How sanctuary cities in the US are preparing for another showdown with Trump

WASHINGTON – Cities across the US are making preparations to protect immigrants from

Donald Trump’s planned mass deportation programme

during his second presidency.

Los Angeles passed an ordinance in November that prohibits municipal resources from being used for federal immigration enforcement. New York City officials closed a migrant shelter on federal land viewed as a likely target for immigration raids in January. San Diego’s board of supervisors passed a policy that prohibits county agencies from working with federal immigration authorities.

In recent months, the mayors of Chicago and Denver have reiterated that their cities will not participate in immigration enforcement under Trump. 

During his first term, Trump’s efforts to leverage the power of the federal government against these so-called sanctuary cities were largely unsuccessful, and sanctuary policies across the country frustrated his deportation agenda. His administration is now gearing up for a new round of fights with these jurisdictions. Here is what to know. 

What’s a sanctuary city?

A sanctuary city is not a legal designation, though it is understood to mean a jurisdiction with policies that allow immigrants to live without fear of arrest or deportation.

The movement dates back to the 1980s, when religious institutions provided safe haven to Central Americans fleeing civil conflicts. San Francisco, Chicago and Los Angeles were among the first big cities to implement sanctuary policies.

Today, sanctuary status applies to municipalities, counties and states that do not require residents to reveal their immigration status to receive public benefits such as access to schools or emergency care; that limit the disclosure of residents’ immigration status to the federal government; or that refrain from arresting people solely on the basis of their immigration status. Some jurisdictions do all three. 

How many jurisdictions have sanctuary policies?

There is no definitive list. However, according to the Centre for Immigration Studies, as at January 2025, 13 states and more than 200 cities and counties have policies that limit compliance with federal immigration enforcement. 

In addition, a US Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) memo from June found 697 jails and prisons that either reject federal requests to detain immigrants in local jails or accept them in a limited fashion. 

Why does refusing to cooperate with federal officials disrupt deportation efforts? 

Finding and detaining people who are living in the interior of the US is extremely resource-intensive, and ICE is reliant on state and local governments to conduct its work. The agency has 20,000 employees, and only a small fraction of them are tasked with immigration enforcement activities. By contrast, there are nearly 800,000 state and local law enforcement officers around the country. 

One of the most common ways for a person in the interior of the US to end up in ICE custody is through arrest by local law enforcement. People arrested in the US have their fingerprints sent to a federal database, which allows immigration authorities to identify immigrants and request that they be held or transferred into federal custody after their release. That process is called an immigration detainer. More than 70 per cent of ICE arrests made inside the US are the result of handoffs from other law enforcement agencies, according to the Immigrant Legal Resource Centre, a national nonprofit that advocates for immigrant rights.

Complying with a detainer request is voluntary. In a 1997 ruling, the Supreme Court held that the federal government cannot require state officials to enforce federal law, a doctrine known as the “anti-commandeering principle”. In other words, sanctuary cities are within their legal rights when they refuse to transfer immigrants into federal custody.

Trump’s previous deportation plans were thwarted in part by non-compliance policies in sanctuary jurisdictions. ICE deported nearly 1.4 million people during Trump’s first presidency – fewer than the totals from Mr Joe Biden’s term or either of Mr Barack Obama’s.

How did Trump fight those policies during his first term? 

Days into Trump’s first term, he signed an executive order that sought to restrict federal funding to cities with sanctuary policies. The order was ultimately blocked by federal courts and deemed unconstitutional later that year. 

His administration also blocked sanctuary cities’ access to a Department of Justice programme that doles out hundreds of millions of dollars annually to local law enforcement agencies. New York City and seven states challenged the policy, and the legal fight made it to the US Supreme Court in 2020, which dismissed the case when Mr Biden took office and rescinded the policy. 

The Trump administration also challenged some jurisdictions’ sanctuary laws in court, such as when it sued over a California state sanctuary law. The lawsuit failed and the law still stands. It prohibits state and local police and sheriffs from asking people for their immigration status; making arrests on the basis of most immigration law violations alone; sharing an individual’s personal information with federal immigration agents unless that information was already public; and handing detainees over to federal immigration agents in most circumstances.

How are sanctuary jurisdictions preparing to resist Trump’s plans this time round?

After the November election, a handful of jurisdictions took additional steps to prepare for Trump’s immigration crackdown. Los Angeles already had a sanctuary policy in place, but it had not been written into city law until the passage of the November ordinance. In December, St Louis passed a Bill that makes municipal ID cards available free to all city residents. This will allow anyone, regardless of status, to access certain city services and keep people from having to use immigration documents as identification.

The state of California held a special legislative session in early December, and lawmakers introduced a Bill to set aside US$25 million (S$34 million) for legal fees to respond to the administration’s attacks on state policies, including immigration.

How are Trump and his allies responding? 

Trump and his border czar Tom Homan have said they will punish jurisdictions that do not cooperate with his administration’s deportation plans. Mr Homan said he would be willing to jail Denver Mayor Mike Johnston for the city’s immigration policies. The administration has also threatened to withhold funding from cities with sanctuary policies, a move that would likely lead to another round of legal challenges. 

In November, Mr Homan lashed out at Los Angeles city officials for adopting a sanctuary policy. “If you don’t want to help, get the hell out of the way,” he said on Newsmax. “If I have got to send twice as many officers to LA because we’re not getting any assistance, then that’s what we’re going to do.”

Trump is also reportedly looking to revoke agency policy preventing ICE arrests at sensitive locations, including schools and churches.

What happens in non-sanctuary jurisdictions?

Many jurisdictions actively collaborate with ICE through a programme called 287(g), which allows state and local law enforcement officers to carry out certain immigration enforcement functions. Officers deputised under 287(g) can question individuals about their immigration status and search for detainees’ personal information on ICE databases. There are currently 135 local law enforcement agencies that collaborate with ICE to help identify and process people for deportation or help federal immigration authorities serve warrants for civil violations of immigration law.

Other jurisdictions have gone a step further. Arizona approved a ballot measure in November that would allow state and local law enforcement to arrest and deport people for immigration law violations if it goes into effect. The law, like comparable laws passed in Texas, Iowa and Oklahoma, is suspended pending a US Supreme Court ruling on the constitutionality of the Texas Bill. If the Texas law is allowed to take effect, it is expected to set off a wave of legislation in red states across the country. BLOOMBERG