The Wisconsin Department of Justice (DOJ) has joined 19 other states, including the commonwealths of Massachusetts and Virginia, in a lawsuit pushing back against the Trump administration’s attempts to attach immigration enforcement requirements to federal grants supporting state and local public safety efforts.

“Threatening to cut funding that supports law enforcement if states don’t agree to unlawful conditions is an abuse of the Trump administration’s authority,” Attorney General Josh Kaul said in a statement. “This funding should be distributed to the states, not improperly used as a bargaining chip.”

The lawsuit states that the grant programs, which have been active for decades, “provide more than a billion dollars to States annually to address some of the most serious threats to the safety of their residents: from gang violence to drug trafficking to sexual assault to all kinds of violent crimes.” The funds, which are enacted by Congress, are used “to assist more than 8.5 million crime victims; pay more than 200,000 claims for losses suffered by crime victims; and fund ongoing criminal justice and public safety operations, such as drug task forces, crisis intervention programs, and youth recidivism reduction efforts, in all 50 states and over 1,000 local government units nationwide,” the lawsuit states.

Under President Donald Trump, states which depend on these funds have been advised to either cooperate with Trump’s immigration priorities or face losing access to those funds. Calling this a “brazen attempt to manipulate critical funding for law enforcement and crime victims to strong-arm States into supporting the Administration’s civil immigration policies,” the lawsuit asserts that the Trump administration is running afoul with governing principles of the United States: that a federal agency “has no power to act … unless and until Congress confers power upon it.” Since Congress has the power of the purse, it decides what criteria executive branch agencies — like the Justice Department — must use when awarding grants, the suit argues. 

The lawsuit also accuses the Trump administration of not considering how denying these grants would undermine public safety across the country. “Action by this Court is urgently needed,” the lawsuit states, asserting  that it is illegal for the administration to impose these conditions on the public safety grants. 

In a press release, the Wisconsin DOJ said Monday that last year the Trump administration declared that states wouldn’t be able to access Victims Crime Act funds unless they cooperated with the administration’s hardline deportation agenda, affecting $1.3 billion in grants.. A coalition of states sued and the administration reversed its action and released the money. 

This year, however, the immigration conditions have been applied funding for  juvenile justice and law enforcement, and amount to over $6 million in Wisconsin alone —  a loss of $3.2 million in grant assistance, $2.1 million for  a crisis intervention program, and  $800,000 for  juvenile justice and delinquency prevention, according to DOJ. 

Although 20 sheriff offices across Wisconsin partner with Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) through the 287(g) program, many communities have mixed relationships with the controversial federal agency. Some police departments may still cooperate with immigration enforcement even without an official 287(g) program. Others have policies prohibiting officers and jails from participating in immigration enforcement. 

Despite public pushback, immigration agents have conducted surges and arrests in neighborhoods, courthouses, and elsewhere since Trump returned to office. In Milwaukee County, where some of these enforcement efforts have played out, local elected officials have enacted  local ordinances and policies to curb the effect ICE operations have on public safety in the city. These, however, have invited further confrontation with the Trump administration. 

WASHINGTON — President Donald Trump said Friday the federal government will fund $180 million in grants for mining schools across the country as part of his administration’s goal of rebuilding the U.S. coal industry. 

The grants will include $100 million from the Department of Energy spread across the 14 accredited mining schools in the U.S., while the Department of Defense will dedicate just over $80 million for three major schools of mining and metallurgy: the Colorado School of Mines, the South Dakota School of Mines and Johns Hopkins University. 

The Johns Hopkins University grant will help to create a new “multi-material recycling innovation hub,” while the South Dakota School of Mines’ funding will go toward establishing a consortium of workforce development programs alongside the University of Kentucky and Missouri S&T University.

Trump framed the announcement as part of his ongoing effort to rebuild the U.S. coal industry and reopen mines, a central pillar of his energy policy. He has previously sought to shorten the regulation process for new mines and limit the impact of environmental regulations. 

Trump stressed the national importance of funding mining programs, given that other countries, such as China, graduate students at a far higher rate. Accredited mining programs at U.S. educational institutions graduate less than 170 mining engineers each year, he said, while China graduates more than 3,000 annually. 

“We’re not doing you favors,” Trump told a crowd, including miners and many of the schools’ representatives, at a ceremony at the State Department building in Washington. “We’re doing ourselves favors. We need your industry.”

Half of the U.S. mining workforce is set to retire within the next three years, he added. 

“That’s why my administration is making an unprecedented financial commitment to our nation’s mining schools,” Trump said. “It’s going to keep us nice and young and vibrant.”

In addition to increasing support for mining education, Trump announced more than $2 billion worth of new mining contracts and projects. 

Those investments include $150 million for Minnesota-based Niron Magnetics to develop rare-earth-free magnets that are domestically produced to support the defense industrial base and $1.4 billion for Sila Nanotechnologies, a California-based firm, to “expand production of silicon-carbon battery anodes and build out a lithium-ion battery cell manufacturing facility to strengthen the supply chains of satellite operations, unmanned aerial systems, and munitions,” according to a White House fact sheet.

Several of the speakers during the ceremony Friday, including Secretary of State Marco Rubio and Secretary of Commerce Howard Lutnick, highlighted the national security benefits of increasing U.S. mine production. 

“At the core of this is our industrial strength,” Rubio said. “But also our national sovereignty — that we never depend on other countries for things we need to prosper and to defend ourselves as a people.”

WASHINGTON — Democrats in Congress are pushing back against a proposed Trump administration rule introduced by the Office of Management and Budget that would substantially change the way federal grants are reviewed and distributed.

Over the past few weeks, several groups of lawmakers have written public comment letters to Office of Management and Budget Director Russ Vought expressing strong opposition to the new draft rule, which would give political appointees the power to decide what institutions receive grant funding, among other revisions. 

A summary of the rule cites the Biden administration as to why it is needed. “Federal awards were often used during those years to promote a ‘woke’ policy agenda that did not reflect the values of the vast majority of the American public,” it says, pointing to diversity, equity and inclusion, or DEI, policies.

Democrats said the proposal exceeds the office’s authority, will make it harder for grant recipients to carry out funding priorities established by Congress and would turn federal grants into a tool for President Donald Trump to “unilaterally advance his partisan agenda and punish political rivals.” 

The draft rule would allow Trump to “terminate or suspend any grant at any time for any reason and without any notice,” they said.

“Ultimately, these changes will make it harder for grant recipients to apply for and manage federal funds – undermining public safety, public health, economic competitiveness, and the government’s ability to address rising costs,” wrote Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer of New York and the entire Senate Democratic Caucus in their July 1 letter to Vought. 

Maryland Democrats in Congress and members of the Congressional Community Safety Caucus, led by Reps. Summer Lee of Pennsylvania, LaMonica McIver of New Jersey and Gabe Amo of Rhode Island, also wrote letters urging OMB to rescind its proposed new rule. 

Hundreds of billions in funds affected

The more than 100-page draft rule, published in collaboration with 41 other federal grant-making agencies on May 29 and titled “Regulation for Federal Financial Assistance,” would change the framework used to evaluate grant applications as well as guidelines for cost sharing.

It would potentially affect hundreds of billions of dollars in federal funding at universities, nonprofit organizations and other U.S. institutions, according to SciLine, an independent nonprofit service for journalists and scientists run out of the American Association for the Advancement of Science.

Under the proposed rule, federal grants could not be used to “fund, promote, encourage, subsidize, or facilitate” DEI initiatives. 

Awards would also in many cases have to “demonstrably advance the President’s policy priorities,” and agencies would be allowed to cancel funding that is “not effective at achieving program goals or Federal agency priorities” or “no longer in the Federal Government’s interest.” 

“The overarching goal of OMB’s proposed revisions is to improve transparency, accountability, and oversight for how Federal taxpayer dollars are used in the context of Federal grantmaking,” according to the executive summary of the rule.

OMB officials say they could implement the new draft rule as early as Oct. 1. 

Community violence intervention programs 

During the public comment period for the draft rule, which ran from May 29 to July 13, congressional Democrats slammed its vague language and the implications it holds for many institutions that rely on federal funds. 

Maryland’s senators and Democratic representatives in their July 10 letter to Vought denounced the rule for changing a process traditionally based on merit. “The federal grantmaking process includes essential, non-political guardrails that this rule seeks to eviscerate,” they wrote.

They also said the proposed rule contains a slew of new undefined standards for grants, including that they must adhere to “gold standard science” and cannot reflect “anti-American values,” that recipients may not be able to understand or comply with. 

Maryland institutions, often known as hubs for scientific research and innovation, have been hit hard by National Institutes of Health funding cuts and mass federal layoffs since Trump began his second term in 2025. Local governments and schools that receive federal funds have also taken blows, as has the state’s overall economy. 

In their July 13 letter, members of the Congressional Community Safety Caucus voiced concerns over how the draft rule could specifically affect community violence intervention programs. 

Community violence intervention programs, local efforts that have been linked to drops in violent crime rates in cities across the country, rely on federal grants for “state and local government investments, hospital partnerships, philanthropy, and research support,” according to the lawmakers’ letter.

The new draft rule, they wrote, would jeopardize the operation of these programs by allowing Trump administration officials to “withhold, suspend, or terminate grants, or change terms and conditions mid-implementation, forcing grantees to operate in a tumultuous environment.” 

The administration has already made cuts to parts of the Office of Justice Programs, further limiting the funds available to community violence intervention programs.

Other responses 

Though opposition to the proposed rule is mainly coming from Democratic lawmakers, some bipartisan criticism regarding the rule’s broad scope and fast timeline exists. 

Sen. Susan Collins, a Maine Republican, on July 6 asked Vought to extend the proposal’s public comment period at least 90 days and “withdraw portions of the rule that would potentially harm small and rural communities and scientific and biomedical research.”

“While I agree these principles should guide the administration and oversight of Federal funds, the rule would impose new, burdensome requirements on award recipients … and conflict with Congress’ control over the federal funding process,” she wrote.  

OMB did not respond to States Newsroom’s request for comment on lawmaker pushback to the proposed rule. But Vought took to social media last month to express his view of the opposition. 

“The freakout by those on the Left subsidized by taxpayer funds over OMB’s update of the regulation governing federal grant making tells you how important it is to keep the bureaucracies from leaking out spending that is woke, wasteful, and contra to the policies of the Trump Administration thru the NGOs,” he wrote. 

Communities that ask for federal assistance when climate disasters hit can’t count on that help to arrive. That increasingly common reality was reviewed in a recent report by Wisconsin Policy Forum, which focused on the historic floods in the state last August, finding that federal aid to help rebuild public infrastructure damaged by the record-breaking storms fell short of what was needed. 

The report took a close look at the Milwaukee area, where 14.6 inches of rain set Wisconsin’s all-time record for the largest rainfall in a 24-hour period. “As a result, the Menomonee, Milwaukee, and Kinnickinnic rivers all overflowed, and rainwater flooded homes, streets, businesses, and schools in low-lying areas. Recovery efforts continue today and have been expanded to address the impacts of another massive storm that hit the area in April 2026.”  Those storms earlier this year also dropped record-breaking amounts of rain in Green Bay and Wausau, and caused historic flooding along the Wolf River basin in Shiocton, New London, and Porterfield. Researchers have long warned that increased risks of flooding and more severe storms would increase in Wisconsin due to climate change, which the administration of President Donald Trump has downplayed and dismissed as a hoax. 

Not only did the August storms fill up basements and damage homes, but there was also extensive damage to roads, parks, bridges and other public infrastructure. In and around Milwaukee, damage to public property owned by the county property, public schools, the city of Milwaukee and 18 other localities came to at least $34.7 million. That included $10 million each for Milwaukee’s public school and sewage district, as well as $1.4 million in damage calculated by county officials, half of which was road-related damage. City officials estimated $1.7 million in damage, plus $5 million in additional costs related to cleaning up debris. Wauwatosa, one of Milwaukee County’s surrounding suburban communities, estimated $6.8 million in damage to city parks, roads and buildings. 

All in all, about $240 million in damage to private and public property was left behind by the August storms in the Milwaukee-area. After deploying the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA), the Trump administration approved $210 million in aid to help individuals rebuild, but would not provide funding to support local governments, despite multiple requests from state and local leaders. 

Wisconsin’s Democratic Gov. Tony Evers immediately declared a state of emergency after the August storms, requesting a federal major disaster declaration for Milwaukee, Waukesha, Washington, Door, Grant, and Ozaukee counties. Evers made the request both for individual and public assistance, the Wisconsin Policy Forum report notes. Over 26,000 individual damage reports were received throughout the state as the damage was being assessed. FEMA concluded that the 2025 flooding was “sufficient in severity to warrant a disaster declaration in Milwaukee, Waukesha, and Ozaukee counties but only authorized assistance to individuals and said that aid to public entities was not warranted based on the severity of the disaster,” the report states. “This meant that only individuals in these counties would be eligible for assistance and that governments have not received aid.”

It is rare for the federal government to approve one form of disaster aid while denying another, according to the report, with only 2.7% of named disasters since the year 2000 resulting in individual assistance being approved but public assistance being denied. In 2008, when severe storms and flooding hit the Milwaukee area, the federal government approved $4.5 million in assistance to local governments, as well as another $10.3 million when severe storms hit in 2010. “Milwaukee County has also received $6.1 million to help with costs associated with snowstorm cleanup since 2000,” the Wisconsin Policy Forum noted.

Earlier this month, $22.6 million in assistance was provided to several counties. President Trump used the allocation to promote Republican U.S. Rep. Tom Tiffany as a candidate for governor of Wisconsin. 

Local governments have tried to pick up the slack, but at a high cost. Normally the state distributes $1 million to $3 million to local governments to cover disaster costs, but in 2025 the damage was so extensive that $16.9 million was needed to cover damage claims, the highest annual amount in records going back to the year 2000. “This was due both to the extent of the flooding in August 2025 and the denial of federal funding that potentially could have covered at least some of these costs,” the report states. Nearly 46,000 residents in Waukesha, Washington and Milwaukee counties applied for the individual assistance following the August storms, and as of June aid has been distributed to 36,800 of eligible applicants. 

Protecting against the effects of climate change 

Some local governments including  Milwaukee County have undertaken policies to help adapt to the effects of climate change. “The sewage district has invested hundreds of millions of dollars into flood control systems in the area, including concrete infrastructure like the Deep Tunnel system as well as green infrastructure efforts such as wetland preservation, the reduction of hard surfaces such as concrete that create runoff, and other methods to limit the speed and volume of flood waters,” the Wisconsin Policy Forum reports. Without those measures, the August floods could have been “much worse,” according to the Policy Forum. “However, it’s clear from the two storms in the last 10 months that there are still thousands of structures in the area that are vulnerable to flooding.”

Recovering from disasters causes hardship. And more frequent severe weather is likely to bring on more disasters, even as, the Policy Forum found, “the availability of federal disaster relief has become more difficult to predict.” When the federal government decides to reject local communities’ calls for help, “state residents have limited recourse beyond petitioning FEMA and Congress to provide assistance.”

The report recommends that state leaders authorize additional funding to pay for disaster relief using state tax revenue. Attempts to do this by Evers and other lawmakers have previously been  rejected by the Republican-controlled Legislature. State and local leaders could also make investments in flood control and mitigation efforts and expand green infrastructure. Developing community-based insurance policies to address “these unpredictable and increasingly likely disasters” is another solution the Policy Forum suggests. 

“State and local leaders have limited control over when and where floods strike, but they can be prepared to respond when they occur,” the report concludes. “They can also reduce flood risk by investing in infrastructure that slows, stores, and redirects water.” Even these efforts may still be overwhelmed by the scale of disasters. And with the federal government demonstrating that, for whatever reason, aid isn’t guaranteed to come, Wisconsin may need to become “more self-sufficient” in responding to future disasters.