Federal Emergency Management Agency

Overview

The Federal Emergency Management Agency is best known for showing up after hurricanes, floods, and wildfires — but standard reference pages never mention that in September 2026 a federal court stripped the agency of a newly invented power: tying counterterrorism grant money to how states run their elections. On September 28, 2026, U.S. District Judge Amir Ali granted summary judgment against the agency, vacating a policy that would have withheld 20% of Homeland Security Grant Program funding from states and cities unless they adopted a slate of election-administration changes (Democracy Docket).

That ruling is the most distinctive recent episode in the life of an agency whose stated mission is simpler: “helping people before, during and after disasters” (FEMA.gov).

What FEMA is

FEMA employs more than 20,000 people nationwide, is headquartered in Washington, D.C., and operates 10 regional offices across the country; its workforce can swell to over 50,000 active members during major disasters (FEMA.gov). The agency was officially created in 1979 through an executive order by President Jimmy Carter and became part of the Department of Homeland Security on March 1, 2003 (FEMA.gov). Its history, the agency notes, can be traced as far back as 1803, and it describes its central capacity as coordinating within the federal government “to make sure America is equipped to prepare for and respond to disasters” (FEMA.gov).

Beyond disaster declarations and recovery aid, FEMA administers the Homeland Security Grant Program (HSGP), which Congress created “to help state and local governments prevent, protect against, and respond to terrorism” (Democracy Docket). It is that grant program — more than $1 billion in FY2026 funding, with FEMA expecting to award 56 grants — that became the vehicle for the election-conditions fight (Gulf News/AP).

The blocked grant conditions

Over the summer of 2026, FEMA’s antiterrorism grant announcement included a list of election-related requirements, saying that 20% of grants for states and urban areas would be withheld until recipients complied (Gulf News/AP). The conditions touched on nearly every aspect of election administration: voting equipment and the means by which voters cast ballots, post-election audits, ballot reconciliation, voter-roll citizenship checks, and election worker citizenship checks (Democracy Docket).

In detail, states were required to submit plans to eliminate ballot-marking devices in favor of hand-marked paper ballots, commit to a 5% manual post-election audit, reconcile voter turnout figures with ballots cast, and use the Department of Homeland Security’s Systematic Alien Verification for Entitlements (SAVE) database to check the citizenship status of every registered voter within 120 days of accepting the award (Rep. Krishnamoorthi). Places using electronic voting systems that count votes with barcodes or QR codes would have had to submit plans to switch to hand-marked paper ballots, and every jurisdiction would have had to show it audits results (Gulf News/AP).

The practical fallout was immediate. The Maryland Department of Emergency Management, for example, told counties that FEMA was withholding 20% of Maryland’s FY2026 HSGP award pending demonstrated compliance, and that it would issue initial allocations equal to 80% of anticipated funding until the hold was resolved (Conduit Street). Congressman Raja Krishnamoorthi wrote to Acting FEMA Administrator Robert J. Fenton arguing the policy was a coercive attempt to pressure states by threatening counterterrorism funding, calling it “directly drawn from Project 2025” and “coercive and unconstitutional,” and urging the administration to stop attempts to “undermine trust in our elections on baseless claims of widespread fraud” (Rep. Krishnamoorthi). He requested four categories of records no later than July 29, 2026: all records and legal analyses behind the decision to condition HSGP funding on the election-security requirements, an accounting of which states and urban areas had funds withheld and how much, any legal opinion FEMA relied on, and all records reflecting consideration of Project 2025’s Mandate for Leadership in drafting the funding notice (Rep. Krishnamoorthi).

The lawsuit and the ruling

The Metropolitan Government of Nashville and Davidson County, Tennessee; Harris County, Texas; El Paso County, Texas; and the City of Columbus, Ohio filed suit in federal court in August 2026 (complaint filed August 17), arguing the policy violated the Administrative Procedure Act and the Constitution and exceeded DHS’s authority (Democracy Docket). The plaintiffs assert that the new conditions “touch on nearly every aspect of the election process” and argue that DHS’s policy has “hijacked” the Homeland Security Grant Program and is holding “hostage” more than $200 million nationwide; their lawsuit asserts the policy violates the Administrative Procedure Act and the U.S. Constitution and exceeds DHS’s authority (Democracy Docket). In their lawsuit, the cities and counties said FEMA had no authority to impose those conditions, “not under its governing statute and not under the Constitution,” and that “never before has FEMA purported to regulate how states and counties run elections” (Gulf News/AP).

The pressure campaign was not limited to the election conditions. The Maryland Department of Emergency Management reported that for fiscal 2025, FEMA continued to hold projects funded through the National Priority Areas and Law Enforcement Terrorism Prevention Activities allocations, advising recipients not to obligate, spend, or seek reimbursement until FEMA lifted the holds (Conduit Street). Maryland counties receiving FY2025 funding were also told to complete a foreign national vetting certification by November 16, even if no foreign nationals were charged to the award (Conduit Street). The same guidance noted the FEMA Review Council’s recommendations to shift more responsibility to states and local governments, disaster declaration denials, and congressional efforts to reshape the agency’s future as the wider context for the uncertainty (Conduit Street).

Judge Amir Ali agreed. In a 24-page opinion, he held that federal agencies lacked the authority from Congress to add such conditions to the grants, and that the conditions did not meet legal thresholds requiring them to relate to the underlying grant purpose — Congress authorized FEMA to help jurisdictions protect critical infrastructure from terrorism and cyberattacks, not to decide who can vote, how ballots are counted, or how states maintain voter rolls (Gulf News/AP). The court vacated the five election-administration conditions, the 20% holdback, and the related August guidance that spelled out the requirements.

The ruling left a separate challenge — brought by a coalition of mostly Democratic-led states — still pending (Democracy Docket).

What this profile does not claim

This profile takes no position on whether hand-marked paper ballots, manual audits, or citizenship verification are good election policies; it reports only what FEMA did and what the court held. It does not assert whether the administration will appeal the September 28, 2026 ruling or the outcome of the separate states’ lawsuit, neither of which was confirmed as of publication. It does not rely on the FEMA Review Council’s full recommendations, which were not read in full. Figures on program scale and timelines come from wire and legal reporting as of late September 2026 and may shift with further court action or funding decisions.