President Donald Trump gestures as he boards Air Force One at Morristown Municipal Airport, in Morristown, N.J., Sunday, Aug. 2, 2026, en route to return to Washington (AP Photo/Jacquelyn Martin).
A federal judge in Oregon has barred the Trump administration from conditioning the release of disaster relief funding on compliance with executive orders targeting so-called "gender ideology."
In January 2025, President Donald Trump issued Executive Order 14168, which directed agencies to end the federal funding of and "ensure grant funds do not promote gender ideology."
In turn, the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) implemented the order by updating the standard terms and conditions for disaster relief grant programs. Specifically at issue in the litigation is the "Discrimination Condition" for 2025 and 2026, intended to effectuate and formalize the Trump administration's goals.
The discrimination condition requires, among other things, recipients to affirm they "do not, and will not … operate any programs that advance or promote DEI, DEIA, or discriminatory equity ideology."
In March, the discrimination condition was applied to the Building Resilient Infrastructure and Communities Program (BRIC) in a public notice of funding opportunity (NOFO).
In June, the city of Salem, Oregon, filed a 71-page lawsuit, alleging the discrimination condition violates both the law and Constitution. Specifically, the plaintiffs say the funding condition is ultra vires, or beyond the power of DHS to institute on the BRIC program, that the condition contravenes the separation of powers, and that it violates the Administrative Procedure Act (APA) in various ways.
"For the first time in the history of Congress's disaster-assistance grant programs, DHS and FEMA have sought to leverage this critical funding to advance policy objectives unrelated to the purposes for which Congress appropriated it," the plaintiffs complained.
Now, U.S. District Judge Michael J. McShane, a Barack Obama appointee, in a 29-page opinion and order, has ruled in Salem's favor.
"Because Salem establishes a strong likelihood of success on the merits of its claims, that they risk irreparable harm absent an injunction, and that the balance of equities sharply tilts in its favor, its Motion for Preliminary Injunction, is granted," the order reads.
Even before formally analyzing the issue, the judge remarks that "it is hard to imagine the connection between the use of preferred pronouns and the fires currently burning through central Oregon."
At the outset, in a standing discussion, the judge strongly hints at the incoming merits victory for the plaintiffs.
"The Hobson's Choice the policy creates—having to accept unlawful grant conditions or forego millions in critical disaster funding—is an injury sufficient to create standing even though Salem has not been awarded funds yet," McShane writes.
After that, the court quickly asserts its own jurisdiction by rubbishing an attempt by DHS to have the case analyzed as a contract claim.
"Because the sources of the rights underlying Salem's claims are constitutional and statutory, and Salem seeks equitable relief to restore the status quo, Salem's claims are not contract claims subject to the Tucker Act; this Court has jurisdiction," the order goes on.
The court notes this case is hardly the first time funding conditions have been tied to executive orders that have little to do with the underlying funds during the second Trump administration.
"Several district courts have agreed with Salem in similar matters," the order continues. "This Court joins the chorus. Salem demonstrates a likelihood of success on its constitutional and APA claims."
On the merits, the court first addresses the separation of powers. Here, the judge essentially accuses DHS of trying to legislate.
"DHS' argument that the Discrimination and EO Conditions simply require compliance with Title VI and nothing more is undermined by the separate requirement in the Standard Terms that obligate compliance with Title VI," the court observes.
McShane elaborates:
The Conditions and the Title VI compliance requirement must represent separate demands. If the Discrimination and EO Conditions are meant only to highlight the existing requirement that recipients comply with Title VI, then the Conditions would be superfluous …[D]espite what DHS may suggest, "an agency regulation cannot create statutory authority; only Congress can do that."
The court goes on to find the discrimination condition in violation of the spending clause because "grant recipients are unable to predict how DHS will enforce" it based on "vague" and "undefined terms."
The court's analysis then comes full circle to its introductory suspicion about the relatedness of the funding to the executive order.
"The Discrimination and Executive Order Conditions ask more from grant recipients than compliance with existing federal law—they demand submission to the Trump Administration's own anti-DEI and 'gender ideology' policy agenda," the order continues. "And the Termination Condition is counter to the programs' purposes of providing orderly and reliable funding to states and local governments. DHS fails to argue any link between the Trump Administration's anti-DEI crusade and helping communities prepare for, respond to, and recover from disasters. There is simply no nexus between the Challenged Conditions and the grant programs here."