Twelve states are suing the Trump administration over the inclusion of terms in Emergency Management Performance Grants and the Homeland Security Grant Program that would require recipients to provide population data and shorten project completion times from three years to one year. Both requirements seem designed to discourage states from even seeking funding that would help them prepare for emergencies.

The Emergency Management Performance Grant program is managed by the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA). This funding provides resources to state, local, tribal, and territorial emergency management agencies to help implement the National Preparedness System. The system consists of six parts: identifying risks, estimating a community’s capability to respond to such risks, building or sustaining those capabilities, community-wide coordination of work, gap identification through exercises and simulations, and then reviewing what works and what doesn’t.

The Homeland Security Grant Program, also administered by FEMA, provides risk-based grants to fund projects in state, local, tribal, and territorial areas. With the “homeland security” designation, these projects focus primarily on terrorism and other threats, with funding going toward preventing, protecting against, mitigating, responding to, and recovering from these events. This funding is also tied to the National Preparedness System goals.

Examples of projects these grants have funded include disaster cost recovery training for Chino, CA, which familiarized emergency management staff with the intricacies of FEMA’s Public Assistance program, easing the burden of financial management when emergencies hit. Another example is funding for cybersecurity risk assessments, training, and planning for Pennsylvania state government offices.

But in a complaint filed in US District Court on November 4, the 12 states called for an injunction on what they deemed “unlawful terms” included in grant awards. The first places a hold on Emergency Management Performance Grant funding until the recipient provides FEMA with “a certification of the recipient state’s population as of September 30, 2025.” FEMA is also requiring “the methodology [recipients] used to determine its population and certify that its reported population does not include individuals that have been removed from the State pursuant to the immigration laws of the United States.”

The states argue that they rely on the US Census Bureau’s data and estimates. They also believe the Department of Homeland Security (DHS), which oversees FEMA, has the most up-to-date counts, as it handles immigration enforcement and removals. By placing this responsibility on recipients, a cost barrier is created for states or localities that lack the resources to conduct data collection and analysis, especially since existing US Code requires federal agencies to use Census data to allocate funding. The addition is also unusual because FEMA’s own stakeholder reports on funding issues, particularly regarding mitigation grants, reveal that the application process requires substantial resources, which disproportionately place many small, rural, and underserved communities at a disadvantage. This element of grant applications is a problem the agency has been trying to address, and the latest change only exacerbates the situation.

The second term at issue is the “Performance Period Change,” which requires grant recipients for both the Emergency Management Performance Grant and the Homeland Security Grant Program to complete all activities within one year to be eligible for reimbursement. The previous timeline was three years. Attorneys for the states note, “At best, it imposes significant obstacles upon recipients’ ability to utilize the funds for emergency management and security activities that fall within the scope of the grants; at worst, it makes the… funding largely unusable.”

That complaint highlights the overall issue with the administration’s approach to federal disaster mitigation funding. As we’ve seen with the lawsuit over DHS adding requirements around immigration policy to aid, it appears the objective is not to compel states to adopt Trump’s policies to secure funding. The goal seems to be imposing arbitrary requirements on federal aid, thereby discouraging states from accepting funding. After all, Trump is extremely open about eliminating FEMA and federal assistance. That option is not popular in Congress, even among many Republicans. The next best thing? Withhold funding by any means. The flaw in that strategy, however, is that it is illegal. That is the legislative branch’s role — an argument reiterated by the recent complaint. 

Ultimately, Trump’s strategy of clawing back federal assistance from communities across the US is a no-win situation. For communities, the loss is apparent. Holding up funding can lead to significant setbacks, hindering a community’s ability to provide essential services, stimulate the local economy, and generally recover from a crisis. And for Trump and Republicans, it should be apparent after last week’s election that the economy is the central issue for voters. Instead, the administration is opting to dismantle the institutions Americans depend on, ignoring the warnings even from within its own party. To paraphrase a popular and crude phrase often found on social media, when you mess around, you find out.