Five major American cities—Chicago, San Francisco, Seattle, Denver, and Boston—have launched a legal battle against the Trump administration, accusing the Department of Homeland Security of unlawfully halting anti-terror funding allocated under the Securing the Cities (STC) program. They say this freeze, which began in February 2025, has left local agencies without vital tools to combat nuclear and terror threats—especially dangerous as high-profile events like the Super Bowl and World Cup near.
What Exactly Fueled This Lawsuit?
Since February, these cities claim DHS has refused to reimburse them for previously approved security expenses tied to the STC program—from radiation detectors to specialist training. Denver alone is waiting on more than $300,000, and Seattle’s preparations for radiation scanners ahead of the 2026 World Cup have stalled.
San Francisco adds that it usually gets over $1 million a year, essential for detecting nuclear threats—especially with major events scheduled soon.
Why This Funding Matters
-
Safety at massive events — Super Bowl in San Francisco and World Cup in Seattle rely on advanced equipment and trained teams to protect millions.
-
Federal overreach — Cities argue DHS can’t override Congressional appropriations passed in 2018 law.
-
National security risk — Without funds, cities lack the gear to handle nuclear or radiological threats in crowded venues.
Who’s Involved—and What They Want
-
Chicago initiated the lawsuit in May; four other cities joined June 17.
-
Denver needs cash for past events, including visits by Trump and Biden.
-
Seattle’s equipment pause hits radiation detector purchases crucial for soccer World Cup safety.
-
San Francisco’s city attorney claims DHS “illegally yanked” millions in vital anti-terror funding.
-
Denver’s mayor called the move “astonishing” and “putting Americans at risk.”
The Legal Backdrop
This lawsuit continues a trend—cities and states have previously sued the Trump administration over freezing things like NIH research grants and immigration-related funding, often winning. Now, they’re saying the stakes are even higher: national safety over bureaucratic gridlock.
What Could Happen Next?
-
Courts may order DHS to resume reimbursements to prevent safety gaps.
-
A ruling in favor of cities would reinforce that the executive branch can’t override Congressional funding decisions.
-
A loss could set a strong precedent for federal agencies to pause any grant money, even for public safety.
-
Meanwhile, event organizers are left scrambling—without clarity, cities may postpone or cancel key safety plans.
Why You Should Care
-
You or someone you care about could attend these huge events—safety matters.
-
This case affects how federal money is spent and who decides its use.
-
It shines a light on what our government values and at what cost—especially when lives are on the line.