Key Takeaways
• Denver, Chicago, and Pima County sued after losing up to $32 million in federal migrant aid.
• FEMA revoked Shelter and Services Program funds, citing changed Homeland Security priorities under the Trump administration.
• Lawsuit alleges the Trump administration violated the Constitution and Administrative Procedure Act by withdrawing promised funds.
Denver and Chicago Take Legal Action Over Migrant Funding Cuts by Trump Administration
Denver and Chicago, along with Pima County in Arizona 🇺🇸, have launched a legal battle against the Trump administration, setting the stage for a major fight over how cities receive and use federal money to support migrants. On May 16, 2025, these cities filed a lawsuit in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Illinois, arguing that a recent decision to take away promised federal help was unfair, sudden, and against the law. Their legal challenge spotlights the hard choices and financial burdens cities face as they help tens of thousands of migrants, while at the same time dealing with shifting policies from Washington, D.C.
Support for Cities Under Pressure
Back in 2022, Congress approved the Shelter and Services Program (SSP) run by the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA). This program was created to give money to city and county governments that sheltered and took care of migrants who had been processed and released by the Department of Homeland Security. It was known as a bipartisan effort, meaning both Democrats and Republicans agreed on its importance, especially as more migrants began arriving in U.S. cities.
For Denver, this program wasn’t just helpful—it was essential. Local officials expected about $24 million to pay for services in 2023 and 2024, after nearly 43,000 migrants arrived there in need of shelter, food, and basic care. Other cities, like Chicago, also counted on these funds to help manage the growing demands placed on their social service systems.
Trouble started in March 2025, when FEMA sent Denver a letter warning that $32 million in grant money might be withheld. The agency said there could be a “potential misuse of funds,” even though Denver had already received about $8 million of the amount they were originally promised. Without this federal help, city budgets—already stretched—would be pushed closer to breaking point.
Then, on April 1, 2025, the Trump administration made a dramatic move. In an official letter, FEMA said it would take back the federal money. The reason: the programs designed to help migrants were “not consistent” with the priorities of the Department of Homeland Security. Simply put, the Trump administration had changed its view on which programs should get federal backing, and programs seen as supporting “illegal immigration” were suddenly out of favor.
Denver, Chicago, and Pima County’s joint lawsuit became the next chapter in a larger public debate about who should pay for the cost of sheltering migrants, and who gets to decide where federal grant money goes.
Key Legal Arguments in the Lawsuit
- Violation of the Constitution: The cities argue that the Trump administration overstepped its authority by taking away money that Congress had already approved. According to their complaint, only Congress can decide how federal money is spent, not the executive branch.
-
Administrative Procedure Act (APA) Violation: According to the lawsuit, the administration broke the rules set by the APA, which require the government to provide a clear reason for changing its policies. The cities claim FEMA and the Trump administration did not explain why they were taking the money back, other than saying it no longer fit their “priorities.” This, they say, was neither clear nor fair.
-
Wrongful Termination of Federal Funds: Mayor Mike Johnston from Denver called the move “unlawful and unconstitutional.” He said the city followed the rules and had been counting on the money. He added that no one from FEMA accused Denver of breaking any rules in the grant agreement itself.
The legal complaint pulls no punches. It calls the Trump administration’s action an attempt to “undermine congressional intent” and punish cities for local policies that don’t fully match federal immigration priorities.
How the Migrant Crisis Hit Cities Like Denver and Chicago
The large number of migrants arriving in cities like Denver and Chicago did not happen by accident. Officials in Denver point to Texas Governor Greg Abbott, who started a program to bus migrants from the border to other U.S. cities. Since the program began, Texas spent more than $200 million to send about 120,000 people—including 43,000 to Denver alone—with little warning or support in place for their arrival.
As people stepped off these buses, local shelters filled. City workers in Denver scrambled to find beds, food, and basic care for men, women, and many children—often in the middle of the cold season. As Mayor Johnston put it, the city was forced “to prevent thousands of families from living on our streets in the cold, maintain public safety, and ensure the city continued to run smoothly.” The pressure on local police, schools, and hospitals soon grew, with more city dollars needed to keep up.
Chicago experienced a similar pattern. The city saw its homeless shelter system stretched as more migrants arrived. Local leaders spoke out, saying federal help was a lifeline—but with the recent action by the Trump administration, that support suddenly vanished.
Not a New Clash: “Sanctuary City” Policies and Federal Funding
This legal fight is not happening in a vacuum. For years, there have been tensions between the White House and city governments—often called “sanctuary cities” because they limit how much they work with federal immigration officers. The Trump administration’s stance has been tough, trying to pressure these cities to change their ways by holding back federal dollars.
This latest lawsuit continues that pattern. Cities argue they should not be punished for responding to humanitarian needs in ways they feel are right for their residents. Federal officials, on the other hand, argue that taxpayer money should not help local governments support migrants who lack legal status.
Denver and Chicago are careful to point out that they did not create this crisis. They say they were left with little choice but to help as thousands arrived “with nothing but the clothes on their backs and no opportunity to work.” The cities also stress that taking away funding could push vulnerable families back onto the streets, making public safety and city services even harder to manage.
How FEMA’s Decision Affects Cities and Migrants
The effect of the funding freeze is wide and deep. For city governments, the biggest problem is the budget gap—money they expected will not arrive, so they must either shift funds from other programs or cut services for everyone.
For example, Denver expected $24 million just to cover costs in 2023 and 2024, while other promised grants reached as high as $32 million. Some of this money had already been spent on everything from emergency shelters to food, transportation, and medical expenses for migrants. Now, city officials must find a way to balance their books, even as demands continue.
For the migrants themselves, the impact is even more direct. Without federal support, shelters could close or be forced to turn people away. City staff might have to limit meals, medical support, or even basic help with things like language classes or transportation. As reported by VisaVerge.com, these sudden changes can leave families searching for stable housing and struggling to meet their most basic needs in an unfamiliar city and country.
Wider Effects—Controversy and National Debate
This lawsuit doesn’t just matter for Denver, Chicago, and Pima County. It could change how all U.S. cities work with the federal government and how money is given out during moments of crisis. If the cities win, it could force FEMA and the Trump administration to follow Congress’s directions more closely when it comes to emergency support. But if the Trump administration’s move is upheld in court, cities across the country may have to think carefully about how much they rely on federal help.
Some critics of the Trump administration say the move was political, designed to send a message to cities with “sanctuary” policies. Others—especially those who support stronger enforcement at the border—argue the administration is right to rethink which programs get funding.
What Comes Next for Cities and Migrants
The legal process will now move forward in federal court. The outcome could take months, or even longer, to resolve. In the meantime, cities must stretch their own budgets while looking for other sources of support. Many local leaders, especially those in Denver and Chicago, are asking Congress to step in and make it clear that funding should not be taken away without strong reasons.
For concerned residents and advocates, the lawsuit highlights the importance of clear policies and steady support when cities face challenges they did not cause. Many communities welcome the chance to help new arrivals, but they need the tools and resources to keep services running for everyone.
For more details about FEMA’s Shelter and Services Program and how it functions, you can visit the official FEMA Shelter and Services Program page. This resource offers updates and guidelines that cities must follow when seeking government support for sheltering migrants.
Summary and Takeaways
This lawsuit by Denver, Chicago, and Pima County, Arizona touches every level of government—local, state, and federal. It raises hard questions: Who pays when large numbers of migrants arrive in a city? Should city leaders be left on their own to help, or should Congress and the federal government do more? And when the rules change suddenly, how can cities plan, budget, and keep families safe?
The Trump administration’s decision to rescind funding, the cities’ legal challenge, and the public debate around this case will all help shape what happens next. For now, Denver and Chicago remain at the heart of a growing national conversation about immigration, the role of local government, and the responsibilities shared by everyone when humanitarian needs arise.
Cities across the United States 🇺🇸 are watching the outcome closely, knowing that the final decision will affect not just budgets, but also the lives of thousands of newcomers who depend on shelter and care. As the case works its way through the courts, city leaders, community advocates, and everyday residents will continue to speak out, search for solutions, and push for a system that works for everyone—locals and newcomers alike.
Learn Today
Shelter and Services Program (SSP) → A FEMA initiative established to provide federal funds to cities sheltering and supporting processed migrants released by Homeland Security.
Administrative Procedure Act (APA) → A federal law requiring government agencies to give clear, reasoned explanations when changing major policies or decisions.
FEMA → Federal Emergency Management Agency; it manages disaster response and emergency funding, including the SSP for migrant sheltering.
Sanctuary City → A city with policies limiting cooperation with federal immigration authorities, often to protect undocumented residents from deportation.
Grant Agreement → A legal contract dictating how federal funds must be spent by recipient governments, like cities receiving SSP money.
This Article in a Nutshell
Cities like Denver and Chicago are pushing back after losing essential federal funding that helped shelter tens of thousands of migrants. Their lawsuit, filed May 16, 2025, argues the Trump administration broke the law by abruptly withdrawing these funds, leaving cities and migrants facing desperate shortfalls and urgent humanitarian challenges.
— By VisaVerge.com
Read more:
• Work ban linked to rise in sex work among UK female asylum seekers
• Tariku Hadgu avoids jail after assault on female police officers in Bournemouth
• Southwest Airlines flight disrupted by female passenger at Chicago Midway
• USCIS Policy Now Defines Two Biological Sexes: Male and Female
• Philippine Airlines Pledges $175K to Train Future Female Pilots
