Trump to Cut Funds to States With Sanctuary Cities on February 1
“ALL THEY DO IS BREED CRIME AND VIOLENCE! If States want them, they will have to pay for them!”
President Donald Trump wrote on Truth Social that his administration will cut funding to states with sanctuary cities on February 1.
Cue the lawsuits:
EFFECTIVE FEBRUARY FIRST, NO MORE PAYMENTS WILL BE MADE BY THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT TO STATES FOR THEIR CORRUPT CRIMINAL PROTECTION CENTERS KNOWN AS SANCTUARY CITIES. ALL THEY DO IS BREED CRIME AND VIOLENCE! If States want them, they will have to pay for them! MAKE AMERICA GREAT AGAIN!!!
— Rapid Response 47 (@RapidResponse47) January 14, 2026
Trump first made the announcement during his visit to Michigan at the Detroit Economics Club.
PRESIDENT TRUMP: “Starting February 1st, we're not making any payments to sanctuary cities or states having sanctuary cities because they do everything possible to protect criminals at the expense of American citizens and it breeds fraud and crime and all of the other problems… pic.twitter.com/FyMYGilLtp
— Fox News (@FoxNews) January 13, 2026
In August, the DOJ published the states, cities, and counties with sanctuary policies. These are the states (the DOJ included DC in the list):
States with sanctuary cities not on the list include New Mexico (Albuquerque) and Pennsylvania (Philadelphia).
Donations tax deductible
to the full extent allowed by law.
Comments
Federal judge to say “no you can’t” on February 2nd
Tomorrow.
FIFY
yeah, well….. there are 2 weeks to get this pushed through the courts
Indeed. #Resistance Federal judges have already seized at least partial control of the US armed forces and are now giving orders to the troops. They also supersede US immigration laws and the US Congress in a growing number of cases. For years they have disregarded the Bill of Rights to impose unconstitutional restrictions on our freedoms, and that trend has accelerated in the past few years.
There is no law they will not overturn or flatly ignore so they can rule the country directly.
“Black-robed, tyrannical, un-elected inferior court judges” — Atty Andrew Branca
Maybe I’m missing something, but Trump can’t cut funds to states he doesn’t like. Congress makes the laws. The laws says the states get the funds. It’s Trump’s job to execute the laws, not change the laws he doesn’t like that congress passed.
Seriously, can anyone give me one reason why Trump thinks he has the authority to change laws enacted by congress?
Nowhere does the Constitution give Congress any direct authority to control spending. The Constitution (not Congress) restricts the POTUS to spending from the Treasury only those funds appropriated by Congress. The fact that this control is placed on the POTUS is a clear indication that spending is an executive function, and is a function over which Congress has no direct control (having only indirect control by limiting appropriations).
The Constitution’s limits on the POTUS’ ability to spend in no way infers that Congress can direct the POTUS to spend that which has been appropriated. The restriction places a limit on the POTUS’ ability to spend, it does not imply he lacks discretion concerning what portion of what has been appropriated is actually spent. The people elect the POTUS to exercise his discretion and judgment over all executive matters (per Article II), and “spending” is an executive function.
The constitution doesn’t ban impoundment, but the Impoundment Control Act does.
If the Constitution doesn’t give Congress that power, Congress can’t usurp it by passing legislation.
Which may/may not be constitutional as it interferes with prerogative of the Executive to exercise prudence/stewardship.
Personally I’d suggest putting the funds into escrow. Then if the States get their processes reformed then release the funds. The other issue is to demand that the States who challenge the funding cut be required to post the full bond not get a waiver. That step alone will end most of the law fare shenanigans.
Obviously, I believe that 1.) the authority to ban impoundment isn’t included in the authority to appropriate – the two subjects aren’t part of the same authority as “appropriation” isn’t “spending”; 2.) that because the only restriction on spending is directed at the POTUS, spending is recognized (by the Constitution) as an executive function; that 3.) Congress would need an explicit grant by the Constitution to interfere with or otherwise direct the POTUS’ spending (as, for instance, the Senate has a role in the appointment of certain federal officers – a reservation of a specific function that allows control over what otherwise is an executive function – there are other such examples).
States infringes on executive, then they get stomped. Even if they eventually win the funds, the delay is an effective punishment.
about time!
Why is Massachusetts not listed?
Yeah it should be. T
An omission that immediately glared out to me as well. I do believe the whole damn state is a sanctuary state. Some good cigarette money to be saved there.
Why wait? Do it now. Squeeze the sanctuary states where it hurts.
Blockade the sanctuary states as a lesson…abide or starve.
“Don’t Tread On Me” works both ways.
That darn Trump. He’s so silly. Everyone knows Judge Boasberg is the true ruler of the executive branch from his district court fortress on high where he will fart in Trump’s general direction, then taunt him with insult’s about his parents before overruling Trump’s E.O.
Checkmate, Trump.
another maga move soon to be thwarted by rino lefty lovn communists
and ….
Republican centrists and populists in the House on Tuesday blocked a series of GOP labor bills on the chamber floor, marking the latest blow to Speaker Mike Johnson (R-La.) and his leadership team, who are increasingly losing their grip on the restive Republican conference.
The House was poised to vote Tuesday evening on three Republican bills designed to ease regulations on businesses — partisan bills that were nonetheless expected to pass given the GOP’s long-standing appetite for deregulation.
I know the goal of the msm is to show that the its the gop that is in need of more rinos/dems…..but instead of all these rules…just go full maga agenda at the local levels and that should be what the gop/djt team should focus on
This is unconstitutional, and will be struck down immediately. The law has been clearly established on this, in numerous Supreme Court cases:
* The president has no authority at all to cut funds to states on his own because they don’t comply with what the federal government wants. Only Congress can do so.
* Even Congress can only do so explicitly; it must give the states clear notice of what it wants, and how much money they will lose if they choose not to comply.
* Even then, Congress can only link spending to compliance in order to persuade the states, but not to compel them. The funding loss must be small enough that the states can afford to continue their defiance and do without the money. Any linkage that’s so big the states are left with no choice but to comply is automatically unconstitutional.
See South Dakota v Dole, in which the 5% cut in highway funding that Congress had explicitly passed for states that refused to impose a 55 MPH speed limit was upheld only because it was small enough not to be compulsion. The court didn’t give a number that would be too big, but said any cut big enough to compel the state would be unconstitutional.
“Any linkage that’s so big the states are left with no choice but to comply is automatically unconstitutional.”
Any chronic funding so large that a state grows to depend upon it is unconstitutional, first.
IMO the reliance on a case involving cuts of funds from the highway trust fund as opposed to general revenue is not universally applicable. You may be proven correct but it isn’t settled. The Executive probably can’t independently refuse to disburse funds both authorized and appropriated in specific dollar amounts for specific things …though he probably can temporarily tie them up until the very end of the fiscal year. Then there’s the little issue of the demanding the plaintiff State(s) post a meaningful bond. It can be waived ‘in the public interest’ but Federal taxpayers are IMO the public interest and failure to require a meaningful bond before issuing injuction seems opposed to the public interest.
Also see the PPACA case, in which SCOTUS struck down the part of PPACA that cut off Medicare funding from states that didn’t set up their own exchanges. Congress made it a condition of funding that a state must set up an exchange, and SCOTUS said Congress can’t do that, because it violates the tenth amendment. States have a right not to do as Congress wishes, and Congress may only persuade them, not compel them.
“Revolutionary arguments surface even when long standing practices appear to have firm judicial support.”
Ren Jander, JD
Writing in https://www.thepostemail.com/2020/11/18/elections-undecided-by-midnight-are-void-9-0-decision/
compare:
Former President Barack Obama is applauding Harvard University’s decision to refuse the White House’s demands that it change its policies or lose federal money, in his first social media post to criticise the Trump administration since at least Inauguration Day.
President Donald Trump is freezing more than $2bn (£1.5bn) in federal funds for Harvard because it would not make changes to its hiring, admissions and teaching practices that his administration said were key to fighting antisemitism on campus.
Obama, a Harvard alum, described the freeze as “unlawful and ham-handed”.
He called on other institutions to follow Harvard’s lead in not conceding to Trump’s demands.
compare to:
SAVEWITH A NBCUNIVERSAL PROFILE
ADD NBC NEWS TO GOOGLE
July 24, 2009, 2:33 AM CDT / Source: a href=”http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/front.htm” linktype=”External” resizable=”true” status=”true” scrollbars=”true”>The Washington Post</a
By By Michael D. Shear and Nick Anderson
President Obama is leaning hard on the nation's schools, using the promise of more than $4 billion in federal aid — and the threat of withholding it — to strong-arm the education establishment to accept more charter schools and performance pay for teachers.
The pressure campaign has been underway for months as Education Secretary Arne Duncan travels the country delivering a blunt message to state officials who have resisted change for decades: Embrace reform or risk being shut out.
https://www.nbcnews.com/id/wbna32116686