In New Filing, Attorney General Bonta Asks Court to Reject Impossible New Condition for Homeland Security Funding

California relies on homeland security funding to prevent, prepare for, protect against, and respond to acts of terrorism and other emergencies  

OAKLAND — California Attorney General Rob Bonta joined a multistate coalition in filing an amended complaint seeking to block the U.S. Department of Homeland Security’s (DHS) latest attempt to withhold homeland security funding by imposing an unreasonable new condition for states to receive Emergency Management Performance Grant funds. On September 29, the coalition filed a lawsuit against the Trump Administration after they received grants that were significantly lower than anticipated — without justification and seemingly to punish the states for their sovereign decision to use their law enforcement resources to protect public safety rather than assist in federal immigration enforcement. The next day, the coalition secured a temporary court order halting the illegal diversion of this funding toward states with policies that the President prefers. In a new filing, Attorney General Bonta and the coalition are amending that lawsuit to include DHS’s attempt to impose an illegal new condition requiring states to certify to their current populations — instead of relying on census data—making an impossible ask for data the states do not have in order to receive critical emergency management funding.

“The Trump Administration continues to throw things at the wall to see what sticks; the answer is: none of it. If the President wants to stop losing in court, he should stop breaking the law, not wasting our time with yet another  ridiculous effort to withhold homeland security funding by imposing an impossible — and obviously illegal — new condition,” said Attorney General Bonta “DHS wants us to certify to population information that only DHS has, on a timeline that lacks basic commonsense. This is part and parcel for an Administration that is more show than substance, and that has openly declared that it does not want to give a dollar of federal funding to states with policies it disagrees with, regardless of what is required by the Constitution and the law. I urge the court to require FEMA to distribute homeland-security funding without this illegal new condition.” 

On January 20, 2025, his first day in office, President Trump directed DHS to “ensure that so-called ‘sanctuary’ jurisdictions do not receive access to Federal funds.” The President deemed certain states and jurisdictions in “lawless insurrection,” despite the fact that courts have upheld laws like California’s SB 54 as constitutional and consistent with federal immigration law and firmly rebuked the Trump Administration’s attempts to condition federal funds on assistance with immigration enforcement. Just last month, the U.S. District Court for the District of Rhode Island issued a permanent injunction in California’s lawsuit blocking the Trump Administration’s effort to unlawfully impose immigration enforcement requirements on billions of dollars in annual DHS grants. 

Soon after, on Saturday, September 27, FEMA issued award notifications for its single largest grant program — the Homeland Security Grant Program, which totals approximately $1 billion in funds annually. Consistent with federal law, FEMA had previously issued notices of funding opportunity preliminarily allocating the funding among state recipients based on each jurisdiction’s “relative threat, vulnerability, and consequences from acts of terrorism.” According to that notice, California expected to receive approximately $165 million in grant funding. However, when California received the grant notification, the award was only $110 million, reflecting a 33% reduction. Some states saw even sharper cuts: Illinois received a 69% reduction in funding, and New York received a 79% reduction. At the same time, many other states saw increases to their allocation upwards of 100%.  

A defining factor in this reallocation appears to be whether a state was a so-called “sanctuary” jurisdiction or not. In short, the current Administration appears to be taking money from its perceived “enemies” and reallocating it to its “friends.”  DHS also required states for the first time, to certify to their own populations — rather than DHS simply using census data to make that determination — and to identify a methodology to exclude “individuals that have been removed from the State pursuant to the immigration laws of the United States.” The Trump Administration is well aware that these real-time population figures are impossible to provide, and are made doubly impossible by the demand to incorporate information about deportations that DHS alone holds.

Attorney General Bonta and a coalition quickly challenged and secured a temporary restraining order blocking the illegal diversion of this funding to states with policies that the Trump Administration agrees with. In an amended complaint filed today, the coalition argue that DHS’s actions violate the Administrative Procedure Act and are ultra vires — and as such should be declared unlawful and set aside. The coalition asks the court to amend the awards to remove the illegal population certification condition and provide the coalition states with the full funding to protect their residents they are entitled to under the law. 

Attorney General Bonta joins the attorneys general of Illinois, New Jersey, Rhode Island, Connecticut, Delaware, the District of Columbia, Massachusetts, Minnesota, New York, Vermont, and Washington, as well as the Governor of Pennsylvania.

A copy of the amended complaint can be found here.