Thanks to DHS, congressional Republicans can simultaneously cut spending and enforce immigration law. They should. And they can by reducing federal funds going to over 600 jurisdictions obstructing the enforcement of U.S. immigration law — so-called “sanctuary jurisdictions.” Lucre and leverage should come together.
Recently, the Department of Homeland Security “issued a comprehensive list of sanctuary jurisdictions including cities, counties, and states that are deliberately obstructing the enforcement of federal immigration laws and endangering American citizens.” Sadly, there are over 600 such jurisdictions — the Federation for American Immigration Reforms counts over 1,000. Almost all are blue: 16 states self-identified “as a State Sanctuary Jurisdiction;” all 16 voted for Harris in 2024 — throw in D.C. and Rhode Island (with a “court order requiring state sanctuary requirements”) and it’s 18 out of 18. The overwhelming slant also applies to cities and counties making the list. (RELATED: Sanctuary Cities: The Dangerous Illusion of Virtue)
While DHS was releasing its law-breakers list, congressional Republicans are working on a budget proposal to cut spending and keep taxes low. One of the Republicans’ prime concerns is finding more spending cuts. DHS has given them a perfect opportunity to cut spending and enforce immigration law at the same time: reduce federal money within the parameters of budget reconciliation to sanctuary jurisdictions “deliberately obstructing the enforcement of federal immigration laws and endangering American citizens,” and then do so in Congress’s annual appropriations bills too.
Individuals convicted of breaking federal laws can lose federal benefits. Federal employees who break federal laws can lose their federal benefits. Companies that contract with the federal government can lose their contracts and suffer penalties when they break federal laws. Why should jurisdictions that are willfully interfering with the enforcement of immigration law not be treated the same way?
In what other areas would we allow jurisdictions to willfully break federal laws without losing federal benefits?
This need not be just a symbolic move. There is big money in federal payments going to states and local governments. According to the New York State Comptroller’s office, New York City relies on $7.4 billion in federal funding, 6.4 percent of its total budget. (RELATED: Sedition in Rochester, New York)
Budget Benefits of Cutting Off the Spigot
Sure, New York City is large, but remember, there are still over 600 others on the sanctuary jurisdiction list, too. And lots of federal money flows to states and municipalities: According to OMB’s Historical Tables, $1.1 trillion in federal grants is going to state and local governments in this fiscal year. Even without ending all their federal funding, a huge message could be sent to sanctuary jurisdictions.
While such spending cuts would amount to well less than Washington’s full expenditures to states and municipalities, with over 600 sanctuary jurisdictions, and many big, blue states and cities, it could still mean significant savings.
The collateral benefits would be substantial too.
Because such savings would last only so long as sanctuary jurisdictions refused to comply with federal immigration enforcement, they could not be counted on to offset new spending or tax cuts. That means all would have to go to deficit reduction — a big demand from conservatives.
Since essentially none of these sanctuary jurisdictions are red, reducing their federal funding should not divide Republicans. And since no Democrats are expected to vote for Republicans’ budget proposal (none did when it passed the House), cutting sanctuary jurisdictions’ funding would not hurt the vote total.
As for sanctuary jurisdictions, some would instantly change their tune; Dallas, Texas, just did, even without the threat of losing federal funds. Flipping “sanctuary jurisdictions” to “law-enforcing jurisdictions” would remove big magnets for illegal immigrants to come to the U.S. It would also send another signal that those already here illegally should leave. (RELATED: Trump’s Plan to Pay Illegal Aliens to Self-Deport is Brilliant)
Perhaps the only lesson that Harvard has taught is that going after the Left’s government funding is the only thing that gets their attention. By its own admission, for years, Harvard tolerated antisemitism on its campus; once the administration threatened its federal funding, suddenly Harvard paid attention rather than lip service. (RELATED: Harvard’s Sacred Cash Cows)
The sanctuary jurisdictions are no different. Clearly, they want to battle the Trump administration in courts and run out the clock on his term. Going after their federal funding in budget bills, which will be signed into law, cuts right to the heart of the matter. And through their delaying tactics.
Talk is cheap; none more so than sanctuary jurisdictions’ virtue-signaling. Congress can let the Left choose to put their money where their mouth is. If they refuse to listen to reason and follow the law, then they should be forced to listen to the law or lose money. As L.A. burns, conservatives should learn.
# # #
READ MORE from J.T. Young:
Democrats’ Real Problem with Populism
Time to Strategically Decouple From China
The Left, Radical Left, and Democrats: Three Peas, One Pod
J.T. Young is the author of the recent book, Unprecedented Assault: How Big Government Unleashed America’s Socialist Left, from RealClear Publishing, and has over three decades of experience working in Congress, the Department of the Treasury, the Office of Management and Budget, and representing a Fortune 20 company.