From New York to Los Angeles: Sanctuary cities brace for Trump’s crackdown

Donald Trump paints them as crime-ridden, lawless zones — places he likens to war zones. These are the so-called sanctuary cities, which include some of the nation’s largest hubs, from New York and Los Angeles to Seattle and Atlanta. The term lacks a precise legal definition but generally refers to cities that, through local policies, decline to cooperate with federal immigration authorities. Some codify this stance in their constitutions, others via executive orders, and some maintain it as an informal commitment. But the result is the same: local authorities do not share immigration information with federal agencies, do not target individuals based on immigration status, and do not enforce federal detention and deportation orders. These policies aim to foster trust between law enforcement and immigrant communities.

It’s no surprise, then, that these cities are squarely in the sights of the president-elect, as their lack of cooperation threatens to derail his ambitious plan to execute what he calls “the largest deportation in American history.” Since his campaign, Trump has consistently targeted these cities with fiery rhetoric. In recent weeks, the tension has escalated, particularly between local officials and Trump’s appointed “border czar,” Tom Homan. Cities have pledged to uphold their policies, while Homan has threatened legal actions and the withdrawal of federal funds, setting the stage for a high-stakes confrontation once Trump assumes office on January 20. While Trump has vowed to dismantle sanctuary cities, it is still not entirely clear how he will achieve this goal.

Texas Governor Greg Abbott, however, has provided a blueprint for exerting pressure. In a controversial tactic, Abbott has bused and flown migrants en masse from Texas to sanctuary cities such as Washington, New York, Chicago, and Denver. This strategy has overwhelmed reception services, strained resources, and stoked social tensions in these cities, where tens of thousands of migrants have arrived unannounced. Abbott’s message was simple: if sanctuary cities choose to protect migrants, they must also bear the responsibility of supporting them.

Using migrants as political pawns as proved an effective strategy, as Abbott’s actions have succeeded in weakening the welcoming climate in many sanctuary cities and increasing anti-migrant sentiment. But local administrations have largely stood firm in their commitments. As Denver’s mayor recently declared, the city’s values will not be compromised.

With no indication that sanctuary city leaders will abandon their principles or choose to voluntarily collaborate with mass deportation efforts, the federal government under Donald Trump appears poised to adopt increasingly aggressive measures to enforce compliance. Clues about these potential strategies can be found in Project 2025, the infamous, ultra-conservative roadmap published by the Heritage Foundation. Many of its authors are now within Trump’s inner circle, offering insights into what might unfold once he returns to power.

The Department of Homeland Security (DHS) section of the 900-page document includes contains most of the plans on immigration, including how to dismantle sanctuary cities. Central to this strategy is a complete restructuring of DHS itself. The proposal envisions the creation of a border-focused agency that would consolidate various immigration-related entities while outsourcing other DHS responsibilities to existing agencies. This reorganization could facilitate data sharing between agencies, such as access to driver’s license records, which some undocumented immigrants can obtain, or voter registration databases from jurisdictions where non-citizens can vote in local elections. However, even with streamlined federal coordination, sanctuary cities are likely to continue resisting such efforts, especially since the hypothetical new agency would still be a federal immigration agency.

The more immediate — and potentially more enforceable — tactic involves withholding federal funds, particularly those distributed by the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA). Trump has flirted with this approach before; during his first term, he attempted to deny Justice Department grants to noncompliant cities, though those efforts stalled in court. This time, with a more favorable judiciary in place, the administration may find it easier to bypass legal hurdles. In fact, Homan recently assured the Republican will cut federal funding. “That’s going to happen. I guarantee President Trump will do that.”

The other front is legislation. With a Republican-controlled Congress, Trump will be able to pass new laws without facing too many obstacles. The No Bailout for Sanctuary Cities Act (H.R. 5717), introduced in 2023, is designed to penalize jurisdictions that refuse to share immigration-related information or enforce federal detainer orders. The bill explicitly defines “sanctuary jurisdiction” and prohibits these localities from receiving federal funds if those funds are deemed to benefit undocumented immigrants. The bill was introduced by Rep. Nick LaLota, R-N.Y., on Sept. 26, 2023, and has been cosponsored by 35 members of Congress from the Republican Party through Sept. 12, 2024.

The bill would define sanctuary jurisdictions as “subdivisions of a state” that prohibit or restrict their government entities from sharing information with federal, state, or local law enforcement entities regarding the citizenship or immigration status of any individual, or complying with voluntary immigration detainers issued by the Department of Homeland Security (DHS).

Despite the Republican’s power in Congress, the bill faces significant legal challenges. The 10th Amendment and longstanding principles of federalism limit the federal government’s ability to compel state and local entities to enforce federal immigration laws. Supreme Court rulings have reinforced the principle that the federal government cannot “commandeer” local governments to execute federal policies. By compelling state and local officials to enforce immigration detainers as part of a federal initiative, the bill risks clashing with a precedent previously set by the Supreme Court.

What’s more, the proposed withholding of federal funds faces additional legal hurdles. Established precedents constrain the federal government from imposing overly coercive conditions on funding. One key requirement is that such conditions must bear a reasonable connection to the purpose of the funding. This standard could be violated if funding streams unrelated to immigration are targeted. Trump may have sanctuary cities cornered, but legal safeguards mean he may not be able to put an end to them.

Sign up for our weekly newsletter to get more English-language news coverage from EL PAÍS USA Edition