President Donald Trump has declared his intention to terminate all federal funding to states harboring sanctuary jurisdictions, marking his fourth attempt since 2017 to financially penalize cities that limit cooperation with immigration enforcement. The February 1, 2026 deadline threatens to withhold federal grants supporting healthcare, transportation, education, and essential services across twelve states.
The unprecedented policy directly challenges an existing court order from U.S. District Judge William Orrick III that explicitly prohibits such funding cuts. Legal experts warn that proceeding could trigger contempt of court charges against Cabinet officials who defy the injunction.
Massive Financial Stakes for States
California faces the most severe impact, with substantial federal funding at risk across multiple programs. The Medi-Cal program alone serves nearly 15 million residents with significant federal support. New York City and Chicago also face major funding cuts under the proposed policy.
The thirty-five jurisdictions on the Department of Justice’s August 2025 list include twelve states, four counties, and eighteen major cities. These sanctuary policies limit local law enforcement cooperation with Immigration and Customs Enforcement, particularly declining to honor detainer requests for undocumented immigrants.
Constitutional Roadblocks Ahead
Federal courts blocked all three previous defunding attempts—in 2017, 2018, and April 2025—ruling them unconstitutional violations of separation of powers, the Spending Clause, and the Tenth Amendment. Judge Orrick has previously emphasized that “the power of the purse rests exclusively with Congress.”
The Constitution grants Congress exclusive authority over federal spending through the Appropriations Clause. Presidents cannot unilaterally withhold appropriated funds to advance policy objectives. Constitutional scholars characterize the current threat as “even more blatantly unconstitutional” than previous iterations, according to Professor Ilya Somin of George Mason University.
The proposal fails multiple constitutional tests established in South Dakota v. Dole, including requirements that funding conditions be unambiguous, germane to grant purposes, and non-coercive. The Supreme Court ruled in National Federation of Independent Business v. Sebelius that threatening a substantial portion of state budgets constituted impermissible coercion.
Implementation Details Remain Unclear
The administration has provided virtually no specifics about implementation. Officials haven’t identified which grants would be affected, what compliance criteria jurisdictions must meet, or how state-level defunding would operate. When asked about details, Trump responded: “You’ll see. It’ll be significant.”
Healthcare programs, primarily Medicaid, constitute 50-60% of all federal grants to state and local governments. Transportation funding accounts for approximately 10%, while education comprises another 10%. Federal funding mechanisms include formula grants that require Congressional action to modify, complicating any executive attempt to withhold funds.
The announcement came one week after an ICE officer fatally shot Renee Good, a 37-year-old U.S. citizen, in Minneapolis on January 7. Trump deployed approximately 2,000 federal agents to Minneapolis in what ICE described as its “largest immigration operation ever.”
Research Contradicts Crime Claims
Trump characterized sanctuary jurisdictions as “corrupt criminal protection centers” that “breed crime and violence.” However, peer-reviewed research demonstrates no correlation between sanctuary policies and increased crime rates. Studies have found that crime rates in sanctuary counties did not increase relative to non-sanctuary counties.
State Leaders Prepare Legal Battle
California Governor Gavin Newsom responded: “Please pray for the president as he struggles with cognitive decline. He already forgot he tried this before—multiple times—and we sued him and won.” Chicago Mayor Brandon Johnson posted: “See you in court @realDonaldTrump.” Illinois Governor JB Pritzker pledged to “persist in fighting for what our citizens deserve.”
The sanctuary defunding fits a pattern of using federal funding as political leverage. Federal courts have previously blocked similar funding withholding actions as illegal.
Legal experts anticipate sanctuary jurisdictions will file for temporary restraining orders before February 1. Given existing precedent, courts will likely grant relief. Even if the administration prevailed at trial, appeals would take months or years. While presidential immunity from criminal prosecution exists for official acts, it doesn’t shield officials from civil contempt for defying judicial orders.
Sources:
“White House to end funding to sanctuary cities and states on Feb. 1.” NBC News, January 2026.
“Trump threatens to cut off funds to ‘sanctuary’ cities and states starting in February.” Politico, January 2026.
“Federal court blocks Trump Administration from withholding funds to sanctuary jurisdictions.” San Francisco City Attorney’s Office, April 2025.
“U.S. Sanctuary Jurisdiction List Following Executive Order 14287.” U.S. Department of Justice, August 2025.
“Do sanctuary policies increase crime? Contrary evidence from the 2017 executive order.” Social Science Research journal, 2022.
“Federal Funds Drive One-Third of California’s State Budget.” California Budget & Policy Center, September 2025.