Monday, 27 July 2026, 22:52
California has taken legal action against the Trump administration, alleging that it is unlawfully using federal emergency preparedness grants as leverage to force states to adopt its preferred policies on immigration enforcement and election administration. The lawsuit, filed in Rhode Island federal court, challenges new rules tied to Department of Homeland Security grants. In a coalition with 24 Democratic-led states, Attorney General Rob Bonta announced the lawsuit over new conditions on U.S. Department of Homeland Security grants.
The Trump administration has introduced new requirements for states to receive Homeland Security Grant Program funds, which have historically been used for disaster preparedness, including responses to wildfires and earthquakes. These conditions include mandating states to use a federal system to verify voter citizenship, employ hand-marked paper ballots, and conduct post-election audits. Non-compliance could result in a loss of at least 20% of grant funds, or potentially all of them. The conditions also require states to assist with federal immigration enforcement and enable federal agencies to terminate states’ funds at their discretion.
In the lead up to the November midterms, the Trump administration has pushed for stricter election rules, such as voter ID, to fight claims of widespread voter fraud. Democratic lawmakers and officials have characterized these moves as attempts to suppress voter turnout.
Attorney General Rob Bonta stated that the administration is using public safety as a bargaining chip, unlawfully withholding funds already appropriated by Congress. He emphasized that these resources are critical for communities to prepare for disasters like wildfires.
“Instead of ensuring these critical resources reach the communities that need them, Trump is attempting to use this funding as leverage to force states to adopt his preferred political agenda,” Bonta said at a press conference Thursday.
In an emailed statement, FEMA said the lawsuit is “partisan pushback” from Democratic politicians who “oppose common-sense measures designed to protect election security and safeguard the integrity of American democracy.” The agency added: “Election security is national security, and protecting our critical infrastructure remains a top priority for the Trump Administration. Concerns over voting processes, data security, and registration practices have made it clear that action is required. … These new requirements will preserve election integrity.”
A FEMA spokesperson further told CBS News: “This partisan pushback from New Jersey, California, Illinois, and Rhode Island is nothing new. We fully expected these left-wing politicians to oppose common-sense measures designed to protect election security and safeguard the integrity of American democracy.” The spokesperson added: “This year, states must take critical, common-sense steps to protect U.S. elections before receiving their full Homeland Security Grant Program awards.”
The lawsuit argues that the Department of Homeland Security and FEMA have been using their control over billions of dollars in federal grants to operate an aggressive “campaign of coercion” to adopt the Trump administration’s preferred voting and immigration policies. “Congress never gave DHS or FEMA authority to rewrite state election law, require cooperation with federal immigration agents, or terminate federal funding streams at any time and for any reason,” the lawsuit stated.
At the crux of the legal complaint are two federal programs: the Homeland Security Grant Program, which was established by Congress as a response to the Sept. 11 terrorist attacks, and the Emergency Management Performance Grant Program, which helps states pay for emergency management staff who plan for and respond to natural disasters and mass casualty events, as well as software programs used by state emergency operations centers. Typically, these funds provide emergency-management support, including reimbursements for first responders, bomb squads, cybersecurity, disaster response, and security at houses of worship.
At a news conference Thursday, Bonta laid out the stakes: “These grants help communities prepare for emergencies before disaster strikes. They support emergency management personnel, strengthen disaster response capabilities, improve coordination among first responders, and help protect our residents when they need government the most.” The Trump administration restrictions would mean “our communities would have fewer resources to prepare for wildfires, earthquakes, floods, terrorist threats, and other emergencies,” Bonta stated.
In her ruling rejecting the administration’s second attempt, U.S. District Court for Rhode Island Judge Mary McElroy, a Trump appointee, said holding funds hostage “based solely on what appear to be Defendants’ political whims is unconscionable and, at least here, unlawful.”
“Time after time, courts have told Trump’s corrupt administration that it can’t coerce California into doing its bidding by threatening to withhold public safety funding,” Gov. Gavin Newsom said in a statement. “Yet, they’re coming back for more. This time they’re demanding states rewrite their own election laws to access money that pays for public safety readiness and response, and that Congress already approved. We simply won’t allow it.”
California receives about $150 million each year from the Homeland Security Grant Program to combat terrorism and prevent cyberattacks. The lawsuit argues that holding these funds hostage undermines the state's ability to protect its residents.
According to the lawsuit, the new conditions threaten more than $740 million in combined funding from the Homeland Security Grant Program and the Emergency Management Performance Grant Program.
This is not the first time the Trump administration has attempted to condition these grants on state cooperation with federal immigration enforcement. Twice last year, similar efforts were blocked by federal courts, with a judge ruling that holding funds based on political whims was unlawful. Attorney General Bonta co-led two similar and successful lawsuits in 2025, each in the U.S. District Court for the District of Rhode Island, challenging DHS’s efforts to condition billions in federal emergency funding on states’ agreement to enforce federal immigration law and DHS’s subsequent attempt to unlawfully reallocate federal homeland security funding away from jurisdictions it viewed as insufficiently supportive of President Trump’s political agenda.
Rhode Island Attorney General Peter F. Neronha, who is co-leading the case, accused the Trump administration of “threatening to jeopardize public safety by unlawfully withholding billions in critical funding.” “Congress allocated these funds to the states for preparing for and responding to emergencies including counterterrorism and natural disasters, and the executive branch has no legal say in the matter,” Neronha said in a statement. “Federal emergency funding cannot and will not be held hostage from states.”
The states estimate that FEMA could withhold at least 20% of Homeland Security Grant Program awards — about $148 million from the plaintiff states — and potentially terminate entire awards for continued noncompliance. The lawsuit also challenges language that would permit FEMA to cancel grants that no longer align with the administration's changing priorities or view of the "national interest." The states argue that such authority would make multiyear federal awards unreliable and give the executive branch a way to redirect spending approved by Congress.
Along with Rhode Island, the suit was joined by attorneys general from Arizona, California, Colorado, Connecticut, Delaware, Hawaii, Illinois, Maine, Maryland, Massachusetts, Michigan, Minnesota, Nevada, New Jersey, New Mexico, New York, North Carolina, Oregon, Vermont, Virginia, Washington, Wisconsin and the District of Columbia, as well as the governors of Kentucky and Pennsylvania. The states contend the conditions imposed by FEMA and DHS violate the Administrative Procedure Act and the Constitution's Spending Clause. Attorneys General from the states and Washington, D.C., are now asking a federal judge in Rhode Island to block the conditions, void them nationwide as applied to the plaintiffs and require the agencies to issue funding documents.
In today’s lawsuit, the coalition argues that DHS and FEMA’s latest grant conditions are, once again, unlawful and unconstitutional. “President Trump has little support for both his mass deportation agenda and his baseless claims of election fraud, so instead, he’s trying to bully state and local governments into adopting his preferred policies in exchange for much-needed funding,” said Attorney General Rob Bonta. “The Administration has already lost similar fights in court, and we expect this latest unlawful attempt to fail as well. Our communities deserve better than to have essential resources caught up in political games.”
The coalition alleges that the Administration is attempting to impose a series of sweeping new requirements on States, including: Election administration requirements: The Administration is seeking to force States to adopt its preferred election policies as a condition of receiving HSGP funds, including verifying voter citizenship through an error-prone federal system, transitioning to hand-marked paper ballots, and conducting ballot reconciliation using an undefined federal methodology. States that do not comply could lose 20% of their HSGP awards. Immigration enforcement requirements: The Administration is attempting to condition FEMA grants on States’ assistance with federal civil immigration enforcement, although the courts previously blocked these same conditions. Broad FEMA termination authority: The Administration is seeking to give FEMA broad authority to cut off funding at any time based on vague and subjective “agency priorities,” creating uncertainty over emergency management resources Congress provided to support States and local communities.
The coalition argues that the requirements are unlawful because Congress never gave DHS or FEMA authority to impose sweeping conditions on these federal grants, the agencies failed to follow required decision-making procedures, and the requirements violate the Spending Clause by coercing States through vague and ambiguous funding conditions that are entirely unrelated to the purposes of the funding programs.
Attorney General Bonta is co-leading today’s lawsuit alongside Illinois Attorney General Kwame Raoul, New Jersey Attorney General Jennifer Davenport, and Rhode Island Attorney General Peter Neronha.
The outcome of this lawsuit could set a precedent for how federal grants are tied to state policies. California continues to assert its rights against what it sees as federal overreach.
