Content
Eleven states, along with Kentucky’s governor, have taken legal action against the Trump administration, challenging what they describe as unlawful conditions attached to federal funds essential for disaster and terrorism preparedness. The predominantly Democratic states, including Michigan, Oregon, and Arizona, filed a lawsuit against the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) and the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) in the U.S. District Court in Eugene, Oregon. Their main concern revolves around severe restrictions imposed on the timeframe to spend emergency and homeland security grants, as well as a new requirement that states submit population figures excluding individuals removed under immigration laws to qualify for funding.
The states argue that these new stipulations create unnecessary hurdles to accessing critical public safety and emergency response funds. They accused the Trump administration of intentionally attempting to reduce FEMA’s influence and shift more responsibility to the states, which could lead to a patchwork disaster response system nationwide. According to the complaint, this shift undermines a coordinated federal approach to emergency management.
A DHS spokesperson responded by saying the changes are part of a careful, reasonable effort to make sure federal funds are used efficiently and aligned with the administration’s priorities and current homeland security threats. FEMA annually distributes billions of dollars through grants aimed at helping states, tribes, and territories maintain emergency preparedness. These funds are used for various needs such as paying staff, training, and purchasing equipment.
The lawsuit specifically challenges two grant programs: the $320 million Emergency Management Performance Grant (EMPG) and the $1 billion Homeland Security Grant Program. EMPG allocations depend on state populations as determined by U.S. Census data. However, just before the fiscal year ended on September 30, states were notified of their grant amounts. The very next day, FEMA issued a “funding hold” on all grants, demanding states submit certified population data excluding individuals removed under immigration laws. Funds would only be released once FEMA reviewed and approved the states’ methodologies for counting populations.
The plaintiffs describe this requirement as arbitrary and unreasonable, pointing out that states do not have real-time population data and that it is DHS’s responsibility to track immigration-related removals. Furthermore, federal agencies are legally required to use Census data for funding allocation. Another major change in the grant rules was the reduction of the spending period from three years to just one, which the states say makes it significantly harder to use the funds effectively and renders much of the money nearly unusable.
Local and state governments heavily rely on these grants. For example, Arizona claims that half of its emergency management operations depend on the $6.6 million EMPG funding. Oregon’s emergency department warns that without EMPG funding, about two-thirds of its counties could lose the capacity to perform basic emergency management functions. This lawsuit follows a series of legal challenges to the Trump administration’s changes and cancellations of FEMA funding, reflecting the president’s stated desire to reduce FEMA’s role and push more responsibility onto the states.
