New Jersey Acting Attorney General Jennifer Davenport has joined a coalition of 22 attorneys general criticizing what the group describes as federal threats aimed at pressuring Minnesota’s government to hand over sensitive resident data and roll back state and local public-safety policies.
In a Jan. 29, 2026 letter addressed to U.S. Attorney General Pamela J. Bondi and Department of Homeland Security Secretary Kristi Noem, the coalition argued that federal demands made to Minnesota officials lack a lawful basis, intrude on state sovereignty, and may conflict with existing litigation and court-ordered protections referenced in the letter.
According to the press release announcing Davenport’s participation, the coalition was responding to a Jan. 24 letter from Bondi to Minnesota Gov. Tim Walz. State officials said that letter demanded a series of actions “in exchange for the withdrawal of federal agents from Minnesota,” including turning over Medicaid and Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program, or SNAP, data, dismantling certain local public-safety policies, and granting federal access to Minnesotans’ voter information.
In a statement released with the announcement, Davenport sharply criticized the administration’s approach. “Instead of working with state and local leaders to keep the public safe, the Trump Administration has sown chaos, stoked fear, and undermined public safety in Minnesota at every turn. Now the Department of Justice is making things even worse, engaging in coercive tactics that are outrageous and that do nothing to promote public safety,” she said. Davenport added that she stands with fellow attorneys general in condemning what she described as the administration’s reckless targeting of Minnesotans and called on federal officials to end the effort.
In the Jan. 29 letter, the attorneys general wrote that the Justice Department’s Jan. 24 message “does not appear to be a good-faith effort at intergovernmental coordination,” describing it instead as “an after-the-fact attempt to justify” what the coalition called a highly concerning federal operation in Minnesota.
The coalition argued that the DOJ demanded Minnesota share all records related to Medicaid and federal nutrition programs, including SNAP data, which the attorneys general said would require disclosure of sensitive personal information without sufficient factual basis. The letter also references ongoing and prior litigation involving federal requests for SNAP and Medicaid-related data, noting that courts have issued orders limiting or blocking some of the data-sharing efforts described.
The attorneys general also objected to federal demands that Minnesota repeal so-called sanctuary policies, arguing that states have discretion over how they use limited state and local resources. The letter cites court decisions that, according to the coalition, support state authority to make those policy choices. The group separately disputed the DOJ’s request for access to voter rolls, saying the records contain sensitive personal information and pointing to cases in which courts dismissed federal lawsuits seeking voter data.
While acknowledging that the federal government has authority to enforce federal immigration law, the coalition argued that this power does not extend to commandeering state governments, coercing the repeal of what it called lawful state policies, or demanding broad access to sensitive records based on unsupported assertions. The letter invokes constitutional principles, including the Tenth Amendment, in describing the balance of power between the federal government and the states.
The Jan. 29 letter lists New York Attorney General Letitia James as the first signatory and includes Davenport among the attorneys general who signed. The signatories named in the letter include the attorneys general of Arizona, California, Colorado, Connecticut, Delaware, Hawai‘i, Illinois, Maine, Massachusetts, Maryland, Michigan, Nevada, New Mexico, Oregon, Rhode Island, Vermont, Virginia, Washington, Wisconsin, and the District of Columbia, in addition to New Jersey and New York.
Although the dispute centers on Minnesota, New Jersey’s participation places the state among a wider coalition arguing that federal requests for residents’ health-benefit data, food-assistance data, and voter information raise serious legal and constitutional concerns when paired with threats tied to federal operations or funding. The coalition said it will continue opposing what it sees as unlawful federal interference and defending state authority and resident privacy.