One of Donald Trump’s first actions as president was to attack sanctuary cities, a move that will do nothing to decrease crime or build safer communities. In fact, crime rates are lower in counties that have sanctuary policies—where leaders prioritize local safety over harmful federal immigration enforcement—compared to those that don’t.

What is a sanctuary city?

There is no official definition, but in general sanctuary cities are jurisdictions that prioritize the safety and well-being of all residents by limiting cooperation with federal immigration authorities, allowing limited local resources to be used to support local community members. Sanctuary policies are often adopted in areas with large immigrant populations, and about a dozen states and hundreds of cities are currently considered sanctuaries.

Mass immigration raids terrorize neighborhoods, disrupt workplaces, and tear apart families. To prevent local resources from being used for these indiscriminate efforts that harm community members, jurisdictions including California, Colorado, Illinois, Oregon, and Washington have passed laws and implemented sanctuary policies.

How do sanctuary cities work?

Sanctuary cities enact a wide variety of policies and practices designed to protect their noncitizen populations by limiting local law enforcement’s involvement in federal detention and deportation efforts. Some jurisdictions pass ordinances prohibiting agreements that allow Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) to deputize local law enforcement officers to detain and deport noncitizens.

In New York, for example, an executive order prohibits local police from inquiring about immigration status unless it is directly relevant to a law enforcement investigation. While sanctuary policies help protect people from being detained or arrested solely because of their immigration status, they do not prevent prosecution for criminal offenses. People under investigation for crimes in sanctuary cities are still subject to arrest and prosecution.

Are sanctuary cities legal?

Yes. Sanctuary policies have been found to be in compliance with federal law. Federal actions intended to force local jurisdictions to perform immigration enforcement are likely unconstitutional.

According to the 10th Amendment of the U.S. Constitution, powers not explicitly delegated to the federal government, nor prohibited to the states, are reserved to the states or to the people. This amendment upholds a key principle to divide the balance of power between the federal government and the states. The U.S. Supreme Court has interpreted this amendment to mean that the federal government may not “issue directives requiring the States to address particular problems, nor command the States’ officers, or those of their political subdivisions, to administer or enforce a federal regulatory program.”

Courts have consistently ruled that the federal government may not force states and localities to participate in immigration enforcement. For example, in 2018, during the first Trump administration, then-Attorney General Jeff Sessions sued to block California’s sanctuary law, known as the California Values Act, but federal courts rejected this effort, allowing the law to remain in effect.

Why do cities want to avoid cooperating with ICE?

In a fair and functional immigration system, local jurisdictions would not need to shield their residents against immigration enforcement. But the U.S. immigration system is notoriously unjust, outdated, and cruel. Immigrants contribute immeasurably to U.S. communities’ culture, infrastructure, and economy. When people are taken by ICE, they are placed in a shadowy system of detention rife with medical neglect, inhumane treatment, and preventable death. The situation is worsening under the new Trump administration, which has already begun sending noncitizens to Guantanamo Bay and El Salvador’s Centro de Confinamiento del Terrorismo (CECOT) mega-prison, both notorious for extreme overcrowding and human rights abuses. In fact, the United States has admitted to wrongfully deporting Kilmar Armando Abrego Garcia to CECOT, blaming an “administrative error” and making no effort to return him to his family in Maryland.

How do sanctuary policies increase public safety?

Sanctuary policies increase public safety by increasing trust in local law enforcement. When people fear that local law enforcement will turn them over to ICE, they are far less likely to report crime or potential crime and less likely to cooperate with criminal investigations. Law enforcement agencies around the country oppose the federal government’s efforts to mandate that local law enforcement serve as immigration police.

“To do our job we must have the trust and respect of the communities we serve,” said Tom Manger when he was president of the Major Cities Chiefs Association. “Cooperation is not forthcoming from persons who see their police as immigration agents. When immigrants come to view their local police and sheriffs with distrust because they fear deportation, it creates conditions that encourage criminals to prey upon victims and witnesses alike.”

A statistical analysis of the effects of sanctuary policies on crime found that violent crime and property crime rates are lower in sanctuary counties. On average, 35.5 fewer crimes are committed per 10,000 people in sanctuary counties, compared to non-sanctuary counties. This data suggests that “when local law enforcement focuses on keeping communities safe, rather than becoming entangled in federal immigration efforts, communities are safer.”

Further, a 2020 study of sanctuary policies found that those policies reduce deportations of certain populations by one-third and have no adverse impact on public safety.

How is the Trump administration targeting sanctuary cities?

On January 20, 2025, Trump issued an executive order seeking to withhold federal funding from sanctuary jurisdictions and threatened prosecution of public officials who decline to use their resources to comply with federal immigration enforcement. In February, the U.S. Department of Justice filed lawsuits against the city of Chicago, the state of Illinois, Cook County, and New York State for passing laws that prioritize local public safety and limit cooperation with immigration authorities—laws that hinder the president’s harmful immigration agenda. The lawsuits aim to coerce jurisdictions into using their resources to join the Trump mass deportation plan and expose their residents to an immigration system that is increasingly dangerous and unjust.

How are sanctuary cities responding to federal attacks?

In response to the January 2025 executive order, a coalition of cities and counties led by San Francisco filed a lawsuit to challenge the administration’s attempt to coerce sanctuary cities to cooperate with the federal government’s immigration crackdown.

This March, at a congressional hearing called by the House Oversight and Government Reform Committee, the mayors of Boston, Chicago, Denver, and New York defended their sanctuary policies, backed by their cities’ public safety records, and rejected claims that sanctuary cities make people unsafe. Mayor Michelle Wu of Boston underlined the real threat to public safety: “If you wanted to make us safe, pass gun reforms. . . . Stop cutting Medicaid. Stop cutting cancer research. Stop cutting funds for veterans.”

Everyone wants to live in a safe and stable community. Most Americans want a fair and orderly immigration system. Targeting sanctuary city policies does nothing to accomplish either of these goals.

Sanctuary cities must continue to fight federal overreach efforts to usurp their limited resources for harmful immigration enforcement. More municipalities should prioritize investments in resources like good schools, affordable housing, and stable jobs that lead to safety and security for all.