President Donald Trump said Tuesday that beginning Feb. 1 his administration will deny federal funding to any states that are home to local governments resisting federal immigration enforcement, dramatically expanding earlier threats that targeted only so-called sanctuary cities themselves.
The proposal, unveiled near the end of a speech to the Detroit Economic Club, could have sweeping implications across the country, including for states and communities that do not traditionally identify as immigrant-friendly.
“Starting Feb. 1, we’re not making any payments to sanctuary cities or states having sanctuary cities,” Trump said. “They do everything possible to protect criminals at the expense of American citizens. So we’re not making any payment to anybody that supports sanctuary cities.”
Trump did not specify which federal programs would be affected or how sanctuary jurisdictions would be defined. Asked later by reporters in Washington what funding would be cut, he replied, “You’ll see. It’ll be significant.”
There is no single legal definition of a sanctuary city or sanctuary policy, but the term generally refers to state or local governments that limit cooperation with Immigration and Customs Enforcement, particularly when it comes to detaining or deporting people without legal status.
Courts have rejected similar efforts before
Trump’s latest threat echoes previous attempts to use federal funding as leverage against sanctuary jurisdictions — efforts that have repeatedly been blocked by the courts.
Last year, Trump issued executive orders directing federal agencies to withhold money from jurisdictions that limit cooperation with immigration enforcement. A federal judge in California struck down the policy, rejecting government arguments that legal challenges were premature because no funding cuts had yet been implemented.
Courts also blocked a similar effort during Trump’s first term in 2017, ruling that the administration could not unilaterally impose new conditions on federal funds without congressional authorization.
Defining “sanctuary” remains complicated
The Justice Department last year released a list of roughly three dozen states, cities and counties it considers sanctuary jurisdictions. The list was dominated by Democratic-controlled governments and included states such as California, Connecticut and New York, cities including Boston and New York City, and counties such as Baltimore County, Maryland, and Cook County, Illinois.
That list replaced an earlier, longer version that drew criticism from state and local officials who said it lacked transparency and failed to explain why certain jurisdictions were included.
Funding pressure already underway
Even before Trump’s latest remarks, his administration has moved to restrict or threaten federal funding in several areas, triggering multiple legal challenges.
The Agriculture Department has warned states that refused to provide data on recipients of Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program benefits that they could lose administrative funding. A court battle over the data request was already underway before the threat, and no funds have yet been withheld.
The Department of Health and Human Services said last week it was halting funding to five Democratic-led states for child care subsidies and other assistance for low-income families, citing unspecified concerns about fraud. A federal court has temporarily blocked that move.
Minnesota has also been targeted amid an intensified immigration crackdown that included a surge of federal officers in the state. The Agriculture Department said it is freezing some funding there, though it has not provided detailed justification.
In addition, the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services notified Minnesota last week that it plans to withhold $515 million every three months from 14 Medicaid programs deemed “high risk” after the state rejected a corrective action plan tied to alleged fraud. The withheld amount would equal roughly one-quarter of the federal funding for those programs. State officials said Tuesday they are appealing the decision.
It remains unclear whether Trump’s Feb. 1 funding threat will survive legal scrutiny, given the repeated court rulings against similar efforts.
