A federal judge in Washington, D.C., on Monday blocked the Trump administration from withholding counterterrorism grants from state and local governments that refuse to adopt its election-administration demands, handing the White House its latest court defeat in its drive to reshape how states run elections ahead of the November 3 midterms.
The Trump counterterrorism funds ruling was issued by U.S. District Judge Amir Ali, who held that federal agencies lacked congressional authority to add the conditions to the grants and that the conditions did not relate to the underlying purpose of the funding.
"Congress did not authorize the grant program to be used for the sort of election administration reforms FEMA demands here — changes that, whether sound or not as a matter of policy, are not advanced to prepare for or respond to ‘acts of terrorism,’" Ali wrote in a 24-page opinion.
What the Trump counterterrorism funds ruling says
Earlier this year, the Department of Homeland Security announced that it would withhold 20 percent of funding under grant programs related to preparing for terrorist attacks and other threats until state or local governments adopted election administration measures favored by the administration, according to Reuters.
Among the requirements: verifying the citizenship of all registered voters and election workers. FEMA, the DHS subagency that administers the grants, expected to award 56 grants under a program worth more than $1.1 billion, covering crowded-place security, online threats, border security and election-related preparedness, the Associated Press reported.
Ali sided with the plaintiffs — counties and cities in Texas, Ohio and Tennessee — which argued that conditioning the funds on election changes exceeded the Federal Emergency Management Agency’s authority. He found that the administration failed to meet the legal threshold requiring grant conditions to relate to the grants’ purpose.
Who brought the challenge
The lawsuit was filed by local governments including Columbus, Ohio; Nashville and Davidson County, Tennessee; and El Paso, Harris, Dallas and Travis counties in Texas. Their case argued that the new conditions were an unlawful attempt to pressure state-run election systems through unrelated federal funding.
A separate, broader legal challenge filed by a coalition of roughly 25 state attorneys general and governors remains pending, meaning the administration’s policy could face another setback even if it appeals Monday’s decision.
The Trump counterterrorism funds ruling marks the latest in a string of defeats for the administration’s election-related efforts, which courts have largely rejected. The Associated Press reported that the administration’s push reflects claims about widespread voting fraud that have not been substantiated, and comes as Democrats seek to take control of one or both chambers of Congress in November to check the president’s power.
The administration’s defense
In announcing the plan to condition the funds, DHS Secretary Markwayne Mullin said the new requirements would protect election systems from foreign interference and cyberattacks, framing them as a safeguard for democratic infrastructure rather than an overreach.
Neither the Department of Homeland Security nor the Justice Department, which represents the federal government in court, immediately responded to requests for comment on the ruling, according to Reuters and the AP.
Why the Trump counterterrorism funds ruling matters ahead of the midterms
The decision is the latest defeat for President Donald Trump’s bid to increase the federal government’s authority over elections ahead of the November 3 midterms, when Republicans are fighting to retain their majorities in both houses of Congress.
Election administration has long been the province of state and local governments in the United States, and the administration’s attempts to attach federal strings to unrelated grants have met repeated resistance in court. Legal analysts have noted that even if the administration appeals, Monday’s reasoning — that Congress never authorized counterterrorism money to be used as leverage for election reforms — will be difficult to overcome.
The ruling arrived on a busy day for the White House’s state-level battles. Separately, Trump said he expects Canada to return to the negotiating table within "three or four weeks" as new U.S. import bans on Canadian goods take effect today — another pressure campaign aimed at forcing concessions from a longtime partner.
What’s next
The administration could appeal Ali’s decision, and the pending suit from the state attorneys general and governors may widen the fight. For now, FEMA cannot withhold the 20 percent share of the grants from jurisdictions that decline to meet the election conditions.
The outcome also sharpens the political battle lines heading into November. Democrats have cast the administration’s election demands as an attempt to tilt state-run systems in its favor; the White House insists it is protecting election integrity from foreign threats. Courts, so far, have sided against the administration’s methods.
Frequently asked questions
What did Judge Amir Ali rule in the Trump counterterrorism funds case?
Ali blocked the Trump administration from withholding 20 percent of federal counterterrorism grants from governments that don’t adopt its election-administration demands, ruling that the agencies lacked congressional authority and that the conditions weren’t related to the grants’ anti-terror purpose.
Which governments sued over the grant conditions?
The plaintiffs included Columbus, Ohio; Nashville and Davidson County, Tennessee; and El Paso, Harris, Dallas and Travis counties in Texas. A separate challenge from about 25 state attorneys general and governors is still pending.
How much money was at stake?
More than $1.1 billion across 56 expected FEMA grants covering programs for crowded-place security, online threats, border security and election preparedness. Twenty percent of each grant was to be withheld from non-compliant jurisdictions.
What were the election requirements?
The administration’s list included verifying the citizenship of all registered voters and election workers. DHS Secretary Markwayne Mullin said the conditions were meant to protect election systems from foreign interference and cyberattacks.
