Trump Signs Executive Order Targeting Sanctuary Cities, Mandates Federal List

 

In a controversial move reigniting one of his most polarizing policy stances, President Donald Trump signed a sweeping executive order on April 28, 2025, mandating federal agencies to compile and publish a list of so-called "sanctuary cities"—local jurisdictions that decline to fully cooperate with federal immigration enforcement.

The executive order, officially titled "Promoting Lawful Immigration Enforcement by Identifying Non-Cooperating Jurisdictions", directs the Department of Justice and the Department of Homeland Security to create a comprehensive, publicly available list of states, counties, and municipalities that, according to federal interpretation, obstruct or limit collaboration with Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE).

A Renewed Focus on Immigration

This directive marks a return to the hardline immigration agenda that defined Trump’s first term. “The American people deserve to know which local governments are refusing to uphold our laws,” Trump said during the signing ceremony at the White House. “Sanctuary cities don’t just defy federal authority—they put American lives at risk.”

The order includes instructions for agencies to identify funding mechanisms that could potentially be withheld from jurisdictions deemed uncooperative. Trump administration officials hinted at redirecting funds from housing, policing, and health grants toward jurisdictions complying with federal immigration policies.

The administration also aims to release a regular report highlighting crimes allegedly committed by undocumented immigrants in sanctuary cities. Trump claims this transparency will allow citizens to hold local leaders accountable for policies that, in his words, "shelter lawbreakers."

Legal and Constitutional Controversies

However, legal scholars and city officials were quick to denounce the order, calling it a clear overreach of executive authority. Within days, a coalition of sanctuary jurisdictions—including San Francisco, Seattle, and New York City—filed lawsuits challenging the directive.

Judge William Orrick of the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California issued a preliminary injunction halting enforcement of funding cuts, pending further review. “Federal funds cannot be used as leverage to force state or local compliance with unrelated federal mandates without congressional approval,” the judge wrote, citing the Tenth Amendment and the Spending Clause of the U.S. Constitution.

This legal standoff echoes prior court battles from Trump’s first term, when similar executive orders attempting to penalize sanctuary jurisdictions were struck down in multiple courts. The Supreme Court never fully weighed in on the issue, leaving a patchwork of interpretations nationwide.

Cities Push Back

Local officials argue that sanctuary policies are about public safety and trust, not defiance. “When immigrants fear contacting police, reporting crimes, or seeking help, the entire community suffers,” said Los Angeles Mayor Emilia Torres. “We are not going to turn our police officers into immigration agents. That’s not their job.”

Chicago Mayor Brandon Wright echoed that sentiment, saying the city’s policies are designed to protect due process and equal treatment. “Immigration enforcement is the federal government’s responsibility. If they want our help, they can do it legally, not through coercion.”

Civil liberties groups also warned that the public reporting of crimes by undocumented immigrants could stigmatize entire communities. “This order is designed to scapegoat and vilify,” said ACLU spokesperson Marina Gomez. “It’s political theater that won’t make us safer.”

Public Opinion and Political Strategy

Polls show Americans remain sharply divided on immigration policy. A recent Gallup survey found that while 48% support sanctuary policies, 46% oppose them, with strong partisan splits. Republicans overwhelmingly back Trump’s approach, while Democrats and independents are more supportive of local discretion.

Many analysts believe the move is as much about politics as policy. “This is red meat for Trump’s base,” said political scientist Dr. Caleb Ingram of Georgetown University. “He’s using sanctuary cities as a proxy for a broader law-and-order message aimed at suburban and rural voters.”

Democrats in Congress have already introduced legislation to protect sanctuary cities from federal retaliation, but such efforts are unlikely to pass in the Republican-controlled House.

Beyond Immigration: A Broader Bureaucratic Campaign

Interestingly, Trump’s executive order is not operating in a vacuum. Over the past three months, his administration has launched a coordinated campaign involving several federal agencies aimed at increasing pressure on undocumented immigrants and their host communities.

The Department of Housing and Urban Development has begun denying grants to sanctuary jurisdictions. The IRS has entered an agreement with DHS to share limited taxpayer data related to non-citizens. And the Department of Health and Human Services is reportedly reviewing funding guidelines to ensure that federal health programs prioritize citizens and legal residents.

“This is a whole-of-government push,” said an anonymous White House aide. “We’re using every tool available to encourage lawful immigration and punish those who obstruct it.”

Critics, however, argue that such coordination violates principles of federalism and blurs the lines between federal and local jurisdictions. “Weaponizing federal agencies for political goals sets a dangerous precedent,” warned former DHS official Karen Fields.

Looking Ahead

The impact of Trump’s new order is still unfolding. While the legal battles could delay its enforcement, the political implications are already reverberating. Conservative governors in states like Florida and Texas have applauded the move and vowed to use the forthcoming list to pressure cities in their jurisdictions.

Meanwhile, sanctuary cities are doubling down on their commitment to protect undocumented residents, even in the face of financial consequences. “We will fight this with every legal and moral tool we have,” said San Francisco Supervisor Diego Martinez.

As the nation moves deeper into the 2026 election cycle, the clash over sanctuary cities is poised to become a defining issue—not just about immigration, but about the nature of federalism, the power of the executive, and the identity of American communities.

---