A coalition of more than two dozen U.S. cities and counties has launched a federal lawsuit against the Trump administration, alleging that recent executive orders threaten more than $350 million in Department of Homeland Security (DHS) grants. The lawsuit, filed in federal court in San Francisco, challenges what local governments say are unconstitutional and politically motivated conditions tied to disaster relief and homeland security funding.
Local Governments Push Back
The plaintiffs include some of the country’s largest and most influential municipalities, such as San Francisco, Los Angeles, San Diego, Oakland, and Tucson, along with counties like Santa Clara (California) and King County (Washington). Collectively, these jurisdictions represent nearly 30 million residents, underscoring the sweeping impact of the case.
At the heart of the dispute are new requirements issued through executive orders signed by President Donald Trump earlier this year. These orders mandate that states and municipalities certify their cooperation with federal immigration enforcement, roll back protections or benefits for undocumented immigrants, and comply with other federal priorities to remain eligible for DHS-administered funds.
The Stakes: $350 Million in Federal Support
The contested grants are critical for local governments. They include funding streams that support disaster preparedness, emergency response, terrorism prevention, cybersecurity upgrades, and staffing for first responders. Cities argue that without these funds, they would struggle to protect their residents during crises ranging from natural disasters to national security threats.
Officials emphasized that these grants are not discretionary extras but essential lifelines that maintain public safety and community resilience. For example, the funds have historically been used for preparing large-scale events such as Super Bowl LX and the 2026 FIFA World Cup, both of which pose significant security and logistical challenges for host cities.
Legal Arguments
The lawsuit contends that the Trump administration’s actions are unconstitutional on multiple grounds:
- Violation of Federalism Principles – By conditioning disaster relief on unrelated immigration enforcement measures, plaintiffs argue that the federal government is unlawfully coercing local governments and intruding on state and municipal autonomy.
- Unlawful Executive Authority – The cities claim that the president overstepped statutory authority by unilaterally altering the criteria for DHS and Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) grant distribution.
- Chilling Effect on Local Policies – Plaintiffs also warn that the threat of losing funds — combined with the risk of federal clawbacks and False Claims Act liability — could force local leaders to dismantle programs designed to serve immigrant communities or advance diversity and inclusion initiatives.
Federal Government’s Position
The Trump administration has defended the new requirements, portraying them as measures designed to ensure accountability and align local policies with national security priorities. Officials argue that taxpayer-funded grants should not support jurisdictions that “undermine federal law,” particularly in the realm of immigration enforcement.
Earlier this year, Deputy Attorney General Todd Blanche announced the creation of a Justice Department task force to monitor grant recipients and encourage whistleblower actions under the False Claims Act. The administration has criticized what it calls “divisive and wasteful programs,” including certain diversity, equity, and inclusion (DEI) initiatives that could be targeted under the new rules.
Rising Tensions Between States and Washington
This lawsuit is not an isolated challenge. Several Democratic-led states have already sued to block funding restrictions, with courts issuing preliminary injunctions against parts of the administration’s funding directives. The new case, however, expands the fight by directly involving cities and counties that depend heavily on DHS support for everyday safety operations.
San Francisco City Attorney David Chiu, speaking on behalf of the coalition, said the lawsuit is about ensuring communities are not forced to choose between public safety and political compliance. “These grants are meant to prepare us for earthquakes, wildfires, and terrorist threats,” he said. “The federal government should not weaponize them to advance unrelated political agendas.”
Potential Impacts
If the Trump administration prevails, cities across the United States could face severe funding shortfalls in the coming year. Emergency responders might be forced to cut programs, delay equipment upgrades, or reduce staffing. For major metropolitan areas, that could weaken defenses against both man-made and natural disasters.
Conversely, if the plaintiffs succeed, the ruling could significantly limit the federal government’s ability to impose sweeping ideological conditions on future grants, reinforcing constitutional checks on executive power.
What’s Next?
The lawsuit seeks both injunctive relief — to immediately block enforcement of the new grant conditions — and declaratory judgment that the executive orders are unlawful. Legal experts expect the case to move quickly, given the billions of dollars in nationwide DHS funding cycles that begin early next year.
With more lawsuits pending and the courts increasingly asked to referee disputes between the White House and local governments, the battle over DHS funding could set important precedents for federalism, separation of powers, and the limits of executive authority.
JDJournal’s Take
The standoff between U.S. cities and the Trump administration highlights the deep legal and political divisions surrounding federal funding authority. At stake is not only $350 million in DHS grants but also the balance of power between Washington and municipalities in shaping local policies. As the case progresses, it may become a defining moment in how much leverage the federal government can exert over states and cities through the purse strings of federal grants.
Looking for your next opportunity in the legal field? Visit LawCrossing — the nation’s leading legal job board. With thousands of positions updated daily, LawCrossing helps attorneys, law students, and legal professionals connect with top employers across the country. Don’t miss your chance to advance your career — explore the latest openings today!
