Protecting American Communities from Criminal Aliens

TLDR

This executive order targets “sanctuary” jurisdictions by: directing the publication of non-compliant jurisdictions; potentially suspending federal funds to these areas; developing mechanisms to prevent undocumented immigrants from receiving federal benefits; and instructing the Attorney General to challenge state/local laws favoring undocumented immigrants over citizens. While sweeping in rhetoric, its most punitive provisions likely face significant constitutional and legal challenges, as courts have repeatedly blocked similar efforts to withhold funding or compel local enforcement of federal immigration laws.

This executive order targets so-called “sanctuary” jurisdictions-states and localities that limit cooperation with federal immigration enforcement.

It:

• Directs the Attorney General and Secretary of Homeland Security to publish and update a list of sanctuary jurisdictions obstructing federal immigration law enforcement.
• Requires notification to these jurisdictions of their non-compliance and potential criminal law violations.
• Orders federal agencies to identify and, as permitted by law, suspend or terminate federal funds (including grants and contracts) to sanctuary jurisdictions.
• Calls for the development of mechanisms to ensure undocumented immigrants in sanctuary jurisdictions do not receive federal public benefits.
• Instructs the Attorney General to act against state or local laws that unlawfully favor undocumented immigrants over American citizens, such as in-state tuition for undocumented immigrants but not for out-of-state U.S. citizens.
• Reiterates that the order must be implemented within the bounds of existing law and does not create enforceable rights for third parties.

There are several concerning provisions within the executive order:

Federal Supremacy and “Lawless Insurrection”

The order asserts federal supremacy in immigration and labels state/local non-cooperation as a “lawless insurrection.” While the federal government has broad authority over immigration, the Tenth Amendment prohibits the federal government from “commandeering” state or local officials to enforce federal regulatory programs, including immigration enforcement. This principle has been repeatedly upheld by the Supreme Court (e.g., Printz v. United States, 1997). Furthermore, Sanctuary policies are generally legal: states and localities are not required to use their resources to enforce federal immigration law. Federal law can encourage cooperation but cannot compel it.

Withholding Federal Funds

The order threatens to suspend or terminate federal funds to sanctuary jurisdictions. However, multiple federal courts have ruled that the executive branch cannot unilaterally withhold congressionally appropriated funds from states or cities for not cooperating with immigration enforcement. Such actions violate the Spending Clause and separation of powers, as seen in City and County of San Francisco v. Trump (2017) and subsequent cases. Also, In April 2025, a federal judge again blocked the administration’s attempt to deny funding to sanctuary jurisdictions, citing constitutional limits.

Criminal Prosecution of Sanctuary Policies

The order suggests sanctuary policies may violate federal criminal statutes (e.g., obstruction of justice, harboring, conspiracy). However, there is little legal precedent for prosecuting local governments or officials for enacting policies that decline to assist federal immigration enforcement. The cited statutes generally target individuals or organizations that actively conceal or harbor undocumented immigrants, not governments that pass non-cooperation laws.

Preventing Federal Benefits for Aliens

The order instructs agencies to prevent undocumented immigrants in sanctuary jurisdictions from receiving federal public benefits. Existing federal law (8 U.S.C. 1611) already restricts most federal public benefits for undocumented immigrants, with exceptions for emergency services and certain other categories. The order’s new “eligibility verification” mechanisms may increase administrative burdens but do not fundamentally change eligibility rules.

Equal Treatment of Americans

The order directs the Attorney General to challenge state/local laws that allegedly favor undocumented immigrants over U.S. citizens (e.g., in-state tuition). However, courts have generally upheld states’ authority to set tuition policies for their own public universities, provided they do not violate federal law. 8 U.S.C. 1623 does restrict in-state tuition for undocumented immigrants unless the same benefit is available to all U.S. citizens, but enforcement has been inconsistent and subject to litigation.

The order signals a renewed crackdown on sanctuary jurisdictions and attempts to revive legal and financial pressure tactics from Trump’s first term. This move reflects a continuation of policies aimed at enforcing stricter immigration controls and holding local governments accountable for their stance on immigration enforcement.

Most of its punitive measures—especially withholding funds and criminal prosecution of sanctuary policies—face significant constitutional and legal hurdles. Courts have repeatedly blocked similar efforts, and legal experts expect further challenges. These legal barriers may limit the enforceability and scope of the order.

The order may lead to increased litigation, strained federal-local relations, and greater administrative scrutiny over public benefits in sanctuary jurisdictions. However, its most aggressive provisions are unlikely to survive court review, as previous attempts to implement similar policies have been repeatedly struck down.

The order is part of a broader campaign to demonstrate tough immigration enforcement, a central theme of Trump’s second term. It aligns with the administration’s efforts to reassert a hardline stance on immigration, reinforcing a key political message and strategic priority.gn to demonstrate tough immigration enforcement, a central theme of Trump’s second term.

While the executive order is sweeping in its rhetoric and intent, its most punitive provisions-especially the threat to withhold federal funding and prosecute sanctuary jurisdictions-are likely to be constrained by established constitutional limits and recent court rulings. Sanctuary policies remain a legally protected form of local autonomy, and the federal government cannot force states or cities to enforce immigration law or penalize them for declining to do so. The order’s practical effect will likely be more symbolic and political than transformative in law or policy.