By Benjamin Garcia | June 2025
In a quiet but significant move, the U.S. Department of Homeland Security (DHS) has officially removed its public list of so-called “sanctuary jurisdictions” — cities, counties, and states that limit cooperation with federal immigration enforcement. While this decision may seem bureaucratic on the surface, it represents a deeper shift in the U.S. government’s approach to immigration policy, state rights, and federal-local relations.
Here’s what’s really happening beneath the headlines — and what it could mean for America’s immigration future.
What Was the Sanctuary Jurisdictions List?
The term “sanctuary jurisdictions” refers to local governments that decline to fully cooperate with ICE (Immigration and Customs Enforcement) — typically by refusing to hold individuals in custody beyond their release time without a judicial warrant.
Under previous administrations, DHS published a weekly report identifying these jurisdictions, framing them as “non-compliant” with federal law. The list was highly politicized, often used to pressure or shame localities resisting federal immigration mandates.
But in May 2025, without a press conference or headline-making announcement, DHS officially stopped publishing the list — a move that has drawn sharp reactions from both immigration advocates and enforcement hardliners.
Why Did DHS Remove the List?
DHS removed a list of so-called sanctuary jurisdictions accused of defying federal immigration law. pic.twitter.com/AhQp7u7b9Z
— NTD Television (@TelevisionNTD) June 2, 2025
1. Legal and Constitutional Pressure
Experts have long argued that the sanctuary list was legally questionable. Courts in multiple states have ruled that federal authorities cannot compel local law enforcement to enforce immigration law — a principle rooted in the Tenth Amendment.
DHS’s recent policy memo, obtained via FOIA request by watchdog groups, reportedly cited “legal ambiguity and inconsistent compliance reporting” as reasons for ending the practice.
2. Shifting Priorities Under Executive Order 14159
President Biden’s Executive Order 14159, signed in early 2025, restructured the federal approach to immigration enforcement, emphasizing targeted deportations, border safety, and community trust over blanket crackdowns.
The sanctuary list, officials said, was “no longer aligned with the administration’s enforcement goals.”
3. Avoiding Political Weaponization
In the past, the list had been used to politically target liberal cities and withhold federal funds, leading to accusations of coercion and discrimination. Removing it helps DHS neutralize political bias claims and focus on operational effectiveness.
Which Cities Were on the List?
Is your state, county, or city on this @DHSgov list of “sanctuary” jurisdictions?
If so, the Trump Administration is putting your politicians on notice: comply with federal law.
See the list here: https://t.co/mKhpWpGi5o pic.twitter.com/E92lht5Nk3
— Rapid Response 47 (@RapidResponse47) May 29, 2025
Though no longer publicly released, previous DHS data included over 500 jurisdictions, including: New York City, San Francisco, Chicago, Seattle, Philadelphia, Cook County, IL, King County, WA and entire states like California, New Jersey, and Illinois
Most of these governments have laws or policies that prioritize community policing over ICE collaboration, arguing that immigrant residents are more likely to report crimes and engage civically when not living in fear of deportation.
Interestingly, most of the places that appeared on the old list haven’t changed their policies. Los Angeles, Seattle, Denver — all continue to limit their collaboration with ICE unless there’s a court warrant involved.
For city officials and local police, the issue isn’t about harboring undocumented people. It’s about maintaining trust with residents, especially in immigrant-heavy neighborhoods. Officers say people are more likely to report crimes and cooperate with investigations when they’re not terrified that a traffic stop might lead to deportation.
Public and Political Reaction
Progressive Praise
Immigrant rights groups such as the ACLU and United We Dream hailed the decision as a step toward ending fear-based enforcement and repairing trust with marginalized communities.
“For years, these lists stigmatized cities and painted immigrants as threats. Their removal is overdue,” said Marisol Torres of the Border Solidarity Coalition.
Conservative Backlash
Conversely, GOP lawmakers and immigration hawks slammed the move as “reckless” and “anti-enforcement.”
“The Biden administration is hiding which cities refuse to follow immigration law. That’s unacceptable,” tweeted Sen. Tom Cotton.
Some states are considering legislation that would mandate state-run databases to track local compliance with ICE detainers — effectively recreating the sanctuary list at the state level.
Legal Landscape: Sanctuary Laws vs. Federal Mandates
Here’s where it gets complex: Federal immigration law is the domain of Washington, D.C., but state and local governments control policing within their borders. Courts have repeatedly ruled that ICE detainer requests are voluntary, not mandatory.
This means: Cities like Los Angeles can legally decline to hold individuals for ICE unless there’s a judicial warrant and The federal government cannot penalize them just for refusing cooperation.
However, this balance continues to evolve through litigation. In 2024 alone, five circuit court decisions challenged aspects of detainer enforcement.
Broader Impact: Local Trust, Public Safety & Politics
Removing the sanctuary jurisdictions list may: 01. Improve immigrant trust in local police. 02. Reduce targeted political backlash against sanctuary cities. 03. Decrease misinformation about crime rates and undocumented residents
A 2024 Pew Research study found that immigrant communities in sanctuary jurisdictions had 26% higher reporting rates of domestic violence and workplace abuse than in non-sanctuary areas.
But opponents argue the policy might: 01. Encourage unauthorized migration. 02. Undermine federal law uniformity. 03. Spark further state-level defiance in conservative regions
What’s Next?
Great to be on with @marklevinshow and talk about the threat of the Chinese Communist Party in my new book, Seven Things You Can’t Say About China.
As bad as you think the CCP is, the truth is it’s far worse.
Get your copy here: https://t.co/tKCtVww05I pic.twitter.com/XsDWj7XEbo
— Tom Cotton (@TomCottonAR) February 19, 2025
Without a federal sanctuary jurisdictions list, the enforcement landscape is fragmenting further: Blue states like California and New York are doubling down on protective policies.
Red states like Texas and Florida are introducing new anti-sanctuary laws, some of which challenge the supremacy of federal immigration protocols.
Meanwhile, DHS is investing in alternative programs, including: Secure Communities 2.0, a biometric-based information-sharing initiative and Community-based alternatives to detention (ATDs) in lieu of mass detention
A New Chapter or a Hidden Agenda?
The removal of the sanctuary jurisdictions list may seem like a bureaucratic update, but in reality, it reflects a seismic policy shift. It raises urgent questions: Who controls immigration enforcement — Washington or the states? , Can safety and sovereignty coexist? , Is transparency sacrificed in the name of de-escalation?
In the end, this move may not mark the end of the sanctuary debate — just its quiet transformation.
Read This Now:
Poland’s Presidential Election 2025: What the Results Mean for Europe?
