The Department of Homeland Security has been hauled into federal court this week after threatening to withhold $1 billion in anti-terrorism grant funding — money state and local governments rely on for security and emergency-preparedness programs — from several states unless they change their election rules.

In Nashville v. DHS, a federal lawsuit filed Monday by the Brennan Center and co-counsel on behalf of cities and counties challenging DHS's demand, the plaintiffs signaled that the Trump administration's coercive move would be contested in court. The agency had pressed for "adopting a series of burdensome changes to their election procedures" for the Metropolitan Government of Nashville and Davidson County, Tennessee; Harris County, Texas; the City of Columbus, Ohio; and El Paso County, Texas — local governments that both administer elections and depend on the federal security grants at issue.

"Over the last two years, courts have largely blocked the administration's repeated attempts to take control of elections because states and Congress — not the executive branch — have the power to make election rules," the Brennan Center said in its announcement of the case. "Now, DHS is holding public safety hostage in order to coerce states into adopting some of the very policies that the administration has already tried and failed to impose."

DHS has threatened to cut 20 percent of the funding unless these jurisdictions accept a wish list of election overhauls, according to the Brennan Center's case page. The demands include abandoning modern voting systems in favor of paper ballots and running every voter through a citizenship-checking system that a federal judge has already called unreliable. The conditions mirror measures President Trump pursued in a March 2025 election executive order, which pushed paper ballots and documentary proof of citizenship and has itself drawn separate court challenges.

"Each of these conditions creates impracticable burdens and timelines that will interfere with election administration and impede voter access," the Brennan Center stated.

The lawsuit alleges that the Trump administration has attempted to insert executive control over how America votes, and that President Donald Trump "has no authority to set the terms of federal spending or create election rules."

"Congress holds the exclusive power of the purse, and the Constitution balances election authority between Congress and the states," the Brennan Center said.

The plaintiffs also argue that, because the conditions are ambiguous and unrelated to addressing terrorism threats, the election conditions violate federalism and the Constitution's Spending Clause. That claim draws on established Supreme Court precedent, including South Dakota v. Dole (1987), which requires conditions on federal funds to be clearly stated and related to the purpose of the spending program. The lawsuit further claims that the conditions violate the federal Administrative Procedure Act, which governs how federal agencies must operate. The core question now before the courts is whether an executive agency may leverage congressionally appropriated security grants to shape state election policy.