California leads coalition challenging Trump's use of terrorism funds for political agenda

On Thursday, California sued the second Trump administration for the 79th time over new stipulations on critical grants states use to prepare and respond to acts of terrorism and other catastrophic events. The administration is now conditioning the disbursement of that money on the adoption of Trump’s strict immigration policies and election laws.

Alongside 24 Democratic-led states, California Attorney General Rob Bonta is co-leading yet another coalition attempting to block the latest Trump move they say is unlawful. The lawsuit was filed in the Northern District of Rhode Island and asks the court to find the new grant conditions unconstitutional.

“President Trump has little support for both his mass deportation agenda and his baseless claims of election fraud, so instead, he’s trying to bully state and local governments into adopting his preferred policies in exchange for much-needed funding,” California Attorney General Rob Bonta said in a statement. “Our communities deserve better than to have essential resources caught up in political games.”

The grants in question are part of the Homeland Security Grant Program (HSGP), established by Congress after Sept. 11, 2001. Across the country, states receive billions of dollars to fund first responders’ salaries and training, cyberattack defense testing, search and rescue after natural disasters and more.

California receives a total of $150 million in HSGP funding each year. The cities of Los Angeles, Long Beach and Glendale alone are set to receive nearly $34 million from the HSGP in 2026.

"Time after time, courts have told Trump’s corrupt administration that it can't coerce California into doing its bidding by threatening to withhold public safety funding," said Governor Gavin Newsom in a statement. "Yet, they’re coming back for more. This time they’re demanding states rewrite their own election laws to access money that pays for public safety readiness and response, and that Congress already approved.”

Last year, California and a coalition of 20 states sued to block a similar action, in which the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) and its sub-agency, the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA), conditioned the receipt of all federal funds they send to states on their cooperation with federal immigration enforcement.

The Court found this action unconstitutional and blocked it. DHS and FEMA then cut funding for jurisdictions they deemed “hostile” toward the president’s agenda, according to Thursday’s filing. A judge also found this action to be unlawful.

Bonta said the group “[expects] this latest unlawful attempt to fail as well.”

Regarding election policies, the administration is telling states to verify voter citizenship through what Bonta said is an “error-prone federal system,” transition to hand-marked paper ballots and adopt a new federal methodology to conduct post-election audits. If states do not comply, they could lose 20% of their total HSGP awards.

In addition, the administration is again attempting to tie FEMA money to cooperation with immigration enforcement, despite the previous court ruling blocking this.

The last point of contention in the lawsuit is the sweeping authority the administration seeks to give FEMA to cut off funding at any time for states that do not comply with vague “agency priorities,” or if the funds “no longer [advance] the national interest.”

The coalition argues DHS and FEMA are overstepping their legal authority and disregarding structures Congress has long had in place.

“Congress never gave DHS or FEMA authority to rewrite state election law, require cooperation with federal immigration agents or terminate federal funding streams at any time and for any reason,” the lawsuit reads.