What federal funding streams have been successfully withheld from jurisdictions for sanctuary policies, and what legal challenges followed?
Executive summary
The Trump administration since early 2025 has repeatedly attempted to condition or cut federal grants to jurisdictions it deems “sanctuary,” targeting Department of Justice (DOJ) and other federal payments, but courts have largely blocked those efforts through injunctions and ongoing litigation [1] [2] [3]. Legal fights center not on whether the administration tried to withhold dollars — that is documented — but on whether the federal government can lawfully coerce political compliance from states and cities by diverting unrelated federal funds, a question courts and litigants continue to dispute [4] [5] [6].
1. What federal funding streams the administration has targeted and how it tried to withhold them
The administration’s directives and memos have explicitly focused on withholding DOJ-administered grants and other federal payments from jurisdictions alleged to violate 8 U.S.C. §1373 or to impede federal immigration enforcement, with a February 2025 DOJ memo instructing the department to stop certain grants for noncompliant localities [1] [7]. The White House also signaled broader plans to withhold a wide array of federal payments — from public safety and disaster relief to transportation and housing grants — when it issued executive orders and published sanctuary jurisdiction lists [8] [7] [9]. Administration statements announcing an immediate cutoff of “federal payments” to sanctuary cities and states have been public and repeated [10] [4] [11].
2. What has actually been withheld — practice versus promise
Despite repeated public threats and departmental guidance to cut funds, the record shows courts stepping in to prevent actual dollar losses to many jurisdictions: federal judges issued preliminary injunctions blocking the administration from freezing federal funds to dozens of cities and counties, and at least one injunction extended protections to 34 additional jurisdictions [2] [3] [6]. Reporting and legal groups note that while the government moved to halt funding for a “variety of programs,” those moves have been met by litigation and judicial pause orders, indicating limited successful permanent withholding so far [9] [4] [6].
3. The legal challenges that followed and major rulings to date
Multiple jurisdictions filed suits challenging the executive orders and DOJ directives as coercive and unconstitutional; courts have cited irreparable injury and budgetary uncertainty when granting preliminary relief, and judges have described the administration’s strategy as an unlawful attempt to use unrelated federal grants to force local compliance with federal immigration policy [2] [6] [5]. The Department of Justice itself has also sued local governments — for example, litigation against Los Angeles — generating parallel fights about preemption and obstruction [5] [12]. The result has been a patchwork of pending cases, injunctions blocking enforcement against named plaintiffs, and no Supreme Court resolution as of the sources’ dates [6] [12].
4. Constitutional arguments and competing narratives
Legal advocates and constitutional scholars argue the administration’s approach violates the Tenth Amendment and anti-commandeering principles by effectively coercing states and localities to enforce federal law or lose unrelated federal funding, a view advanced by the Brennan Center and litigants representing cities and counties [5] [8]. The administration counters that conditioning federal grants or denying payments is a lawful means to ensure compliance with federal statutes like 8 U.S.C. §1373 and to protect public safety, framing sanctuary policies as obstruction of federal law and legitimate grounds for withholding funds [10] [4] [7]. Those competing frames — constitutional limits on federal leverage versus executive prerogative to attach conditions to grants — are the core legal battlegrounds in the cases now before courts [5] [12].
5. What remains unresolved and the practical implications
Because preliminary injunctions and ongoing litigation have so far prevented broad, sustained cuts to the named jurisdictions and because multiple cases remain pending, the practical effect has been budgetary uncertainty rather than mass, demonstrable funding losses; courts have repeatedly paused enforcement while assessing whether the administration’s conditions are lawful coercion [2] [6] [9]. Congress and advocacy groups have also pursued legislative alternatives and public campaigns, leaving the issue simultaneously political and legal: the administration insists it can deny payments to advance immigration enforcement, while opponents say courts and constitutional doctrine constrain that power — a dispute still unresolved in the reported record [7] [5].