Map Reveals States Suing Trump Admin for FEMA Funds

States Challenge FEMA Grant Requirements

More than two dozen states have taken legal action against the Trump administration, alleging that new conditions tied to federal disaster and homeland security funding are an overreach of authority. The lawsuit, filed in Rhode Island, targets policies issued by the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) and the Department of Homeland Security (DHS). The 24 states and the District of Columbia argue that these requirements improperly link billions of dollars in aid to election and immigration policies.

The states claim that the administration is exceeding its authority by mandating changes to state election systems, requiring cooperation with federal immigration enforcement, and allowing DHS to terminate grants at any time and for any reason. They assert that Congress never granted DHS or FEMA the power to rewrite state election laws, demand cooperation with federal immigration agents, or end federal funding streams without justification.

FEMA is responsible for helping communities prepare for, respond to, and recover from disasters. This includes providing emergency assistance, coordinating disaster response, and distributing funding for preparedness and recovery efforts. The lawsuit argues that attaching policy requirements to congressionally approved funding violates the Administrative Procedure Act and the Constitution’s spending clause, which limits how the federal government can place conditions on money allocated to states.

Democratic Rhode Island Attorney General Peter Neronha, who filed the lawsuit, accused the administration of using emergency funding as leverage to force states to adopt policies they oppose. “Once again, the Trump Administration is threatening to jeopardize public safety by unlawfully withholding billions in critical funding and once again, they won’t get away with it,” Neronha said. “This Administration is using the safety of Americans as collateral by attempting to bully the states into relinquishing their constitutional right to enact policies and laws that best serve their residents.”

New York Attorney General Letitia James also criticized the conditions, arguing that funding intended for emergency services should not be used to influence state policies. “Funding to stop terrorist attacks, prevent natural disasters, and help communities rebuild after an emergency should never be used as a political weapon,” James said. “I will not allow this administration to jeopardize resources for our police, firefighters, and first responders as a way to meddle in our election systems and threaten our immigrant communities. We have successfully stopped these threats to FEMA funds before, and we will do it again.”

Election Requirements at Center of Dispute

One of the main issues raised in the lawsuit is a requirement that states alter aspects of their election systems to remain eligible for certain homeland security funding. The challenged conditions require states to move toward paper-ballot voting systems, conduct manual audits of voting systems, reconcile voter records, and verify the citizenship of every registered voter in state voter databases.

States that do not comply could lose at least 20 percent of their Homeland Security Grant Program funding. The program supports efforts aimed at protecting communities from threats including cyberattacks and terrorism. Pennsylvania Governor Josh Shapiro, one of the officials challenging the requirements, said the administration was improperly using security funding to pursue election-related goals.

“The Trump Administration is holding critical funding for homeland security and disaster response hostage in their latest attempt to take over our elections and perpetuate baseless conspiracy theories,” Shapiro said. The lawsuit comes after President Donald Trump has repeatedly questioned, without presenting evidence, the security of mail voting following his 2020 election loss to Democrat Joe Biden.

FEMA Defends Conditions as Security Measures

FEMA defended the requirements, describing the lawsuit as political opposition to measures it said were intended to strengthen election security. A FEMA spokesperson called the legal challenge an example of “partisan pushback” and said the agency expected “these left-wing politicians to oppose common-sense measures designed to protect election security and safeguard the integrity of American democracy.”

“Election security is national security, and protecting our critical infrastructure remains a top priority for the Trump Administration,” the spokesperson said. “Concerns over voting processes, data security, and registration practices have made it clear that action is required.”

The dispute follows a broader series of legal battles over the Trump administration’s efforts to attach conditions to federal funding distributed through DHS and other agencies. The administration has faced lawsuits over similar attempts involving education funding, domestic violence grants, and transportation money. Courts have repeatedly ruled against some of those efforts, finding that the federal government cannot impose certain conditions on states through funding decisions.

Previous Rulings

A ruling last year blocked the administration from attaching certain conditions to FEMA funding, while another decision this year prevented DHS from redirecting funding away from states viewed as opposing administration priorities. In a previous ruling blocking the Transportation Secretary from cutting off funds to states that did not comply with immigration enforcement demands, U.S. District Judge John McConnell Jr. wrote that states faced losing significant federal resources and being forced to change how they used their own agencies.

“The States face losing billions of dollars in federal funding, are being put in a position of relinquishing their sovereign right to decide how to use their own police officers, are at risk of losing the trust built between local law enforcement and immigrant communities, and will have to scale back, reconsider, or cancel ongoing transportation projects,” McConnell wrote.

The states involved in the new lawsuit argue the administration is attempting to impose similar conditions on 2026 funding after failing to successfully apply them to funding decisions last year.

Which States Have Sued?

Attorney General from the following 23 states have joined the lawsuit:

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
District of Columbia

Governors of Kentucky and Pennsylvania are also plaintiffs in the lawsuit. All of the AG’s involved are Democrats, as are the Governors.

INSPIRATIONS DIGITAL