FEMA National Security Grant Conditional Funding Challenge

A pro-voting lawsuit challenging DHS withholding national security grant funding unless states comply with new election procedure requirements.

Background

The Metropolitan Government of Nashville and Davidson County, Tennessee; Harris County, Texas; the City of Columbus, Ohio, and El Paso County, Texas filed a lawsuit in federal court challenging a new U.S. Department of Homeland Security (DHS) policy that would withhold 20% of states’ funding from the Homeland Security Grant Program (HSGP) unless the states adopt five election procedure restrictions. HSGP was created by Congress “to help state and local governments prevent, protect against, and respond to terrorism.”

Plaintiffs assert that the new conditions implemented by the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) — housed inside DHS — “touch on nearly every aspect of the election process: voting equipment and the means by which voters cast their ballots, post-election audits, ballot reconciliation, voter-roll citizenship checks, and election worker citizenship checks.” Plaintiffs argue that DHS’s new policy has “hijacked” HSGP and is holding “hostage” more than $200 million nationwide. The lawsuit asserts the policy violates the Administrative Procedure Act and the U.S. Constitution, and that it also exceeds DHS’s authority. Plaintiffs seek to block the policy.

Why It Matters

This lawsuit is one of several brought by blue jurisdictions challenging the Trump administration’s FEMA grant conditions seeking to coerce states into complying with various administration policies. These particular conditions reflect President Trump’s ongoing efforts to undermine and interfere in federal elections. However, courts have consistently ruled that only Congress and the states — not the president — have authority over elections.

Latest Updates

• Sept. 28, 2026: The court granted plaintiffs’ motion for summary judgment, vacating the policy.
• Aug. 17, 2026: Plaintiffs filed their complaint.