Most Americans have never heard the phrase “common interest agreement.” It is legal boilerplate, the kind of paperwork that lives in filing cabinets and rarely makes headlines. Lawyers use it when two or more parties want to share strategy, research, and confidential material without waiving the protections that normally shield those conversations from public view.
That is exactly why a newly reported document is drawing so much attention this week.
A Document Signed Before the Votes Were Counted
According to a report published by The Gateway Pundit, at least 22 Democratic attorneys general signed a “common interest agreement” ahead of the 2024 presidential election. The reported purpose: to coordinate legal action against a future Donald Trump administration.
Read that timeline again. The agreement, as described in the report, was in place before the American people cast their ballots — before anyone officially knew who would be sworn in the following January.
The report characterizes the arrangement as a commitment to pursue “lawfare” — a term critics use for the practice of using courts and litigation as a political weapon rather than as a last resort.
Why the Wording Matters So Much
To understand the reaction, it helps to understand what these agreements actually do. A common interest agreement is not a lawsuit. It is not a charge. It is a framework — a handshake in legal language that lets separate offices pool their work while keeping that work confidential.
In ordinary practice, that is unremarkable. States team up on antitrust cases, consumer protection suits, and environmental litigation all the time. Coordination saves taxpayer money and avoids duplicated effort.
But the details reported here are what changed the temperature of the story:
- The number of offices reportedly involved — at least 22 state attorneys general
- The reported timing — signed before the 2024 election was decided
- The reported target — a specific incoming administration, not a company or an industry
- The confidentiality — the arrangement was not disclosed to the public at the time
Each of those points on its own might raise an eyebrow. Stacked together, they form the picture that has critics using words like “coordinated” and “premeditated.”
The Part That Still Isn’t Public
Here is where the story gets frustrating for anyone hoping for a clean answer.
The most important question — what, exactly, does the agreement commit those offices to do? — remains largely unanswered in the public record. Common interest agreements are built to stay private. That is their entire function. The privilege they create is the reason the contents may never be handed over in the ordinary course of a records request.
So the American public is left with the outline of something without the inside of it. We reportedly know roughly how many offices signed. We reportedly know when. We reportedly know the general aim. What we do not have is the text.
Supporters of the attorneys general involved would likely argue that state legal officers have every right — and arguably a duty — to prepare for federal policies they believe are unlawful. Preparation is not persecution, and reviewing a candidate’s stated agenda in advance is something legal offices on both sides of the aisle do routinely.
Critics see something very different: elected officials agreeing among themselves, in writing and in private, to move against an administration voters had not yet chosen.
Both readings hang on the same missing pages.
That is the quiet tension underneath this entire story. Twenty-two-plus offices. One shared document. And a public that, according to the report, was kept outside the room while it was signed.
Whether that document ever sees daylight may come down to a fight over privilege — the same privilege the agreement was designed to create in the first place.
