President Donald Trump announced plans to terminate all federal funding to states harboring sanctuary cities, effective February 1, 2026.
The unprecedented move threatens to withhold an estimated $1.1 trillion in annual federal grants supporting healthcare, transportation, education, and social services across twelve states, including California, New York, and Illinois.
Existing Court Order Blocks Policy
The administration’s plan directly violates an existing preliminary injunction issued by U.S. District Judge William Orrick III, which explicitly prohibits withholding federal funds from sanctuary jurisdictions.
Legal experts warn that proceeding could trigger contempt of court charges against Cabinet officials. “A judge could impose fines and even jail terms,” stated California Attorney General Rob Bonta.
California Faces $175 Billion Loss
California stands to lose $175 billion—representing 35.2% of its entire state budget—if the defunding proceeds. New York City could lose $7.4 billion, while Chicago faces $1.9 billion in cuts.
The Medi-Cal program alone, serving nearly 15 million California residents, receives $119.3 billion in federal funding that would be eliminated under Trump’s directive.
Fourth Attempt at Defunding
This marks the Trump administration’s fourth attempt to financially punish sanctuary jurisdictions since 2017.
Federal courts blocked all three previous efforts—in 2017, 2018, and April 2025—ruling them unconstitutional violations of separation of powers, the Spending Clause, and the Tenth Amendment. Judge Orrick wrote in his 2025 decision: “Here we go again”.
What Are Sanctuary Cities?
Sanctuary jurisdictions limit local law enforcement cooperation with Immigration and Customs Enforcement, particularly declining to honor detainer requests for undocumented immigrants.
Thirty-five jurisdictions appear on the Department of Justice’s August 2025 list, including twelve states, four counties, and eighteen major cities. These policies are grounded in the anti-commandeering doctrine protecting state sovereignty.
Constitutional Crisis Brewing
The Constitution grants Congress—not the President—exclusive authority over federal spending through the Appropriations Clause. Courts have consistently ruled that presidents cannot unilaterally withhold appropriated funds to advance policy objectives.
“The power of the purse rests exclusively with Congress,” Judge Orrick emphasized in his 2017 ruling blocking Trump’s first defunding attempt.
Legal Experts Predict Defeat
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. Threatening to eliminate 35% of state budgets clearly constitutes impermissible coercion.
No Operational Details Provided
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.” This ambiguity alone violates constitutional requirements for unambiguous funding conditions.
Minneapolis Shooting Heightens Tensions
The announcement came one week after ICE officer fatally shot Renee Good, a 37-year-old U.S. citizen, in Minneapolis on January 7. The incident sparked nationwide protests and intensified scrutiny of federal immigration tactics.
Trump deployed approximately 2,000 federal agents to Minneapolis—outnumbering the city’s 600 police officers—in what ICE described as its “largest immigration operation ever”.
Crime Research Contradicts Claims
Trump characterized sanctuary cities as “corrupt criminal protection centers” that “breed crime and violence.” However, peer-reviewed research demonstrates no correlation between sanctuary policies and increased crime rates.
A 2022 study in Social Science Research found that “both property crime and violent crime decreased more in sanctuary counties than non-sanctuary counties” after 2014.
Healthcare Funding Dominates Risk
Healthcare programs, primarily Medicaid, constitute 50-60% of all federal grants to state and local governments.
In California, Medi-Cal represents 68.4% of federal funding flowing through the state budget. Transportation funding accounts for approximately 10%, while education comprises another 10%. Community Development Block Grants, housing vouchers, and social services would also face elimination.
Formula Grants Require Congressional Action
Federal funding mechanisms include formula grants (70% of total) and discretionary grants (30%). Formula grants like Medicaid follow statutory distribution formulas that Congress must authorize agencies to modify.
Discretionary grants offer agencies greater flexibility, though constitutional constraints still apply. Legal experts suggest Trump may target discretionary grants where executive control is strongest.
State Leaders Vow Legal Resistance
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”.
Broader Pattern of Financial Coercion
The sanctuary defunding fits a pattern of using federal funding as political leverage against Democratic jurisdictions.
In October 2025, Trump cancelled nearly $8 billion to states that voted for Vice President Harris. In January 2026, he attempted withholding $10 billion in childcare funds from five states. Federal courts blocked both actions as illegal.
Law Enforcement Opposes Mandate
Police agencies nationwide oppose federal mandates requiring local officers to enforce immigration law. When immigrant communities fear deportation from any police interaction, they become less likely to report crimes or serve as witnesses.
Minneapolis Police Chief Brian O’Hara criticized ICE agents for “questionable methods” following the Renee Good shooting, illustrating operational tensions.
Supreme Court Precedent Cited
The Supreme Court in National Federation of Independent Business v. Sebelius (2012) ruled that conditioning all Medicaid funding on states’ adoption of the Affordable Care Act’s expansion was unconstitutionally coercive.
The Court distinguished between acceptable inducement and impermissible coercion, establishing that threatening 10% of state budgets crossed constitutional limits. Trump’s proposal threatens 20-40% of budgets.
Contempt Charges Possible
If Trump administration officials proceed despite Judge Orrick’s injunction, they face civil contempt proceedings.
While presidential immunity from criminal prosecution exists for official acts under the Supreme Court’s 2024 Trump v. United States decision, it doesn’t shield officials from civil contempt for defying judicial orders. Professor Bill Hing of University of San Francisco Law noted this could result in sanctions.
Attorney General Bondi’s Prior Letters
Attorney General Pamela Bondi sent demand letters to 32 sanctuary jurisdictions in August 2025, requiring responses by August 19 confirming commitment to federal law compliance. The letters demanded detailed plans to dismantle sanctuary policies.
Most jurisdictions refused, asserting constitutional authority to establish local law enforcement priorities independent of federal immigration objectives.
Litigation Timeline Predicted
Legal experts anticipate sanctuary jurisdictions will file for temporary restraining orders and preliminary injunctions before February 1.
Given existing precedent and the strength of constitutional claims, courts will likely grant relief. Even if the administration prevailed at trial—considered unlikely—appeals would take months or years. The Ninth Circuit’s 2018 San Francisco v. Trump ruling took 16 months.
Federalism Principles at Stake
The controversy raises fundamental questions about federal-state relations and constitutional structure. The Constitution establishes dual sovereignty, with states retaining substantial autonomy within their authority spheres.
Federal grants historically operated as cooperative federalism mechanisms, not coercive tools. Constitutional scholars warn that allowing such financial pressure would render enumerated powers meaningless and fundamentally alter the federal balance.
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.