The Trump administration has not been subtle in its desire to use federal funding for political punishment. Whether threatening to cut off grants to sanctuary cities, to block financial assistance to states that push back against the president’s demands, or to freeze all federal grants and loans for social services across the country, Trump and his allies want us to believe they can wield the federal budget like a weapon. The reality is that the administration’s ability to withhold or condition funding is far more limited than they let on. The Constitution, Supreme Court precedent, and long-standing federal law stand firmly in the way of this brazen abuse of presidential power.

A week into his second administration, Trump attempted to freeze trillions of dollars in federal grants and loans that fund a vast array of critical services already approved by Congress. If allowed to go into effect, this unprecedented and far-reaching order would mean that seniors could go hungry, refugee resettlement agencies would close their doors, addiction treatment clinics would cancel appointments, and schools would need to freeze meal programs. It would also impact vital programs designated for disaster relief, public safety, public health, infrastructure, and even small business loans.

However, under both the Constitution and the Impoundment Control Act, the president cannot withhold congressionally-approved funding without congressional authorization. Previous administrations have tried and failed to push similar measures, and courts have repeatedly ruled that such attempts violate both statutory and constitutional principles. Despite what the president wants us to think, this attempt is no different.

Multiple courts have temporarily blocked Trump’s dangerous freeze from going into effect. Judge AliKhan wrote in a 30-page ruling that the Trump administration’s “actions in this case potentially run roughshod over a ‘bulwark of the Constitution’ by interfering with Congress’s appropriation of federal funds”and because “the funding freeze threatens the lifeline that keeps countless organizations operational, plaintiffs have met their burden of showing irreparable harm.”

Federal funding to states and localities falls into two broad categories: mandatory spending—such as Medicaid and highway funding—that is required by law, and discretionary spending—such as education and community services grants—that is appropriated annually. The vast majority of federal grants to states are formula-based, meaning they are distributed according to statute rather than the whims of the executive branch. Competitive grants, where the administration has more discretion, account for only a small fraction of federal aid to state and local governments.

Under the Constitution, Congress – not the president — has the "power of the purse,” which means the legislature decides what funds should be spent and where, and the executive branch is bound by congressional appropriations. Unless Congress authorizes it, the executive branch cannot unilaterally withhold, alter, or add new conditions to funding.

The Trump administration has threatened to cut off funding to the states and cities that refuse to cooperate with its federal immigration enforcement agenda. This is not only legally dubious, but also unconstitutional.

Moreover, the Supreme Court has been clear: Under the 10th Amendment, the federal government cannot force states or cities to carry out federal immigration enforcement actions. In fact, the Trump administration previously attempted to challenge state and local laws limiting cooperation with ICEand completely failed. Courts across the country, including decisions by Trump-appointed judges, have upheld the right of states and localities to say no to participating in federal immigration enforcement.

Consequently, even when Congress does attach conditions on funding, they must respect states’ 10th Amendment rights and the conditions must be clear, directly related to the purpose of the funding, not coercive, and cannot override constitutional rights such as free speech or due process. For example, in National Federation of Independent Business v. Sebelius, the Supreme Court ruled that threatening to withhold all Medicaid funding unless states agreed to expand the program was unconstitutional coercion. In contrast, in South Dakota v. Dole, the court upheld a condition requiring states to raise their drinking age to receive 5 percent more in highway funds, because the court deemed the condition relevant and not coercive.

Similarly, while federal agencies may attempt to rewrite grant regulations, they are bound by the Administrative Procedure Act, which generally requires formal rulemaking and prohibits “arbitrary” or “capricious” changes or changes that exceed an agency’s legal authority. Multiple courts struck down the Trump administration’s prior efforts to add new conditions to state and local grants—such as requiring information sharing or cooperation with federal immigration enforcement— for exceeding statutory authority.

The Trump administration wants state and local leaders to panic at the idea of losing funding. But history, legal precedent, and constitutional law significantly limit the president’s authority over congressionally-appropriated funds. The courts have consistently ruled that the executive branch cannot strong-arm states and cities into compliance by weaponizing federal dollars.

Fearmongering over funds should not lead to fealty. Officials facing threats should carefully conduct legal reviews and push back against unlawful funding conditions. The administration is relying on fear to win. We won’t sit idly by. Take action now and remind Congress that the president doesn’t control what programs get funded — they do.

At least 29 people perished in the Palisades and Eaton fires. Tens of thousands have lost their homes or been displaced, and millions more have felt the trauma and disruption of these events. Still, mandatory evacuation orders saved countless lives.

But approximately 13,000 people incarcerated across L.A. County jails and juvenile halls experience these catastrophes without any ability to protect themselves. As fires engulfed the Pacific Palisades and Altadena, the Hurst Fire burned less than a mile away from the Barry J. Nidorf Juvenile Hall, where 96 youth were incarcerated in an evacuation warning zone. Teenagers at the facility reported that they could see the mountains burning nearby. Nearby residents were evacuated and the courthouse adjacent to the juvenile hall was closed, but the youth and staff at Nidorf were never relocated to safety.

On January 23, a brushfire broke out in the Angeles National Forest in the northern part of L.A. County. In fewer than seven hours, the Hughes Fire exploded to close to 10,000 acres, and 31,000 people in the inhabited areas nearby were under mandatory evacuation orders from Sheriff Robert Luna.

But there was one conspicuous exception to Sheriff Luna’s evacuation order – the 4,700 people incarcerated in four L.A. jail facilities in Castaic and hundreds of staff working there. Not only were the jails firmly in a mandatory evacuation zone, but they also stood directly in the path of the fire’s growing southern edge.

Advocates and concerned constituents, including people whose loved ones were trapped in the jails, called on county leaders and the sheriff to evacuate immediately. However, not a single incarcerated person was evacuated from the mandatory evacuation zone. While approximately 470 incarcerated people were moved from one jail to another in the same complex, over 5,000 people sheltered in place while the fire raged overnight.

Reports indicate that the thousands locked in the Castaic jail complex were not given updates as the fire progressed. One can only imagine the fear endured by those in the jails and their loved ones, all anxiously waiting for the morning. Erica Lewis, whose son was trapped in the jails, told us she was “absolutely terrified.” “You’re powerless,” she added, “absolutely powerless.” And worries remain. The sheriff’s station in Altadena survived the Eaton fire but closed for several days due to smoke damage and air quality. The public has not heard any reports about the air or water quality at the Castaic jail complex in the days after the fire.

Thanks to heroic efforts by state and local responders – including incarcerated firefighters being paid less than $20 a day – and the sheer luck of favorable wind speed and direction, firefighters stopped the Hughes Fire just half a mile from the jail complex. If the Hughes Fire had erupted just a few weeks ago, at the same time and with the same high winds as the Palisades and Eaton fires, we likely would have borne witness to the largest carceral disaster in U.S. history.

L.A. County escaped disaster by a half a mile. Our brush with catastrophe must spur local and state leaders to action. County leaders must demand effective evacuation plans for people in custody and the working deputies, directed and approved by fire officials well in advance of a disaster. State and county leaders across the country must take stock of jails and prisons at risk for fires, floods, earthquakes, and other natural disasters. The task is immense because the United States has the highest incarceration rate of any country in the world, and L.A. County’s jail system is the largest in the world. It doesn’t have to be this way.

County leaders have committed to a “Care First, Jails Last” approach to public health and safety. The best path out of harm’s way remains a deep investment in alternatives to incarceration. Programs like the Office of Diversion and Reentry have successfully diverted thousands of people out of jail. In L.A. County and around the country, alternatives to incarceration can shrink our grossly outsized carceral footprint, making it much easier for us to protect our communities from coming disasters.

The fires remind us that climate change is here. We must move quickly to protect incarcerated people who cannot save themselves in an emergency. Next time, we may not be so lucky.

Melissa Camacho is senior staff attorney in the Criminal Justice Project at the ACLU of Southern California and Mari Dominguez-Ruiz is staff attorney with the ACLU National Prison Project.