Vermont Sues to Undo the One-Year Hamstring on State Safety Spending

While Vermont did not see its funding cut, it was hit with a different restriction, as the administration reduced the time the state has to spend its grant money from three years down to one.

The State of Vermont has joined an emergency lawsuit against the Trump Administration, a move the Attorney General’s Office says is necessary to protect critical funding used for counter-terrorism and disaster preparedness.

The core of the dispute revolves around sudden, deep cuts to federal grants for some states and a drastically shortened spending deadline for others, including Vermont. The lawsuit alleges these actions are not based on security needs, but are politically motivated, designed to punish states that do not cooperate with the administration’s federal immigration enforcement agenda. For Vermonters, the issue raises questions about the separation of powers, the reliability of federal funding for essential services, and the real-world impact of a political battle on local emergency readiness.

The Heart of the Dispute: A $1 Billion Grant Program

At the center of the conflict is the Homeland Security Grant Program (HSGP), a fund of approximately $1 billion authorized by Congress after the September 11th attacks. According to the Attorney General’s press release, this money is the lifeblood for state and local efforts to prevent, prepare for, and respond to acts of terrorism and other major disasters. These are not abstract funds; they pay for first responder salaries, specialized training for police and fire departments, and the mutual aid networks that allow different towns and states to assist one another during a crisis. The funds also support cybersecurity initiatives, such as testing computer networks to find vulnerabilities before they can be exploited.

On Saturday, September 27, just four days before the federal fiscal year ended, the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) and the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) announced the grant awards. The 12 states involved in the lawsuit saw their collective funding slashed by $233 million, a 51% reduction from what they were told to expect. The Attorney General’s office highlights that some states faced staggering cuts; New York reportedly lost 79% of its funding, amounting to over $100 million, while Illinois saw a 69% reduction.

The lawsuit claims this reallocation is directly tied to the states’ refusal to use local law enforcement resources to enforce federal immigration laws. This action came just days after the same group of attorneys general won a court case securing a permanent injunction against the administration for attempting to place those exact conditions on federal funding.

How Vermont Is Directly Affected

While Vermont did not see its funding cut, it was hit with a different, but equally challenging, restriction. According to Attorney General Clark, the administration has reduced the period during which Vermont has to spend its grant money from three years down to just one.

This condensed timeline presents a significant practical problem. Large-scale projects funded by these grants, such as upgrading emergency communication systems across multiple counties or conducting multi-agency disaster drills, require long-term planning, competitive bidding for contracts, and careful, phased implementation. Forcing a three-year plan into a one-year window creates a high risk of rushed decisions, wasteful spending, and unfinished projects. It puts state agencies in a race against the clock, making it, in the words of the Attorney General’s office, “substantially more difficult” to use the funds effectively and for their intended purpose of keeping Vermonters safe.

The Legal Arguments: Power and Procedure

The coalition of attorneys general argues that the administration’s actions are unlawful on two main fronts.

First, they argue it violates the Constitution. The lawsuit asserts that the “power of the purse” lies with Congress, not the President. This means that Congress decides how taxpayer money is to be allocated and spent. The attorneys general contend that the executive branch cannot withhold or redirect funds appropriated by Congress as a way to force states to comply with a policy agenda that Congress did not approve as a condition of the funding. “Under the Constitution, it is Congress – not the President – who has the power of the purse,” Attorney General Clark stated in the release.

Second, the lawsuit claims the administration violated the federal Administrative Procedure Act (APA). This act governs how federal agencies can establish and change regulations. It generally requires a transparent process that includes notifying the public and allowing for comment before a major rule change is implemented. According to the lawsuit, the administration’s decision to alter the funding allocations and timelines was made “without any notice or explanation,” which the states argue is a clear violation of the APA’s requirement for a reasoned, predictable, and fair process.

The states are asking the court for a temporary restraining order to immediately block the new funding rules and restore both the original funding amounts for the affected states and the three-year spending window for all. This is the 28th lawsuit the Vermont Attorney General has filed against the administration, signaling a continuing pattern of legal clashes over federal authority and state sovereignty.