From New York to Los Angeles: Sanctuary cities brace for Trump crackdown | USA

Donald Trump paints them as crime-ridden lawlessness zones — places he likens to war zones. These are so-called sanctuary cities that include some of the nation’s largest hubs, from New York and Los Angeles to Seattle and Atlanta. This term does not have a precise legal definition, but usually refers to cities that, due to local politics refuse to cooperate with federal immigration authorities. Some codify this position in their constitutions, others in executive orders, and some keep it as an informal commitment. But the result is the same: local governments do not provide immigration information to federal agencies, do not target individuals based on immigration status, and do not enforce federal detention and deportation orders. This policy aims to build trust between law enforcement and immigrant communities.

So it’s no surprise that these cities are squarely in the president-elect’s sights, as failure to cooperate with them threatens to derail his ambitious plan to carry out what he calls “the largest deportation in American history.” Since the campaign, Trump has consistently targeted these cities with fiery rhetoric. Tensions have flared in recent weeks, particularly between local officials and Trump appointees “border king”, Tom Homan. Cities have promised to stick to their policies, and Homan has threatened lawsuits and federal funding, setting the stage for a high-stakes confrontation when Trump takes office on Jan. 20. While Trump has promised to dismantle sanctuary cities, it’s still not entirely clear how he will achieve that goal.

Texas Governor Greg Abbott, however, provided a blueprint for applying the pressure. In a controversial tactic, Abbott bussed migrants from Texas to sanctuary cities such as Washington, New York, Chicago and Denver. This strategy has overwhelmed reception services, strained resources and fueled social tensions in these cities, where tens of thousands of migrants have arrived without warning. Abbott’s message was simple: If sanctuary cities choose to protect migrants, they must also be responsible for supporting them.

Using migrants as political pawns proved to be an effective strategy as Abbott’s actions were weakened pleasant climate in many reserve cities and increasing anti-immigrant sentiment. But the local administration for the most part firmly adheres to its obligations. As Denver’s mayor recently stated, the city’s values ​​will not be compromised.

With no sign that sanctuary city leaders will budge on their principles or choose to voluntarily cooperate with mass deportation efforts, the federal government under Donald Trump appears poised to take increasingly aggressive measures to enforce compliance. Clues to these potential strategies can be found in Project 2025, the infamous, ultra-conservative road map published by the Heritage Foundation. Many of its authors now belong to Trump’s inner circle and offer insight into what might happen after he returns to power.

The Department of Homeland Security (DHS) section of the 900-page document contains most of them immigration plansincluding how to dismantle sanctuary cities. Central to this strategy is a complete restructuring of DHS itself. The proposal would create a border-focused agency that would bring together various immigration-related entities while handing over other DHS responsibilities to existing agencies. This reorganization could facilitate the sharing of data between agencies, such as access to driver’s license records that some undocumented immigrants may obtain, or voter registration databases from jurisdictions where noncitizens can vote in local elections. However, even with federal coordination in place, sanctuary cities are likely to continue to resist such efforts, especially since the hypothetical new agency would still be a federal immigration agency.

A more immediate — and potentially more feasible — 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 tried to block the Justice Department from giving grants to non-compliant cities, but those efforts stalled in court. This time, with a more favorable judicial system, it may be easier for the administration to get around legal hurdles. In fact, Homan recently assured that the Republican would cut federal funding. “It will happen. I guarantee President Trump will.”

Another front is legislation. With a Republican controlled CongressTrump will be able to pass new laws without facing unnecessary obstacles. The Ban on Aid to Sanctuary Cities Act (HR 5717), passed in 2023, is designed to punish jurisdictions that refuse to share immigration-related information or comply with federal detention orders. The bill clearly defines “sanctuary jurisdiction” and prohibits those localities from receiving federal funds if those funds are deemed to benefit undocumented immigrants. The bill was introduced by Congressman Nick LaLotta, D-New York, on September 26, 2023, and by September 12, 2024, it had the support of 35 Republican members of Congress.

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

Despite the authority of Republicans in Congress, the bill faces significant legal challenges. The 10th Amendment to the Constitution and longstanding principles of federalism limit the federal government’s ability to compel state and local agencies to enforce federal immigration laws. Supreme Court rulings have reinforced the principle that the federal government cannot “order” local governments to carry out federal policy. By forcing state and local officials to force immigration detainees as part of a federal initiative, the bill risks running afoul of precedent previously set by the Supreme Court.

Moreover, the proposed withholding of federal funds faces additional legal hurdles. Established precedents deter the federal government from imposing overly coercive funding conditions. One of the key requirements is that such conditions must be reasonably related to the purpose of the financing. This standard may be breached if non-immigration-related funding streams are targeted. Trump may have cornered sanctuary cities, but legal safeguards mean he can’t end them.

Subscribe to our weekly newsletter for more English-language news from EL PAÍS USA Edition