Trump Threatens to Cut Federal Funding to Sanctuary Cities Amid Immigration Clash

 

President Donald Trump has announced plans to strip all federal funding from cities and states that maintain sanctuary policies, intensifying his administration's aggressive stance on immigration enforcement. In a social media post on Thursday, the president condemned sanctuary cities, declaring them dangerous and unpatriotic. “No more Sanctuary Cities! They protect the Criminals, not the Victims. They are disgracing our Country, and are being mocked all over the World,” Trump wrote. He continued, “Working on papers to withhold all Federal Funding for any City or State that allows these Death Traps to exist!!!”

 

Sanctuary jurisdictions, including major cities like New York, Chicago, Boston, and Denver, have adopted policies that restrict local law enforcement from cooperating with federal immigration authorities unless certain legal thresholds are met. Typically, these policies prohibit holding individuals solely based on immigration status or federal detainer requests, unless supported by a judicial warrant. These measures are often defended by local leaders as necessary to build trust between immigrant communities and law enforcement, and to prevent overreach by federal agencies.

 

 

President Trump and his allies have long criticized sanctuary cities, arguing they shield undocumented immigrants from deportation and create public safety risks. His administration has been pushing state and local governments to allow federal immigration officers to detain suspects beyond their scheduled release dates, aiming to ramp up arrests and deportations as part of his promised mass-deportation campaign.

 

Although Trump’s recent post did not detail how the funding restrictions would be enforced or how broadly they would apply, the move echoes previous efforts from his first term. During that period, the administration issued an executive order to block certain federal grants to jurisdictions that refused to cooperate with Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE). In 2020, a federal appeals court ruled in favor of the administration, deciding it could legally withhold funds from New York City and seven states with similar sanctuary policies, reversing a 2018 lower court decision.

 

The White House has not yet responded to questions about the latest announcement or provided clarification on how the funding cuts would be implemented.

 

Critics of Trump’s proposal, including local leaders from affected cities, have pushed back strongly. At a recent House Oversight and Government Reform Committee hearing, which is led by the GOP, mayors defended their policies and challenged the narrative that sanctuary cities are unsafe. Chicago Mayor Brandon Johnson, a Democrat, emphasized the positive impact of sanctuary policies on public safety and community trust.

 

“Scapegoating entire communities is not only misleading, it is unjust and it is beneath us,” he said.

 

The renewed push to defund sanctuary jurisdictions is likely to face legal challenges and political opposition, but it underscores Trump’s continued focus on immigration enforcement as a central theme of his agenda. As debates over immigration policy intensify, the tension between federal authority and local autonomy appears destined to remain a flashpoint in national politics.

 

Based on a report by WSJ  2025-04-12

 

 

Good and any other funding these sanctuary city saps do not deserve. Let these anarchists,/progressives wallow in their own slop. And try getting violent protesting and see how that works for you. Ie in times of civil unrest the president can suspend the Posse Comitatus Act

40 minutes ago, morrobay said:

Good and any other funding these sanctuary city saps do not deserve. Let these anarchists,/progressives wallow in their own slop. And try getting violent protesting and see how that works for you. Ie in times of civil unrest the president can suspend the Posse Comitatus Act

Wow. Hate much?

1 hour ago, Social Media said:

 

Trump Threatens to Cut Federal Funding to Sanctuary Cities Amid Immigration Clash

 

President Donald Trump has announced plans to strip all federal funding from cities and states that maintain sanctuary policies, intensifying his administration's aggressive stance on immigration enforcement. In a social media post on Thursday, the president condemned sanctuary cities, declaring them dangerous and unpatriotic. “No more Sanctuary Cities! They protect the Criminals, not the Victims. They are disgracing our Country, and are being mocked all over the World,” Trump wrote. He continued, “Working on papers to withhold all Federal Funding for any City or State that allows these Death Traps to exist!!!”

 

Sanctuary jurisdictions, including major cities like New York, Chicago, Boston, and Denver, have adopted policies that restrict local law enforcement from cooperating with federal immigration authorities unless certain legal thresholds are met. Typically, these policies prohibit holding individuals solely based on immigration status or federal detainer requests, unless supported by a judicial warrant. These measures are often defended by local leaders as necessary to build trust between immigrant communities and law enforcement, and to prevent overreach by federal agencies.

 

 

President Trump and his allies have long criticized sanctuary cities, arguing they shield undocumented immigrants from deportation and create public safety risks. His administration has been pushing state and local governments to allow federal immigration officers to detain suspects beyond their scheduled release dates, aiming to ramp up arrests and deportations as part of his promised mass-deportation campaign.

 

Although Trump’s recent post did not detail how the funding restrictions would be enforced or how broadly they would apply, the move echoes previous efforts from his first term. During that period, the administration issued an executive order to block certain federal grants to jurisdictions that refused to cooperate with Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE). In 2020, a federal appeals court ruled in favor of the administration, deciding it could legally withhold funds from New York City and seven states with similar sanctuary policies, reversing a 2018 lower court decision.

 

The White House has not yet responded to questions about the latest announcement or provided clarification on how the funding cuts would be implemented.

 

Critics of Trump’s proposal, including local leaders from affected cities, have pushed back strongly. At a recent House Oversight and Government Reform Committee hearing, which is led by the GOP, mayors defended their policies and challenged the narrative that sanctuary cities are unsafe. Chicago Mayor Brandon Johnson, a Democrat, emphasized the positive impact of sanctuary policies on public safety and community trust.

 

“Scapegoating entire communities is not only misleading, it is unjust and it is beneath us,” he said.

 

The renewed push to defund sanctuary jurisdictions is likely to face legal challenges and political opposition, but it underscores Trump’s continued focus on immigration enforcement as a central theme of his agenda. As debates over immigration policy intensify, the tension between federal authority and local autonomy appears destined to remain a flashpoint in national politics.

 

Based on a report by WSJ  2025-04-12

 

 

Another action of a low IQ dement self appointed world's leader😵‍💫

About time, these sanctuary cities, by allowing illegal aliens in and 'protecting' them are breaking the law.

54 minutes ago, newbee2022 said:

Another action of a low IQ dement self appointed world's leader😵‍💫

 

This comment is itself a trifle demented.  I was under the impression that Trump, far from being "self-appointed", had been elected by over70 million people.....

1 hour ago, newbee2022 said:

Another action of a low IQ dement self appointed world's leader😵‍💫

Where are you from to object tot this?  If anyone is low IQ, it is you.  Really low IQ to boot.

8 minutes ago, blazes said:

 

This comment is itself a trifle demented.  I was under the impression that Trump, far from being "self-appointed", had been elected by over70 million people.....

You can't read? I reckon you need professional help. 

Because you are incapable to see the difference between your "self-appointed" (President) and what I wrote "self appointed world's leader". For my term there is no electorate.

Got it?

13 minutes ago, blazes said:

 

This comment is itself a trifle demented.  I was under the impression that Trump, far from being "self-appointed", had been elected by over70 million people.....

Almost 78 million and we are all with him.

1 minute ago, thaipo7 said:

Where are you from to object tot this?  If anyone is low IQ, it is you.  Really low IQ to boot.

Be careful with your words. 

Do you want to insult me? Tell me!

2 minutes ago, newbee2022 said:

You can't read? I reckon you need professional help. 

Because you are incapable to see the difference between your "self-appointed" (President) and what I wrote "self appointed world's leader". For my term there is no electorate.

Got it?

You are low IQ projecting on others

1 hour ago, lou norman said:

Wow. Hate much?

Hate what?  The illegals are illegal and my tax dollars should not be going to support any illegals from anywhere.  We have a correct way to enter the country.  All are welcome.  Just do it the right way.

3 minutes ago, hotsun said:

You are low IQ projecting on others

Word salad. 😵‍💫

Sanctuary for illegals, gang members, child abusers and drug runners, why?

2 minutes ago, newbee2022 said:

Word salad. 😵‍💫

Are you thai? Your posts are very stupid

1 hour ago, newbee2022 said:

Another action of a low IQ dement self appointed world's leader😵‍💫

How about backing this statement up in relation to sanctuary cities. If you don't, can't or won't then this is just another example of your baseless, brainless vitriolic comments.

2 hours ago, lou norman said:

Wow. Hate much?

Yeah, not great language.  In fact I think it is extremist.  But in general I understand why federal funding gets cut to look after illegal immigrants.  A quote from the OP relating to this is "They protect the Criminals, not the Victims.".  This might get read in a way that depicts immigrants as all criminals, which they actually if they entered the US illegally.  What I don't like is the inference that they are carrying out further criminal acts whilst in the US.  Some may have, but I very much doubt it's a majority, and I doubt that most will be engaged in any acts that "create public safety risks".

3 hours ago, Social Media said:

Sanctuary jurisdictions, including major cities like New York, Chicago, Boston, and Denver, have adopted policies that restrict local law enforcement from cooperating with federal immigration authorities unless certain legal thresholds are met.

Can anyone explain why this is not illegal?  Surely this is obstruction of justice?  https://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/obstruction_of_justice.

 

The quote from the link is "Obstruction of justice broadly refers to actions by individuals that illegally prevent or influence the outcome of a government proceeding".  So I guess as it stands the actions of these cities is not illegal, so why hasn't Trump gone to the Supreme Court to make it illegal?  How can a city Trump the presidency or a Federal institution?  Pun intended.

 

 

Do it the right way or don’t do it at all. 

1 hour ago, Watawattana said:

Can anyone explain why this is not illegal?  Surely this is obstruction of justice?  https://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/obstruction_of_justice.

 

The quote from the link is "Obstruction of justice broadly refers to actions by individuals that illegally prevent or influence the outcome of a government proceeding".  So I guess as it stands the actions of these cities is not illegal, so why hasn't Trump gone to the Supreme Court to make it illegal?  How can a city Trump the presidency or a Federal institution?  Pun intended.

 

 

 

It might be more effective to charge the politicians and judges and administrators in sanctuary cities and states with the RICO act. The eventual adjudication might fail, but in the meantime RICO charges should allow the justice department to confiscate their savings and bank accounts and other assets before there is even a trial. 

2 hours ago, newbee2022 said:

You can't read? I reckon you need professional help. 

Because you are incapable to see the difference between your "self-appointed" (President) and what I wrote "self appointed world's leader". For my term there is no electorate.

Got it?

Are you claiming the POTUS is not a world leader? Gee wizz, who would have thought? Thanks for pointing out that important piece of information.

I'm just surprised he didn't do it on day 1. If they don't want to conform to federal law, then remove federal funding from them till they do.

1 hour ago, Watawattana said:

Yeah, not great language.  In fact I think it is extremist.  But in general I understand why federal funding gets cut to look after illegal immigrants.  A quote from the OP relating to this is "They protect the Criminals, not the Victims.".  This might get read in a way that depicts immigrants as all criminals, which they actually if they entered the US illegally.  What I don't like is the inference that they are carrying out further criminal acts whilst in the US.  Some may have, but I very much doubt it's a majority, and I doubt that most will be engaged in any acts that "create public safety risks".

Every day someone illegally in the US stays in the US they are committing a crime.

 

Anyone think that if the Thai authorities catch someone illegally in Thailand they are going to be nice to them? Why should the US be different?

34 minutes ago, thaibeachlovers said:

Every day someone illegally in the US stays in the US they are committing a crime.

 

Anyone think that if the Thai authorities catch someone illegally in Thailand they are going to be nice to them? Why should the US be different?

I totally agree with you.  Illegals should get ejected.  ASAP.  For those who commit additional criminal acts, the 'ASAP' should be even quicker.  My opinion does not only apply to the USA.

5 hours ago, thaipo7 said:

Almost 78 million and we are all with him.

No, not all God Sake 😁

7 hours ago, morrobay said:

Good and any other funding these sanctuary city saps do not deserve. Let these anarchists,/progressives wallow in their own slop. And try getting violent protesting and see how that works for you. Ie in times of civil unrest the president can suspend the Posse Comitatus Act

Here’s an idea how’s about the states start withholding their fed funds when the felon starts demanding without legislation you know the legal way to go about things….as far as (illeagles) keep in mind it’s not illegal to clame asylum that’s straight up leagle as per international law that we are a party to.

What's to understand? Why underwrite a criminals actions.... Whether foreign or domestic (aiding & abetting)

If I were in a country illegally, no matter the reason: I'd expect to be deported.....And rightfully so.....

 

Nice.  

12 hours ago, newbee2022 said:

Another action of a low IQ dement self appointed world's leader😵‍💫

 

an excellent example of illiteracy; many thanks 

13 hours ago, Social Media said:

 

Trump Threatens to Cut Federal Funding to Sanctuary Cities Amid Immigration Clash

 

President Donald Trump has announced plans to strip all federal funding from cities and states that maintain sanctuary policies, intensifying his administration's aggressive stance on immigration enforcement. In a social media post on Thursday, the president condemned sanctuary cities, declaring them dangerous and unpatriotic. “No more Sanctuary Cities! They protect the Criminals, not the Victims. They are disgracing our Country, and are being mocked all over the World,” Trump wrote. He continued, “Working on papers to withhold all Federal Funding for any City or State that allows these Death Traps to exist!!!”

 

Sanctuary jurisdictions, including major cities like New York, Chicago, Boston, and Denver, have adopted policies that restrict local law enforcement from cooperating with federal immigration authorities unless certain legal thresholds are met. Typically, these policies prohibit holding individuals solely based on immigration status or federal detainer requests, unless supported by a judicial warrant. These measures are often defended by local leaders as necessary to build trust between immigrant communities and law enforcement, and to prevent overreach by federal agencies.

 

 

President Trump and his allies have long criticized sanctuary cities, arguing they shield undocumented immigrants from deportation and create public safety risks. His administration has been pushing state and local governments to allow federal immigration officers to detain suspects beyond their scheduled release dates, aiming to ramp up arrests and deportations as part of his promised mass-deportation campaign.

 

Although Trump’s recent post did not detail how the funding restrictions would be enforced or how broadly they would apply, the move echoes previous efforts from his first term. During that period, the administration issued an executive order to block certain federal grants to jurisdictions that refused to cooperate with Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE). In 2020, a federal appeals court ruled in favor of the administration, deciding it could legally withhold funds from New York City and seven states with similar sanctuary policies, reversing a 2018 lower court decision.

 

The White House has not yet responded to questions about the latest announcement or provided clarification on how the funding cuts would be implemented.

 

Critics of Trump’s proposal, including local leaders from affected cities, have pushed back strongly. At a recent House Oversight and Government Reform Committee hearing, which is led by the GOP, mayors defended their policies and challenged the narrative that sanctuary cities are unsafe. Chicago Mayor Brandon Johnson, a Democrat, emphasized the positive impact of sanctuary policies on public safety and community trust.

 

“Scapegoating entire communities is not only misleading, it is unjust and it is beneath us,” he said.

 

The renewed push to defund sanctuary jurisdictions is likely to face legal challenges and political opposition, but it underscores Trump’s continued focus on immigration enforcement as a central theme of his agenda. As debates over immigration policy intensify, the tension between federal authority and local autonomy appears destined to remain a flashpoint in national politics.

 

Based on a report by WSJ  2025-04-12

 

 

Chicago Mayor Brandon Johnson... laugh, I shat.