Homeland Security Secretary Markwayne Mullin defends FEMA election-security conditions tied to counterterrorism grants

Homeland Security Secretary Markwayne Mullin defended a policy that conditions the distribution of counterterrorism grant funding for states on a set of election-security demands, according to a report by The Hill published July 13, 2026. The funding is distributed through the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA), a process states typically use for counterterror-related preparedness and response activities.

In remarks reported by The Hill, Mullin characterized the linkage between election security and counterterrorism as consistent with the federal mission of preventing and responding to threats, framing elections as a potential target within broader security planning. The report says the policy has drawn attention because FEMA payments are normally associated with counterterrorism efforts rather than election administration requirements.

The Hill reported that FEMA told states in June that they would have to meet specific expectations tied to election security in order to receive the counterterrorism-related grant disbursements. The report describes FEMA’s communications as a quiet shift in the conditions attached to the grant money, prompting concern from states responsible for election administration.

Mullin’s defense, as presented by The Hill, centers on the argument that the federal government can connect counterterror spending to election-security outcomes because election infrastructure and processes can be part of the threat landscape. The report does not indicate that the administration has proposed a change in statute, but instead describes the issue as a federal implementation condition tied to how grant funds are released.

The practical effect, based on FEMA’s June communications described by The Hill, is that state eligibility for disbursements may now depend on satisfying the election-security demands attached to the counterterrorism grant program. For states, that can increase administrative work at the state level and require coordination between agencies that typically manage elections and the entities that handle emergency management and homeland security funding.

Election-security requirements can also raise questions about federalism and the balance of authority between federal agencies overseeing grants and states running elections. While the report focuses on Mullin’s rationale and FEMA’s stated conditions, it does not provide the full text of the FEMA guidance or a comprehensive list of the specific demands that states must satisfy, according to the information available in the supplied report.

The Hill’s reporting underscores that the policy is being implemented through a grant distribution mechanism rather than through direct federal regulation of ballot access or election rules. Still, by tying funding release to election-security benchmarks, the administration is effectively influencing how states prioritize and implement certain security measures within their election systems.

The next step in determining the scope of the policy’s requirements will depend on how FEMA formalizes and updates its grant conditions and how states respond operationally. Any broader legal or administrative challenge would likely focus on whether the conditions are authorized under the grant’s statutory framework and whether they are applied consistently across jurisdictions.