Executive Summary

  • DHS has attached new ideological and immigration-enforcement conditions to the Nonprofit Security Grant Program — the federal program that helps houses of worship install security infrastructure against hate-fueled violence.
  • Faith leaders across denominations, including Jewish Federations of North America and members of the Congressional Jewish Caucus, are refusing to apply or publicly denouncing the new terms.
  • Houses of worship that run food pantries, refugee assistance, or addiction recovery programs face a choice between certifying compliance with conditions that may conflict with their religious mission or forgoing physical security funding.
  • According to FEMA, the program made $274.5 million available in fiscal year 2024. The new conditions transform a content-neutral public safety program into a compliance mechanism.

After the Tree of Life synagogue massacre in 2018, Congress expanded the Nonprofit Security Grant Program to help houses of worship protect themselves against hate-fueled violence. The program was simple: if your congregation faced elevated risk of attack, the federal government would help you install security cameras, alarm systems, and protective barriers. Churches, synagogues, mosques, gurdwaras, and temples applied. The program was bipartisan, noncontroversial, and effective.

Now the Department of Homeland Security has attached conditions to that funding that are causing faith leaders across every tradition to walk away from the money — and from the protection it buys.

The New Terms

In April 2025, DHS issued revised "standard terms and conditions" for all financial assistance. For the Nonprofit Security Grant Program, the practical effect is that any house of worship applying for security funding must now certify that it does not operate programs that "advance or promote DEI, DEIA, or discriminatory equity ideology," does not participate in any "discriminatory prohibited boycott," and does not run any program that "benefits illegal immigrants or incentivizes illegal immigration."

Recipients must also agree to cooperate with immigration enforcement, including sharing information with Immigration and Customs Enforcement, participating in joint operations if requested, and granting ICE access to interview individuals subject to removal. Houses of worship receiving security grants would additionally be required to restrict staff from publicly sharing details of immigration enforcement operations.

In plain language: if your church runs a soup kitchen that feeds anyone who walks in, or your synagogue has a social services program that doesn't check immigration papers, you may be ineligible.

The Bipartisan Backlash

The opposition is not coming from the expected corners. It is coming from the institutions that helped build the program.

Eric Fingerhut, president and CEO of Jewish Federations of North America, told reporters that some Jewish institutions have decided not to apply this year, calling the terms an "unintended" deterrent. Congressional members of the Jewish Caucus, including Representatives Jerrold Nadler and Brad Schneider, wrote to DHS warning that the conditions "create onerous new compliance requirements for recipients that will divert limited funds and restrict the religious conscience of synagogues, schools, and other institutions."

Connecticut Jewish leaders publicly denounced the new requirements. The Jewish Telegraphic Agency reported in February 2026 that Jewish leaders were escalating concerns about "unclear political conditions" on grants that had previously been straightforward.

Meanwhile, the DHS partial shutdown that began in early 2026 delayed processing for all security grants. Synagogues that had applied — accepting the new terms — found themselves waiting for funding that was frozen by a political standoff over ICE and Customs enforcement funding levels unrelated to their applications.

The Chilling Effect

The visible refusals are only part of the picture. The deeper damage is in the applications that were never filed.

Houses of worship that run food pantries, refugee assistance, homeless outreach, or addiction recovery programs — services that by definition serve people without checking their papers — face a choice: certify compliance with conditions that may conflict with their religious mission, or forgo the security funding.

For congregations that have received bomb threats, had their windows smashed, or watched a member of their community get shot during services, that is not an abstract policy question. It is a decision about whether ideological compliance is worth the physical safety of the people in the pews.

A pastor in Texas whose church runs a food bank told the Texas Tribune that applying under the new terms felt like "choosing between our calling and our safety." A rabbi in Connecticut said the conditions amounted to the government deciding which religious practices were acceptable as a precondition for protection.

What the Program Was Built For

The Nonprofit Security Grant Program was created because hate crimes against religious communities were rising, and the federal government recognized a responsibility to help vulnerable institutions protect themselves. According to FEMA's Notice of Funding Opportunity, the program made $274.5 million available in fiscal year 2024, with Jewish institutions receiving the largest share, followed by Christian churches, Sikh gurdwaras, and mosques. The prior year's allocation reached $305 million after Congress passed supplemental security appropriations through the Israel Security Supplemental Appropriations Act.

The program worked because it was content-neutral. A synagogue didn't need to prove it agreed with administration policy to get bollards. A church didn't need to certify its political alignment to install bulletproof glass. The sole criterion was risk — and the sole purpose was protection.

Attaching ideological and enforcement conditions to security funding transforms a public safety program into a compliance mechanism. It does not make houses of worship safer. It makes them choose between safety and conscience.

Who Benefits?

Who benefits from conditioning security grants on ideological compliance?

  • Political operatives who want to use funding leverage to enforce policy priorities unrelated to security
  • Dark money organizations that have lobbied for years to strip specific faith communities of federal support — and now have a mechanism that does it without naming anyone

Who loses?

  • Every house of worship that runs community programs incompatible with the new terms — regardless of denomination
  • The communities those programs serve, who depend on food banks, counseling, and outreach operated by religious institutions
  • The principle of equal protection, which holds that the government cannot condition public safety benefits on the exercise — or suppression — of religious conscience

The DHS partial shutdown ended April 4 with a stop-gap funding measure. Security grant processing timelines remain unclear. Bastion Daily is tracking affected applications across faith traditions.