Washington – State and local officials are responding to renewed threats from President Trump to withhold federal funding from jurisdictions with policies limiting cooperation with federal immigration enforcement. The president’s statements, made Wednesday in a Truth Social post and echoing remarks from Tuesday at the Detroit Economic Club, target “sanctuary” jurisdictions like California and Los Angeles.
Federal Funding at Stake
The president stated that, “Effective Feb. 1, no more payments will be made by the federal government to states for their corrupt criminal protection centers known as sanctuary cities.” He further claimed these cities “breed crime and violence” and suggested states could fund them if they choose. According to state budget records, the U.S. government currently provides California with $175 billion this fiscal year – roughly a third of the state’s total 2025-26 spending plan.
The administration’s policies generally do not prevent federal authorities from carrying out immigration enforcement actions, but they do limit the use of local resources in those efforts.
Legal Challenges Expected
California officials point to a series of prior court rulings in their favor on this issue. Most recently, in August, U.S. District Judge William Orrick ruled the federal government could not deny funding to Los Angeles and 30 other cities due to their immigration policies. This ruling extended an earlier injunction finding the president’s attempts to cut funding were likely unconstitutional and violated the separation of powers doctrine.
However, a 9th Circuit Court of Appeals panel signaled in December that it might overturn the injunction, questioning whether the administration’s latest orders actually require agencies to cut funding. A final ruling on the appeal is still pending.
California Attorney General Rob Bonta stated his office is prepared to “take action as necessary to protect our state and uphold the law.” He also noted a recent multistate challenge to the administration’s plans to freeze $10 billion in federal child care and social services funding.
Responses from California Leaders
Governor Gavin Newsom responded to the president’s threats with a statement referencing prior legal battles, saying, “He already forgot he tried this before — multiple times — and we sued him and won.” Los Angeles City Attorney Hydee Feldstein Soto confirmed the city would pursue legal action to protect its federal funding, and Mayor Karen Bass pledged to work with partners to ensure continued services for residents.
Senator Alex Padilla (D-Calif.) emphasized that Congress, not the White House, controls federal spending, stating, “Congress—not the White House and not Donald Trump — holds the power of the purse.”
Frequently Asked Questions
What are “sanctuary” jurisdictions?
According to the source, “sanctuary” jurisdictions are state and local governments with policies that limit cooperation with federal immigration enforcement agencies.
Has the federal government successfully cut funding to sanctuary jurisdictions in the past?
The source states that courts have repeatedly sided against the president on this matter, most recently in August, ruling the federal government cannot deny funding to Los Angeles and 30 other cities.
What is the administration’s justification for cutting funding?
According to the source, the administration claims sanctuary cities “breed crime and violence” and are “incredibly dangerous,” putting law-abiding Americans at risk.
As the legal landscape remains fluid, it remains to be seen whether the administration will attempt to implement these funding cuts and, if so, how those efforts will be received by the courts.
Keep reading