WASHINGTON, June 23, 2026 —
The Trump administration is moving to strip states of up to 20% of their federal homeland security funding unless they adopt a sweeping set of election-related changes, according to internal documents and multiple sources familiar with the plan — a move that legal experts say will almost certainly land in federal court before it takes effect.
The guidelines, expected to go to states by the end of June, tie a portion of grants from the Department of Homeland Security — funds that historically pay for counterterrorism operations and natural disaster preparation — to mandatory election administration reforms. States that do not comply will lose a significant share of money from programs that exist precisely because of the September 11 attacks.
What States Would Be Required to Do
The new requirements are specific and costly. States must begin phasing out electronic voting systems and transition voters to hand-marked paper ballots. They must run their voter rolls through a federal citizenship verification database that critics have described as error-prone, flagging lawful voters for potential removal. States must also conduct manual election audits using methods established by the administration.
The financial stakes are substantial. DHS homeland security grants are expected to exceed $1 billion in the current fiscal year. States that refuse to comply would lose 20% of that money. In Georgia alone — where state lawmakers have separately passed a law mandating hand-marked paper ballots — officials estimated the cost of complying with equipment upgrades at $66 million. Nationwide, bringing all election infrastructure into alignment with these requirements has been estimated to cost as much as $2.7 billion.
| DHS Election Grant Requirement Overview | |
|---|---|
| Requirement | Key Detail |
| Phase out electronic voting systems | States must adopt hand-marked paper ballots |
| Voter roll verification | Must use federal citizenship database |
| Manual audit compliance | Must follow administration-set methodology |
| Penalty for noncompliance | 20% loss of total DHS homeland security grants |
| Total grant funding at stake | More than $1 billion, current fiscal year |
| Compliance cost estimate (Georgia only) | $66 million for equipment upgrades |
The Legal Argument Against It
This is not the first time the administration has attempted to use federal funding as a lever over state election practices. Courts have blocked previous attempts. Last year, officials tried to condition homeland security money on states submitting population data reflecting mass deportation operations. Multiple states sued. A judge halted the policy.
Legal experts speaking on background said the same constitutional argument will likely apply here. States hold primary authority over election administration under American federalism, and the Supreme Court has repeatedly restricted Congress — and by extension, the executive branch — from using spending conditions to commandeer state regulatory machinery. Twelve Democratic-led states are already suing over what they describe as politically motivated redistribution of federal security funds.
The timing adds a layer of pressure. The guidelines are expected to land in states this month, leaving election officials a compressed runway to respond with November 2026 midterms approaching — even as legal challenges that could invalidate the requirements entirely work their way through the courts.
The administration maintained that no changes are official until formally announced through authorized agency channels.
