The US government is potentially facing millions in legal expenses from those who successfully challenged some of the most polarizing executive actions and policies of the Trump administration.
Legal representatives have requested over $100,000 in at least ten cases in the past year, totaling more than $2.5 million, according to a Bloomberg News examination of court records.
Furthermore, lawyers involved in litigation related to the Elon Musk-affiliated government efficiency initiative’s $100 million cuts to humanities funding claim they are entitled to a portion of the grants they secure for their clients.
Under a law from 1980, federal agencies can be forced to pay attorneys’ fees when they lose in court, preventing individuals, small businesses, and non-profits from being discouraged from suing the government.
The unprecedented wave of hundreds of lawsuits challenging the Trump administration’s novel and often contentious use of executive power has significantly increased the taxpayer funds at stake.
Read:
US requests to continue collecting Trump’s tariffs after court setback
Trump’s recent 10% tariffs deemed unlawful by US trade court
“Suing your government is a fundamental American right,” commented Steven Brown, an attorney from Houston seeking over $180,000 in fees across multiple lawsuits contesting the administration’s efforts to revoke the legal status of foreign students.
“It is crucial that when the government fails to provide justification, courts can award costs.”
Brown and his co-counsel have recently notified judges about tentative fee agreements reached with the government, as per court documents, though he did not elaborate on the details as the agreements are still pending finalization.
Attorney fees are a tool for courts to restore justice to winning parties and can also serve as a consequence for misconduct. If an agreement cannot be reached between the parties, the judge determines whether and how much the losing party owes.
A federal judge in Florida recently ruled that President Donald Trump should pay his opponents’ fees as a penalty for initiating a “bad faith” $10 billion lawsuit against the Internal Revenue Service.
The judge criticized the Justice Department’s conduct but refrained from imposing a financial penalty on the government. Attorneys for the challengers presented documents this week requesting around $43,500.
Read: WSJ argues Trump libel lawsuit should be dismissed ‘once and for all’
ADVERTISEMENT
CONTINUE READING BELOW
As Trump’s second term advances and more lawsuits conclude, demands for the US government to cover opponents’ legal fees have intensified. Typically, attorney fees cannot be sought until a case is resolved, including appeals.
Hourly Rates
The Justice Department is contesting several significant fee requests, aiming to diminish the totals. In cases involving reimbursement for research expenses at US agencies, the department argues that the non-profit organization involved is not eligible to seek over $1.5 million in fees and claims the lawyers’ hourly rates are excessive.
Justice Department spokesperson Kiersten Pels stated that “the department is committed to protecting taxpayer funds, including contesting fee requests when litigants demand more than what is legally justified.”
Recently, new fee requests in the six-figure range were submitted regarding the administration’s efforts to limit food benefits for low-income families and to eliminate bike lanes in downtown Washington.
The Justice Department has settled some fee requests related to challenges against the administration’s policies, including at least three claims for over $100,000, based on Bloomberg’s examination of court documents.
Lawyers involved in those cases, concerning educational research funding and teen pregnancy prevention programs, opted not to disclose the financial amounts.
Cycling activists protest against the federal government’s plan to eliminate the 15th Street bike lanes along the National Mall in March.
‘Prevailing Parties’
The Equal Access to Justice Act of 1980 allows “prevailing parties” to recover legal costs if the government’s stance lacks “substantial justification.”
This legislation limits eligibility based on net worth and size for individuals, businesses, local government entities, and for-profit organizations. Non-profits qualify provided they employ fewer than 500 individuals.
Since 2020, most attorney fee awards under this statute have been less than $100,000, as indicated by a government database. In 2025, there were 88 payments totaling $15 million, with fewer than a quarter exceeding six figures, according to Bloomberg’s findings which excluded thousands of annual fee payments from Social Security and veterans benefits cases.
Read: Supreme Court invalidates Trump tariffs; Wall Street reacts
In several other instances over the past year, challengers to the Trump administration have sought smaller amounts or did not reveal specific figures in court documents before reaching settlements.
This analysis does not include fee requests from lawyers who successfully represented clients escaping immigration detention amid the administration’s deportation campaign.
ADVERTISEMENT:
CONTINUE READING BELOW
These fee requests are generally modest—often in the hundreds or low thousands of dollars—but accumulate given the number of lawsuits filed to date.
Federal courts have differed on whether the Equal Access to Justice Act is applicable in matters of immigration. The Justice Department argues it does not apply. The conservative-majority Supreme Court, which has often supported the Trump administration, is anticipated to address this issue in the upcoming term starting in October.
High-Value Requests
The Justice Department is actively opposing elevated attorney fee requests in lawsuits concerning research reimbursement limits established by the Departments of Defense, Energy, Health & Human Services, and the National Science Foundation.
The non-profit Association of American Universities is collectively seeking over $1.5 million for their legal representation.
Government attorneys contend that the association is ineligible for fees since the agencies “had a reasonable legal basis.”
Moreover, the Justice Department maintains that the fee requests should be denied because the association’s members—including institutions like Harvard and Yale—paid extra dues to support the litigation.
The association argues that it remains responsible for the expenses and that legal precedents do not prevent recovery of funds just because it receives member contributions.
The government also asserts that the lawyers are demanding excessive fees.
Attorneys representing the association have claimed hourly rates as high as $500, citing the specialized knowledge necessary to manage the case and the strict deadlines.
The legal team includes Paul Clement, a notable conservative lawyer and former senior official under President George W. Bush, recognized for tackling challenges against the Trump administration.
Read: WSJ argues Trump libel lawsuit should be dismissed ‘once and for all’
Apart from fees under the Equal Access law, opponents of the Trump administration have other methods to recover legal costs, typically covered by the relevant agency.
ADVERTISEMENT:
CONTINUE READING BELOW
Individuals litigating against the government for damages or property loss can claim attorney fees if they win, with the funds coming from a central federal pool known as the Judgement Fund.
In a case involving federal grants terminated last year related to the Department of Government Efficiency project, certain lawyers for grantees are making an unusual argument for entitlement to a percentage of recovered funds—a claim they assert is supported by their clients.
They have asked the judge to require the administration to allocate the funds while the government appeals the decision to restore the grants.
$7.5 Million Estimate
Government lawyers argue that the “common-fund doctrine” is not relevant and that reserving the funds would deny grantees crucial financing necessary for their projects’ success.
The government estimates that approximately $7.5 million is at stake, although the grantees’ lawyers have yet to specify how much they intend to request.
The legal team representing the grantees asserts that the court “should not place undue emphasis on the government’s sudden concern” for its clients.
The legal implications of Trump’s presidency have transcended customary federal agency litigation and claims.
A jazz artist is pursuing over $250,000 in legal fees from the John F. Kennedy Center for the Performing Arts, a quasi-public entity that sued him for backing out of a Christmas Eve concert after Trump’s appointees mandated the addition of the president’s name to the center.
A judge dismissed the case in June, ruling that the center was unlikely to win and had retaliated against the musician, Charles “Chuck” Redd, for exercising his right to voice opposition.
A subsequent ruling later directed the center to remove Trump’s name. The center’s legal team—unrelated to the Justice Department—recently responded to Redd’s fee request, labeling it “disproportionate to the matter at hand, the simplicity of the case, the expertise required to manage it, and, most importantly, the effort needed to defend it.”
The Kennedy Center is funded through a combination of public and private sources.
Attorneys for the Kennedy Center declined to comment, and Redd’s legal representatives did not respond to a request for comment on Wednesday.
© 2026 Bloomberg
