CUT OFF YOUR NOSE DESPITE YOUR FACE: DC MUST RETHINK ITS SANCTUARY AMENDMENT ACT OF 2020
"If we don't want [ICE patrolling American cities], the Congress has to stop funding ICE, because thousands of agents who are untrained to police urban environments are on our streets. That’s where the questions should be placed," says retiring Mayor of the District of Columbia Muriel Bowser, member of the Radical Democrats.
In a report calling for an end to local police cooperation with ICE, she stated, "It took generations to build that trust, and it is now going to take generations to rebuild it", says Councilmember Brianne Nadeau (Ward 1), member of the Radical Democrats.
DC Council Chairman Phil Mendelson has consistently defended the Sanctuary Values Amendment Act of 2020 against federal and local attempts to repeal or weaken it. His commentary focuses on the necessity of local cooperation with federal authorities only when a lawful judicial order is present.
- On Opposing Repeal (2025): In response to Mayor Bowser’s 2025 proposal to repeal the law to avoid federal intervention, Mendelson stated he would "probably not support" the repeal.
- On Conditional Cooperation: He clarified the Council's stance on collaborating with federal immigration authorities, saying: "If federal immigration authorities present a lawful judicial order, then we will of course cooperate. And I think that’s a completely defensible position".
- On Protecting Immigrant Rights: During the act's development, Mendelson and the Council emphasized that the law is "important to protecting the rights of our immigrant neighbors and preserving public health and safety" by ensuring that interacting with the local government does not lead to adverse immigration consequences.
- On Resisting Federal Overreach: As congressional Republicans moved to nullify DC's sanctuary status in 2025, Mendelson’s office has reinforced the position that "DC residents know what’s best for our communities" and that federal attempts to undo local laws are an infringement on DC's power.
All pretty tough talk when you are powerless-you are the City and they are the Feds.
I know it will leave a bad taste in the mouths of Radical Democrats but DC must rethink its immoral tie to the Sanctuary Values Amendment Act of 2020 (D.C. Law 23-282),
Fox News reports "Trump to cut federal payments to sanctuary cities starting Feb 1 over immigration policies" Emma Bussey writes, "President Donald Trump said his administration will cease federal payments to sanctuary cities and states with sanctuary policies starting Feb. 1, while citing jurisdictions that protect criminals and fuel fraud and crime.
Speaking at the Detroit Economic Club, Trump said the move was aimed at cities and states that refuse to cooperate with federal immigration enforcement and in the administration's bid to stamp out fraud.
"Starting Feb. 1, we’re not making any payments to sanctuary cities or states having sanctuary cities because they do everything possible to protect criminals at the expense of American citizens," Trump said."
"And it breeds fraud and crime and all the other problems that come. So we’re not making any payment to anybody that supports sanctuary," he added.
This is not February 1, 2027. After the mid-term elections of Tuesday, November 3, 2026 This is Februart 1, 2026.
Before you grab your "No Kings" sign, can a US President delay payments to sanctuary states and cities over immigration policies that endanger U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement personnel?
A U.S. President can attempt to withhold federal funds from "sanctuary" jurisdictions over immigration policies, but courts have repeatedly blocked these efforts, ruling that the President can't unilaterally condition spending or override Congressional authority, though some rulings have allowed conditioning specific grant funds if related to the grant's purpose, creating a complex legal battle over the separation of powers and spending authority.
Lawyer up! Mine against yours
The Supreme Court hasn't definitively ruled on a single case about the President's power to delay all federal funds to states, but its rulings and legal consensus lean against unilateral presidential power to withhold congressionally appropriated funds, emphasizing Congress's "power of the purse" under Article I, with laws like the Impoundment Control Act (ICA) restricting presidential impoundments. Recent cases involving Trump's attempts to delay funds (like for "sanctuary cities" or foreign aid) have seen lower courts block such actions, citing Article II's need to balance Congress's Article I powers, suggesting the President can't just ignore spending laws or withhold funds without specific legal mechanisms or congressional approval, with the ICA requiring proposed rescissions to be approved by Congress.
Speaker Mike Johnson supports cutting or withholding federal funds from "sanctuary" cities and states, viewing it as essential to stop them from shielding undocumented immigrants and draining resources, as demonstrated by his support for the No Bailout for Sanctuary Cities Act (HR 5717) to prevent federal funding for services benefiting undocumented immigrants, emphasizing that taxpayer money shouldn't support such policies and that local governments should prioritize citizens.
Suit up! You might like where this is going!
Congressman Brendan F. Boyle (PA-02), Ranking Member of the House Budget Committee, led Committee Democrats in sending a letter to Office of Management and Budget (OMB) Director Russell Vought demanding answers on the Trump Administration’s handling of the cost-of-living crisis and the millions of Americans who Republicans are kicking off their health care. The letter follows Committee Democrats’ request in December that Director Vought testify before the Committee. He refused to appear, becoming the first OMB Director in 50 years to decline to testify before the Committee. While Radical Democrats are planning to shutdown the federal government, Trump and the Republicans plan on shutting down "sanctuary" states and cities!
Sanctuary cities and states are local/state jurisdictions that limit cooperation with federal immigration enforcement, often by refusing to honor detainer requests without a judicial warrant, restricting information sharing, or preventing local funds from being used for federal immigration efforts, aiming to build trust for public safety and encourage immigrants to report crimes without fear of deportation, though critics argue it obstructs federal law and endangers communities. There's no single legal definition, but policies generally focus on reducing local involvement in civil immigration enforcement to protect immigrant communities and ensure equal access to services.
The federal government has the authority to enforce immigration laws, and many argue that sanctuary policies undermine federal efforts. However, the Constitution grants states certain rights, which can create tension between state and federal authorities. While sanctuary states and cities exist, their legality is continually challenged and varies significantly across different jurisdictions. They are not outright illegal, but their status is subject to ongoing legal scrutiny and can be influenced by changing administrations and judicial interpretations.
What Bowser and the City Council must think about going forward!
Washington, D.C. receives substantial federal funding, with around $7.5 billion in FY2022 for local government, plus significant supplemental funds, like the $2.4 billion American Rescue Plan aid, and targeted reimbursements for security events, totaling billions annually across various federal programs for infrastructure, education, health, and more. This amount fluctuates yearly depending on specific congressional appropriations and federal aid packages. Ending federal funds, especially through prolonged shutdowns or deep cuts, severely impacts DC's economy, risking layoffs, reduced essential services (education, health), jeopardizing major projects like stadium redevelopment, and forcing reliance on reserves or tax hikes, though local services usually continue initially due to DC's separate budget, with federal properties like parks and museums often closing.
Yes, Washington, D.C., has a sanctuary city law, the Sanctuary Values Amendment Act of 2020, which restricts local agencies and police from cooperating with federal immigration enforcement (ICE) by limiting inquiries into immigration status and holding individuals for ICE without judicial orders, though the city's status has faced challenges, including Congressional efforts to overturn it and shifting local enforcement priorities. On June 12, 2025, Congressman Clay Higgins’ (R-LA) legislation H.R. 2056, the District of Columbia Federal Immigration Compliance Act, passed the House. This legislation removes Washington D.C.’s sanctuary policies and requires compliance with lawful detainer requests from Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) and the Department of Homeland Security.
On April 28, 2025, President Trump signed Executive Order 14287: Protecting American Communities from Criminal Aliens. The Executive Order recognized that “some State and local officials . . . continue to use their authority to violate, obstruct, and defy the enforcement of Federal immigration laws” and “[i]t is imperative that the Federal Government restore the enforcement of United States law.” The Executive Order directed the Justice Department, in collaboration with the Department of Homeland Security, to publish a list of such jurisdictions. Accordingly, the following states, cities, and counties have been identified as sanctuary jurisdictions. DC is not alone!
The Council passed the Sanctuary Values Amendment Act, limiting MPD and DOC from inquiring about immigration status, holding individuals solely on ICE detainers, or providing facilities for federal immigration purposes. The law aims to prevent local police from acting as federal immigration agents, keeping immigrant communities safer and more willing to report crimes.
In January 2026, Washington, D.C. leaders are navigating significant federal pressure as President Trump reaffirmed his plan to halt federal payments to sanctuary jurisdictions starting February 1, 2026. Response from D.C. officials has shifted from open defiance to strategic negotiation and proposed policy changes.
That Radical Left roar sounds like a meow!
Comments
Post a Comment