The Trump administration is increasingly seeking to punish Democratic-led states that seek to curtail cooperation with federal immigration authorities as part of an overall legal push on immigration.
Trump officials have argued that the policy of “sanctuary jurisdiction” has enabled the release of sex offenders, murderers and other criminals — the “worst of the worst” — and Trump has gone so far as to call the actions of blue state leaders a “lawless insurrection.” The administration is threatening cuts to federal funding, lawsuits and travel restrictions if state and local officials don't get in line.
But the very states the Trump administration is pillorying, from California and Minnesota to New York and Massachusetts, already work closely with Immigration and Customs Enforcement on tens of thousands of criminal cases a year, and routinely turn over for detention or deportation people charged with or convicted of serious and violent crimes.
A New York Times review of the policies, laws and practices of the 18 states targeted by President Trump shows extensive cooperation and coordination with federal immigration authorities when it comes to people convicted of serious crimes. All but one of those states significantly increased the number of people removed from local or state authorities into federal immigration custody each month during Mr. Trump's second term compared with the final year of Mr. Biden's term, according to the data.
In 12 of those locations, the number of Immigration and Customs Enforcement detention arrests more than doubled, according to a Times analysis of ICE data obtained by the Deportation Data Project.
The Trump administration has indicated that “sanctuary” states will refuse to cooperate with ICE agents and deny access to prisons. But by and large, these blue states support federal efforts targeting violent criminals while pushing back against the federal dragnet that traps immigrants with no criminal records across the country.
Earlier this year, amid an escalating federal crackdown in Minneapolis, Minnesota Gov. Tim Walz accused ICE of targeting people of color with no criminal records while failing to arrest serious criminals who were in state custody and ready to be transferred to authorities.
Tensions have only increased as federal immigration officials have received an infusion of funding to carry out more operations, and the number of arrests per day has more than doubled in recent weeks, often with the help of local authorities in red states.
Officials in both blue and red states agree that cooperation with federal authorities is essential in criminal investigations, and no one would argue that releasing dangerous individuals into the community would be detrimental to public safety or politically objectionable.
But governors and law enforcement leaders in Democratic-led states say they are trying to separate their role in criminal investigations from federal immigration enforcement. They say that delicate balance protects their time and resources and engenders trust from immigrant communities.
So-called sanctuary laws enacted in Democratic-led states limit cooperation with immigration authorities in many ways. Most bills largely prohibit state and local officials from assisting federal agents in civil immigration violations and set parameters for ICE's access to designated protected areas such as jails and prisons, schools, churches and courthouses. A series of state court decisions and policies also prohibit local and state authorities from holding people in immigration custody beyond their release date. And while all offender release dates are published online, most prohibit authorities from notifying ICE that an inmate is about to be released.
Of all the states targeted, California perhaps became the administration's most prominent enemy. The state emerged as a battleground over “sanctuary” policies long before Mr. Trump first took office in 2017, during his first term barring state and local law enforcement agencies, including school police and security departments, from devoting public funds or personnel to civilian immigration enforcement.
But the Trump administration's criticism has focused on the idea of felons being released, something California is specifically trying to avoid.
State legislatures and law enforcement officials negotiated a list of exceptions that would allow for stronger adjustments if a person wanted by ICE has a criminal history or faces serious criminal charges. Since 2019, the state Department of Corrections has worked with the department to transfer approximately 13,000 people convicted of murder, sexual assault, child molestation and other felonies to federal custody.
“Not all sanctuary policies are created equal,” said John Sandweg, a former senior official at the Department of Homeland Security under Obama.
He added that many states and local governments with progressive politics “cannot extradite people with unlicensed driving or misdemeanor convictions,” but “will work with ICE to ensure that people with violent criminal histories are not released onto the streets.”
Democratic officials argue that regional restrictions on cooperation with ICE allow crime victims to report to police without fear of getting caught in unrelated immigration proceedings.
“People need to feel comfortable talking to law enforcement,” said Ronnell Higgins, director of the Connecticut Department of Emergency Services and Civil Protection, the state's top law enforcement agency. “Everywhere we go, police need the public's help to prevent and solve crime.”
At the heart of the sanctuary debate was the push for a partnership with ICE under a program known as 287(g). The initiative, a central pillar of the Trump administration's mass deportation plan, would double enforcement power by training sheriff's deputies, police and highway patrol officers to act as immigration agents in their daily work.
Fifteen of the 18 states reviewed by the Times have passed laws restricting local and state law enforcement agencies from entering into contracts to help enforce private immigration laws. The other three limit participation in the program based on the governor's executive order and state court rulings. However, no state prohibits police officers from assisting federal agencies with criminal violations.
Both allow authorities to transfer inmates to federal custody if they present a criminal warrant signed by a judge.
Trump's dispute with Democratic Party leaders over the “sanctuary” policy dates back to the president's first term. Since his return to the White House, his administration has only upped the ante. Republicans passed a sweeping immigration package that Trump signed into law last month. This includes $31 billion for ICE operations, including support for local and state agencies that have entered into 287(g) partnerships with ICE, and an additional $350 million to expand enforcement efforts in jurisdictions that decline such partnerships.
During budget negotiations in late May, Trump's new Homeland Security Secretary Markwayne Mullin floated the idea of removing customs agents from airports in major cities in the liberal heartland, but business groups warned it would cause confusion for travelers and harm the economy. In recent weeks, border czar Tom Homan has repeatedly promised to flood New York with agents.
Neither plan has come to fruition, but the administration's walkout has turned Democratic-led cities and states into political foils for a rhetorical battle over immigration policy. This battle has been waged in public and in the courts, but the Trump administration has had little success. Last month, a federal judge dismissed for now a federal lawsuit challenging a Los Angeles ordinance and several New Jersey cities' executive orders banning the use of city resources for federal immigration enforcement. (This decision follows similar decisions from last year in favor of Rochester, New York, and the state of Illinois.)
In June, the Justice Department and New York state sued and countersued each other over sweeping immigration protections the state passed a month earlier. The new rules, among other provisions, prohibited partnership agreements with ICE, prohibited the wearing of masks by all local, state and federal employees, and ended contracts with ICE to house inmates for federal civil immigration violations.
Marin testified before the House Appropriations Committee a few days later, saying that “the sanctuary governor and the sanctuary mayor” were advising local and state authorities not to cooperate with ICE. He argued that this hinders federal authorities' efforts to address immigration and investigate human trafficking and retail theft.
“That really puts handcuffs on us,” he said.
Officials at DHS, ICE's parent agency, suggested that the agency has broader discretion to carry out immigration arrests under federal law than state law allows, when asked whether state law's violent and serious offender exceptions or carve-outs helped offset the limits on civil immigration enforcement.
Department of Homeland Security spokeswoman Lauren Biss suggested in a statement that collaboration between the Department of Homeland Security and law enforcement justifies the spike in arrests.
“When politicians prohibit local law enforcement from working with DHS, law enforcement officers must become more visible so they can find and arrest criminals released from prison and back into the community,” she said.
Some law enforcement agencies have defended the administration's position, with some county sheriffs and officials going so far as to sue their states over the policy, arguing that they should have the authority to take actions they see fit to protect the interests of their communities.
Meanwhile, states are divided on whether to adopt the “sanctuary” label, a vaguely defined label dating back to the 1980s, when local governments began adopting policies to protect people fleeing El Salvador's civil war. And many have turned away from the policy, especially after the number of migrants crossing the border reached record levels under the Biden administration.
But officials in Democratic-led states reject claims by Trump administration officials that they harbor criminals.
Diana Crofts Pelayo, a spokeswoman for California Gov. Gavin Newsom, said the Trump administration's agenda is to “pursue quotas, instill fear in diverse communities, and target families, businesses and workers who pose no threat to public safety.”
Immigration hardliners are pushing hard-line stances in some states, and fighting is escalating. An initiative on Colorado's November ballot would require local law enforcement agencies to attempt to verify the immigration status of people with prior felony convictions or charges of violent crimes. Officers would also be required to notify ICE if they cannot confirm that a person is legally in the country.
