Trump Budget Proposal Would Circumvent Courts to Target Undocumented Immigrants

Tucked into the budget is language that would allow the administration to defund sanctuary cities.

Protesters outside a San Francisco courthouse where a federal judge will hear arguments in the first lawsuit challenging President Donald Trump's executive order on sanctuary cities, April 14, 2017. Haven Daley/AP

Let our journalists help you make sense of the noise: Subscribe to the Mother Jones Daily newsletter and get a recap of news that matters.


Included in the White House’s budget proposal is language that would allow the administration to circumvent a court order and take away funds from state and local governments that protect undocumented immigrants. The little-noticed provision, tucked into the 1,300-page proposal released Tuesday, would permit the Justice and Homeland Security departments to withhold funding for jurisdictions that do not aid in the enforcement of the nation’s immigration laws.

On the campaign trail, Donald Trump promised to “end” so-called sanctuary jurisdictions—places where local officials have refused to cooperate with federal immigration agents—by cutting off federal funding. In his first week in office, Trump signed an executive order to do just that. But his attempt to defund local jurisdictions quickly ran into legal trouble. Last month, a federal judge in San Francisco blocked the order. Among other factors, the judge found that the president had overstepped his authority by authorizing the executive branch to withhold funds appropriated by Congress.

The government’s own lawyers effectively conceded the point. In court, Acting Assistant Attorney General Chad Readler defended the order by arguing that, contrary to the public statements of the president and Attorney General Jeff Sessions, the order was “narrow” and would affect only a small number of federal grants. In other words, the government was arguing that all the talk about defunding sanctuary cities was just that: talk. Sessions himself seemed to give up on the defunding plan on Monday when he released a memo with a narrow interpretation of a sanctuary jurisdictions, limited to localities that violate US Code 1373, a federal law that concerns communication between local and federal officials and does not mention detaining immigrants. “[T]he term ‘sanctuary jurisdiction’ will refer only to jurisdictions that ‘willfully refuse to comply with 8 U.S.C. 1373,'” the memo states. The libertarian Cato Institute, which is pro-immigration, hailed the memo as “good news for constitutionalists and federalists who oppose the federal government bullying cities and states.”

But the Trump administration’s budget changes all that. In two separate sections of the nearly 1,300-page document, the administration aims to broaden US Code 1373’s definition of a sanctuary jurisdiction and give the Justice and Homeland Security departments the ability to withhold more funding—including grants aimed at preventing terrorism.

“We thought, this is them kind of capitulating,” says Phil Wolgin, managing director of immigration policy at the liberal Center for American Progress, referring to Sessions’ memo. “And then we see this language today which would radically redefine 1373 to do all the things that they’ve been trying to do.”

In other words, the court said Trump couldn’t enforce his sanctuary city policies without Congress’ authorization, so Trump’s budget, a blueprint submitted to Congress, asks the House and Senate to do what he cannot do alone. The proposed new language for US Code 1373 “puts a gun to the head of jurisdictions and says, ‘You must comply or we’ll take away your money,'” Wolgin says.

A key portion of Trump’s budget proposal authorizes the withholding of public safety funds for non-compliance with federal officials: “The Secretary of Homeland Security or the Attorney General may condition a grant or cooperative agreement awarded by the Department of Homeland Security or the Department of Justice to a State or political subdivision of a state, for a purpose related to immigration, national security, law enforcement, or preventing, preparing for, protecting against or responding to acts of terrorism.”

If Congress adopts this language, Sessions and Homeland Security Secretary John Kelly could withhold funds to jurisdictions that do not comply with requests for information about individuals and requests to detain individuals. The departments could also force jurisdictions to promise compliance with such requests as a condition of receiving future grants.

Wolgin says “the fact that they need to change the law” is “another capitulation that under current law they do not have the authority to go after what they call so-called sanctuary jurisdictions.” But that’s cold comfort for immigrant advocates if Congress adopts this language. Though a president’s budget is never adopted wholesale by Congress, Republicans in Congress may well go along with this new attempt to defund sanctuary jurisdictions. Wolgin believes that it could end up in an appropriations bill or another piece of legislation.

Based on Sessions’ Monday memo, it seems likely that he knew this change would be tucked into the budget and is hoping it will pass. “We think they knew this was coming,” says Wolgin. “As far as I can tell in the Sessions memo, nothing would need to change if the law changes.”

What looked like a capitulation on the issue of sanctuary cities was, it seems, just a change in tactics.

IT'S NOT THAT WE'RE SCREWED WITHOUT TRUMP:

"It's that we're screwed with or without him if we can't show the public that what we do matters for the long term," writes Mother Jones CEO Monika Bauerlein as she kicks off our drive to raise $350,000 in donations from readers by July 17.

This is a big one for us. It's our first time asking for an outpouring of support since screams of FAKE NEWS and so much of what Trump stood for made everything we do so visceral. Like most newsrooms, we face incredibly hard budget realities, and it's unnerving needing to raise big money when traffic is down.

So, as we ask you to consider supporting our team's journalism, we thought we'd slow down and check in about where Mother Jones is and where we're going after the chaotic last several years. This comparatively slow moment is also an urgent one for Mother Jones: You can read more in "Slow News Is Good News," and if you're able to, please support our team's hard-hitting journalism and help us reach our big $350,000 goal with a donation today.

payment methods

IT'S NOT THAT WE'RE SCREWED WITHOUT TRUMP:

"It's that we're screwed with or without him if we can't show the public that what we do matters for the long term," writes Mother Jones CEO Monika Bauerlein as she kicks off our drive to raise $350,000 in donations from readers by July 17.

This is a big one for us. So, as we ask you to consider supporting our team's journalism, we thought we'd slow down and check in about where Mother Jones is and where we're going after the chaotic last several years. This comparatively slow moment is also an urgent one for Mother Jones: You can read more in "Slow News Is Good News," and if you're able to, please support our team's hard-hitting journalism and help us reach our big $350,000 goal with a donation today.

payment methods

We Recommend

Latest

Sign up for our free newsletter

Subscribe to the Mother Jones Daily to have our top stories delivered directly to your inbox.

Get our award-winning magazine

Save big on a full year of investigations, ideas, and insights.

Subscribe

Support our journalism

Help Mother Jones' reporters dig deep with a tax-deductible donation.

Donate