The Shifting Sands of Sanctuary Cities: Democrats Grapple with Immigration Under Trump

President Donald Trump’s renewed assault on sanctuary cities and states is exposing a growing divide within the Democratic Party over how to address immigration. Trump, a vocal critic of jurisdictions that limit cooperation with federal immigration authorities, is once again employing executive orders and legal challenges to defund these so-called "sanctuary" havens. This move reignites a battle that previously stalled during his first term, leaving Democrats to navigate a complex political landscape where public opinion is shifting and internal disagreements are surfacing.

During his initial presidency, Trump’s efforts to withhold federal public safety grants from sanctuary jurisdictions were thwarted in federal court. Although the Supreme Court was poised to review the case, it was ultimately dismissed when President Joe Biden took office, effectively ending Trump’s legal pursuit. However, with his return to power, Trump is revisiting this issue with renewed vigor.

His latest executive order aims to cut off federal funding to sanctuary cities and counties, prompting a legal challenge that has already seen a federal judge strike down the order as unconstitutional. The judge’s ruling cited violations of the separation of powers, Congress’s spending authority, and due process protections, while also accusing Trump of unlawfully coercing local officials into enforcing federal immigration law.

Undeterred, Trump has issued a new executive order that employs a broader legal strategy. In addition to invoking federal immigration law and his constitutional authority to protect the nation from "invasion," Trump accuses sanctuary cities and states of crimes such as conspiracy, obstruction of justice, and harboring illegal aliens, using these accusations as justification for defunding them.

California Attorney General Rob Bonta’s office, a key player in previous lawsuits against sanctuary policies, is reviewing the legality of the new order and hasn’t ruled out another court challenge. However, unlike Trump’s first term, Democrats are no longer unified in their defense of sanctuary policies.

This shift reflects a growing awareness of the messaging challenges associated with defending sanctuary policies. Trump’s hardline immigration stance played a significant role in his 2024 election victory and remains a popular element of his agenda, even if support has waned slightly recently. Surveys indicate that sanctuary policies are divisive, with a substantial majority of Republicans and a smaller percentage of Democrats favoring defunding them.

However, recent concerns about Trump’s deportation policies, particularly the erroneous deportation of a Maryland man to El Salvador, appear to have negatively impacted his approval ratings on immigration. This shift in public sentiment has created a precarious situation for Democrats as they grapple with internal divisions over immigration policy.

Some Democratic leaders, who were once vocal supporters of sanctuary policies, are now adopting a more cautious approach. California Governor Gavin Newsom, who previously championed sanctuary policies, has avoided using the term "sanctuary" publicly and has pledged to veto legislation that would expand sanctuary protections for immigrants in state custody.

Maryland Governor Wes Moore has advocated for due process in deportation cases but has stopped short of ruling out cooperation with Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE), stating that local jurisdictions must "follow the Constitution." His remarks highlight the delicate balance that Democrats are attempting to strike between protecting immigrants and addressing concerns about public safety.

San Jose Mayor Matt Mahan has voiced objections to the term "sanctuary," arguing that it has become politically charged, while San Francisco Mayor Daniel Lurie has avoided using the term and refused to sign a resolution reaffirming the city’s sanctuary protections.

New York City Mayor Eric Adams has expressed a willingness to collaborate with the Trump administration to apprehend immigrants connected to "violent migrant gangs" and has taken steps to reopen ICE’s office on Rikers Island, a move that has been met with opposition from the city council.

Adams’ actions have drawn criticism, with some accusing him of making a "quid pro quo" deal with the Trump administration in exchange for leniency in criminal charges against him. The city’s comptroller has demanded that Adams recuse himself from all matters related to sanctuary policies, citing concerns about potential conflicts of interest.

While Adams’ situation is unique, it reflects a broader debate within the Democratic Party about how to address immigration in a way that resonates with both their base and a public that remains skeptical of certain aspects of immigration policy.

The lack of a unified approach among Democrats is evident in the contrasting responses to Trump’s latest executive order. While some are preparing for legal battles, others are hesitant to embrace the "sanctuary" label or are signaling a willingness to cooperate with federal immigration authorities.

This division has created a messaging challenge for Democrats. On one hand, they want to uphold their commitment to protecting immigrant communities and ensuring due process. On the other hand, they are wary of alienating voters who support stricter immigration enforcement and are concerned about the potential impact of sanctuary policies on public safety.

The situation is further complicated by the fact that immigration was a key issue in the 2024 election, with vulnerable Democrats who opposed sanctuary policies ultimately losing their seats. This outcome serves as a cautionary tale for Democrats as they navigate the complex political landscape surrounding immigration.

As Trump’s legal battle over sanctuary cities intensifies, it is likely to end up before the Supreme Court once again. The outcome of this legal challenge will have significant implications for sanctuary jurisdictions and will shape the future of immigration policy in the United States.

The ongoing debate over sanctuary policies highlights the deep divisions within American society over immigration. It also underscores the challenges that Democrats face in developing a coherent and effective approach to immigration that balances compassion, security, and political realities. The tensions surrounding this issue suggest that Democrats have not yet found a resolution to this complex challenge.

The debate continues to evolve, and the ultimate outcome remains uncertain, but one thing is clear: immigration will continue to be a defining issue in American politics for the foreseeable future.