Federal funds at stake: Trump immigration requirement puts Dems in a bind

A little-noticed provision in the “Big Beautiful Bill” forces blue states and cities to make a tough choice: Comply with federal immigration law or lose federal money for criminal justice aid.

President Trump’s signature piece of legislation allocated $3.3 billion to the DOJ, some of which will go toward the Byrne-JAG Grant Program, a federal initiative created in 2005 which provides support for local law enforcement and criminal justice efforts. To access the new funds, which supplement the $499 million already appropriated for the Byrne-JAG program in 2025, localities must comply with a section of federal immigration law that forbids them from restricting communication between their law enforcement entities and the Department of Homeland Security regarding an individual’s immigration status. This provides an incentive for localities to share their information with federal immigration authorities, helping the Trump administration implement its immigration enforcement agenda, but it also runs the risk of misallocating federal support.

This condition poses a dilemma for Democrats: Do they accept the demands of the Trump administration in return for money they need to run their cities and localities? Or do they maintain their longstanding opposition to deportation and turn it down?

Across the country, Democratic Party leaders are competing to be the face of opposition to the Trump administration. California Gov. Gavin Newsom has tried to position himself as one of the leaders of the opposition to President Trump. New York City Democratic mayoral nominee Zohran Mamdani has called himself “Donald Trump’s worst nightmare” and has stated that “I will not be working with the [Trump] administration on harming the people that I look to represent.”

But sticking with this position means their constituents won’t benefit from the additional funding that other localities will be able to use to lower their local fiscal burden and make their communities safer.

In effect, millions of dollars in federal justice system aid could flow to low-crime, less liberal suburbs and rural areas, while high-crime cities are left behind for defying federal immigration demands. Specifically, cities like Baltimore, Detroit, and Memphis, which lead the nation in homicide rates, could be prevented from receiving funding.

In a statement to RealClearPolitics, Sen. Dick Durbin, ranking Democrat on the Senate Judiciary Committee, argued that “Putting unnecessary stipulations on this funding is harmful and unproductive.” “Blocking funds for this purpose,” Durbin continued, “totally misses the mark.”

In response, White House spokeswoman Abigail Jackson argued that “If Dick Durbin is truly focused on the safety and security of American communities, he should encourage cities and states to comply with federal immigration laws. Sanctuary cities only provide sanctuary to illegal criminals, and Americans – like the CBP agent who was just shot in the face by two criminal illegal aliens – are forced to pay the price.”

This is not the first time Washington has used federal funds to influence local policies. In the 1980s, for example, the Reagan administration withheld highway funds to pressure states to raise their drinking ages. This policy was successful. Today, all 50 states require people to be 21 in order to purchase alcoholic beverages.

This situation could be different. Many big-city law enforcement leaders have resisted becoming involved in federal immigration efforts. As former LAPD Chief Charlie Beck once stated, “We are not immigration agents. We are police officers.” Similar sentiment has been echoed in other progressive-led cities where local officials argue that cooperation with ICE undermines trust between police and immigrant communities. Additionally, many local leaders may see this as an attempt to impede state and local rights by imposing a federal policy that is unpopular with their constituents.

David Pitts, vice president for the Justice and Safety Division of the Urban Institute, emphasized the difficulty of this decision. “If they adhere to these immigration focused requirements, then what would they be giving up? Sometimes,”  Pitts continued, “the funds can be used to hire additional police officers. Oftentimes, it’s used to purchase access to technology. … It is likely that if [cities with higher crime] don’t get that funding, the funding will go to rural areas that don’t need it.” Still, according to Pitt, “it remains to be seen exactly how that will play out.”

The debate also reveals a striking role reversal: Republicans, longtime defenders of states’ rights and local control, are using federal purse strings to enforce top-down immigration policy. Democrats, meanwhile, are pushing back against what they view as federal overreach.

The first Trump administration also attempted to tie Byrne-JAG grants to compliance with federal immigration law in 2017. At the time, the Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals ruled that such restrictions were not within the power of the executive branch (City of Chicago v. Sessions). Now, the Department of Justice has explicit congressional authorization to make the grant conditional, creating a more favorable legal landscape for the Trump administration.