What legislative proposals in Congress aim to authorize or block funding cuts to sanctuary jurisdictions?
Executive summary
Congressional activity this winter centers on Republican-led legislative moves to authorize withholding federal dollars from so-called “sanctuary” jurisdictions—including a House bill (H.R.32) and high-profile Senate proposals by Sen. Lindsey Graham—and Democratic efforts to block or strip those measures from must-pass spending bills amid court fights and White House administrative actions [1] [2] [3] [4]. The battleground is both the FY2026 appropriations process—where DHS funding language and riders can enable or forbid cuts—and separate standalone bills that would directly sanction or criminalize local noncooperation with federal immigration enforcement [5] [6] [2].
1. H.R.32 — a direct statutory route to bar “bailouts” for sanctuary jurisdictions
House Republicans have introduced the No Bailout for Sanctuary Cities Act (H.R.32), which would make jurisdictions that provide benefits to undocumented immigrants ineligible for federal funds intended to benefit those aliens, covering services such as food, shelter, health care, legal services and transportation and triggering ineligibility 60 days after enactment or at the start of the next fiscal year [1].
2. Lindsey Graham’s bid — make sanctuary policies unlawful and leverage appropriations votes
Senator Lindsey Graham has introduced legislation intended to “end sanctuary cities forever,” seeking to criminalize willful interference by state and local officials with federal immigration enforcement and to press for a Senate vote on this measure tied to the FY2026 DHS appropriations debate, using appropriations floor timing as a lever [2] [7].
3. Appropriations riders and the DHS funding fight — where cuts can be enabled or blocked
The practical pathway for authorizing or preventing funding suspensions is the appropriations process: Republicans advanced H.R.7147 (DHS appropriations) and the consolidated package in the House, which leadership framed as aligning with the administration’s agenda and could include language facilitating enforcement or penalties for sanctuary policies, while senators have debated separating DHS funding and attaching or stripping contentious riders during ongoing negotiations [5] [6] [8].
4. Democratic resistance — blocking packages and insisting on protections
Senate Democrats have used procedural tools to block funding packages that would enact punitive sanctuary language, demanding protections and reforms and warning they will hold appropriations hostage to prevent measures that would strip legal safeguards or expand interior enforcement; Democratic appropriations offices explicitly note the DHS bill lacked certain Democratic reforms, underscoring the partisan impasse [3] [9].
5. Executive actions and agency lists — administrative pressure outside Congress
The White House and federal agencies have moved in parallel: the administration ordered agency reviews of funding to Democratic-controlled states and Justice Department lists of designated “sanctuary jurisdictions” have been published, signaling potential administrative suspension of payments independent of Congress—moves that courts have already started to constrict after judges called earlier efforts coercive and enjoined some actions [10] [11] [4].
6. Court risk and political calculus — why Congress matters despite executive pushes
Legal challenges loom large: a federal judge in San Francisco previously described administration attempts to deny funds as coercive and blocked them, and that litigation means only clear statutory changes or carefully crafted appropriations language likely survive sustained review—making congressional legislation (like H.R.32 or Graham’s bill) the decisive route if proponents want to create durable funding-cut authority [4].
7. Current status and prospects — contested, tied to spending deadlines, and uncertain
As of the FY2026 appropriations cycle, the House has passed appropriations packages that Republican leaders say implement an “America First” funding approach while the Senate wrestles with separating DHS funding and scheduling votes on sanctuary-related measures; Democrats continue to block or extract concessions, and courts and agency rulemaking will shape the ultimate ability to cut funds until Congress settles text in law [5] [6] [3].