Monday, 27 July 2026, 23:47
On July 23, 2026, California Attorney General Rob Bonta, co-leading a coalition of 24 attorneys general and the governors of Kentucky and Pennsylvania, filed a lawsuit in the U.S. District Court for the District of Rhode Island to block the Trump administration from tying public safety and disaster preparedness funding to election and immigration policy demands. The lawsuit targets conditions imposed by the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) and the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) on the Homeland Security Grant Program (HSGP) and the Emergency Management Performance Grant Program (EMPG), which together provide billions of dollars annually to help states prevent, mitigate, and respond to terrorism and other catastrophic incidents. The HSGP was created by Congress in response to the Sept. 11, 2001 attacks. The lawsuit notes that the conditions apply to more than $740 million in combined funding for disaster preparedness and counter-terrorism programs. DHS funds typically offer emergency-management support, reimbursing for first responders, bomb squads, cybersecurity, disaster response and security at houses of worship. The states argue that the administration is unlawfully using these funds as leverage to force changes to state election laws and immigration enforcement, violating constitutional and statutory protections. This is California's 79th lawsuit against the second Trump administration, and marks the third time the state has sued over attempts to tie emergency preparedness funding to immigration enforcement and election policies. At a press conference announcing the lawsuit, Bonta stated, "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."
The plaintiff states include 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 Rhode Island, along with the District of Columbia, as well as the governors of Kentucky and Pennsylvania. The lawsuit comes in the lead up to the November midterm elections.
The Trump administration's new requirements, announced in July 2026, include three main demands that states must meet to receive full HSGP funding:
States must adopt specific election practices favored by the administration, including verifying voter citizenship through a federal database that has a history of errors, transitioning to hand-marked paper ballots, conducting federally prescribed election audits and ballot reconciliation using an undefined federal methodology. Non-compliant states face a 20% reduction in their HSGP awards. The plaintiff states estimate that this reduction would total at least $148 million collectively, and FEMA could potentially terminate entire awards for continued noncompliance.
States would be forced to use their own law enforcement resources to assist with federal civil immigration enforcement, a condition that courts have previously blocked in other contexts.
The policy grants FEMA broad authority to terminate grants at any time based on vague “agency priorities,” creating uncertainty over congressionally approved funds for emergency management. 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. 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 lawsuit argues that Congress never granted DHS or FEMA the authority to impose such sweeping conditions on HSGP or EMPG funds, which are intended for terrorism preparedness and disaster response, not election administration. The states contend that the conditions violate the Administrative Procedure Act and the Spending Clause of the U.S. Constitution, which prohibits the federal government from coercing states through ambiguous and unrelated funding conditions. The lawsuit describes these stipulations as a "campaign of coercion" designed to force states to adopt the White House's preferred voting and immigration policies. This is not the first legal battle over similar tactics. In 2025, Attorney General Bonta successfully sued to block immigration-related conditions on homeland security and transportation grants, with a federal court permanently blocking the DHS conditions. In May 2026, the state also resolved a multistate lawsuit over last-minute HSGP cuts after the administration dropped its appeal. The 2026 lawsuit specifically challenged the administration's attempt to unlawfully reallocate federal homeland security funding away from jurisdictions it viewed as insufficiently supportive of President Trump's political agenda. 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 coalition is asking the 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 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."
Rhode Island Attorney General Peter F. Neronha, who's co-leading the case, accused the Trump administration of "threatening to jeopardize public safety by unlawfully withholding billions in critical funding." Attorney General Neronha also stated, "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." He added, "Federal emergency funding cannot and will not be held hostage from states."
In an emailed statement, a FEMA spokesperson said the lawsuit is "partisan pushback from New Jersey, California, Illinois, and Rhode Island" and that the administration "fully expected these left-wing politicians to oppose common-sense measures designed to protect election security and safeguard the integrity of American democracy." "This year, states must take critical, common-sense steps to protect U.S. elections before receiving their full Homeland Security Grant Program awards," FEMA's statement continued. "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."
According to the Thursday lawsuit, the DHS and FEMA were apparently "undeterred" by their previous losses in court. Bonta said, "The administration has already lost similar fights in court, and we expect this latest unlawful attempt to fail as well." He added, "Our communities deserve better than to have essential resources caught up in political games."
For California, the stakes are particularly high. The state receives approximately $150 million annually in HSGP funding, which supports critical public safety initiatives such as training first responders, strengthening cybersecurity, improving emergency communications, and purchasing equipment for terrorism response. Governor Gavin Newsom emphasized that these funds are essential for protecting communities from real threats, not for political bargaining. The lawsuit aligns with California's broader efforts to safeguard its election administration, including Senate Bill 73 signed in May 2026, which tightened ballot security and protections against law enforcement interference.
The Trump administration has repeatedly attempted to use federal funding as leverage to push its policy priorities, particularly on immigration and election integrity. Since his 2020 election loss, Trump has made unsubstantiated claims of widespread voter fraud, which have been debunked by multiple audits and investigations. Courts have consistently ruled against similar funding conditions, including a 2025 ruling barring conditions on FEMA funds and a 2026 ruling blocking DHS funding redirections. The administration's strategy has been applied to education, transportation, and domestic violence grants, but has been repeatedly struck down as unconstitutional.
"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 Attorney General Rob Bonta said he expects this lawsuit to be successful, given previous wins challenging the federal government. "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," Bonta said. "Our communities deserve better than to have essential resources caught up in political games."
This lawsuit represents a significant legal challenge to the Trump administration's attempt to coerce states into adopting its preferred policies by threatening essential public safety funding. With strong legal precedent on their side, California and the coalition of states are confident that the courts will again reject these unlawful conditions. The outcome will have major implications for state sovereignty, election administration, and the integrity of federal grant programs.
