aware

The 1-Minute Brief

What: Executive Order 14287, "Protecting American Communities From Criminal Aliens," directs federal agencies to identify, pursue legal action against, and restrict federal funding to "sanctuary jurisdictions." These are states and localities that have policies limiting their cooperation with federal immigration enforcement.

Money: The order commands the heads of executive agencies to identify federal funds, including grants and contracts, that could be suspended or terminated for designated sanctuary jurisdictions. Previous attempts by the Trump administration to withhold funds were blocked by federal courts, which ruled that the president cannot unilaterally cut off funding approved by Congress.

Your Impact: If implemented, this order could reduce federal funding for public services in hundreds of cities and counties, potentially affecting programs for housing, public safety, and transportation.

Status: Signed by the President on April 28, 2025, and published in the Federal Register on May 2, 2025.

What's Actually in the Bill

This executive order establishes a formal process to penalize state and local governments that maintain "sanctuary" policies. The order frames non-cooperation with federal immigration authorities as a "lawless insurrection" that creates national security risks.

Core Provisions:

Within 30 days of the order, the Attorney General and Secretary of Homeland Security must publish a list of "sanctuary jurisdictions."
Federal agencies must identify all federal funds provided to these jurisdictions and prepare to suspend or terminate them.
The Attorney General and Secretary of Homeland Security are directed to pursue all legal remedies to force these jurisdictions into compliance.
The order requires the development of new rules to ensure federal public benefits distributed by private entities in sanctuary jurisdictions are not received by ineligible individuals.
The Attorney General is instructed to take action to stop state and local laws that are seen as favoring undocumented immigrants over American citizens, such as providing in-state college tuition.

Stated Purpose (from the Sponsors):

The text of the executive order states its purpose is to:

Fulfill the federal government's obligation to protect states from what it calls an "invasion" at the southern border and the resulting public safety and national security risks.
Counteract the "lawless insurrection" by state and local officials who defy federal immigration laws, thereby defending the sovereignty of the United States.
Restore the enforcement of United States immigration law.

Key Facts:

Affected Sectors: Government, Law Enforcement, Immigration.
Timeline: The initial list of sanctuary jurisdictions was due by May 28, 2025. A list was published by DHS on May 30, 2025, but was later removed from its website.
Scope: The order applies to all state and local jurisdictions within the United States. The Department of Homeland Security (DHS) has previously identified nearly 400 counties as "sanctuary jurisdictions."

The Backstory: How We Got Here

The Sanctuary City Movement (1980s-Present):

The term "sanctuary city" dates back to the 1980s when churches offered refuge to Central American asylum seekers. In modern usage, it describes jurisdictions that limit their cooperation with federal immigration authorities, such as by refusing to hold individuals for Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) without a judicial warrant. Supporters argue these policies improve public safety by encouraging undocumented residents to report crimes without fear of deportation, while opponents contend they shield criminals.

Trump Administration, First Term (2017-2021):

In January 2017, President Trump signed Executive Order 13768, which was nearly identical to the current order. That order was immediately challenged in court by numerous cities and counties. Federal courts, including the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals, repeatedly blocked the order. The core legal finding was that the executive branch does not have the authority to withhold funds that Congress has appropriated, as this would violate the separation of powers.

Why Now? The Political Calculus:

Campaign Promise: The order fulfills a central and long-standing campaign promise to crack down on illegal immigration and punish sanctuary cities.
Asserting Federal Power: The order is a direct challenge to states and cities with progressive immigration policies, framing local decisions as a threat to national security and federal supremacy.
Political Mobilization: Using terms like "invasion" and "lawless insurrection," the order is designed to energize a political base concerned with border security and what they see as a failure by some jurisdictions to enforce the law.
Recent Actions: A list of sanctuary jurisdictions was published by DHS on May 30, 2025, but was taken down after receiving sharp criticism, including from the National Sheriffs' Association for its lack of transparency.

Your Real-World Impact

The Direct Answer: This order most directly affects people living and working in designated "sanctuary" jurisdictions, especially those who rely on federally funded public services.

What Could Change for You:

Potential Benefits:

Supporters of the order believe it will lead to more consistent enforcement of federal immigration laws, potentially enhancing public safety by targeting criminal aliens.

Possible Disruptions or Costs:

Short-term (First Year):

Cities and counties could face significant budgetary uncertainty, making it difficult to plan for services. One judge noted the threat alone causes "irreparable injury" to local governments.
Essential services could be impacted. Portland, for example, noted it receives hundreds of millions in federal grants for public safety, housing, and infrastructure.

Long-term:

If federal funds are permanently withheld, cities and counties would have to cut services, raise local taxes to cover the shortfall, or both.
Trust between immigrant communities and local law enforcement could be further eroded, potentially making it harder to solve local crimes.

Who's Most Affected:

Primary Groups: State and local government employees, law enforcement in sanctuary jurisdictions, and undocumented immigrants.
Secondary Groups: Residents who use public services like housing assistance, transportation, and public safety programs funded by federal grants.
Regional Impact: The impact will be concentrated in jurisdictions with sanctuary policies. The Center for Immigration Studies maintains a map identifying such locations, which include numerous cities and counties in states like California, New York, Pennsylvania, Illinois, and Colorado.

Bottom Line: The order creates a direct conflict between the federal government and hundreds of local jurisdictions, with the potential loss of billions in federal funding for critical public services hanging in the balance.

Where the Parties Stand

Republican Position: "A Lawless Insurrection"

Core Stance: The executive order is a necessary tool to enforce federal law and protect the nation from the dangers posed by illegal immigration.

Their Arguments:

✓ The order rightly asserts federal supremacy on immigration and stops local officials from obstructing law enforcement.
✓ Withholding funds is a legitimate way to hold jurisdictions accountable for policies that shield criminals.
⚠️ Some law enforcement groups have criticized the administration's methods, such as publishing a list of "noncompliant sheriffs" without transparency or prior consultation.
✗ Sanctuary policies undermine the rule of law and create a threat to public safety and national security.

Legislative Strategy: Using the full authority of the executive branch to bypass Congress and compel compliance from local jurisdictions. The administration has also pursued direct legal action against states with sanctuary laws.

Democratic Position: "Unconstitutional Federal Overreach"

Core Stance: The order is an unconstitutional attempt to coerce local governments and demonize immigrant communities.

Their Arguments:

✓ Sanctuary policies make communities safer by building trust between residents and local police, allowing everyone to report crimes without fear.
⚠️ The President does not have the constitutional authority to unilaterally withhold funds appropriated by Congress, a principle repeatedly upheld by federal courts.
✗ The order is a political attack on cities that choose to focus their local resources on local priorities, rather than on civil immigration enforcement, which is a federal responsibility.

Legislative Strategy: Supporting legal challenges against the executive order, a strategy that proved successful in blocking a similar order during the first Trump administration.

Constitutional Check

The Verdict: ⚠️ Questionable

Basis of Authority:

The executive order cites the President's powers under Article II of the Constitution to protect national security and the "Invasion Clause" of Article IV, Section 4. However, the primary legal battles are fought over Congress's spending power and the Tenth Amendment.

U.S. Constitution, Article I, Section 8, Clause 1 (Spending Clause): "The Congress shall have Power To lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts and Excises, to pay the Debts and provide for the common Defence and general Welfare of the United States..."

U.S. Constitution, Amendment X: "The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people."

Constitutional Implications:

Spending Power: Courts have consistently ruled that while Congress can place conditions on federal funds, the President cannot act alone to withhold money appropriated by Congress. Furthermore, in National Federation of Independent Business v. Sebelius (2012), the Supreme Court ruled that the federal government cannot threaten to revoke all existing funding for a program to coerce states into accepting new conditions, as this crosses the line from encouragement to unconstitutional coercion.

Federalism (The "Anti-Commandeering" Doctrine): In Printz v. United States (1997), the Supreme Court held that the Tenth Amendment prevents the federal government from forcing state or local officials to administer a federal regulatory program. Legal challenges have successfully argued that forcing local police to enforce federal immigration detainer requests amounts to unconstitutional "commandeering."

Potential Legal Challenges:

The order is highly likely to be blocked by the courts, following the precedent set by legal challenges to the nearly identical 2017 executive order. Lawsuits have already been filed by numerous cities and counties against similar 2025 directives, with one federal judge granting a preliminary injunction, stating, "Here we are again."

Your Action Options

TO SUPPORT THIS BILL

5-Minute Actions:

Call Your Rep/Senators: Capitol Switchboard: (202) 224-3121. A sample script could be: "I'm a constituent from [Your City/Town] and I urge [Rep./Sen. Name] to support Executive Order 14287 and the effort to ensure local jurisdictions cooperate with federal immigration enforcement."

30-Minute Deep Dive:

Write a Detailed Email: Contact your representatives and members of the House and Senate Judiciary Committees to express your support.
Join an Organization: Groups like the Center for Immigration Studies (CIS) advocate for stricter immigration enforcement.

TO OPPOSE THIS BILL

5-Minute Actions:

Call Your Rep/Senators: Capitol Switchboard: (202) 224-3121. A sample script could be: "I'm a constituent from [Your City/Town] and I urge [Rep./Sen. Name] to oppose Executive Order 14287. The President does not have the power to strip cities of congressionally approved funding."

30-Minute Deep Dive:

Write a Letter to the Editor: Submit a letter to your local newspaper explaining how the loss of federal funds could harm your community's public services.
Join an Organization: Advocacy groups like the American Immigration Council, the Immigrant Legal Resource Center (ILRC), and Freedom for Immigrants work to protect immigrant rights and oppose punitive measures against sanctuary cities.