The Santa Monica City Council voted Tuesday to accept a $486,760 federal grant for police de-escalation and crisis response training, but only after attaching conditions designed to shield the city from federal requirements on immigration enforcement and diversity programs.
The grant, awarded through the U.S. Department of Justice's Office of Community Oriented Policing Services, will pay for training in de-escalation tactics, alternatives to use of force, safe responses to people in mental or behavioral health crises, and safe encounters with individuals with disabilities, according to a staff report from Police Chief Darrick Jacob. The performance period runs from Oct. 1, 2025, through July 31, 2027, with no local match required.
The council's acceptance came with what officials called "guardrails" — a cover letter stating that compliance is contingent on a federal court injunction remaining in place. If that injunction is overturned, the city's position is that it will stop spending the grant money, return any unspent funds, and refuse to comply with the federal conditions.
At the center of the dispute are conditions the Justice Department attempted to attach to COPS grants nationwide. According to the staff report, those conditions would require recipients to share immigration status information with the Department of Homeland Security; certify, under threat of False Claims Act prosecution, that they do not operate diversity, equity and inclusion programs that violate federal civil rights laws; and comply with all presidential executive orders. The conditions also bar grantees from using funds to "promote gender ideology" or for diversity, equity, inclusion, accessibility or environmental justice programs.
On March 10, Santa Monica joined Chicago v. Department of Justice in the Northern District of Illinois, challenging those conditions. On March 25, a federal judge granted a preliminary injunction prohibiting the Justice Department from imposing the conditions on Santa Monica while the litigation proceeds. As a result, the staff report concluded, the challenged conditions will not apply to the city's receipt of the grant.
City Attorney Heidi von Tongein told the council that briefing on a permanent injunction should be completed in early July. She said other jurisdictions facing the same deadline are accepting funds with similar reservations of rights.
Despite those legal protections, Councilmember Dan Hall voted against accepting the grant. Hall said he supported the underlying training but could not accept the risk that the city could be forced to cooperate with federal immigration enforcement or dismantle its diversity programs if courts later allow the conditions to take effect. He also cited False Claims Act exposure for federal contractors in the diversity, equity and inclusion space.
"I cannot consciously accept any risk of conditions that require us to cooperate with the Trump administration on immigration or capitulate to the removal of our DEI programs," Hall said. Earlier in the meeting, he urged colleagues to join him in a broader stance: "We are committed to continuing our DEI programs. We do not want to … have a False Claims Act issue, and we will not be cooperating with the federal government … on immigration issues."
Mayor Caroline Torosis, who voted in favor, said she was comfortable proceeding because the council had attached clear guardrails requiring the return of funds if the federal conditions were ever reimposed.
"I feel comfortable in us setting guardrails that we would give back the money or not proceed should we have to agree to any terms that fly in the face of our policy objectives here in the city," Torosis said.
The vote came after procedural maneuvering. The council initially voted to continue the item, but City Manager Oliver Chi then said he had misread the staff report and that a federal deadline required action before the next meeting. The council unanimously voted to reconsider and reopen the item before approving it.
In a written comment submitted to the council, Santa Monica resident Elisabeth Green raised similar concerns. Green, identifying herself as a voter and renter, asked what would happen if courts later sided with the federal government — a scenario in which, she wrote, "the money will have been spent in dereliction of the administrative intent with the March 25, 2026, decision as a mitigating circumstance."
Von Tongein said the city's position is that money spent while the injunction is in effect would not be subject to the challenged conditions even if those conditions were later upheld. If unspent funds remained, staff would return to the council for further direction.