On October 14, 2025, a heated legal and political battle over federal disaster funding and immigration enforcement reached a new crescendo when U.S. District Judge William Smith delivered a stinging rebuke to the Trump administration. In a sharply worded order, Smith accused the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) of trying to "bully" states into accepting controversial immigration enforcement conditions in exchange for critical Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) disaster grants. The ruling, which follows a series of escalating disputes between state governments and federal authorities, underscores the increasingly fractious relationship between the White House and state leaders as the nation grapples with disasters, mass layoffs, and a charged political climate.
According to AP News and Roll Call, Judge Smith—a George W. Bush appointee—had already issued a summary judgment in September, ruling that DHS could not impose requirements forcing states to cooperate with federal immigration enforcement as a condition for receiving FEMA funds. This decision came after a coalition of 20 Democratic state attorneys general argued that such conditions put at risk billions in federal funding earmarked for disaster preparedness and recovery. The states maintained that these requirements, which would have compelled them to devote scarce resources to federal civil immigration enforcement, not only overstepped constitutional boundaries but also violated the Administrative Procedure Act, the federal law governing agency rulemaking.
Despite Smith’s clear September ruling, DHS continued to attach the contested conditions to grant documents. The agency included language suggesting that the requirements would snap back into place if the court’s order was "stayed, vacated, or extinguished"—a move the judge called out as a thinly veiled attempt to sidestep his injunction. "Defendants’ new condition is not a good faith effort to comply with the order," Smith wrote in his October 14 order, as reported by Roll Call. "It is a ham-handed attempt to bully the states into making promises they have no obligation to make at the risk of losing critical disaster and other funding already appropriated by Congress."
The judge’s frustration was palpable. He ordered DHS to permanently stop enforcing the immigration-related conditions against the plaintiff states and to amend all relevant documents within seven days, stripping out any language about compliance with federal immigration law and any reference to the future status of his ruling. Smith insisted that the "fig leaf conditional nature of the requirement makes little difference," making it clear that, regardless of DHS’s confidence in a possible appeal, "the contested conditions are unlawful."
This courtroom drama is more than just a legal technicality—it has real-world consequences for states facing natural disasters. The coalition of attorneys general, as noted in their filings and covered by AP News, argued that for decades, states have relied on federal disaster funds to mitigate risks from earthquakes, floods, and wildfires. The Trump administration’s insistence on tying these funds to immigration enforcement, they said, risked "upending this emergency management system, holding critical emergency preparedness and response funding hostage unless States promise to devote their scarce criminal enforcement resources, and other state agency resources, to the federal government’s own task of civil immigration enforcement beyond what state law allows."
The government, for its part, pushed back, claiming that the challenge was moot for many grant programs since it had already decided to exclude 12 of the 18 programs from the disputed requirements. For the rest, federal lawyers characterized the dispute as a contract issue, best resolved in the Court of Federal Claims. They also argued that it was reasonable to warn states about potential conditions in case the ruling was overturned on appeal, writing, "Plaintiffs should not be allowed to prevent lawful enforcement at that point by anticipatorily preventing inclusion of the conditions within the grant terms."
But Judge Smith was unswayed. His order not only bars FEMA from enforcing the contested conditions now but also from including "any materially similar term requiring cooperation with federal immigration enforcement." The judge also required that all award documents be amended within a week to remove references to immigration law compliance. As of October 14, 2025, no notice of appeal had yet been filed by the government with the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 1st Circuit, according to Roll Call.
This legal standoff comes at a time when the Trump administration faces mounting criticism over its handling of other federal workforce and policy issues. In a separate but related development, more than 4,000 federal employees received reduction-in-force notices the week prior, as the administration pressed ahead with mass layoffs during a partial government shutdown. Government employee unions, as reported by Federal News Network, argued that such layoffs are normally prohibited during a shutdown and accused the administration of unlawfully exempting these actions. The Supreme Court had previously allowed earlier rounds of layoffs to proceed during the summer of 2025.
Meanwhile, the broader federal landscape remains unsettled. Senators Gary Peters and Mike Rounds have introduced legislation to renew cybersecurity liability protections that lapsed on September 30, 2025, aiming to extend the Cybersecurity Information Sharing Act of 2015 for another decade. However, efforts to move the bill forward have been blocked in committee. Top House Democrats have also demanded that the Office of Management and Budget release funding for the Council of the Inspectors General on Integrity and Efficiency, calling the withholding of funds illegal and pressing for greater transparency in federal oversight.
Against this backdrop of legal wrangling and administrative upheaval, federal agencies are also grappling with leadership changes and operational disruptions. The Transportation Security Administration’s Chief Information Officer, Yemi Oshinnaiye, is leaving for the private sector, while the State Department’s senior procurement executive, Mike Derrios, is set to retire after more than three decades of service. The Defense Information Systems Agency has warned contractors not to continue work during the shutdown without explicit instructions, and the IRS has furloughed nearly half its workforce, with even exempt staff facing new restrictions on leave.
As the legal fight over disaster funding and immigration enforcement continues, the ruling from Judge Smith stands as a forceful assertion of judicial authority over executive branch overreach. For the 20 states that brought the challenge, the decision offers a reprieve from what they viewed as an unconstitutional and coercive federal mandate. Whether the administration will appeal, or how the standoff will affect future disaster response, remains to be seen. But for now, states can breathe a little easier—at least when it comes to their disaster funding.
