Trump’s Attempt to Defund Sanctuary Cities Hits a Wall

When he returned to the White House, President Trump renewed his aggressive stance against so-called "sanctuary cities"—jurisdictions that limit local cooperation with federal immigration enforcement. Earlier this year, Trump signed Executive Order 14159, which aimed to strip federal funding from sanctuary states and municipalities unless they complied with immigration detainer requests and expanded their cooperation with ICE.

The Justice Department followed suit, releasing a list of 35 jurisdictions—including major cities such as Los Angeles, Chicago, Boston, and Baltimore—along with entire states like California and New York, as targets of the administration’s defunding campaign. The Department of Homeland Security even briefly published a list of over 500 sanctuary jurisdictions before abruptly removing it after backlash.

But the administration’s attempt to strong-arm local governments has now hit a major legal obstacle.

On August 22, 2025, U.S. District Judge William Orrick issued an injunction blocking the administration from withholding federal funds from sanctuary jurisdictions.

A key point of Judge Orrick’s ruling is that it expanded an earlier injunction and emphasized that the president does not have the constitutional authority to unilaterally impose funding conditions on states and cities—authority that belongs to Congress. The court underscored that threatening to pull critical federal grants was not only coercive but also violated principles of federalism under the Tenth Amendment.

This decision has far-reaching implications. While the administration framed the move as protecting national security, Orrick noted that the Constitution sets clear boundaries on executive power. The ruling safeguards billions in funding for local governments and preserves their ability to craft policies they believe best serve their communities.

Local leaders have responded defiantly to Trump’s attempt to dismantle sanctuary protections. Boston’s Mayor Michelle Wu called the effort politically motivated and unconstitutional, vowing that her city will not back down. Colorado Governor Jared Polis and Denver officials likewise rejected the Justice Department’s demands, citing their constitutional right to set local policies.

For immigrant communities, Orrick’s ruling represents a significant victory. It ensures that sanctuary jurisdictions will not be forced to choose between receiving critical federal support and maintaining policies designed to foster trust between immigrant residents and local authorities.

Still, the legal and political battle is far from over. The Trump administration is expected to appeal, potentially pushing the fight all the way to the Supreme Court. For now, however, sanctuary cities have secured a crucial reprieve, and the ruling reaffirms the enduring tension between federal immigration enforcement and local autonomy.

Judge Orrick’s decision is more than just a temporary legal block—it’s a reminder of the constitutional checks on presidential power. As the fight over sanctuary cities continues, the courts will remain an important arena where the future of immigration enforcement and local governance is decided.