Trump administration and budget pressures are pushing sanctuary jurisdictions to drop status

There is no official definition of “sanctuary,” but it is the term applied to states, cities and other jurisdictions that protect undocumented migrants and offer them certain benefits, such as health care and education, that the federal government does not provide. For the Donald Trump administration, these authorities are not cooperating with Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) to detain and deport migrants and therefore, in its view, they are violating federal laws.

There are about 14 states that are considered sanctuaries, according to the health policy organization KFF, but the harassment they face from the federal government, with constant threats of legal action and cutting off federal funding, in addition to their own budget constraints, are eroding their willingness to help foreigners. Three of them — Illinois, California, and Minnesota — have already announced cuts to their benefits for undocumented immigrants.

In Illinois, a budget was introduced in Congress last week that includes the elimination of the program that provided health care for undocumented adults between the ages of 42 and 65. The measure complies with the proposal of Democratic Governor JB Pritzker, who positioned Illinois as one of the states that welcomed undocumented immigrants but, faced with the reality of public finances, has opted to save approximately $400 million by leaving nearly 33,000 people without health coverage.

Latino lawmakers, who oppose the cuts, said they fought to maintain health care for those aged 65 and over who lack legal immigration status.

“It’s heartbreaking. And it doesn’t mean the cost is going to go away,” said Representative Lisa Hernandez, referring to people who go to emergency rooms for care. “This program actually was a way to approach it in a much more cost-effective way,” she added, according to the Chicago Sun-Times.

The Republican-led federal government and Republican states advocate eliminating all benefits for undocumented immigrants, arguing that they are a burden to public finances. Proponents of these policies argue that providing health care saves money by preventing illness and avoiding emergency room visits. Studies also show that undocumented immigrants contribute more money to the public coffers through tax payments than they receive in return, as in most cases they are not eligible for benefits.

Illinois is not unique. In Minnesota, the budget currently before Congress includes the withdrawal of health care for undocumented adults. In 2023, Governor Tim Walz, the former Democratic vice-presidential candidate, signed a law expanding public health insurance coverage for people without legal status. More than 20,000 people have enrolled, including some 3,000 children. Minors are still eligible for health insurance. Walz has lamented the cuts, but considers them a budgetary necessity given the state’s deficit.

“It turns out that when you offer something for nothing, especially if it’s free health care, it becomes very popular,” said Republican state Representative Paul Torkelson. “The number of undocumented immigrants participating in this program has more than doubled expectations, and it’s only been available for less than two years.” Torkelson maintains that the program was projected to cost $196 million over four years, but has ballooned to $550 million.

California, a state that has excelled in welcoming and protecting a large number of migrants, is also stripping them of benefits. Governor Gavin Newsom, in his 2025-26 fiscal year budget, has called for a freeze on undocumented immigrants’ enrollment in the Medi-Cal program. The 1.6 million undocumented immigrants already enrolled will not lose access to health services, but will have to make a monthly payment of $100.

Although these sanctuary states’ programs are funded with their own resources, the Trump administration is pushing to cut their federal funding if they continue providing services to undocumented immigrants. The Republican’s “big, beautiful” bill, which passed the House of Representatives and has since moved to the Senate, penalizes states that use their own funds to benefit undocumented immigrants. The prospect of a cut of billions of dollars in state coffers jeopardizes the continuation of these programs.

Obstacles to education

The White House has also attacked educational aid for undocumented students. Trump signed an executive order to combat state laws that “offer in-state higher education tuition to foreign nationals, but not to U.S. citizens from other states.” Some 24 states and the District of Columbia offer the same tuition rates at their universities to all residents, regardless of immigration status. In some states, undocumented students can even access scholarships.

Florida, one of the states that did not discriminate based on status, will do so from now on, and starting July 1, students without a green card will have to pay the same tuition as if they lived in another state. This measure aligns with the policies of Governor Ron DeSantis, one of Trump’s staunchest allies in the president’s anti-immigrant crusade.

The DHS blacklist

The Trump administration’s latest initiative in its crackdown on undocumented immigrants has been the creation of a blacklist of jurisdictions it considers sanctuaries.

“These sanctuary city politicians are endangering Americans and our law enforcement in order to protect violent criminal illegal aliens,” Department of Homeland Security (DHS) Secretary Kristi Noem said in a press release.

Last Thursday, the DHS published a list of around 500 jurisdictions it threatened with retaliation for failing to cooperate with immigration authorities.

“This memorandum marks a new attempt by the Trump administration to force states and counties to waive their constitutional rights to enact policies they deem appropriate to protect their residents. DHS does not have the authority to dictate state and local laws,” said Murad Awawdeh, president of the New York Immigration Coalition.

The list was created based on various factors, including whether cities or towns were identified as sanctuary jurisdictions, their level of compliance with federal immigration authorities, or whether they had protections for people in the country without legal status, according to DHS.

Several of the jurisdictions included in the list, some of which support Trump’s policies, have protested. In California, the city of Huntington Beach was included despite having filed a lawsuit challenging the state’s sanctuary laws and having passed a resolution this year declaring the community a “non-sanctuary city.” Jim Davel, the county administrator of Shawano County, Wisconsin, claimed that his community’s inclusion must have been an administrative error. Davel voted for Trump, as did 67% of his county. By Sunday, the list had been removed from the DHS website altogether.

Government harassment has led some public officials to avoid having their cities designated as sanctuaries. In the District of Columbia, Mayor Muriel Bowser has withdrawn the designation and called for the repeal of a law limiting cooperation with immigration authorities.

For his part, Brandon Scott, mayor of Baltimore, Maryland, declared on X that Baltimore “is not a sanctuary city” because it does not have jurisdiction over its prisons. Prison collaboration with ICE, by sharing information about their detainees, is one of the measures the government is promoting with local authorities through the signing of 287g agreements.

“But we are a welcoming city, and we make no apologies for that. We are better because of our immigrant neighbors, and we are not about to sell them out to this administration,” Scott added.

Sign up for our weekly newsletter to get more English-language news coverage from EL PAÍS USA Edition