States That Won't Adopt Trump's Sweeping Election Changes Risk Losing Millions in DHS Funding: CNN
Source: MEDIAite
Jun 22nd, 2026, 12:52 pm
States that refuse to implement the Trump administrations sweeping new election changes risk losing tens of millions of dollars in federal funding, CNN reported on Monday.
The changes are meant to root out election fraud which remains relatively rare while giving the federal government greater influence over how states run elections.
Over the past 18 months, the administration has been going after election fraud, despite little evidence that theres any sort of widespread issue here, said CNNs Gabe Cohen on Mondays The Situation Room. Now, what it appears theyre doing is trying to use Homeland Security funding as leverage in that fight.
So, what were talking about here are these large grant programs that are run through the Department of Homeland Security, Cohen said. This year alone, theyre set to deliver about $1 billion out to states. It is one of the key tools that the federal government has to help cities and states prepare for terror attacks, cyber security incidents, major disasters cities and states consider this really critical funding. Well, now, what the administration is saying is, if you want all of that funding, youre going to have to implement these mandatory election changes, otherwise, youre going to have to forfeit 20% of your grants, which could, for a lot of places, mean millions of dollars gone.
Read more: https://www.mediaite.com/media/news/states-that-wont-adopt-trumps-sweeping-election-changes-risk-losing-millions-in-dhs-funding-cnn/
Lovie777
(24,421 posts)seems like thats the only remedy at this point in time. Congress control by the GQP will not help us.
AZLD4Candidate
(7,073 posts)We'll be back next week to make sure you make duh right choice."
pat_k
(14,486 posts)But, given that a signature piece of what they are demanding -- i.e., purging voter rolls based on Systematic Alien Verification for Entitlements -- has been deemed unlawful, I'd bet challenges to withholding money to get a state to "voluntarily" commit such violations of law will be successful.
Cha
(321,498 posts)post and then I had to get to the kitchen..
I was going to ask that question when I came back.
Can the Dem Lawyers and Courts stop this Attempted nazi takeove?
Thank you,, pat-k
MLWR
(1,148 posts)Cha
(321,498 posts)MLWR
(1,148 posts)msongs
(74,487 posts)BaronChocula
(4,957 posts)Come on Mediaite. Be better.
Don't unquestioningly take the word of a criminal when said criminal says their goal is to root out crime.
yellow dahlia
(6,854 posts)The discovery could be interesting.
Show us the fraud.
Puppyjive
(1,018 posts)They will be taken to court again.
Dyedinthewoolliberal
(16,245 posts)Clean up in the Oval Office.............
Karasu
(2,292 posts)SomewhereInTheMiddle
(677 posts)Isn't this another case of the administration imposing requirements to distribute monies that Congress has already allocated without such restrictions? I remember when Congress told states they needed to raise drinking ages or risk highway funds being withheld. So the forcing function is familiar. But that was Congress, not the President, setting the limitations.
Hasn't the various federal courts already stops some such executive overreaches? How is this different?
"Lord, I am so tired./How long can this go on?"
OldBaldy1701E
(11,782 posts)As long as we let it.
wolfie001
(8,173 posts)Have the fools that voted for this nonsense learned their lesson? Probably not.