Local Governments Sue DHS Over Rule Withholding $200M in FEMA Funds for Election Mandates
Four major cities and counties have filed a federal lawsuit against the Department of Homeland Security, challenging new requirements that tie anti-terrorism grants to sweeping changes in local election procedures.
By Hailey Scott
- Local Governments & Civil Rights Groups
- Argues that DHS is unlawfully coercing municipalities by holding critical anti-terrorism funding hostage to force changes in election administration.
- Federal Administration
- Maintains that the grant conditions are common-sense measures necessary to ensure the integrity of American elections and protect against noncitizen voting.
Why this matters
The legal battle pits local election control against federal oversight, with hundreds of millions in critical emergency preparedness funding hanging in the balance. If the rule stands, local governments face a stark choice between overhauling their voting systems at immense cost or losing federal grants that equip first responders and protect infrastructure.
Key points
- Four major local governments sued DHS and FEMA over a rule withholding 20% of Homeland Security Grant Program funds.
- The withheld funds, totaling over $200 million nationwide, are tied to new election security mandates.
- Jurisdictions must switch to hand-marked paper ballots and use the federal SAVE system to verify voter citizenship.
- Plaintiffs argue DHS lacks the congressional authority to condition public safety grants on election administration.
- DHS defends the requirements as necessary measures to preserve election integrity.
Four major local governments filed a federal lawsuit on Monday against the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) and the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA), seeking to block a new rule that threatens to withhold hundreds of millions of dollars in emergency preparedness grants over local election procedures.[1][2]
The coalition—comprising Harris and El Paso counties in Texas, the city of Columbus, Ohio, and the Metropolitan Government of Nashville and Davidson County in Tennessee—filed the complaint in the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia.[2][3]
At the center of the dispute are new eligibility requirements for the fiscal year 2026 Homeland Security Grant Program (HSGP), a $1 billion initiative established after the September 11 attacks to help state and local governments respond to terrorism, cyber threats, and natural disasters.[1][4]
In June, FEMA announced it would withhold 20 percent of a jurisdiction's HSGP award—totaling more than $200 million nationwide—unless recipients comply with five new "election security" mandates.[1][2]
The conditions require local election officials to transition from electronic voting machines to hand-marked paper ballots, conduct manual audits of at least 5 percent of ballots, and run their voter registration rolls through DHS's Systematic Alien Verification for Entitlements (SAVE) system to verify citizenship.[2][4]
The plaintiffs argue that implementing these changes would cost millions of dollars, force them to abandon existing secure voting infrastructure, and potentially push them into violating state election laws. In Harris County, for example, officials noted that a switch to paper ballots could cause the county to run afoul of state laws requiring regular ballots to be counted within 24 hours of polls closing.[2][4]
Furthermore, the lawsuit contends that DHS and FEMA are acting outside their congressional authority. "Congress authorized FEMA to help jurisdictions protect critical infrastructure from terrorist and cyberattacks," the complaint reads. "It did not authorize FEMA to decide who may vote, how ballots must be counted, or how states maintain their voter rolls."[4]
Furthermore, the lawsuit contends that DHS and FEMA are acting outside their congressional authority.
The local governments assert that the executive branch is violating the Administrative Procedure Act and the Constitution's Spending Clause by hijacking public safety funds to enforce an unrelated political agenda.[1][4]
DHS officials have defended the new requirements as necessary safeguards. Homeland Security Secretary Markwayne Mullin previously stated that the rules will "preserve election integrity and ensure that Americans can trust the results."[3]
A FEMA spokesperson characterized the lawsuit as anticipated "partisan pushback" against "common-sense measures designed to protect election security and safeguard the integrity of American democracy."[2][3]
The plaintiffs counter that the SAVE database, originally designed to verify benefits eligibility, has a history of misidentifying eligible naturalized citizens as noncitizens, raising concerns about wrongful voter purges.[2][4]
The withholding of funds, local officials warn, carries immediate public safety risks. The grants finance specialized training, emergency communication systems, and equipment for first responders. In Harris County alone, the funds support regional emergency interoperability systems serving nearly 5 million residents.[1][2]
This municipal lawsuit opens a second legal front against the DHS policy. In July, a coalition of more than two dozen states, led by attorneys general including Washington's Nick Brown, filed a similar federal lawsuit challenging the election conditions alongside separate immigration enforcement mandates attached to the grants.[2][5]
The municipal plaintiffs, represented by civil rights groups including the Public Rights Project and the Brennan Center for Justice, noted they filed their own suit because they are located in states that did not join the broader state-level litigation and might not be protected by its outcome.[1][4]
Viewpoints in depth
Local Governments' View
Argues that DHS is unlawfully coercing municipalities by holding critical anti-terrorism funding hostage to force changes in election administration.
Municipal leaders and civil rights advocates argue that the executive branch is overstepping its constitutional authority by attempting to regulate local elections through the power of the purse. They contend that Congress established FEMA grants strictly based on risk assessments and emergency response capabilities, not electoral procedures. By threatening to withhold funds, they argue, DHS is jeopardizing the safety of millions of residents who rely on the grants for disaster response, cyber defense, and anti-terrorism preparedness. Furthermore, they highlight the logistical and financial burdens of the mandates, noting that the SAVE system is prone to errors and that a forced transition to paper ballots could conflict with existing state laws.
Federal Administration's View
Maintains that the grant conditions are common-sense measures necessary to ensure the integrity of American elections and protect against noncitizen voting.
The Department of Homeland Security and its supporters frame the new grant conditions as essential safeguards for American democracy. They argue that concerns over voting processes, data security, and registration practices necessitate federal action to ensure public trust in election results. From this perspective, requiring jurisdictions to verify citizenship through the SAVE system and transition to auditable paper ballots are basic security measures that should be standard practice. Administration officials have dismissed the lawsuits as anticipated partisan resistance, maintaining that recipients of federal homeland security funding should be held accountable for implementing robust election integrity protocols.
Sources
Source coverage
6 outlets
2 viewpoints surfaced
- [1]Smart Cities DiveLocal Governments & Civil Rights Groups
Four local governments sued the U.S. Department of Homeland Security over new requirements that would withhold $200 million in funding unless they verify voter citizenship and switch to paper ballots.
Read on Smart Cities Dive → - [2]The Texas TribuneLocal Governments & Civil Rights Groups
Texas counties sue feds for trying to tie election security policies to anti-terrorism funding
Read on The Texas Tribune → - [3]The Daily SignalFederal Administration
Blue Cities, Counties in Red States Sue Trump Administration Over Election Grant Conditions
Read on The Daily Signal → - [4]Public Rights ProjectLocal Governments & Civil Rights Groups
Nashville v. DHS
Read on Public Rights Project → - [5]Washington State Office of the Attorney GeneralLocal Governments & Civil Rights Groups
AG Brown challenges unlawful conditions on federal counterterrorism funding
Read on Washington State Office of the Attorney General → - [6]San Antonio Express-NewsLocal Governments & Civil Rights Groups
Harris and El Paso counties joined the city of Columbus, Ohio, Nashville and Davidson County suing the federal government.
Read on San Antonio Express-News →
Comments
Every angle. Every day.
Get news politics stories with full source coverage and perspective breakdowns delivered to your inbox.