Efforts to penalize so-called “sanctuary cities” are back. On his first day back in office, President Trump signed an executive order directing the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) and Department of Justice (DOJ) to explore denying federal funds to “sanctuary” jurisdictions and pursue civil or criminal actions against them. Thereafter, the DOJ has repeatedly threatened state and local officials with criminal charges if they don’t cooperate with federal immigration authorities and filed civil lawsuits against Chicago and New York. Most recently, Trump issued another executive order calling on all heads of departments and agencies to review any federal grants that “abet” sanctuary jurisdictions.
Now, Congress is considering a bill—H.R. 32, the No Bailout for Sanctuary Cities Act—that would hand any president the sweeping power to strip cities, counties, and states of critical federal funding. Specifically, the bill would define sanctuary jurisdictions and allow the federal government to withhold federal funds that these jurisdictions “intend” to use to benefit undocumented immigrants.
The funding targeted under H.R. 32 threatens the well-being of all community members, including U.S. citizens and lawful permanent residents, as many essential programs are provided without consideration of legal status and therefore benefit both undocumented people and those with lawful status and U.S. citizens. These programs include the National School Lunch Program, Meals on Wheels, Head Start, public transit, disaster response services, and more. There are also several programs that benefit U.S. citizen children who may have at least one undocumented parent, like food stamps and Medicaid, which arguably could be covered by this provision.
During Trump’s first term, courts repeatedly blocked DOJ’s efforts to halt crime-related federal grants to sanctuary cities, ruling that the Attorney General lacked the authority to impose additional conditions. H.R. 32 would not only grant that authority but expand it dramatically, tilting the power balance in favor of the federal government over states and cities.
The bill also broadly defines “sanctuary jurisdiction.” Under its broad definition, “sanctuary” would include any state, county, or city that either limits communication with DHS or restricts the use of Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) detainers or notifications of release to ICE. The first part of the definition aligns with 8 U.S.C. 1373, an existing law that sanctuary jurisdictions already follow. The second seeks to compel jurisdictions to comply with ICE’s “detainer and notification requests”, which are voluntary under federal law. ICE uses detainers to request that local law enforcement agencies hold a person suspected of being undocumented after their release date from local criminal custody, usually for up to 48 hours, to give ICE agents time to take them into federal immigration custody.
In June 2024, ICE determined that nearly 700 local institutions in 32 states plus Washington, D.C. provided limited cooperation or were non-cooperative with ICE’s detainer and notification requests. In other words, these are jurisdictions who choose not to work with ICE when it comes to holding non-citizens for federal immigration authorities—as they are permitted to do under current law. Nevertheless, according to this list, these jurisdictions would be deemed as “sanctuary” under H.R. 32 and would therefore be at risk of losing federal funding for critical programs that serve both non-citizens and citizens.
The bill also overlooks the complexities of how states, counties, and cities shape their policies on interacting with federal immigration authorities. Many local governments have limited cooperation due to court rulings that bar local law enforcement from holding individuals solely for federal immigration purposes. In other words, cooperating with federal immigration agencies often subjects local agencies to liability they want to avoid. Other local governments lack control over the very policies the bill seeks to penalize.
In addition, the bill may also violate the Constitution. The Supreme Court has repeatedly held that under the Tenth Amendment, the federal government cannot force states or localities to administer federal programs. The bill directly contradicts this principle by pressuring local governments to divert scarce resources to federal immigration enforcement rather than community needs.
The current political climate makes the broad authority granted by H.R. 32 ripe for abuse. The Trump administration has ramped up pressure on ICE to increase detentions and deportations, with Tom Homan, Trump’s senior advisor on mass deportation, viewing local policies that limit ICE’s reach as obstacles to dismantle.
The Trump administration has recently frozen federal funding, sidestepping Congress’ constitutional authority over appropriations and causing chaos and uncertainty for communities. H.R. 32 would codify this dangerous power, enabling any president to arbitrarily withhold critical resources that cities, counties and states depend on every day.
Consider contacting your members of Congress and urge them to vote against H.R. 32, which gives the president the power to strip cities and states of federal funding.
FILED UNDER: Sanctuary Cities
