By Michael Phillips | MDBayNews
Maryland Attorney General Anthony Brown has joined five other Democrat-led states in filing a federal lawsuit against the U.S. Department of Homeland Security (DHS) and FEMA over the termination of Targeted Violence and Terrorism Prevention (TVTP) grants.
The lawsuit, filed in the U.S. Court of Federal Claims, alleges that DHS unlawfully terminated millions of dollars in counterterrorism grants mid-stream, claiming the move was politically motivated and violated the contractual terms of the awards.
But as the legal battle unfolds, Marylanders should ask a deeper question: Is this really about terrorism prevention — or is it another front in the ongoing political war between blue states and the Trump administration?
What the Lawsuit Claims
According to the complaint, DHS terminated Fiscal Years 2022–2024 TVTP grants in July 2025, stating that the awards “no longer effectuate the program goals or agency priorities” of the current administration.
The states argue:
- The grant agreements only allow termination for noncompliance, mutual consent, or recipient notification.
- “Agency priorities” was not an explicitly listed termination ground in the grant documents.
- DHS allegedly failed to provide appeal rights or adequate notice.
Maryland’s FY2022 grant totaled $693,522, with roughly $267,000 remaining at the time of termination.
The coalition of states is seeking nearly $2.85 million in withheld funds across all plaintiffs.
What DHS Actually Said
The termination letters state that prior TVTP funding cycles supported:
- “Openly partisan and political organizations”
- “Projects within sanctuary jurisdictions that blatantly disregarded federal immigration law”
In other words, the Trump administration is arguing that federal counterterrorism dollars were being used in ways inconsistent with current federal priorities — particularly in sanctuary states.
Whether one agrees with that assessment or not, the federal government has long maintained that grant funding must align with executive branch policy direction.
The Bigger Political Context
This lawsuit doesn’t exist in a vacuum.
The complaint references executive actions targeting sanctuary jurisdictions and other cases where federal courts blocked funding restrictions tied to immigration policy.
Maryland is not a neutral bystander here. The state has repeatedly positioned itself as a sanctuary jurisdiction and has actively resisted federal immigration enforcement priorities.
The key question becomes:
Can a state simultaneously reject federal immigration policy — and then demand uninterrupted access to federal homeland security grants?
That tension is at the heart of this dispute.
Contract Law or Political Messaging?
The lawsuit frames this strictly as a breach-of-contract case under the Tucker Act.
The states argue the grants were binding contracts and DHS cannot retroactively change termination standards.
That’s a serious legal claim.
But politically, the optics are different:
- Democratic attorneys general suing a Republican administration
- Federal counterterrorism funding tied to sanctuary policy disputes
- Boilerplate language about “partisan organizations”
This fits a broader national pattern of red-versus-blue litigation over federal authority.
For Maryland voters, the lawsuit also reinforces a familiar narrative:
Attorney General Brown positioning himself as a frontline opponent of the Trump administration.
Public Safety: The Real Stakes
The complaint argues the grants funded behavioral threat assessment teams, violence prevention frameworks, and public safety coordination programs.
If those programs were operating effectively, Marylanders deserve transparency:
- Which organizations received funding?
- What measurable results were achieved?
- Were any recipients politically affiliated?
- How were funds screened for neutrality?
If DHS is wrong, Maryland should win in court.
But if federal dollars were funding organizations that blurred the line between public safety and politics, taxpayers have a right to know that too.
Why This Matters for Maryland
Maryland relies heavily on federal funding across multiple sectors — defense, public health, infrastructure, and homeland security.
Repeated litigation battles with Washington carry risk:
- Delayed funding streams
- Strained intergovernmental relationships
- Increased uncertainty for state agencies
If this lawsuit succeeds, it may strengthen states’ contractual protections against shifting federal priorities.
If it fails, Maryland could face stricter scrutiny on future grants.
Either way, taxpayers ultimately foot the legal bill.
The Bottom Line
This case isn’t simply about $267,000 in remaining Maryland funds.
It’s about:
- Federal authority versus state resistance
- Sanctuary policies and homeland security funding
- Whether grant agreements lock in policy direction across administrations
Attorney General Brown says this is about enforcing contracts and protecting public safety.
The Trump administration says it’s about preventing federal funds from supporting partisan or sanctuary-aligned projects.
The court will decide the legal question.
But Maryland voters should demand clarity on the policy one.
Keep MDBayNews Reporting Free
MDBayNews exists to help Marylanders understand decisions made by state and local leaders — especially when those decisions affect daily life, rights, and public services.
If this article helped clarify what’s happening or why it matters, reader support makes it possible to keep publishing clear, independent reporting like this.
Have a tip or documents to share?
We review submissions carefully and confidentially. Anonymous tips are welcome when appropriate.
Discover more from Maryland Bay News
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.