Trump is threatening to cut funding from sanctuary cities. Here’s what to know

With tensions already high in Minnesota after an Immigration and Customs Enforcement officer killed Renee Macklin Good, the Trump administration is ramping up the pressure on cities and states to cooperate with its immigration crackdown.

The administration had already surged federal agents — sometimes accompanied by military troops — to Los Angeles, Portland, Chicago, Charlotte, Memphis, Washington D.C. and New Orleans.

Now the White House is threatening to cut funding for sanctuary cities. Here’s a brief explanation of how local governments interact with federal immigration enforcement, and what the White House can and can’t require from them.

A fight over federal money 

President Trump threatened this week to cut “significant” federal funding to sanctuary cities. He hasn’t said exactly what money his administration wants to cut, though he gave a deadline of Feb. 1.

Nor has Trump said exactly which cities or states will be targeted, though the Department of Justice did publish a list of more than 30 cities, states and counties in August. (That list includes the state of Minnesota, though not Minneapolis or St. Paul or their respective counties).

In remarks on Tuesday at the Detroit Economic Club, Trump seemed to be focused on places that limit their cooperation with ICE.

“They do everything possible to protect criminals at the expense of American citizens. And it breeds fraud and crime and all of the other problems that come,” Trump said. “So we’re not making any payment to anybody that supports sanctuary cities.”

This is not the first time President Trump has made a threat like this. During his first term, the president tried to withhold some federal funding from sanctuary cities. More recently, Trump signed an executive order nearly a year ago directing the Departments of Justice and Homeland Security to make a list of sanctuary cities and withhold money from them.

But courts have sided against the administration in nearly every case, saying that the federal government cannot use funding to coerce state and local governments into changing their policies on immigration.

“Here we are again,” U.S. District Judge William Orrick in San Francisco wrote in April. Orrick granted (and later extended) a preliminary injunction blocking the Trump administration from withholding federal funds from 16 jurisdictions, including San Francisco, Portland, Seattle, Minneapolis, St. Paul and New Haven.

“The threat to withhold funding causes them irreparable injury in the form of budgetary uncertainty, deprivation of constitutional rights, and undermining trust between the Cities and Counties and the communities they serve,” Orrick said.

No precise legal definition of ‘sanctuary’

There’s no exact legal definition of “sanctuary city.” But broadly speaking, the term refers to any city, state or county that limits its cooperation with federal immigration authorities.

The legal questions here are nuanced. Local law enforcement cannot block federal agents from doing their work but courts have said that state and city officers can withhold some cooperation.

The legal arguments are rooted in the U.S. Constitution and the division of powers between the federal government, which is in charge of immigration enforcement, and state and local governments, which run their own police and sheriffs’ departments.

Courts have backed states that don’t want to share data on residents in their records, including information about driver’s licenses. And in many places, state and local law enforcement will not honor what’s known as a “detainer request” from ICE, which essentially asks police to hold someone in detention until immigration authorities can take custody.

Local officials push back 

Virtually all the cities and states the administration has focused on so far are led by Democrats, who don’t seem to be backing down after Trump’s threat to cut federal money.

“This is just a threat to intimidate states like New York into bowing into submission. And that is something we’ll never do,” New York Governor Kathy Hochul said earlier this week. “You touch any more money from the state of New York, we’ll see you in court.”

State and city leaders argue there is a fundamental public safety rationale for their sanctuary policies. They say that working with ICE would undermine trust and cooperation between local law enforcement and immigrant communities as they seek to prevent crime.

There’s clearly a political aspect to this as well. In many sanctuary cities, voters are asking Democratic leaders not to give in to the White House and its immigration agenda, so local leaders may have a strong incentive to dig in their heels.

Why local cooperation matters 

In the past, ICE has found that it’s faster and safer to arrest people who are already being held in local jails. And that’s one reason ICE was able to make so many arrests during the administration of President Obama, for example, before sanctuary policies were as widespread as they are now.

The White House says a lack of local cooperation is hindering its efforts to build “the largest deportation operation in the history of our country,” a pledge Trump made frequently during his reelection campaign.

“Minnesota’s ‘leaders’ have chosen defiance over partnership,” the White House said in a statement on Friday.

But Democrats say the administration is deliberately creating confrontations in cities and states that are led by political opponents, provoking chaotic scenes on purpose for reasons that go beyond simply enforcing immigration law.