The Department of Homeland Security (DHS) continues to attach conditions to federal disaster assistance grants that require recipients to comply with federal immigration law, hampering the ability of states and localities to prepare for disasters.

In January, Trump issued Executive Order 14159 calling for DHS to “undertake any lawful actions to ensure that so-called ‘sanctuary’ jurisdictions, which seek to interfere with the lawful exercise of Federal law enforcement operations, do not receive access to Federal funds.” DHS Secretary Kristi Noem issued a memorandum in February, directing sub-agencies such as the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) to scrutinize all federal financial assistance awards. The purpose was to identify funds allocated to sanctuary jurisdictions and to report on compliance within 30 days. By March, FEMA had added language to its grants requiring state and local recipients to confirm they’d help enforce federal immigration law or risk losing all federal funds administered by DHS.

The language contains six specific criteria.

1. Grant recipients must share information with DHS on the citizenship or immigration status, lawful or unlawful, of individuals.

2. Recipients cannot encourage or induce noncitizens to enter the country illegally.

3. Recipients must “honor requests for cooperation, such as participation in joint operations, sharing of information, or requests for short-term detention” of immigrants.

4. Recipients must provide federal immigration agents “access to detainees” in correctional facilities.

5. Recipients must not “leak or otherwise publicize the existence of” any federal immigration enforcement operations.

6. Both grant recipients and subgrant recipients, including aid organizations, are required to follow the criteria.

Finally, recipients are required to certify that none of the programs operated using federal funding can benefit illegal immigrants.

In May, 20 states and the District of Columbia, which have collectively received more than $23 billion in disaster aid since 2017, filed a lawsuit alleging DHS had no authority to withhold congressionally appropriated funds. The plaintiffs also claimed the action violated the Administrative Procedure Act, which dictates federal agencies’ regulatory processes. By September, US District Court Judge William Smith ruled that the conditions FEMA imposed on funding were “arbitrary and capricious.” He further stated that DHS failed to provide genuine, fact-based justifications for implementing broad immigration conditions across all grants. Judge Smith also pointed out that DHS didn’t follow internal advice, overlooked how states would be affected, ignored public safety, and failed to consider alternative approaches, such as pausing targeted grants.

Despite Smith’s injunction, states are arguing that the language has not been removed from the grants. DHS is claiming that the language remains as a trigger clause in the event of the injunction being “stayed, vacated, or extinguished.” Meanwhile, the general hurdles the Trump administration has placed on aid are having real-life consequences for communities across the US facing disaster. These actions, which include the elimination of programs designed to fund mitigation projects, are leaving states and localities less prepared for when disaster inevitably strikes.

The Trump administration’s persistent effort to add immigration strings to FEMA funding feels like a “poison pill” move, especially since Trump has openly discussed shifting responsibility for disaster aid to the states. It’s as if they’re actively discouraging states from accepting the funds. The problem with this approach is that it disregards the separation of powers; funds allocated by democratically elected representatives should be distributed to their constituents without additional, arbitrary, and politically motivated conditions. DHS’s efforts undermine national disaster preparedness and response efforts, leaving vulnerable populations at greater risk. For now, only the judiciary branch is standing up for the American people. It’s about time Congress started doing that as well. One simple step would be to streamline the Stafford Act to remove vagueness that allows presidents to decline disaster aid on a whim. Congress also must assert its authority over government spending by censuring the president, challenging the executive branch’s overreach.

Unfortunately, we currently have a legislative branch that won’t do anything without Trump’s approval, with senior administration advisers allegedly joking they control Congress with an “iron fist.” And that’s when the government is operating. Until we have more than just one branch adhering to the principle of separation of powers, communities across the US affected by disasters will feel the brunt of DHS’ arbitrary decisions.

The post Trump Keeps Trying to Attach Conditions to FEMA Funding Despite Court Orders appeared first on CounterPunch.org.

This post was originally published on CounterPunch.org.