How Cozy is Virginia's Attorney General with the Trump Administration and Project 2025?
- Vanessa Hall
- 19 hours ago
- 12 min read
With Amicus Briefs like these, Who Serves Virginians?
Two weeks ago, I pondered whether our Attorney General, Jason Miyares, was acting as the Trump administration’s errand boy, ensuring that Trump Executive Orders are followed, even if they conflict with the rule of law, US Constitution, and Congressional authority. AG Miyares and Governor Youngkin have deep connections with the Trump Administration, and to various Project 2025 groups, who seem to be cooperating together to fulfill Project 2025’s anti-public school and anti-LGBTQIA agenda.
This concept was confirmed after I attended the Moms for Liberty Town Hall on October 3, 2025, where I learned that a number of the panelists were beneficiaries of amicus briefs and other legal support by AG Miyares. Was he acting in his duty to Virginia citizens or for a darker purpose?
What is an Amicus Brief?
An amicus brief is submitted by a party, known as an amicus curae (a.k.a., “friend of the court) that has interest in the outcome of a legal case in order to offer their views on the case. Attorney Generals may write or offer to sign on to an amicus brief when the case could impact their jurisdiction. In some cases, these briefs may merely be submissions of comments on federal or state rule-making.
Essentially, AGs offer amicus briefs when the case has broad public or legal consequences, to advocate for the public on specific legal positions or outcomes, and to bring their specific expertise. Therefore, an AG should not file amicus briefs for private law firms because:
An AG’s primary duties are to the state and the citizens.
There could be a conflict of interest or appearance of impropriety when the AG is supposed to be impartial and advocate for the public good.
Amicus briefs are to provide information to the court not serve as a form of “legal assistance” for legal firms.
Ultimately, AGs are legal officers whose job is to “the interests of their clients—the states—and in many cases those interests will be grounded in state laws and policies.”
When I posed the question of Google AI: “Is it normal for an attorney general to do amicus briefs for private law firms?” I received the following response:
No, it's not normal or appropriate for an Attorney General (AG) to directly do amicus briefs for private law firms; rather, AGs file their own amicus briefs to advocate for the public interest or their state's specific interests in cases that have broad public consequences, often in response to requests from interest groups or agencies, not individual law firms. While private law firms also file amicus briefs, their purpose is to offer unique expertise or perspectives, which differs from an AG's role as the chief law officer for the state.
AG Miyares Represented the Interests of Moms for Liberty Panelists and Project 2025
Over the last four years, a significant number of AG Miyares’ education-focused briefs were written in support of groups, individuals, and organizations who have supported his and Youngkin’s 2021 gubernatorial campaigns, and/or are currently supporting his campaign for reelection. Of course, many of these groups, such as America First Legal (AF Legal), were also directly involved in producing Project 2025 Mandate for Leadership.
After watching the Moms for Liberty Town Hall on October 3, 2025, I realized that every litigant or lawyer on the Mom’s for Liberty panels had received amicus brief support from AG Miyares on cases in the courts in 2025. There is no way that can be a coincidence?!
What seemed even weirder is that nearly all of the cases concerned transgender civil rights which are codified in the Virginia Human Rights Act (HRA). The HRA requires that Virginia:
Safeguard all individuals within the Commonwealth from unlawful discrimination because of race, color, religion, ethnic or national origin, sex, pregnancy, childbirth or related medical conditions, age, marital status, sexual orientation, gender identity, military status, or disability in places of public accommodation, including educational institutions and in real estate transactions.
This means that AG Miyares as Attorney General is required to uphold the law of the Commonwealth for the transgender community, yet he repeatedly focused his amicus briefs on cases challenging Virginia law and undermining the civil rights guaranteed to transgender students in public schools. Why is AG Miyares so focused on such a small and vulnerable group and writing amicus briefs against the laws of Virginia? How much has this cost taxpayers? What is AF Legal's role in AG Miyares’ actions?
Who is America First Legal?
Founded in 2021 by Stephen Miller, Trump’s current Deputy Chief of Staff, AF Legal is a “right-wing litigation operation.” As Axios noted, “Deputy Chief of Staff Stephen Miller is setting policy from inside the White House, but [AF Legal which is] a legal group he co-founded is shaping policy from the outside, through legal complaints and lawsuits against corporations and even the Trump administration itself.” Axios calls AF Legal the “private enforcement arm of the White House's assault on DEI — or as it has billed itself, a right-wing version of the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU).”
Although AF Legal is a tax exempt 501(c)(3) nonprofit, it had over $44 million in revenue in 2022, its second year of existence. Also it pays its top employees and officers quite well. In 2023, AF Legal’s VP earned $290,000 and Prior $217,000.
Unlike the ACLU which is a non-profit, non-partisan civil rights organization that defends constitutional civil rights for all, AF Legal acts as the antithesis of the ACLU in that it operates in support of conservative values. Where the ACLU fights for civil rights for underrepresented and vulnerable populations, AF Legal primarily focuses on the perceived oppression of white, Christian, male, cisgender, heterosexual population, filing lawsuits against governmental bodies and private businesses over perceived civil rights violations. Per Matt Cohen of the Democracy Docket, AF Legal has attacked voting rights and “made good on their promise to wage a legal war against all things progressive: the group has filed dozens of legal actions against “woke corporations,” civil rights, LGBTQ rights, abortion rights and just about any other cause championed by the left.”
In many ways, AF Legal almost acts as a pro bono law firm, except that its revenues come from unknown sources such as Leonard Leo’s Donors Trust, The Bradley Impact Fund (over $27 million), and Fidelity Investments Charitable Gift Fund (over $5 million), etc. This kind of murky funding is called “dark money” where political spending is intended to influence the voter, public policy, or public information yet the source of the money is not transparent or obvious.
Project 2025 Cases Receiving Personal Attention by AG Miyares
AG Miyares involved himself and/or wrote Amicus Briefs for each of these five active 2025 lawsuits involving Moms for Liberty panelists. The only consistent matter is that all but one of the cases concerns transgender student rights and involves AF Legal, specifically Prior, as a pro bono lawyer.
In general, the cases argue that freedom of speech and religion trump the rights of transgender students to their pronouns, access to bathrooms and locker rooms, and ability to play sports. In each case, minor children are being pitted against other minor children, mostly in anti-transgender culture war issues. The cases will be discussed below based on their key subject matter in order of filing. All but one are challenges to school districts’ transgender policies.
1) Exclude Trans Girls from Sports
During the Moms for Liberty Town Hall, Prior (AF Legal) specifically mentioned West Virginia v. B.P.J. as a case to watch in the U.S. Supreme Court concerning the state's "Save Women's Sports Act" banning transgender girls from sports teams. Wouldn’t you know, but AG Miyares joined the charge against transgender athletes on an amicus brief in this case? In 2024, he and 25 other AGs asked the Supreme Court to take up West Virginia’s appeal of a lower court ruling against the anti-trans “Save Women’s Sports Act.”
It is unknown how much Miyares’ involvement in this case has cost Virginia taxpayers.
2) Target Anti-Discrimination Policies and Exclude Bathroom Access
In Jane Doe v. Fairfax County School Board (case: 2024-03171), panelist Lundquist-Arora (Independent Women’s Forum and Network) was represented by AF Legal. The Jane Doe case contended that Fairfax County Public Schools (FCPS) anti-discrimination policies regarding the rights of transgender students (i.e., use of pronouns and name) and transgender student access to bathrooms violated the religious liberty rights of a high school senior, Jane Doe. Because Jane Doe graduated in June 2024, Lundquist-Arora’s children were added to the suit in the Summer of 2024. FCPS repeatedly moved to have the case dismissed because the students involved were never disciplined and damages were undefined.
In June 2024, Miyares filed an Amicus Brief in support of AF Legal’s case. The Jane Doe v. FCSB was nonsuited this summer in order to bring the case to federal court. Feel free to read 4 Public Education’s coverage of of Jane Doe v FCSB in the following blogs which also contain some of the filings: Part 1 (July 2024), Part 2 (August 2024), and Part 3 (December 2024).
It is unknown how much this litigation has cost FCPS in outside legal fees, or how much Miyares’ involvement has cost Virginia taxpayers.
3) Viewpoint Discrimination
Platt, et al v Loudoun County School Board (LCSB) Case No. 1:24-cv-1873 Eastern Dist. of Virginia) was filed in late October 2024 by AF Legal on behalf of the parents, including Anne Miller who was on an October 3, 2025 Moms for Liberty panel. The lawsuit concerned the issue that public input was cut short at an October 3, 2024 LCSB meeting when speakers repeatedly tried to discuss a specific student with alleged gang ties who may or may not have been in Loudoun County Public Schools (LCPS). At the time, as the Washington Post noted “School Board Chair Melinda Mansfield reminded the speakers about the board’s policies for public comment decorum, which prohibits speakers from targeting individual students. After multiple warnings, Mansfield ended the public comment period. Several people who were signed up to speak were not able to.”
To anyone who regularly attends school board meetings, this seems like an obvious case of “you broke the rules, so you suffer the consequences,” but somehow these Loudoun County citizens managed to get a free lawyer (AF Legal), filed a case, and within months they got an Amicus Brief from AG Miyares.
AG Miyares argued that the LCSB actions to end public input at a LCSB meeting “constituted classic viewpoint discrimination, where speech is censored solely because officials disagree with its content in direct violation of the First Amendment.” AG Miyares has used “viewpoint discrimination” as a point in other amicus briefs against transgender student civil rights.
It is unknown how much this litigation has cost LCPS in outside legal fees, or how much Miyares’ involvement has cost Virginia taxpayers.
4) Challenge School Districts’ Anti-Discrimination Policy and Exclude Bathroom Access
Shortly after the Trump Administration took office, AF Legal submitted a complaint on February 3, 2025 that five Northern Virginia school districts (Alexandria, Arlington, Fairfax County, Loudoun County, and Prince William County) were violating Title IX according to the “principles” (a.k.a. Anti-trans ideology) of Trump’s Executive Order (EO) “Radical Indoctrination in K-12 Schooling.”
Based on the evidence, AF Legal’s involvement seems to have triggered and fast-tracked federal enforcement. This is unusual because AF Legal’s complaint was not on behalf of any individual students in these school systems which contain a combined total of over 375,000 students. Nevertheless, the US Department of Education (ED) Office of Civil Rights (OCR) issued a Notification Letter nine days later to FCPS indicating that a complaint had been filed.
On September 25, 2025, Miyares filed amicus briefs to deny emergency requests for injunctions by FCPS and Arlington Public Schools (APS). Miyares demonstrated his support for the federal overreach by the US ED and violation of student civil rights by this statement:
The policies in Fairfax and Arlington allowing students to use restrooms and locker rooms based on subjective gender identity instead of biological sex are unlawful, unsafe, and indefensible. The Fourth Circuit should deny the schools’ attempt to rewrite the law through litigation. - AG Miyares
FCPS and other school districts are still in litigation regarding this matter. See their August 29, 2025 complaint which contains key history, legal precedent, civil rights support, and various supporting documents related to US ED’s actions against the five school districts.
It is unknown how much this litigation has cost FCPS, APS, and the other three school districts in outside legal fees, or how much Miyares’ involvement has cost Virginia taxpayers; however, it is expected that this will be quite costly as it moves through the courts.
5) Challenge School District’s Anti-Discrimination Policy and Exclude Locker Room Access
In S.W., et al. v. LCSB (Case No. 1:25-cv-01536, East. District of VA), involves a complicated case of sexual harassment in an LCPS locker room in March 2025 and was reported to LCPS on March 21, 2025, including:
A threatening statement prompted the report however, the Complainant replied that other harassing statements had occurred with frequency throughout the school year in the locker room prior to the students' shared physical education (PE) class.
Based on news reports, a transgender boy documented harassment by cisgender boys in the locker room, as proof that the harassment had occurred, including allegations that the cis-students made the following comments (in loud voices) about the trans-student over many months, including calling him a “boy-girl” and “It” and threatening to “beat [their] ass.” The Founding Freedoms Law Center and AF Legal are representing the Loudoun County boys pro bono against the civil rights of all students. Founding Freedoms is the legal arm of the Richmond-based Family Foundation of Virginia, a known anti-LGBTQIA extremist group.
Interestingly, WJLA, AF Legal, and AG Miyares have presented this harassment as mere “discomfort” expressed by the two cisgender students, but the August 15, 2025 LCPS Title IX Investigation Determination in the court documents shows otherwise.
In August 2025, LCPS completed a detailed 24-page Title IX investigation report that found that a preponderance of evidence found a violation of Title IX rights of the transgender student. Ultimately, both the transgender and cisgender students were suspended. The transgender student was found to have violated Policy 8655 for recording in the locker room, and the cisgender students were found to have violated the Title IX rights of the transgender student.
On the surface, the case of S.W., et al v LCSB is an attempt to overturn the suspensions of the two cisgender students who allegedly committed harassment in the locker room; however, the case is ultimately challenging LCPS’s ability to enforce its own anti-discrimination policies that protect and support transgender students. Additionally, the case seems to try to codify that Title IX does not cover transgender students, to align with multiple Trump Executive Orders permitting discrimination against transgender people, versus current Title IX regulations passed by the Biden Administration. One could even wonder if this is intended to be a shortcut to change Title IX before the Trump Administration took the time to review, accept public comment, and change the actual Title IX regulations, which is a lengthy process.
What is most shocking is AG Miyares’ involvement in this case. He intervened on multiple levels, including submitting this case to the US ED, which, despite firing over 25% of its employees and nearly half of the US ED Office of Civil Rights (OCR) in March 2025, found the time to fast track actions against LCPS. AG Miyares’ involvement included but was not limited to:
In early May 2025, AG Miyares began an investigation of LCPS actions. On June 2, 2025 he reported that he found “significant concerns regarding potential violations of Title IX, unlawful retaliation, and viewpoint discrimination,” and that “that LCPS initiated a retaliatory Title IX investigation” into the cisgender students at Stone Bridge High School.
On June 2, 2025, AG Miyares referred the matter of LCPS and LCSB actions to the US ED OCR and US DOJ Civil Rights Division.
On October 1, 2025, Miyares filed an Amicus Brief in support of the students whose alleged harassment of a transgender student in a LCPS locker room resulted in their suspension.
On September 16, 2025, US ED concluded that LCPS “violated Title IX and retaliated against male students amid sexual harassment claims.” Unfortunately, the US ED conclusions outlined are rooted in anti-trans ideology, violate the civil rights of the transgender student, and deviate significantly from the facts of the case based on the August 15, 2025 24-page LCPS Title IX investigation. Additionally, the US ED gave LCPS “ten days to voluntarily enter the Department’s Resolution Agreement” which would effectively gut LCPS’s anti-discrimination policy. This case is ongoing.
Not only did AG Miyares refer this case to Trump’s US ED, but he also wrote an Amicus Brief. This is a significant level of involvement on an issue over two students, and seems more like a sincere attempt to overturn Policy 8040 than to support the more than 80,000 LCPS students enrolled in 100 schools.
It is unknown how much this litigation has cost LCPS in outside legal fees, or how much Miyares’ involvement has cost Virginia taxpayers.
Do We Know Who AG Miyares Serves?
4 Public Education has already noted that many of AG Miyares’ briefs and investigations may have been directed by private actors over public interests. Even a glance at AG Miyares’ involvement in education lawsuits over his four year tenure, particularly his cozy relationship with Project 2025 author AF Legal, would raise serious concerns about partisanship, misuse of public resources, conflicts of interest, and transparency.
When AG Miyares’ tenure is reviewed in the future, it is likely that it will not be viewed as effective and accountable to all Virginians or that it followed the current code of Virginia when it comes to public education and civil rights. It would not be surprising if future analyses will find even more connections among AG Miyares, AF Legal, and the Trump Administration. Those findings could result in more litigation that will cost Virginians even more money. In the meantime, Virginians, especially LGBTQIA Virginians, will continue to lose civil rights.
