LANSING, Mich. (Michigan News Source) – In July 2025, Michigan joined a coalition of 20+ mostly Democratic-led states in suing the Trump administration over new federal guidance and rules reinterpreting PRWORA (Personal Responsibility and Work Opportunity Reconciliation Act) to require verification of citizenship or eligible immigration status for recipients of various federally funded benefits programs. The states argued the change would cause serious administrative burdens, disrupt services and require program restructuring.

But when asked to show proof of those alleged harms, Michigan came up empty. According to records requested by the legal group America First Legal (AFL), the Michigan Department of Health and Human Services responded to a records request by saying it could not find documents showing the injuries the states claimed in their lawsuit.

MORE NEWS: Donations Tell the Story: Alleged Traverse City Stabber Gets the Spotlight Instead of Victim

“To the best of the Department’s knowledge, information, and belief, this Department does not possess or maintain records under the description you provided,” the department said in its response.

Show us the damage.

AFL had filed public records requests with the states that sued the federal government after the Trump administration updated regulations tied to PRWORA. The states claimed the requirement would create costly administrative burdens and potentially disrupt services. So AFL asked them to produce records showing those costs, disruptions, or compliance issues. To see the records requested by AFL, click here.

Michigan not alone.

Michigan wasn’t the only state that struggled to provide evidence. Minnesota and Maryland also reported having no responsive records, while Rhode Island produced only a notice of the policy change.

Dan Epstein, Vice President of AFL said in the press release about the missing records, “These responses provide the latest evidence that states suing the Trump Administration lack actual harm resulting from the administration’s executive actions.” Epstein added, “These responses continue to show the risk that states are relying on the courts to resolve policy disagreements.”