of serious crimes, helping them navigate the legal system and ensuring their confidentiality and safety. “We don’t involve ourselves in victim blaming or creating difficult situations for the victim—we want them to be free to seek help when they need it…and to be willing to participate in the criminal justice system,” Brooks added.
The implications extend beyond Michigan. According to reporting from the Washington Bureau, the Trump administration’s approach has sparked a wave of legal and political clashes nationwide. Democratic attorneys general have filed lawsuits to prevent new restrictions on undocumented immigrants’ access to federally provided social services, arguing that the changes threaten to upend longstanding community programs and could even result in the denial of services to U.S. citizens without proper documentation. The administration, meanwhile, is rapidly expanding immigrant detention capacity, opening new centers across the country—including Nebraska’s “Cornhusker Clink,” Florida’s “Deportation Depot,” Texas’s “Lone Star Lock Up,” Indiana’s “Speedway Slammer,” and a new facility in Tennessee. As of August 20, 2025, ICE facilities are holding more than 56,000 people, the highest number since 2019, with plans to nearly double the average daily detention population to 100,000.
U.S. Attorney General Pam Bondi has also threatened to cut federal funds to so-called sanctuary jurisdictions and deploy federal officers to enforce compliance. Several cities and states have pushed back, insisting they will continue to follow local laws that limit cooperation with federal immigration agents. Boston’s mayor, for example, declared, “We will not back down.” The Justice Department has filed lawsuits against Los Angeles, New York City, Colorado, and Illinois, and released a list naming 12 states, Washington, D.C., four counties, and 18 cities as sanctuary jurisdictions.
Back in Michigan, Nessel maintains that her department’s litigation is a necessary defense of both state interests and vulnerable populations. She estimates that the 32 lawsuits she’s joined since January 2025 have saved Michigan at least $1.6 billion by blocking proposed federal spending cuts. “We have saved the state a substantial amount of money,” she said, adding that she would have thought critics “would be very enthusiastic about our litigation saving the state of Michigan as much money as we had, and trying to root out fraud and abuse.”
Yet, the state’s approach is not without its critics—even among Democrats. Governor Gretchen Whitmer, for instance, has sought to find common ground with the Trump administration, working on projects that have brought federal investment to Michigan, such as a new fighter mission at Selfridge Air National Guard Base and a barrier to keep Asian Carp out of the Great Lakes. Nessel, however, has questioned Whitmer’s collaborative stance, focusing her own efforts squarely on challenging what she views as federal overreach.
As the legal battles play out in federal courts, the fate of millions in funding—and the future of services for crime victims and vulnerable populations—hangs in the balance. For now, state and local officials, service providers, and the communities they serve are left to navigate a landscape of uncertainty, waiting to see whether the courts will block the new federal requirements before they take effect next month.
With both sides dug in and the stakes higher than ever, Michigan’s fight over crime victim funding has become a microcosm of the broader national debate over immigration, social services, and the proper role of government in protecting its most vulnerable citizens.
