WASHINGTON D.C. – A coalition of 25 states and the District of Columbia initiated a federal lawsuit on Thursday, challenging new requirements imposed by the President Donald Trump administration that link billions of dollars in federal homeland security and disaster preparedness funding to state adherence to specific federal election and immigration policies. The legal action, filed in federal court in Rhode Island, targets the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) and the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) as defendants, seeking to prevent the immediate loss of access to crucial grant funding.
"Election security is national security." — FEMA Spokesperson
The lawsuit asserts that DHS and FEMA have overstepped their statutory authority by attaching new conditions to grants that were originally appropriated by Congress for the express purposes of emergency preparedness, counterterrorism initiatives, and disaster response. According to the complaint, the agencies are in violation of both the Administrative Procedure Act and the U.S. Constitution's Spending Clause. The plaintiffs contend that these new conditions compel states to adopt policies unrelated to the intended goals of the grant programs, effectively leveraging federal funding to enforce the administration's broader political priorities.
At the core of the dispute is FEMA’s Homeland Security Grant Program, a vital source of funding that supports a wide array of critical services, including first responders, bomb squads, cybersecurity programs, and security measures for houses of worship, alongside general disaster preparedness. Under the administration's updated requirements, states must implement several new election-related procedures to receive their full grant allocations. These include verifying the citizenship of registered voters using the U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services’ Systematic Alien Verification for Entitlements (SAVE) database, transitioning voting systems to equipment capable of accepting hand-marked paper ballots, conducting manual post-election audits, reconciling ballots, and confirming the citizenship of election workers. The lawsuit specifically highlights that at least 20 percent of Homeland Security Grant Program awards may be withheld from states until they demonstrate compliance with these new election integrity requirements.
Beyond election policies, the lawsuit also challenges new immigration-related conditions. Grant recipients are now reportedly required to cooperate with federal immigration enforcement activities, provide information regarding detainees’ immigration status, and refrain from publicizing federal immigration operations. The states argue that these mandates force them to divert resources and personnel from their primary disaster response and public safety duties to assist with federal immigration enforcement, an area they claim falls outside the scope of preparedness grants.
Furthermore, the complaint objects to new provisions introduced by FEMA that would allow the agency to terminate grants if they are deemed no longer to advance the “national interest” or simply for the agency’s convenience. The plaintiff states argue that Congress did not grant FEMA such broad and discretionary authority to unilaterally terminate funding programs, especially those critical for public safety and disaster readiness.
The coalition of states warns that these new conditions could jeopardize billions of dollars allocated for essential emergency preparedness. The lawsuit estimates that FEMA could immediately withhold approximately $148 million from the plaintiff states through the 20 percent restriction alone. The broader authority to terminate grants for "national interest" or "convenience" could place substantially more funding at risk, potentially undermining states' abilities to respond effectively to natural disasters, terrorist threats, and other emergencies.
FEMA has publicly defended the policy changes, asserting that the new requirements are integral to strengthening national security by enhancing election integrity. In a statement, a FEMA spokesperson articulated the agency's stance, stating, "Election security is national security." The spokesperson further contended that states must undertake "critical, common-sense steps" to protect the integrity of their elections before they can receive their full Homeland Security Grant Program awards. The agency characterized the lawsuit as anticipated opposition from states predominantly led by Democratic governors, describing their resistance as an expected reaction to measures designed to safeguard election integrity. The Department of Homeland Security did not immediately respond to requests for comment regarding the lawsuit.
The legal challenge underscores a growing tension between federal and state authorities regarding the conditions attached to federal funding, particularly in areas traditionally managed with a degree of state autonomy. The outcome of this lawsuit could significantly impact the distribution of federal grants and the operational independence of states in managing their election processes and engagement with federal immigration policies.
