Earlier today, a federal court struck down the Trump administration’s illegal attempt to use anti-terrorism funds to coerce state and local governments into changing their election rules. This important (and timely) win helps ensure communities don’t have to choose between the safety of their residents and the health of our democracy.
(You may remember this storyline from when Ben wrote about it in August)
Some quick history: In the aftermath of the September 11th terrorist attacks, Congress established the Homeland Security Grant Program (HSGP) to allocate money to help states and local governments prevent and respond to terrorism. For more than two decades, communities have relied on these funds — between $1 billion and $2 billion per year nationally — to administer counterterrorism, cybersecurity, border security, and emergency preparedness programs.
These funds aren’t political. They’re meant for public safety, and maintain broad bipartisan support. The money is already authorized and appropriated by Congress.
Then came the Trump administration. This past June, DHS and FEMA hit state and local governments with a shocking (and unlawful) bargain: agree to a litany of the Trump administration’s election demands, or lose access to 20% of their HSGP grant funds. That’s hundreds of millions of counterterrorism dollars at stake.
We knew this gambit wasn’t just harmful to American communities. It was also illegal. So we sued.
Together with our partners at the Brennan Center for Justice, Jacobson Lawyers Group, Public Rights Project, and county lawyers, we represented six counties and cities — Nashville and Davidson County, TN; Harris County, TX; Columbus, OH; El Paso County, TX; Travis County, TX; and Dallas County, TX — in their case against DHS and FEMA.
(See more details about the case here.)
The district court agreed with our argument that FEMA exceeded its statutory authority by conditioning the HSGP grant funds on changes to election administration. The court ordered that the election conditions for grant funding are vacated — not just for the plaintiffs, but for every jurisdiction nationwide. FEMA now has to administer the HSGP grant program as if it had never demanded these changes to elections in the first place.
This is a victory worth celebrating.
A “twofer” win for democracy
Like so many of the Trump administration’s abuses, this attack had multiple dimensions of bad and harmful. First, it was an abuse of government resources and authority as part of a direct intervention in the midterm elections. Second, by politicizing anti-terrorism funding, the administration created widespread collateral damage, leaving Americans potentially more vulnerable to future security threats.
That’s why this win is a “twofer” — it cuts off one of the administration’s attacks on the midterms and ensures anti-terrorism funding remains dedicated to keeping Americans safe.
On the elections front, this decision protects the rights of states to administer their elections. It bears repeating that neither FEMA nor the executive branch more broadly has the authority to impose election rules. The authority to regulate elections lies with the states and Congress. The Constitution is clear, and today, yet another federal court has recognized this.
In addition, the court prevented the Trump administration from fundamentally changing how states administer their elections, right before the midterms. The election administration conditions at issue in the lawsuit amount to a FEMA-created nationwide election code, including requirements on how states maintain their voter rolls, who may work at polling sites, how voters may physically vote, and how counties must conduct post-election audits and ballot reconciliation processes.
By blocking these last-minute mandates, the court preserved election stability and spared election officials from an administrative nightmare.
From a public safety perspective, now states and local governments can spend less time having to navigate a political fight that they didn’t ask for — and more time using HSGP grants to protect their communities. Nashville, for instance, uses its grant money to fund detectors of chemical and biological weapons and to provide training to officers on urban search and rescue. Harris County uses some of its grant money to maintain a terror emergency alert system. Columbus uses its grants to supplement overtime pay for extra officers at Ohio State football games and to buy bomb-defusing robots. This is exactly what the funding is meant for — to make American communities safer, not to wage battles over election administration.
As Dallas County District Attorney John Creuzot said after the ruling:
We rely on HSGP funding to provide the training and equipment necessary for our law enforcement and emergency rapid response teams. The federal government has no right to threaten the public safety or election authority of our county. Today’s decision brings with it a collective sigh of relief among local leaders and residents.
What to expect from here
Now, we’ll be watching to see whether the government appeals. But regardless of where this case goes from here, we hope that our clients have prevented the administration from using anti-terrorism funds to coerce states and counties in this election cycle.
We’re deeply grateful to our clients and partners, who have fought tirelessly in a collective effort to safeguard the security of elections and the safety of Americans.
This case isn’t isolated. Across every page of the Trump administration’s authoritarian playbook, the pro-democracy coalition is pushing back. We are winning.
Congratulations on winning this important lawsuit! My heartfelt thanks to all those who participated and/ or helped with funding. I deeply appreciate all of you! 🇺🇸📜🗽
Thank you for your important work; let’s keep winning.