The Spokane City Council, at odds with about two dozen Spokanites at a January 15 special session, voted 5-2 to accept a $1 million police grant from President Donald Trump’s Department of Justice (DOJ).
The grant comes with 39 conditions, the most prominent of which requires Spokane police to give federal law enforcement information on immigrants, presumably so agents can find them. That would violate a state law that prohibits law enforcement in Washington from helping the federal government enforce immigration law. (In any case, Spokane police typically do not collect information on immigrants.)
Council members who approved the grant said they would not be bound by those requirements because executive orders and grant provisions don’t supersede city or state legislation. They said they had meticulously consulted with legal counsel and the state Attorney General Nick Brown who told them any retaliation could be battled in court.
Still, people who spoke worried about the strings attached to the funding, the liability involved in bucking the wishes of a notoriously vengeful president and what they saw as a lack of transparency in bringing the grant to a vote. Michael Doyle, a community organizer, said the grant carried “enormous risks” during public comments. After the vote was tallied and the meeting ended, he shouted “Democrats are cowards!”
The grant will help fund eight new police officer positions already included in the city budget. If the grant had not been accepted, those funds would have been drawn from an already strapped city budget.
“I think we’ll be ready to fight back” against any action the Trump administration might take against the city if it doesn’t comply, said Council Member Zack Zappone, who voted to accept the grant. He noted other grants to fund programs like social services and housing carry similar stipulations. ”The standard is to fight back instead of not accepting any federal funding.”
Public commenters pointed to specific executive orders from the 225 Trump signed in 2025 that the DOJ says the city must follow if it accepts the grant:
“Designating fentanyl as a weapon of mass destruction, taking steps to end cashless bail, prosecute the burning of the American flag, protecting American communities from criminal ‘aliens,’ ending crime and disorder on American streets, strengthening and unleashing America’s law enforcement to pursue criminals and protect innocent citizens in full transparencies,” Kaylee Jackman recited.
Council Member Paul Dillon said after the meeting that the council had consulted the state attorney general and city lawyers who said Spokane would not have to follow those orders. Executive orders apply to the federal government, not local ones.
“ You cannot legislate by grant conditions,” Dillon said in comments from the dais before voting. “ You cannot legislate by executive orders.”
On Jan. 16, Dillon acknowledged commenters’ concerns and defended his vote on his official Instagram account.
“I voted for the grant because the conditions are unlawful,” he wrote. “They are asking us to provide information that we do not have nor can they coerce us to provide. This is not a bribe nor will this turn SPD into ICE informants. The 10th Amendment says feds cannot force states or cities to carry out federal immigration enforcement actions. Courts across the country, including decisions by Trump appointees, have upheld these rights to not participate in immigration enforcement.”
The resolution accepting the grant passed 5-2, the narrowest margin for this type of city legislation, known as a Special Budget Ordinance. Council members Michael Cathcart, the body’s sole conservative, and Sarah Dixit, its newest progressive member, voted no. Both represent District 1, home to Spokane’s poorest neighborhoods.
Cathcart worried about financial liability if the city doesn’t abide by the grant requirements
“Oftentimes we are told that we can afford things that we cannot or that we don’t yet know how we are going to eventually afford,” Cathcart said. Though the funds for the eight new officers are accounted for in the current budget, he worried about how the new salaries would impact future budgets. “You look at the numbers, you look at the deficits, you look at the lack of long-term planning with regards to our budgets. I don’t know how we can commit ourselves to this effort today.”
The $1 million grant would only offset costs that are already accounted for in the city budget, Police Chief Kevin Hall told the council. He said in the event the Trump administration demands repayment, he would send the money back.
Cathcart also expressed skepticism about the supporters’ assertions that the Trump administration would not hold the city to the executive orders.
Meanwhile, Dixit worried about being on the hook to the federal government.
“It is incredibly frustrating to have that be almost like a ransom, to be held by this federal government to do things that aren’t in alignment with our community and in our state, with no guarantees on liability lawsuits,” Dixit said. “It makes me nervous to sign up for that.”
The 25 commenters — some experienced activists, others who’d just started protesting this summer — worried that a fickle president might alter the agreement, put a spotlight on Spokane and punish this city. Not one constituent who spoke at the meeting supported the grant.
Some also worried that, though Spokane police do not collect information on immigrants, if an immigrant divulges their information without a prompt, the city would then be obligated to give that information to federal officials.
“All it takes is for one officer to enter the data in, and now you are at risk and now you are required to report,” said Jim Leighty, a member of the Washington Coalition for Police Accountability. Leighty also noted that there are other grants available on the state level to pay for the new officers.
Kate Telis, District 2, told RANGE after the vote that police in Spokane can’t share immigrant information with the federal government.
“That would be grounds for termination,” she said, before hedging slightly: “Of course, at that point, the information has been shared, so I’m really hoping that [Police Chief Kevin] Hall can avoid that at all costs.”
Council members who approved the legislation argued that the federal government owes Spokane that money and that any future conflict over the grant would have to play out in court.
“Largely lower and moderate income people paid those taxes and they deserve to have them come back to their communities,” said Council Member Kitty Klitzke, who voted to accept the grant. “I will be standing up for that principle. If we get into the situation where we’re talking about giving those tax dollars back, I think I would want to fight that too. I would rather fight the Trump administration in court and put myself out there legally.”
The vote came as Trump has waged a brutal crackdown on some jurisdictions that don’t comply with the federal government. In Minneapolis, Immigration and Customs Enforcement ()ICE) agents wearing masks and slapdash uniforms have been caught on film illegally choking US citizens, including teenagers; shooting and tear gassing unarmed people; injuring children with flash bang grenades; and thwarting their own foot chases by slipping on ice. Trump sent the military in cities across the nation to monitor American protesters. And he has repeatedly threatened to invoke the Insurrection Act, an 1807 law that allows presidents to deploy the military against their own constituents, to put down peaceful protests.
In addition to commenters’ concerns about the mechanics of the grant, they also criticized the council on the timing and transparency of bringing the resolution up for a vote. It was a last-minute affair — January 15 was the final day the council could accept the grant, which was awarded late last year.
“To have received this grant letter in October only to then be burning the midnight oil with unanswered questions in January is not only embarrassing, it’s a failure, one that erodes the trust of your constituents,” Jackman said during her comments.
Telis — who was elected in November and was not on the council when the grant was first available for a vote — said it had gotten lost in the shuffle of city government.
“We were dealing with budget stuff,” Telis said, “so it fell on the back burner.”
Yet another concern for the commenters: growing the police force.
“They already have 333 commissioned officers,” said Jade Pettibone, another commenter. “They don’t need additional funding and personnel. They need to adequately manage the resources that they have.”
Before the public comment portion of the meeting, Hall answered the council’s questions at the dais, saying the grant would partly fund salaries for eight officers who would focus on gun violence. He said whether the council accepted the grant or not, the expansion is a done deal.
“I have 10 bodies already lined up for the academy in two weeks,” he said. “They’re still gonna get hired. It’s still gonna cost that same amount of money for eight officers. We just won’t have a million dollars to apply to defer those costs.”
