• Five major U.S. cities are suing the Trump administration, alleging that the Department of Homeland Security unlawfully froze federal funds from the Securing the Cities program, intended to protect against nuclear and radiological threats. The funding freeze has delayed critical safety initiatives, leaving communities vulnerable and raising constitutional concerns over Congress’s spending authority.

CHICAGO, IL — Five major U.S. cities are suing the Trump administration over the alleged unlawful freezing of federal funds intended to help protect urban areas from terrorist and nuclear threats. The lawsuit claims that the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) violated the Constitution by withholding these crucial funds, jeopardizing public safety and undermining Congress’s authority.

The cities, including Chicago, San Francisco, Denver, Boston, and Seattle, filed an amended complaint in federal court on Monday. They argue that the DHS’s decision to freeze funding from the Securing the Cities program has forced them to delay or cancel critical safety initiatives, leaving communities vulnerable to potential attacks.

The Lawsuit’s Focus and Legal Claims

The Securing the Cities program was designed to provide high-risk metropolitan areas with funding to detect and prevent nuclear and radiological threats. Congress solidified the program in 2018 through the Countering Weapons of Mass Destruction Act, requiring DHS to establish and fund it to enhance national security.

Freedom-Loving Beachwear by Red Beach Nation - Save 10% With Code RVM10

The lawsuit alleges that the Trump administration has unconstitutionally withheld millions of dollars in approved funds. According to the filing, the funding freeze usurps Congress’s power of the purse and violates the separation of powers outlined in the U.S. Constitution.

“DHS’s funding freeze is already impairing plaintiffs’ ability to protect public safety,” the cities claim in court documents, arguing that without the funds, critical safety measures have been postponed indefinitely.

Timeline of Events

The controversy began in February 2025, when DHS paused payments under the program. Since then, the plaintiff cities claim to have submitted 11 reimbursement requests for already approved expenditures—none of which have been fulfilled. In May 2025, Chicago initiated legal action, prompting other cities to join the lawsuit.

The complaint details how cities have been forced to halt crucial security programs. Boston delayed purchasing nuclear and radiological detection equipment for its fire department. San Francisco paused its procurement of mobile radiation detectors. Seattle postponed acquiring 1,000 cutting-edge personal radiation detectors. Meanwhile, Denver’s $263,000 mobile security unit remains in storage, unused, due to funding issues.

CLICK HERE TO READ MORE FROM THE THE DUPREE REPORT

The legal filing also cites communication with federal employees who confirmed the funding freeze but provided little explanation. One DHS official reportedly told San Francisco officials, “I have no information on when you can expect the payment.”

Impact on Public Safety

The funding freeze has left high-risk cities scrambling to maintain public safety. The Securing the Cities program has historically supported essential equipment and training aimed at preventing catastrophic events. These resources have been used at large-scale public events such as political rallies, concerts, parades, and even the upcoming 2026 Super Bowl in San Francisco and FIFA World Cup matches in Boston, San Francisco, and Seattle.

“Keeping our communities safe is our City’s top priority, and it should be the Trump Administration’s top priority as well,” said San Francisco City Attorney David Chiu. In a public statement, he emphasized that the funding freeze “illegally yanked” resources critical to counterterrorism efforts.

The lawsuit highlights how these funds have previously supported the detection of unauthorized radiological material and trained personnel to respond swiftly to threats. Without this funding, cities argue they are unable to adequately protect residents and visitors.

Legal and Ethical Implications

Legal experts note that this case raises significant constitutional and ethical questions. By withholding funds already approved by Congress, DHS may have overstepped its authority. The cities’ attorneys argue that the freeze directly undermines the legislative branch’s control over federal spending.

Additionally, the case underscores broader issues about public safety and the federal government’s role in supporting local counterterrorism efforts. If the funding remains frozen, cities may face increased risks of unmitigated attacks, they claim.

The lawsuit seeks immediate relief, asking the court to compel DHS to release the funds and restore the Securing the Cities program to full operation.

What’s Next?

The case will likely move quickly through the courts, as the delayed funding has immediate implications for public safety. Legal analysts expect DHS to argue its position, potentially citing budgetary concerns or administrative delays for the freeze.

The lawsuit serves as a reminder of the vital role federal funding plays in safeguarding communities. It also underscores the importance of transparency and accountability in government decisions affecting public safety.

Readers, what do you think about the funding freeze? Should DHS be compelled to release the funds? Share your thoughts and join the conversation by commenting below.

Follow The Dupree Report On WhatsApp

Freedom-Loving Beachwear by Red Beach Nation - Save 10% With Code RVM10