FEMA threatens to withhold terrorism prevention funds unless states adopt Trump’s anti-voting agenda

The Trump administration is threatening to hold back terrorism-prevention funding from states unless they comply with a sweeping set of election demands — escalating President Donald Trump’s ongoing attempt to seize power over elections that the Constitution gives to states and Congress.

A new FEMA grant notice for fiscal year 2026 says the agency will withhold 20% of Homeland Security Grant Program funding from states and urban areas until they provide proof that they have complied with the administration’s new election security requirements.

The Homeland Security Grant Program is not a small election grant. It is a $1.064 billion terrorism-prevention program that helps states and local governments pay for cybersecurity, emergency planning, training, equipment, protections for crowded public spaces and other public safety needs.

But the Trump administration is now using that money as leverage to force states into adopting pieces of its anti-voting agenda.

“For each state and UASI, FEMA will withhold from drawdown an amount equal to 20% of the recipient’s total HSGP award (SHSP, UASI, and OPSG) until the recipient submits proof of compliance with the FY 2026 Election Security NPA requirements, and such proof is verified/confirmed by the Department,” FEMA wrote. “Upon verification/confirmation, the Department will notify the recipient and release the withheld portion(s) for drawdown in accordance with applicable grant administration requirements.”

In plain terms, FEMA is telling states to follow the administration’s election rules or lose access to a fifth of the terrorism-prevention money.

The notice requires states and high-risk urban areas to spend at least 3% of certain grant funds on election security. But the document makes clear that the 20% funding threat is a separate condition, meaning states cannot simply meet the spending requirement and move on.

“The 3% minimum allocation and the 20% holdback are separate requirements and do not offset one another,” FEMA wrote. “Meeting the 3% allocation does not, by itself, release the 20% holdback, and the holdback applies to funds beyond the 3% set-aside.”

The conditions read like a checklist of Trump’s broader anti-voting priorities.

States and high-risk urban areas must submit plans to transition away from voting systems that use bar codes or QR codes to count votes and toward equipment that accepts hand-marked paper ballots. They must show compliance with a 5% manual post-election audit. They must reconcile the number of voters who voted in federal elections with the number of ballots cast. They must use the federal SAVE database to verify the citizenship of everyone in the state voter registration database within 120 days of accepting the grant award.

The notice also requires citizenship checks for people working at polling places or operating election systems, including temporary workers and vendors.

“Submit a transition plan: Submit a plan for transitioning from electronic voting systems that utilize bar codes or QR codes to count votes to equipment that accepts hand-marked paper ballots,” FEMA wrote. “The plan, for all jurisdictions currently using such systems, must include a timeline and, if necessary, a funding request to eliminate ballot marking devices and utilize hand-marked paper ballots.”

The SAVE requirement is especially alarming because federal courts have already dealt major blows to Trump’s attempt to use the database as a mass voter citizenship checker.

Last month, a federal judge blocked the Department of Homeland Security from using SAVE to purge voters, finding that the administration had “knowingly trampled on the privacy rights of American citizens in a manner that threatens the sacred right to vote.” 

In a separate ruling, another federal judge blocked major parts of Trump’s anti-voting executive order and wrote that “The Constitution does not grant the President any specific powers over elections.”

Those rulings have not stopped the administration from looking for new pressure points. Now, it is trying to use terrorism-prevention money to push states toward the same election policies courts have repeatedly viewed with deep skepticism.

The stakes are immediate. States rely on this funding to prepare for real threats, including cyberattacks and emergency response failures. 

FEMA presents the conditions as election security. But the document shows the Trump administration is threatening to withhold terrorism-prevention funds unless states bend to its anti-voting agenda before the midterms.