Is President Trump allowed to stop payments to sanctuary cities and states?
Executive summary
The President can issue executive orders directing agencies to identify and attempt to withhold federal funds from jurisdictions labeled “sanctuary,” but longstanding constitutional limits, prior court rulings and statutory rules mean he cannot unilaterally and broadly cut off payments without legal authorization and clear nexus to the funds — and courts have already enjoined such efforts [1] [2] [3]. The practical reality is that attempts to defund sanctuary jurisdictions are subject to immediate litigation and judicial review, so the administration’s power is constrained, not absolute [4] [5].
1. What the new executive order actually does and what it orders agencies to try
The April 28, 2025 executive order (EO 14287) directs the Attorney General and DHS to publish a list of jurisdictions the administration deems to “obstruct” federal immigration enforcement and instructs agency heads and OMB to identify grants and contracts that “can be suspended or terminated” as appropriate — in short, it orders a mapping exercise and a plan to pursue cuts, not an immediate across‑the‑board cutoff [6] [2] [7]. The White House frames the EO as a blunt tool to “crack down” on sanctuary policies, with rhetoric promising withheld federal funding, but the text and accompanying fact sheets focus on agency processes rather than instant cessation of all payments [1] [8].
2. Constitutional and statutory constraints: why courts matter
Legal precedent limits the executive’s ability to impose new conditions on federal grants without Congress’s clear authorization and an “unambiguous” statement so states can knowingly accept terms — a doctrine rooted in the Spending Clause; courts have repeatedly blocked prior attempts to withhold funds for sanctuary policies on those grounds [5] [9]. Judges have enjoined similar measures, finding parts of earlier orders unconstitutional or procedurally deficient, and a federal judge has already warned the new EO cannot be used to evade existing injunctions — the administration may only cut funds when there is a sufficient nexus between the federal program and the policy being targeted [3] [4].
3. Litigation and practical effects: what happens after an order is signed
Experience shows signing an EO is the beginning of litigation, not the end: cities and counties promptly sue, seek preliminary injunctions, and courts often keep contested funding intact while cases proceed; local leaders plan budgets and reserves in anticipation, and legal challenges focus on vagueness, due process, and separation of powers [3] [10] [11]. The American Immigration Council and legal analysts note the EO does not “immediately” strip funds and leaves many questions about which grants could be targeted and under what statutory authority, so municipal finances face uncertainty rather than an immediate blackout [2] [12].
4. Political framing, motives and counterarguments
The administration’s public messaging stresses law-and-order motives and protecting communities from “criminal aliens,” which helps justify aggressive use of executive authority in the political sphere, but critics — including civil libertarians and many city officials — argue the move is a federal overreach aimed at coercing local policy and undermining federalism, and they highlight that prior efforts failed in court [1] [13] [14]. Implicit agendas are clear: the EO advances a political priority through administrative levers, and opponents see litigation as both a legal check and a political counterweight [7].
5. Bottom line: is the President “allowed” to stop payments?
The short answer is no, not unilaterally and not broadly — the President can attempt to identify and seek suspension of specific federal funds, but constitutional limits, statutory rules about grant conditions, and active judicial oversight mean any real withholding is likely to be narrowed, delayed, or blocked unless Congress has explicitly authorized the specific condition or courts uphold a concrete, legally justified nexus between the funding and the sanctuary policy [5] [4] [2]. Reporting and recent rulings show the administration’s legal pathway is narrow and contested; sources do not provide a final Supreme Court decision resolving the current EO, so outcomes remain uncertain [4] [3].