New Mexico Attorney General Raúl Torrez says a bloc of Democratic attorneys general met “daily” early in 2025 and then every other day to coordinate lawsuits and tactics aimed at the Biden successor. The coalition has signed on to dozens of cases targeting executive orders and agency moves, while Torrez’s past connections to a Soros-funded group are part of the backstory critics point to. This piece lays out what Torrez said about the operation, the legal fights he’s led, and the funding ties that opponents say show a coordinated, partisan campaign.
Torrez told an outlet that he and other Democratic attorneys general “were meeting on a daily basis for the first 90 or so days” of the administration and added, “We have since taken that down to every other day.” That cadence suggests sustained coordination rather than occasional cooperation, and opponents argue that level of planning is political by design. From a Republican perspective, frequent, formal meetings among partisan state lawmen look more like a legal task force aimed at stalling elected policy than neutral law enforcement.
Since January 2025, Torrez has led or joined 36 legal challenges against the administration, a tally critics say proves those meetings produced action, not just talk. Cases range from contesting troop deployments to challenging changes in immigration policy and agency budgets. For conservatives watching, the volume and variety of suits point to a strategy of constant litigation to slow or block Republicans after the vote.
One of the earliest high-profile actions came the day after the president returned to the Oval Office, when Torrez joined 17 other state attorneys general in suing over an executive order on birthright citizenship. Torrez described the order as “a direct attack on the Constitution and the fundamental rights it guarantees to every child born on American soil.” That quote shows Torrez framing the suit as a constitutional defense, though critics counter that dozens of politically motivated suits have the opposite effect by substituting litigation for elections.
Torrez also challenged agency moves tied to budget and personnel, including a lawsuit over what the article called DOGE, alleging that Elon Musk and the department were unlawfully granted authority to carry out planned budget cuts. Other suits have targeted proof-of-citizenship rules for voter registration and the deployment of National Guard troops to Washington, D.C. Each suit raises policy fights into courtrooms where outcomes can be unpredictable and drawn out.
Torrez’s history includes earlier political work and outside support that opponents highlight. He was county district attorney before becoming attorney general in 2023, and his 2016 run benefited from a left-leaning group called New Mexico Safety & Justice. That group received a $107,000 donation from George Soros and spent large sums on media buys and polling activity tied to Torrez’s campaign, according to publicly available filings at the time.
The financial trail shows the PAC spent $92,526.84 on media buys and media production costs, $9,555.00 listed as “In-Kind Polling to Progressive Champions NM PAC,” and $1,951.40 on “polling.” Those exact numbers are often cited by conservatives as proof that outside money can tilt local races, and the fallout included Torrez’s opponent, Simon Kubiak, dropping out. Kubiak is quoted saying, “New Mexicans cannot afford to challenge anyone who has unlimited resources and support from a multibillionaire from another country,” which critics interpret as a blunt warning about outside influence.
Tactics matters here: organizing 36 lawsuits is not casual. Torrez himself called the campaign an “ever-growing resource challenge to track and monitor the pending status of all that litigation,” admitting the workload and its strain. From a Republican angle, that strain underscores a larger concern that state resources are being marshaled for partisan ends rather than for neutral law enforcement or the public interest.
Torrez acknowledged the coalition’s long game, saying they began preparing for a Trump administration in “early 2024.” The planning paid off in courtroom volume, and Torrez boasted, “We have kept our foot on the gas.” To opponents, that line confirms the strategy: relentless legal pressure intended to blunt or reverse policies through litigation rather than through the ballot box or legislative compromise.
Beyond lawsuits, Torrez warned that some executive actions are being folded into federal legislation, saying “the sad part” is that “some of these actions that were pursued by the administration through executive orders are now being built into the ‘Big, Beautiful Bill,’ so even if we win on the restoration of funding from the first fiscal year, we’ll be overtaken by federal legislation.” That concern reflects a fear among conservatives that short-term legal wins may be hollow if Congress codifies those policies.
Torrez’s tone grew dire when he added that “none of the institutions in our government have been built to respond and react to the scale and speed of the destruction that’s being wrought by the Trump administration.” That language is vivid and accusatory, and Republicans see it as evidence of how deeply partisan the legal offensive has become. For this side of the aisle, the appearance of a coordinated, Soros-backed legal network confirms long-standing worries about outside money and organized opposition to Republican governance.
Whether courts will be the ultimate battleground remains to be seen, but the pattern is clear: a sustained, well-funded campaign of lawsuits, frequent coordination among Democratic attorneys general, and an explicit strategy to keep pressure on policy moves. For critics, the operation is less about defending the Constitution and more about weaponizing state offices to shape national politics.
Graduate Student, wife, engaged political and legal writer.