Court halts Trump bid to tie counterterrorism funding to state election reforms: Officials say

Depositphotos
A judge just made a big call
Hey there, ever wonder how election rules and safety money got tangled together? A federal judge just issued a major decision regarding the Federal Emergency Management Agency and its grant programs. The court blocked the Trump administration from withholding counterterrorism funds from states. This ruling affects a plan tied to the Federal Emergency Management Agency, or FEMA, and its Homeland Security Grant Program. samael1986/Deositphotos
What was the plan anyway? The Trump administration required recipients to meet five election-related conditions to gain full access to certain Homeland Security Grant Program funding. One condition required the use of the SAVE system to verify the citizenship of people in state voter-registration databases. FEMA planned to withhold 20% of a recipient’s Homeland Security Grant Program award until compliance with the election-security requirements was verified. The policy put a significant share of the federal funding at stake. thenews2.com/Depositphotos
Meet the judge who said no
Judge Amir Ali made the call on this case. He was appointed by former President Biden and serves in Washington, D.C. Ali wrote that the Federal Emergency Management Agency doesn’t have the power to use grants this way. He said Congress never gave the agency that kind of authority over elections. [email protected]/Depositphotos
The money at stake
The grants totaled about $1.1 billion. They help states and cities prepare for terrorist attacks and other threats. That’s a huge amount of funding for local safety programs. These programs started after 9/11 to keep communities safe. Election security wasn’t part of their original purpose at all. The money was meant for things like security equipment and training. JHVEPhoto/Depositphotos
Two programs under the spotlight
The funding at issue includes the Urban Area Security Initiative and the State Homeland Security Program. UASI supports preparedness and security capabilities in designated high-threat, high-density urban areas, while SHSP supports state and local homeland-security strategies. Both programs can fund terrorism-prevention, cybersecurity, equipment, training, and other preparedness activities. Border security funding is primarily administered through Operation Stonegarden, a separate component of the Homeland Security Grant Program. f11photo/Depositphotos
Who pushed back? Six local governments in Texas, Ohio, and Tennessee challenged the election-related grant conditions. They argued that DHS and FEMA exceeded their legal authority by tying counterterrorism funding to changes in election administration.

The plaintiffs were Nashville and Davidson County, Tennessee; Harris County, El Paso County, Travis County and Dallas County, Texas; and the city of Columbus, Ohio. The court ultimately agreed that FEMA exceeded its statutory authority. Fun fact: The case was brought by 6 local-government plaintiffs from Texas, Ohio, and Tennessee. Depositphotos
What states had to do
Recipients had to use SAVE to verify individuals’ citizenship in state voter-registration databases. Jurisdictions using electronic voting systems that rely on bar codes or QR codes for counting also had to submit plans to transition to equipment that accepts hand-marked paper ballots. Another condition required proof of a post-election 5% manual audit in accordance with DHS guidelines. FEMA planned to withhold 20% of HSGP funding until the election-related requirements were verified as satisfied. Depositphotos
The citizenship database issue
The plan required using the SAVE database to check citizenship status. It’s normally used for programs like food stamps and benefits. The database wasn’t designed for election purposes. Critics say this database is often out of date and has faulty information. They worry it could cause problems for eligible voters. People who are legally registered might face unnecessary hurdles. MichaelVi/Depositphotos
What does the government say? Homeland Security Secretary Markwayne Mullin defended the plan. He said it would protect elections from foreign interference and cyberattacks. The administration viewed it as a security measure. The administration argued that election security is national security. They wanted to make sure that Americans could trust the election results. Officials said the requirements would strengthen the system. Depositphotos
Why did critics disagree? The local governments challenging the policy argued that DHS and FEMA were trying to use counterterrorism grants to force changes in election administration without congressional authority. They said the election conditions fell outside FEMA’s statutory powers. Judge Amir H. Ali agreed that FEMA exceeded the authority Congress gave it under the Homeland Security Grant Program statutes. The court therefore vacated the challenged election conditions and the related 20% funding holdback.

The local governments challenging the policy argued that DHS and FEMA were trying to use counterterrorism grants to force changes in election administration without congressional authority.

Depositphotos
Other election policies have faced court challenges
This was not the first election policy of the Trump administration to face litigation in 2026. Federal courts have blocked or limited several election-related measures, although some rulings have later been reviewed or stayed by higher courts. The Constitution gives states significant responsibility for administering elections, while Congress also has important authority over federal elections. The exact division of power depends on the type of election and the constitutional or statutory provision involved. T.Schneider/Depositphotos
What happens next? The September 28 ruling vacated the challenged election conditions, the related 20% funding holdback, and associated FEMA guidance in the local governments’ case. Further litigation or appellate proceedings could still affect how the dispute develops. A separate lawsuit filed by 25 states and the District of Columbia remains pending in federal court in Rhode Island. That case challenges election-related conditions as well as other requirements attached to FEMA and DHS funding. Curious how another policy fight could affect your wallet? Check out how the Trump tax proposal could reshape refunds in a $3 billion claim. Depositphotos
Why this matters to you
Election rules affect voters, no matter where they live. How states run elections can shape voting access and local election administration. This case shows how courts can review federal agency actions when plaintiffs argue an agency has exceeded its authority. It is also a reminder that checks and balances are part of how the U.S. system limits government power. Want to see how another court ruling is shaping policy? Check out how a U.S. court rejects Trump’s third-country deportation policy. Should counterterrorism money be tied to election changes? Share your thoughts in the comments. This slideshow was made with AI assistance and human editing. Read More From This Brand:

Warning that 200 million may be displaced prompts U.S. preparations

Court battle looms over Mamdani-backed rent freeze plan in New York City

5 Colombian citizens charged with staging fake U.S. immigration courts, wire fraud, and money laundering

The post Court halts Trump bid to tie counterterrorism funding to state election reforms appeared first on When In Your State.