Trump Admin Sued Over Cuts to Anti-Terrorism Grants to Sanctuary States

The president previously ordered that heads of DHS and DOJ should take ‘any lawful actions to ensure’ that such states ‘do not receive access to Federal funds.’

Homeland Security Secretary Kristi Noem joins ICE’s Fugitive Operations Team during an enforcement action in New York City, on Jan. 28, 2025. ICE via Getty Images

A coalition of 11 Democrat-led states and the District of Columbia filed a lawsuit on Sept. 29, accusing the Trump administration of unlawfully slashing more than $233 million in anti-terrorism and emergency preparedness grants from so-called sanctuary jurisdictions.

The lawsuit, filed in Rhode Island, follows a Sept. 24 federal court ruling that struck down the administration’s earlier attempt to condition Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) grants on cooperation with federal immigration enforcement. In that case, 20 states and the District of Columbia won summary judgment after U.S. District Judge William E. Smith found the immigration-related funding conditions “arbitrary and capricious” and unconstitutional.

The new complaint alleges that just three days after the court loss, the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) reallocated Homeland Security Grant Program funds destined for disfavored blue states while boosting awards to favored red states. For example, New York experienced a 79 percent decrease, while Texas registered a 31 percent increase.

“Although DHS has for decades administered federal grant programs in a fair and evenhanded manner, the current administration is taking money from its enemies,” the suing coalition wrote in its complaint. “Again, FEMA provided no explanation for the increases, except that each was ”[a]djusted per DHS directive.”

The states are challenging actions related to President Donald Trump’s Jan. 20 executive order and Homeland Security Secretary Kristi Noem’s Feb. 19 directive to all federal agencies, which barred sanctuary jurisdictions from receiving federal funds unless they certified cooperation with federal immigration enforcement.

In his directive, Trump ordered Noem and Attorney General Pam Bondi to take “any lawful actions to ensure that so-called ’sanctuary' jurisdictions, which seek to interfere with the lawful exercise of Federal law enforcement operations, do not receive access to Federal funds.”

The suing coalition also pointed to Noem’s Feb. 19 memo, which directed all agency components to stop funding sanctuary jurisdictions, declaring that if any government entity “chooses to thumb its nose at the Department of Homeland Security’s national security and public safety mission, it should not receive a single dollar” unless specifically appropriated by Congress.

The complaint argues that by reallocating funds after losing in court on Sept. 24, the agency has again acted unlawfully, disregarding statutory criteria that require the anti-terrorism and emergency preparedness grants to be distributed based on need and risk, rather than political considerations.

New York Attorney General Letitia James said in a statement that New York and the other Democrat-led states that are part of the suing coalition “won’t allow this administration to play political games with critical resources that keep our communities safe.”

Homeland Security has not commented on the latest lawsuit.

After the Sept. 24 ruling, however, Assistant Secretary Tricia McLaughlin told The Epoch Times that “[c]ities and states who break the law and prevent us from arresting criminal illegal aliens should not receive federal funding“ and that the agency “is working to end violations of federal immigration law and remove criminal illegal aliens from American communities.”

“Radical sanctuary politicians need to put the safety of the American people first—not criminal illegal aliens,“ she said. ”The Trump Administration is committed to restoring the rule of law. No lawsuit, not this one or any other, is going to stop us from doing that.”

The lawsuit is now before U.S. District Judge Mary S. McElroy in Providence, who issued a text order on Sept. 30 allowing out-of-state attorneys to appear without special admission—a move reflecting the case’s urgency, as the plaintiffs are seeking an emergency restraining order citing the Sept. 30 fiscal year deadline, when the grant funds could lapse.

Arjun Singh contributed to this report.