26 states challenge DHS, FEMA grant conditions tied to elections

Twenty-six states are challenging conditions that the Department of Homeland Security and the Federal Emergency Management Agency attached to 2026 emergency, homeland-security and counterterrorism grants.

The lawsuit was filed July 23, 2026, in federal court in Rhode Island by 24 attorneys general and two governors. The states argue that DHS and FEMA are using congressionally approved public-safety funding to pressure states to change election practices and assist federal immigration enforcement.

The case is pending. The complaint contains the states’ allegations and legal arguments, not judicial findings, and no court has ordered a nationwide change to election systems.

What the states are challenging

The coalition says the challenged grant conditions would require states to move to paper-ballot systems, conduct a mandatory manual audit covering 5% of voting systems, reconcile voters and ballots under a DHS methodology that has not been disclosed, and use the Department of Homeland Security’s Systematic Alien Verification for Entitlements, or SAVE, system to verify the citizenship of every registered voter and election worker.

The states also say the conditions would require them to provide voter-registration information to DHS and devote state and local law-enforcement resources to helping enforce federal immigration law. The Illinois attorney general’s office says another provision would allow FEMA to terminate a grant program at any time and for any reason.

The states say failure to comply with the election-related conditions could lead DHS and FEMA to withhold at least 20% of a state’s Homeland Security Grant Program funding. That figure is part of the coalition’s description of the challenged conditions and remains subject to the court’s review.

Why the grants matter

The Homeland Security Grant Program supports terrorism prevention, cybersecurity, emergency preparedness and related public-safety work. Illinois says it receives more than $40 million in HSGP funding each year for state and municipal efforts to prevent, prepare for and respond to terrorism.

The Illinois attorney general’s office says the broader conditions affect billions of dollars, including more than $1 billion in HSGP funding nationwide. The available sources do not establish a complete aggregate dollar figure for every grant program covered by the lawsuit.

The dispute does not mean that all federal disaster aid is immediately at risk. It concerns identified 2026 grant programs and the consequences described in the states’ complaint and related filings.

For election offices, the challenged conditions could create pressure to revisit voting equipment, auditing procedures and voter-data practices while the case moves through court. For emergency managers, police departments and local grant recipients, delayed or withheld funding could complicate planning for cybersecurity, terrorism response and other preparedness work.

The legal fight

The states argue that DHS and FEMA violated the Administrative Procedure Act, which governs how federal agencies make and implement rules, and the Constitution’s Spending Clause. In plain terms, they contend that the agencies cannot attach coercive or unrelated conditions to money Congress appropriated for emergency and homeland-security purposes.

FEMA’s stated position is different. The agency has characterized the lawsuit as partisan opposition to measures intended to protect election security, critical infrastructure and the integrity of American democracy. That is the federal government’s justification, not a court finding about whether the conditions are lawful.

The coalition also points to similar 2025 litigation as context. Those earlier cases do not determine how the court will rule on the 2026 conditions.

What happens next

The next major steps are likely to include the federal response, any request by the states for a preliminary injunction and a ruling on whether the challenged conditions can remain in effect while the lawsuit proceeds. The court may also examine how the provisions apply to specific grant notices and programs.

Until then, the election and immigration provisions remain disputed conditions attached to federal funding. They are not enacted changes to state election law, and the case has not produced a final ruling on DHS and FEMA’s authority.

Sources

• Rhode Island Attorney General: Emergency Services Conditional Funding
• Illinois Attorney General: Federal counterterrorism-funding lawsuit
• Associated Press: States sue over DHS and FEMA funding conditions
• FEMA: Homeland Security Grant Program materials

Look for updates to this story

Related News

• White House Reconciliation Push Has House Blueprint but No Senate Deal
• Wisconsin Judge Finds Paper-Only Absentee Voting Denies Some Disabled Voters Equal Access
• FEMA Leadership Change Raises Capacity Questions Before Peak Hurricane Months
• White House pushes agencies toward mission-driven U.S. research