Homeland Security Secretary Markwayne Mullin is defending a Trump administration decision to withhold 20 percent of federal counterterrorism grant funding from states that refuse to adopt a new slate of election security requirements. The policy, quietly announced by FEMA in June, ties more than a billion dollars in terrorism-prevention funding to measures including citizenship verification of voters and a shift away from electronic ballot-counting systems. Democratic-led states have blasted the move as an illegal overreach, setting up another likely legal battle over federal control of elections.
Story Highlights
- FEMA will withhold 20 percent of Homeland Security Grant Program funding, worth over $1 billion nationally, from noncompliant states
- States must use the federal SAVE database to verify voter citizenship and shift toward hand-marked paper ballots
- Democratic officials in states including New York and California have called the move a “shakedown” and are weighing legal options
What Happened
The Federal Emergency Management Agency released its fiscal year 2026 funding notice for the Homeland Security Grant Program on July 9, informing states and high-risk urban areas that they must comply with a new set of election security requirements to receive their full allocation. The program, which distributes more than 1 billion dollars annually to pay for cybersecurity, emergency planning, first-responder training and protections for public gathering spaces, has historically been focused on preventing terrorist attacks rather than election administration.
Under the new rules, states must submit plans to transition away from voting systems that use bar codes or QR codes toward hand-marked paper ballots, conduct manual audits of at least 5 percent of ballots cast in federal elections, reconcile the number of ballots cast with the number of voters, and verify the citizenship of poll workers and election vendors. Most notably, states must use the Systematic Alien Verification for Entitlements database, known as SAVE, to check the citizenship status of everyone on their voter registration rolls within 120 days of accepting the grant award. FEMA said it will withhold 20 percent of a recipient’s total award, spanning the State Homeland Security Program, the Urban Area Security Initiative and Operation Stonegarden, until states submit and the department verifies proof of compliance.
Homeland Security Secretary Markwayne Mullin defended the policy in a statement, saying, “Election security is national security and protecting the Nation’s critical infrastructure is a top priority. Under President Trump’s leadership, we are taking decisive action to protect election systems from threats like foreign interference, insider threats, and cyberattacks.” DHS officials framed the requirements as common-sense accountability measures for states receiving taxpayer-funded grants.
The move has drawn immediate pushback. A spokesperson for California Gov. Gavin Newsom called it “a shakedown, not ‘security,'” arguing that the administration is imposing illegal conditions on funding already appropriated by Congress. New York Gov. Kathy Hochul’s office noted the state is set to receive roughly 204 million dollars under the program and accused the administration of “putting New Yorkers’ lives at risk to forward their political agenda.” A spokesperson for Colorado’s election office similarly defended the state’s existing election security record, saying its systems already serve as “a model for the nation.”
Why It Matters
The policy represents the latest attempt by the Trump administration to use federal funding leverage to reshape how states run their elections, an area of policy the Constitution generally reserves to states and Congress. Legal experts note that federal courts have repeatedly blocked similar administration efforts this year, including a ruling last month barring DHS from using the SAVE database to purge voters from state rolls, and a separate decision striking down portions of Trump’s broader election executive order on the grounds that “the Constitution does not grant the president any specific powers over elections.”
For state and local governments, the financial stakes are significant. The withheld 20 percent applies to programs that fund cybersecurity protections, first-responder training, and physical security for crowded public venues such as stadiums and transit hubs, meaning the funding fight could have tangible public safety consequences well beyond the elections debate. Switching to hand-marked paper ballots alone could cost states hundreds of millions of dollars in new tabulation equipment.
The policy also fits a broader pattern critics have identified in how the administration allocates federal security and disaster funding. A Politico analysis cited in reporting on the grants found that 89 percent of disaster aid requests were approved for Republican-led states compared with just 23 percent for states with Democratic governors and two Democratic senators, fueling accusations that federal emergency funding decisions are being applied unevenly along partisan lines.
For voters, the underlying dispute touches on a deeper question about who controls the mechanics of American elections. Supporters argue the measures will bolster public confidence in results, while opponents contend they duplicate existing state safeguards and are designed primarily to advance a political narrative about voter fraud that has not been substantiated in independent reviews.
Economic and Global Context
The Homeland Security Grant Program’s roughly 1.064 billion dollar annual budget represents a significant funding stream for state and local emergency preparedness nationwide, and any disruption to that funding could affect public safety planning well beyond the current fiscal year. States facing the loss of 20 percent of their award must weigh whether to divert other budget resources to cover the gap or scale back planned security investments.
This is not the first time the administration has tied Homeland Security Grant Program funding to unrelated policy conditions. FEMA previously attempted to withhold the same grants from states that declined to cooperate with federal immigration enforcement, an effort a Trump-appointed federal judge blocked in December, and the administration separately tried and failed to withhold 36 million dollars in counterterrorism funds from New York’s transit system over its sanctuary city policies, with a judge calling that action “arbitrary, capricious, and a blatant violation of the law.”
Given that track record, most legal observers expect the new election security conditions to face swift court challenges from affected states, adding another item to a growing docket of litigation over the administration’s election-related policies. The outcome could shape how much practical control the federal government can exert over state election administration through funding conditions going forward.
Implications
In the immediate term, states have a July 24 deadline to apply for the Homeland Security Grant Program, forcing governors and state election officials to decide quickly whether to comply with the new requirements, forfeit a fifth of their funding, or pursue legal action. Litigation is widely expected, though none had been filed as of the most recent reporting.
For Democratic-led states, the funding fight is likely to become a rallying point heading into the 2026 midterms, with governors positioning themselves as defenders of state authority against what they describe as federal overreach. Republican-led states, by contrast, are more likely to comply readily, reinforcing a growing patchwork of election administration standards that differ significantly along partisan lines.
For Congress, the episode raises questions about oversight of how executive agencies attach policy conditions to funding that lawmakers have already appropriated, a dynamic that could prompt renewed legislative efforts to clarify the boundaries of that authority regardless of which party controls the White House in the future.
Source
Markwayne Mullin defends move to tie election security to counterterrorism funding
