Key Takeaways
• Illinois and 19 states sued the Trump administration on May 13, 2025, over immigration-related funding conditions.
• Federal grants from FEMA and DOT are threatened unless states assist with immigration enforcement, risking billions in safety and infrastructure funds.
• Attorneys general argue these federal conditions overstep legal authority, risking public safety and undermining trust in law enforcement.
Illinois is taking a clear stand against new federal actions that could dramatically change how states handle immigration enforcement and the money they receive from Washington, DC. The state, along with 19 other states, filed two lawsuits on May 13, 2025, against the Trump administration. These lawsuits aim to stop federal agencies from making billions of dollars in grants dependent on states helping with immigration enforcement.
At the heart of this dispute is whether states like Illinois should be pushed or “coerced” by the federal government into enforcing federal immigration laws, and whether critical federal funding—especially money meant for disaster relief and transportation—should be tied to these expectations. The outcome of this legal battle could affect public safety, trust in law enforcement, and infrastructure across the nation. As reported by VisaVerge.com, these issues go far beyond Illinois, touching the lives of many people across the United States 🇺🇸.
Lawsuits Led by Illinois Attorney General
Attorney General Kwame Raoul is leading a group of 20 Democratic attorneys general in these lawsuits. This legal action is a direct response to recent moves by the Trump administration, which they claim are illegal attempts to force states into working alongside federal immigration authorities.
The lawsuits focus on new rules for federal grants coming from agencies like the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) and the Department of Transportation (DOT). Specifically, they challenge decisions by officials such as DHS Secretary Kristi Noem and DOT Secretary Sean Duffy. These officials have taken steps to make it harder for states and communities to get federal money unless they agree to help with immigration enforcement.
The main targets of the lawsuits include:
- FEMA and the Department of Homeland Security (DHS), led by Secretary Kristi Noem
- DOT and DOT Secretary Sean Duffy
These agencies have layered new requirements onto federal funds, pressuring local and state governments to certify their willingness to help enforce federal immigration law. The attorneys general argue that such moves are not just politically motivated—they may cross important legal lines set by the U.S. Constitution.
Federal Actions Under the Microscope
Key federal actions described in the lawsuits include:
- In February 2025, Secretary Noem ordered the DHS and related agencies (including FEMA) to stop giving federal money to cities and states that don’t help with immigration enforcement. This step hit at the heart of emergency preparedness, disaster relief, and community safety programs.
- In March 2025, the DHS changed its rules for handing out federal funds. The new rules require states and cities to promise they’ll act to enforce federal immigration law before they can receive any money.
- DOT Secretary Sean Duffy let states know that, going forward, any help from his agency—including big grants for public transit and highway projects—would only be given to states that cooperate with immigration enforcement.
These new conditions affect money managed by the Federal Railroad Administration, Federal Highway Administration, and Federal Transit Administration. For many states, the threat is clear—cooperate with federal immigration authorities or lose major funding needed for everything from repairing roads to rebuilding after disasters.
Arguments from the States’ Side
Illinois and its partners in this lawsuit are not just objecting out of political disagreement. They argue there are serious legal and practical problems with the Trump administration’s approach.
Here are the main points made by Illinois and other states:
- The federal agencies are acting beyond their power. The states argue that agencies like FEMA and DOT do not have the legal right to add these immigration conditions to funding. These agencies were created and given money by Congress for specific reasons—like handling disasters and keeping the country’s roads safe.
- The conditions are unconstitutional. According to the lawsuits, Congress decided how this money should be spent. Tying it to immigration policy oversteps the law. States say that taking away funding based on unrelated policy disagreements threatens the balance between state and federal authority, known as “federalism.”
- Public safety is being put at risk. FEMA money is meant for emergencies, like flooding, tornadoes, or the COVID-19 pandemic. Losing this support because of an unrelated disagreement over immigration could leave people more exposed in times of crisis.
- Infrastructure could suffer nationwide. By making DOT money conditional on immigration cooperation, communities could see less money for highways, bridges, transit systems, bike paths, ports, and airports. This threat to infrastructure could reach into nearly every corner of the nation.
- Trust in law enforcement could fall. Forcing local police to act as immigration officers, the attorneys general argue, can make it less likely that people in immigrant communities will contact the police to report crimes or cooperate in investigations. This could make communities less safe for everyone.
The Stakes for Illinois
The amount of money Illinois could lose if it refuses to change its approach on immigration is huge. According to news sources cited in the lawsuits:
- In the last year, Illinois received over $122 million in federal funding from FEMA. This money supports emergency preparedness, response, and recovery from disasters. Losing it could make it harder for the state to handle hurricanes, fires, health crises, and other emergencies.
- Illinois also received more than $2 billion in DOT grants last year. These funds pay for maintenance and improvements on highways, roads, bridges, as well as for public transit, bike paths, ports, and airports. Losing this money could have long-term effects on safety, job creation, and the state economy.
For Illinois, these grants are lifelines that support daily life, community wellbeing, and economic growth. The attorneys general say it is unfair and illegal to connect these funds to agreement with federal immigration enforcement policies.
The Bigger Picture: National and Legal Context
This legal fight doesn’t exist in a vacuum. It’s part of a larger, ongoing push and pull between some state governments and the federal government over how, and even whether, states must help with federal immigration law.
Legal experts and courts have said before that the federal government cannot simply order states to carry out its immigration plans. This principle goes back to decisions from the U.S. Supreme Court, which say that states and localities have their own rights and roles. The Trump administration, with its executive orders and funding conditions, is testing the limits of these old rules.
President Trump signed two executive orders on April 28, 2025. The first one threatens to withhold federal money from “sanctuary jurisdictions”—states and cities that limit their cooperation with federal immigration authorities. The second order aims to protect police officers who may break state laws as they work with federal authorities on immigration.
Illinois has made clear that it does not want its state and local police to act as federal immigration agents. Governor JB Pritzker signed a law that blocks most cooperation with U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE). Supporters say this law helps build trust with immigrant communities and makes it easier for all residents to work with local police.
Federal Emergency Management Agency’s Funding: Much More Than Money
The threat of losing FEMA funding goes beyond a budget problem. The Federal Emergency Management Agency provides key support when states face floods, tornadoes, storms, or public health emergencies.
Without FEMA’s support, Illinois and other states would have to find other ways to pay for emergency shelters, supplies, and rebuilding efforts. In real-world terms, this could mean fewer shelters during a disaster, longer waits for help, or unsafe bridges and roads after storms.
You can find more about FEMA’s programs and how federal disaster support works by visiting the official FEMA disaster assistance website.
Taking away this money would affect everyone, no matter if they are immigrants or born in the United States 🇺🇸. Disasters do not check anyone’s immigration papers before hitting a community.
Transportation Grants: Building and Keeping Up a State
DOT grants cover a vast range of public works: highways, bridges, railways, public transit, airports, and even bike and walking paths. For a state the size of Illinois, this adds up to over $2 billion a year.
Losing DOT funds could mean:
- Delayed repair or dangerous conditions on highways and bridges.
- Fewer buses and trains, which could limit people’s abilities to get to work or school.
- Lost jobs for workers who build and care for roads, trains, and airports.
- Slower, more expensive shipping of goods, which could raise prices for everyone.
The DOT’s mission has always been to make transportation systems safe and efficient. Illinois claims that tying this funding to immigration enforcement distracts from that mission and could hurt its residents for reasons unrelated to how the state runs its immigration policies.
Impact on Everyday People
Whether or not you care about immigration policy, the outcome of this case could change how much your community gets for:
- Fixing potholes or unsafe bridges.
- Preparing and responding to emergencies.
- Paying police and other first responders.
- Supporting safe and easy movement of people and goods across the country.
People living in Illinois, from city dwellers in Chicago to those in small rural towns, depend on these federal funds. Jobs, safety, and health could all be touched by a shift in how Washington, DC, hands out its money.
Complicated Trust Issues in Immigrant Communities
One main argument from the states is that pushing local police to enforce immigration law could erode trust in law enforcement. When people in immigrant communities fear that speaking to the police could lead to questions about their immigration status, they may not come forward as victims or witnesses of crime. This effect, the states argue, makes entire neighborhoods less safe.
Over and over, police chiefs have stressed that community policing depends on trust. Weakening this trust could make it harder to solve crimes—not only those that affect immigrants, but crimes that touch everyone.
Possible Outcomes and Next Steps
If federal courts side with Illinois and the other states, it would block the Trump administration from enforcing these new conditions on FEMA, DOT, and possibly other types of federal aid. This could be a clear win for states’ rights and could set limits for future attempts by any administration to tie federal funding to unrelated policy issues.
If courts support the Trump administration instead, states that refuse to partner on immigration enforcement could be forced to make hard choices—changing their own laws, coming up with huge amounts of money on their own, or accepting lost funding and the impacts that follow.
No matter who wins, the results will likely influence how federal and state governments work together for years to come. Other states beyond Illinois are watching closely, as their own budgets, safety, and trust in government could be affected next.
In Summary
Illinois and 19 other states have launched lawsuits challenging new federal policies that tie key federal funding to cooperation with immigration enforcement. These lawsuits focus on actions by FEMA and DOT, which put many billions of dollars in public safety and infrastructure at risk.
At stake is not just money, but big questions about the balance of power between states and Washington, DC, public trust in law enforcement, and the health and safety of communities in Illinois and across the United States 🇺🇸. The courts will decide where these lines are drawn, but for now, people are watching closely to see how federal funding, immigration policy, and states’ rights will intersect in the months ahead.
For more information about disaster assistance and the Federal Emergency Management Agency’s role, you can visit the official FEMA website.
Keep following VisaVerge.com for updates on this developing story and for clear, plain-language updates on complex immigration topics that matter to you.
Learn Today
Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) → A government agency providing emergency assistance and disaster relief funding to states during crises like floods, fires, and hurricanes.
Department of Transportation (DOT) → A federal agency responsible for funding, maintaining, and overseeing national transportation infrastructure, including highways, railways, and public transit.
Sanctuary Jurisdictions → States or cities limiting cooperation with federal immigration authorities to protect undocumented immigrants from detention or deportation.
Executive Orders → Official directives issued by the President that manage operations of the federal government and have the force of law.
Federalism → A constitutional principle dividing governing powers and responsibilities between state governments and the federal government in the United States.
This Article in a Nutshell
Illinois leads a coalition of 20 states challenging the Trump administration’s attempt to tie federal disaster and transportation grants to immigration enforcement. Billions in FEMA and DOT funding are at stake, with attorneys general warning these conditions threaten public safety, infrastructure projects, and the vital relationship between communities and law enforcement.
— By VisaVerge.com
Read more:
• Waltham residents protest immigration raids after surge in ICE actions
• UK immigration system set for major changes to Skilled Worker Visa rules
• Marcelo Soto-Luna Jailed for New Immigration Fraud
• New York sues Department of Transportation over immigration enforcement funds
• Nashville faces political fight over Immigration and Customs Enforcement arrests
