August 12 2025

Santa Clara County v. Noem:
fact sheet

Toplines

The Trump administration is weaponizing federal emergency management grants to force local governments into advancing its political agenda.
More than $350 million in federal funding is at stake, impacting more than 30 million people represented by the plaintiff jurisdictions.
Congress already appropriated these funds to keep people safe — local governments are simply fighting to access the resources they were promised.
Federal grants rightly include nondiscrimination and compliance requirements — and we fully support critical protections like this. The problem is DHS and FEMA are placing unlawful conditions on these grants.
This case reflects a powerful, coordinated effort by cities and counties to defend local decision-making, protect their residents’ safety, and preserve constitutional limits on executive power.

Our case challenges Department of Homeland Security (DHS) and Federal Emergency Management Agency’s (FEMA) attempt to attach unlawful political conditions to emergency-management funds allocated by Congress.
In exchange for life-saving disaster and preparedness funds, the administration is demanding that cities and counties agree to harmful policies on immigration, diversity, and inclusion. That’s unconstitutional extortion.
These conditions would force local governments to make legal promises that conflict with state and local laws — making it harder to keep residents safe.
The lawsuit argues that this violates the Spending Clause, the separation of powers, and longstanding precedent limiting federal coercion of state and local governments.

The Constitution gives Congress, not the president, the power to decide how federal money is spent.
DHS and FEMA can’t use this funding as leverage to force local governments to adopt unrelated political policies.
Normal nondiscrimination and compliance requirements are critical features of federal grants — and we strongly support them.
The problem here is that DHS and FEMA are distorting those principles into conditions that are inconsistent with the law.
The administration is using compliance rules as a weapon — punishing cities that protect their residents by making them less safe from disasters and terrorism.
Cities and counties are standing up to protect their independence — and their ability to serve residents without unlawful political interference.
The administration is trying to hijack federal funds to impose a partisan agenda. We must stand up to protect resources for firefighters, disaster preparedness, and anti-terrorism.

At risk is more than $350 million in FEMA and DHS grants — funding that safeguards more than 30 million people across the plaintiff communities. These grants support:
- Emergency Management Performance Grants for disaster response staffing, planning, and training.
- Homeland Security Grant Programs for terrorism prevention and emergency readiness.
- Hazard Mitigation Grants for wildfire prevention, flood protection, and earthquake safety.
- Firefighter grants (AFG, SAFER, FP&S) for staffing, equipment, and safety training.
- Transit and Port Security Grants to protect public transit, ports, and other critical infrastructure.
- Urban Search & Rescue and Securing the Cities programs.
Without this funding, people face greater risk of harm from disasters, and local governments face massive gaps in their ability to protect residents.

Residents who rely on functioning emergency services, disaster response, and safe infrastructure.
First responders who depend on federal support for equipment, training, and staffing.
Cities and counties are working to keep their communities safe from natural disasters, terrorism, and other emergencies.
People who want the federal government to follow the law or who oppose the abuse of executive power.

September 30, 2025: The City and County of San Francisco and County of Santa Clara, along with a coalition of more than 2 dozen cities and counties, filed a lawsuit against the Trump administration in Santa Clara County [et al] v. Noem.
- Plaintiffs are asking the court to issue two things: first, a formal declaration that these grant conditions are unlawful, and second, an order (called an injunction) that blocks DHS and FEMA from imposing these conditions on any jurisdiction or punishing cities that don’t comply.
- This case builds on prior rulings (Illinois v. FEMA; San Francisco v. Trump; King County v. Turner) where courts have already struck down similar conditions or prevented coercion through unrelated federal funds.