Colorado lawmakers began debate Tuesday over a bill that would set aside $4 million for the office of Governor Jared Polis to defend the state against actions — including legal proceedings, funding freezes and investigations — from the Trump administration.

“This is a special circumstance where this state needs flexibility to do everything we can and be able to fight, to defend our state and to draw down federal tax dollars that our good citizens have paid into the coffers of Washington, D.C,. and pull those funds back into Colorado,” said bill sponsor Representative Shannon Bird, a Westminster Democrat.

Bird is running the bill with House Speaker Julie McCluskie, a Dillon Democrat. There are no Senate sponsors yet.

Image

The money would be appropriated from the state’s Infrastructure Investment and Jobs Act cash fund, which was created in 2022 to bank state money to match federal dollars available through that Biden-era law, also known as the Bipartisan Infrastructure Law. The governor’s office would also be able to accept grants and donations for the legal fund.

The chamber gave preliminary approval to House Bill 25-1321, which needs to pass on a final recorded vote before heading to the Senate.

Specifically, the money could be used to pay for staff and contractors to defend against threats to obligated federal funding owed to the state, or reimburse the Colorado attorney general’s office for the work. The money could also be used to defend state employees in criminal proceedings if that need arises.

The bill comes after President Donald Trump issued a sweeping federal funding freeze in January in order to evaluate if the spending aligned with White House policy goals, which sowed confusion in how the state could pay for programs like Medicaid, early childhood education and grant-reliant services absent federal dollars.

A federal court later blocked the freeze and that decision was upheld by an appeals court, but the administration is still undertaking a broad effort to slash government spending and grant funding, especially for institutions that don’t bow to administration demands.

About one-third of the state’s annual budget comes from federal funding, and there is uncertainty about future cuts or other adverse actions by the federal government.

“We know there are going to be unlawful attempts to withhold money from our state. The only way we can defend against those unlawful attempts is to go to court. That costs money,” Representative Bob Marshall, a Highlands Ranch Democrat, said.

Attorney General Phil Weiser signed on to the lawsuit challenging the federal funding freeze. He also joined a lawsuit earlier this month challenging the cancellation of about $230 million in public health cuts to the state.

“We are in uncharted territory, where federal funding has been frozen, and we have examples of that with Medicaid, (the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program) and numerous independent grants. We need to have the flexibility to respond to protect the state’s interests. It is very concerning and should be to all of us,” McCluskie said.

House Republicans have repeatedly offered amendments on bills this session to invalidate a policy if it results in loss of federal funding. All of those amendments have been defeated.

“This is our own doing that we’re losing federal funding because of the bills that we’re passing here. We have tried to run amendments on these bills that say if they impact our federal funding, it will be null. This body has voted those down,” said Representative Carlos Barron, a Fort Lupton Republican.

The state has not lost federal funding as a direct result of any bill this year, but Republicans argue that some bills involving firearm restrictions, immigration and gender affirming care protections could jeopardize that.