WASHINGTON – State and local officials have scrambled to defend themselves after President Trump renewed threats on Wednesday to freeze federal dollars in “sanctuary” places like California and Los Angeles, which have long opposed cooperation with immigration agencies.
The deadline, set in the morning report of Truth Social, was echoed by the alarming statements the president made on Tuesday at the Detroit Economic Club, putting billions in funding flagged for health care, education and transportation.
“As of Feb. 1, the federal government will no longer pay states for their corrupt crime prevention centers known as sanctuary cities. All they do is breed crime and violence. If states want them, they will have to pay for them,” he said.
The US government is providing $175 billion to California this fiscal year — about a third of the state’s 2025-26 spending plan, according to state budget records.
Last year, the US Department of Justice created a list of dozens of state and local governments identified as “sanctuary” areas based on policies that limit cooperation with federal immigration law.
Those policies generally do not prevent federal authorities from carrying out immigration actions, but they do limit how local resources can be used.
California Department of Justice officials were quick to point out that the courts have sided with the president on the issue, as recently as Augustwhen a judge ruled that the federal government could not deny funding to Los Angeles and 30 other cities for policies that limit cooperation in immigration enforcement.
The ruling, by U.S. District Judge William Orrick, upheld an earlier order that found Trump’s efforts to cut federal funding were unconstitutional and violated the separation of powers doctrine.
But in a December hearing, the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals panel signaled it might strike down the law, as justices questioned whether the administration’s recent orders really required agencies to cut funding beyond their mandate.
A final decision on the appeal is pending.
California Atty. The office of Gen. Rob Bonta said in a statement on Wednesday that the substance of the threats from the White House was not yet clear.
“Although the information is lacking here, we will have to look at what the president is doing,” said Bonta. “We are still determined to take appropriate measures to protect our country and uphold the law.”
Bonta also beat the administration on its efforts to impose restrictions on immigration, homeland security and Victims of Crime Act funding.
On Tuesday, he announced a the challenge of many nations on Trump’s plans to freeze $10 billion in federal child care and social services funding amid unsubstantiated allegations that the state is “illegally providing illegal aliens” with benefits.
Gov. Gavin Newsom took a moment to lean on the state’s winning record.
“Please pray for the president as he is suffering from mental retardation. He has already forgotten that he tried this before – many times – we sued and we succeeded,” Newsom said in a statement on Wednesday.
While the White House would not comment on the specific framework or dollar amount of the cuts, spokeswoman Abigail Jackson said Wednesday that sanctuary cities are “extremely dangerous” and put law-abiding Americans at risk.
He added that the Trump administration is considering “many legal options” to implement the policy.
The issue of bureaucratic excesses is a priority for Senate Democrats, who are also challenging the president for military action in Venezuela.
“Let me be clear: Congress—not the White House and not Donald Trump—holds the power of the fund,” said Sen. Alex Padilla (D-Calif.).
Los Angeles City Atty. Hydee Feldstein Soto confirmed that the city will take legal action to protect its access to federal dollars.
Mayor Karen Bass said she plans to work with partners at all levels of government to ensure Angelenos continue to receive government services.
“Hard-working, honest Americans should not have to pay the price for the president’s continued attacks on green states and cities,” he said in a statement.
