While Republican AGs will continue to represent more than 20 states and wield substantial enforcement authority individually and through multistate coalitions, the shift in political control of several large and influential AG offices could increase Democratic influence over multistate proceedings and strengthen coalitions challenging Trump administration policies as it enters its final two years.
These changes also coincide with Democrats winning control of both chambers of Congress beginning in January 2027. Congressional oversight priorities may increasingly overlap with those of Democratic AGs, particularly where businesses operate under concurrent federal and state jurisdiction. Although the extent of any coordination remains uncertain, companies could face greater scrutiny from multiple governmental authorities pursuing related but distinct investigative objectives.
Notwithstanding these significant changes in state and federal political leadership, we expect the broader trends in state AG enforcement to continue: state AGs from both parties will pursue their own investigations, join partisan and bipartisan multistate coalitions, sometimes coordinate with federal authorities, and frequently litigate in opposition to federal policies.
STATE AG ELECTION RESULTS
The 2026 elections produced notable changes in state AG leadership, including Democratic victories in several previously Republican-held offices.
In Texas, Democrat Nathan Johnson defeated Republican Mayes Middleton, while Democrat Tanya Miller won Georgia's attorney general race. Iowa also elected Democrat Nate Willems, defeating incumbent Republican Brenna Bird. In Kansas, Democrat Chris Mann defeated incumbent Republican Kris Kobach. In Ohio, Democrat John Kulewicz is poised to become the state's next attorney general following his opponent's concession, although the race remains uncalled and final certification is outstanding.
Separately, the governor of Hawaii announced that he will not reappoint Hawaii’s incumbent AG. Because Hawaii’s AG is appointed rather than elected, this development does not represent a partisan shift but could nonetheless result in changes in the office’s priorities.
These leadership changes come as Democrats retain control of prominent state AG offices in California, New York, Massachusetts, and Illinois. The addition of several formerly Republican-held offices could affect the balance of influence among AGs, particularly in investigations involving nationwide business practices.
MULTISTATE ENFORCEMENT
The stronger Democratic presence among state AG offices is likely to affect the composition, leadership, and priorities of multistate investigations and litigation. State AGs frequently coordinate across jurisdictions, allowing participating offices to share resources, pursue common investigative strategies, and address conduct involving businesses operating nationally.
Although state AGs may differ in their approaches to issues such as environmental, social, and governance (ESG) initiatives, consumer protection, competition policy, and federal regulatory authority, bipartisan cooperation remains an important feature of state enforcement, particularly where states share common interests.
In a recent example of bipartisan multistate enforcement, a bipartisan coalition of 33 states plus Washington, DC obtained a favorable jury verdict against Live Nation and Ticketmaster, despite the federal government and six other states settling with the defendants during trial. This demonstrates that bipartisan state enforcement can remain robust even when federal and state authorities reach different judgments about litigation or settlement strategies.
Nevertheless, changes in AG leadership may alter the formation and direction of future coalitions. The partisan shift in major offices, including Texas, Georgia, and potentially Ohio, may influence which states lead investigations, which matters attract broader participation and how participating offices approach investigative demands and settlement negotiations.
These changes do not necessarily reduce or increase the resources available for multistate enforcement. Rather, they may affect how those resources are deployed and which enforcement priorities receive attention. For businesses, the resulting changes could influence investigative scope, litigation strategy, settlement dynamics, and the number of jurisdictions involved in any given enforcement action.
FEDERAL-STATE DYNAMICS
The election results may reinforce existing tensions between state AGs and federal policymakers. Democratic gains in state AG offices could strengthen multistate coalitions challenging Trump administration policies and increase state participation in litigation and enforcement efforts where state and federal priorities differ. At the same time, Democratic control of Congress beginning in January 2027 may create new areas of overlap between congressional oversight and state AG investigations. Although congressional committees and state AGs exercise distinct investigative authorities, their oversight and enforcement priorities may converge, potentially subjecting businesses to separate but related inquiries.
For companies operating nationally, differing federal and state enforcement priorities may create additional complexity, including overlapping investigations, divergent regulatory expectations, and parallel litigation or demands for information involving multiple government authorities.
ENFORCEMENT AREAS TO CONTINUE TO WATCH
Although partisan changes may affect enforcement priorities and the composition of multistate coalitions, attorneys general from both parties continue to exercise substantial independent authority, and bipartisan enforcement remains a defining feature of the state AG landscape. Among the areas of bipartisan focus are consumer protection and financial services, privacy, technology, and antitrust:
- Consumer protection is likely to remain a central area of state AG enforcement on both sides of the aisle, particularly as affordability, pricing practices, and household costs continue to influence public policy discussions. State AGs have also scrutinized algorithmic and dynamic pricing practices across industries, including grocery retail and residential rental housing. In addition, the Federal Trade Commission continues to pursue price transparency and deceptive fee practices, both independently and in coordination with state AGs.
- Financial services and digital asset businesses may also face scrutiny involving consumer protections, banking practices, and emerging financial products.
- State AGs have also played an increasingly prominent role in privacy, technology, and antitrust enforcement, often acting independently of federal regulators, and we expect that to continue. In the absence of comprehensive federal privacy legislation, states rely on their own statutory frameworks and consumer protection authorities to address data collection, privacy disclosures, and potentially deceptive technology practices. State AGs are also likely to continue pursuing antitrust investigations involving pricing, healthcare, pharmaceuticals, technology platforms, and mergers and acquisitions. Finally, artificial intelligence will attract increased attention as its adoption grows, particularly concerning automated decision-making, consumer-facing representations, and the use of personal information.
LOOKING AHEAD
The significant changes in state AG leadership, combined with continued multistate enforcement activity and the potential for heightened tensions between state and federal authorities, suggest that 2027 and 2028 will be active years for state AG enforcement across the country.
