In recent months, President Donald Trump’s administration has dramatically escalated immigration enforcement in the U.S. interior.
Sanctuary cities – jurisdictions that limit cooperation with federal immigration agents – have found themselves squarely in the administration’s crosshairs. Through a flurry of new executive orders that Trump signed to formalize the administration’s approach, high-profile immigration raids, and even the unprecedented deployment of military personnel to support enforcement operations, the President is testing the limits of federal authority over immigration.
As the administration seeks to reshape immigration enforcement policy, this comprehensive guide breaks down what’s happening, why it’s happening, and what it means for immigrants, local governments, employers, and communities.
We’ll also explain the legal battles brewing between state and federal authorities, and offer practical advice for those who could be affected.
Finally, we outline how our firm stands ready to assist and advocate amid these fast-changing circumstances.
Executive Orders & Military Use
President Trump has wasted no time leveraging executive power to crack down on sanctuary jurisdictions. One of his first major moves in office was signing a sweeping Executive Order directing federal agencies to intensify immigration enforcement in the interior of the country. The Secretary of Homeland Security was tasked as a key official responsible for implementing these directives.
This included publishing a list of “sanctuary” cities and states deemed to be obstructing immigration laws, with the goal of pressuring them into compliance. The order warned that jurisdictions refusing to cooperate with U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) “may lose federal funding” and directed the Attorney General and Homeland Security Secretary to pursue “all necessary legal remedies” against them.
It even called for developing new ways to verify whether undocumented immigrants in those areas are receiving federal benefits – a clear sign the administration is looking to punish policies that it believes “favor” undocumented residents (such as state tuition or other programs).
At the same time, the Trump administration has ramped up the use of the military and National Guard in immigration enforcement roles not seen in modern times. In particular, military installations near El Paso, Texas, such as Fort Bliss, have been repurposed as hubs for migrant detention and deportation operations, highlighting the administration’s willingness to use military resources for immigration enforcement.
Federal troops have been deployed inside U.S. cities under the banner of immigration enforcement. In a highly controversial step, President Trump mobilized approximately 4,700 troops – including 4,000 National Guard members and 700 U.S. Marines – to Los Angeles in June 2025 amid unrest over mass immigration raids and mass deportations.
This marked one of the few instances of armed active-duty military personnel being used in American cities to support a domestic law enforcement operation. The administration cited a federal legal provision (widely interpreted as the Insurrection Act) to justify this deployment, arguing that local authorities were unwilling or unable to enforce the law during what the President characterized as an immigration-related “rebellion.”
This move has been fiercely criticized by California officials as a breach of state sovereignty and has already faced legal challenges in court.
A federal judge initially ruled the Guard deployment illegal for violating the Tenth Amendment (which protects state authority), though an appeals court put that ruling on hold pending further litigation.
The message from the White House, however, is unmistakable: if local governments won’t cooperate in immigration enforcement, the administration is prepared to use unprecedented muscle – even military force – to carry out its agenda.
Importantly, the role of the military in these operations has been officially limited to support functions – at least so far. Military commanders in Los Angeles stressed that soldiers and Marines were there “to protect federal personnel and property,” not to make arrests themselves.
In practice, National Guard troops have been providing security perimeters, guarding federal buildings, and escorting ICE agents during field operations. For example, Guard members stood watch during raids on workplaces and neighborhoods, acting as a force protection unit so that ICE officers could do their jobs with less fear of interference or violence.
The Marines in Los Angeles initially took over guarding the exterior of a federal building (freeing up Guard members for other duties), and could potentially be assigned to protect ICE teams in future raids if the situation escalates. None of the troops have direct authority to detain individuals on immigration charges – that remains ICE’s job – but their presence alone represents a significant show of force.
It also carries psychological impact: for immigrants and residents in targeted areas, seeing camouflaged soldiers with rifles on their streets is alarming and unprecedented in an immigration context.
President Trump and his advisors argue that these extraordinary measures are necessary for public safety and national sovereignty. White House Deputy Chief and staff Stephen Miller have been key architects of these aggressive immigration and deportation policies, shaping the administration’s rationale for such extraordinary actions.
They frequently cite cases of serious crimes committed by undocumented immigrants who were released under sanctuary policies rather than turned over to ICE. In official statements, the administration has even equated sanctuary jurisdictions’ behavior to a “lawless insurrection” against federal authority – extremely strong language that highlights the confrontational approach being taken. Critics counter that using terms like “insurrection” to describe local governments’ policies is incendiary and legally dubious.
Normally, the Posse Comitatus Act sharply limits use of the Army or Marines for domestic law enforcement. Only under rare conditions – such as quelling insurrections or if a state requests federal help – can active-duty troops be deployed internally.
By asserting that sanctuary cities are in effect rebelling against federal law, the Trump administration is testing those limits. This strategy has drawn warnings from legal experts and even some military leaders who worry that involving the armed forces in routine immigration enforcement politicizes the military and erodes the longstanding norm of keeping soldiers off domestic policing duties.
In other words, it’s a historic power play that may reshape the balance between federal, state, and local power if it continues.
Background and Context
The second Trump administration has ushered in a new era of immigration policy, marked by a strong emphasis on enforcement and restriction rather than expanding humanitarian or legal immigration pathways. This shift has placed sanctuary cities—jurisdictions that limit cooperation with federal immigration enforcement—at the center of a national debate. The Trump administration has made it a priority to eliminate sanctuary jurisdictions, arguing that full compliance with federal immigration laws is essential for national security and the rule of law.
Federal government officials have repeatedly asserted their authority to enforce federal immigration laws, insisting that local law enforcement agencies should cooperate fully with federal authorities. The administration’s approach has included threats to withhold federal funding from local governments that do not comply with federal immigration enforcement efforts. This has led to heightened tensions between federal authorities and local law enforcement, as many local governments argue that their sanctuary policies are designed to protect public safety and foster trust within immigrant communities.
Local law enforcement agencies often contend that their limited cooperation with federal immigration enforcement is necessary to ensure that undocumented immigrants feel safe reporting crimes and participating in community life. They argue that when local police are seen as extensions of federal immigration enforcement, it undermines public safety by discouraging victims and witnesses from coming forward. The Trump administration, however, maintains that sanctuary cities shield illegal aliens from accountability and undermine the enforcement of immigration laws.
As a result, the debate over sanctuary cities has become one of the most contentious issues in American immigration policy. The administration’s efforts to enforce federal law and withhold federal funding from non-compliant jurisdictions have sparked legal battles and deepened divisions between federal and local governments. This ongoing conflict highlights the complex interplay between federal authority, local autonomy, and the need to balance enforcement with community trust and public safety.
Enforcement and Tactics
To advance its immigration agenda, the Trump administration has deployed a range of enforcement tactics designed to maximize the reach and impact of federal immigration laws. Central to this strategy has been the increased use of Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) agents and customs enforcement operations, often in partnership with local law enforcement agencies. The administration has aggressively promoted 287(g) agreements, which allow local officers to act as federal immigration agents, thereby expanding the federal government’s enforcement capacity at the local level.
These 287(g) agreements have been controversial, with critics arguing that they can lead to racial profiling and civil rights violations. Nonetheless, the Trump administration has encouraged local law enforcement agencies to enter into these partnerships, framing them as essential tools for removing undocumented immigrants and enforcing federal immigration laws. In addition to these agreements, the administration has expanded the use of expedited removal procedures and increased the capacity of detention facilities, aiming to accelerate deportations and deter future unauthorized immigration.
ICE agents have also been supported by specialized tactical teams, such as Special Response Teams (SRTs), which are deployed for high-risk operations in sanctuary cities and other jurisdictions perceived as uncooperative. These teams, often equipped with military-style gear, have been criticized for their aggressive tactics and the fear they instill in immigrant communities. The administration’s approach has led to a surge in workplace raids, home arrests, and public enforcement actions, all designed to demonstrate the federal government’s commitment to immigration enforcement.
While these tactics have been effective in increasing the number of deportations and enforcement actions, they have also raised significant concerns about due process, the treatment of undocumented immigrants, and the impact on local communities. The reliance on local officers to enforce federal immigration laws has strained relationships between federal authorities and local law enforcement, particularly in cities and states that prioritize community trust and public safety over strict immigration enforcement.
Challenges and Controversies
The Trump administration’s aggressive immigration enforcement policies have sparked widespread challenges and controversies across the country. Local governments, advocacy groups, and even some law enforcement leaders have pushed back against efforts to eliminate sanctuary cities and force compliance with federal immigration laws. Lawsuits challenging the administration’s actions have proliferated, with many arguing that the use of federal funding as leverage over local governments constitutes an overreach of federal authority.
Sanctuary cities and their supporters contend that the administration’s policies not only target undocumented immigrants, but also have broader negative effects on legal immigrants and U.S. citizens. The threat to withhold federal funding from cities and jurisdictions that do not comply with federal immigration enforcement has been criticized as punitive and counterproductive, potentially undermining essential services and public safety initiatives that benefit entire communities.
Critics also argue that the administration’s enforcement measures are overly broad, sweeping up individuals with deep ties to their communities and families, and creating a climate of fear and uncertainty. The controversy has fueled polarization, with some Americans supporting strict enforcement and others expressing concern about the impact on immigrant communities, local economies, and the nation’s values.
As legal battles continue to play out in courts across the country, the future of sanctuary cities and the limits of federal authority remain uncertain. The ongoing disputes highlight the deep divisions over immigration policy and the challenges of balancing enforcement with the protection of civil rights and community well-being.
Sanctuary Cities Under the Gun
Sanctuary cities and states are feeling intense pressure as the administration’s policies “turn up the heat” on them.
In late April, following President Trump’s executive order, the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) publicly released a list of over 500 jurisdictions – cities, counties, and even states – that it deemed “sanctuary”. Notably, there is no precise legal definition of what constitutes a “sanctuary jurisdiction,” which adds to the ambiguity and debate surrounding the term.
This list, published as a press release on the DHS website, effectively called out these communities for “obstructing federal immigration law enforcement.” The intent was clear: to name and shame such jurisdictions, rally public opinion against them, and justify potential punitive actions.
Each listed jurisdiction has been or will be formally notified of its status as “non-compliant,” and federal agencies (in coordination with the White House budget office) have been instructed to identify federal grants and contracts that could be pulled from those governments.
In other words, the administration is looking to hit sanctuary cities in the wallet, threatening to suspend or terminate streams of federal funding if they don’t reverse their policies. Everything from law enforcement grants to social services funding could be on the line.
Local leaders and state and local officials immediately pushed back. Some cities noted that they were mislabeled – for instance, Baltimore’s mayor objected to being on the list, stating that Baltimore is “not a sanctuary city” in a legal sense (because its jails are run by the state, not the city).
Others, like Las Vegas officials, expressed confusion about why they were included and vowed to clarify their level of cooperation with ICE. But many proudly defended their welcoming policies: “We make no apologies for being a welcoming city,” one mayor declared, emphasizing that protecting immigrant communities is integral to public safety because it builds trust with police.
Indeed, sanctuary jurisdictions argue that when immigrants aren’t afraid their local police will double as immigration agents, they are more willing to report crimes and serve as witnesses, which makes everyone safer. These communities see the Trump administration’s tactics as bullying and fear-mongering – an attempt to coerce them into doing ICE’s job at the expense of community relationships and constitutional principles. A coalition of local officials and advocacy groups went as far as calling the DHS list a “shame list” designed to intimidate, and promised unity in resisting what they view as overreach. San Francisco, in particular, has been a prominent example of a city challenging federal immigration enforcement orders and policies.
On the ground, being “under the gun” means sanctuary cities are experiencing more aggressive federal enforcement operations. Federal law enforcement, especially ICE, has significantly stepped up raids and arrests in these areas, compensating for the lack of local assistance.
In fact, interior immigration arrests have more than doubled since President Trump took office, with ICE agents fanning out to workplaces, courthouses, and even people’s homes in major urban areas. The administration has dispatched elite tactical units to aid in arrests in cities like Chicago, New York, Philadelphia, and others known for non-cooperation.
If local police won’t hand over detainees or help track down undocumented residents, ICE is determined to do it themselves – sometimes in highly visible ways.
For example, early in his term, ICE conducted a massive sweep in the Los Angeles area, reportedly arresting over 2,000 people in a single day – a record-setting operation meant to send a message. Such large-scale raids in a city that openly limits ICE’s access were clearly intended to demonstrate that “refusing to cooperate will not save you from enforcement.” However, these actions also galvanized community backlash, as seen in the Los Angeles protests that followed.
Another front in this pressure campaign is legal action.
The Trump Department of Justice has revived or launched lawsuits against sanctuary laws and policies. In Illinois – a state with multiple sanctuary policies at the city (Chicago), county (Cook County), and state level – the administration filed suit challenging these laws right out of the gate.
Chicago, long a favorite target of Trump’s rhetoric, was slapped with both the threat of funding cuts and a federal lawsuit aiming to invalidate its sanctuary city ordinance.
At the same time, the state of Illinois and sympathetic jurisdictions have fought back with their own lawsuits against the federal government, creating a flurry of litigation. We’ll delve more into the legal arguments in the next section, but suffice it to say the courts are now a major battleground.
City attorneys and state Attorneys General in places like New York, Massachusetts, California, and Illinois are coordinating to defend the legality of their sanctuary measures and to sue the administration over what they view as unconstitutional mandates. The “fight fire with fire” approach means we’re likely to see judges deciding pivotal questions about funding conditions and states’ rights in the months ahead.
In practical terms, how does a sanctuary city scenario differ from one that fully cooperates with ICE? The process below illustrates the chain of events when ICE targets an undocumented individual in a sanctuary jurisdiction versus a non-sanctuary jurisdiction:
Sanctuary policies often mean ICE has to work harder and more visibly to apprehend people – conducting surveillance and surprise raids in neighborhoods or workplaces instead of picking someone up discreetly from a jail.
The Trump administration has responded by surging personnel and forming special response teams for this exact purpose. In fact, federal officials frequently warn sanctuary communities that if local police “won’t do the job,” ICE will simply bring in additional agents – or partner with willing law enforcement elsewhere – to make arrests.
One program, known as 287(g), allows ICE to deputize local officers as immigration agents; the administration has aggressively expanded these agreements in counties and states that are open to them. But for those jurisdictions doubling down on non-cooperation, ICE’s stance is essentially: “We’re coming anyway, with or without your help.” Unfortunately, this creates a kind of cat-and-mouse climate in some cities, and can strain local-federal relations even beyond immigration issues.
Sanctuary cities are also contending with potential financial fallout.
While previous attempts to yank funding (during Trump’s first term) were largely blocked by courts, the new executive orders are broader and potentially more severe. The administration has ordered reviews of all sorts of funding – from law enforcement grants to possibly even unrelated federal aid – to see where it can apply leverage.
For example, the Office of Management and Budget might flag infrastructure or education funds for a city on the sanctuary list and attempt to pause or redirect those dollars. Already, governors of some blue states are sounding alarms about critical programs at risk. In Illinois, officials pointed out cuts to health care and education funding that they attribute to Trump’s policies punishing the state.
It’s a “slash and burn” approach, according to Illinois’ governor, who noted that everything from childcare subsidies to university research grants saw freezes or reviews in the early days of the new administration. This has prompted state and local leaders to plan contingencies: some are setting aside emergency funds to replace lost federal money, while others are exploring legal injunctions to prevent the cuts from taking effect.
The uncertainty around funding is itself a pressure tactic – one designed to make cities and states reconsider whether maintaining sanctuary policies is worth the cost.
It’s important to note that the strategy of naming and shaming sanctuary jurisdictions has had mixed results so far.
Yes, it puts political pressure on local officials (some jurisdictions on the DHS list have already publicly defended themselves or clarified their stance). And yes, the threat of losing money has caused real concern.
But no major sanctuary city has yet indicated it will reverse its policies due to these actions. If anything, many have dug in their heels, expressing defiance and solidarity. For instance, after being listed, the mayor of one large city responded that they were prepared to litigate “to protect our immigrant community and our federal funding” – effectively daring the administration to follow through so the city can challenge it in court.
In some cases, the administration’s aggressive posture has mobilized community support for sanctuary policies; local advocacy groups are holding “know your rights” workshops and fundraising for legal defense funds, while city councils are passing resolutions reaffirming their commitment as sanctuary jurisdictions despite the risks.
So while sanctuary cities are certainly under the gun, they are not without armor or allies of their own. The coming months will reveal whether federal pressure leads to compliance, or whether it strengthens the resolve of these jurisdictions to resist.
Legal Protections and State Laws
When it comes to the legality of sanctuary policies versus the federal government’s enforcement push, it’s a complex tug-of-war between states’ rights and federal supremacy. The U.S. Constitution grants the federal government exclusive power to make and enforce immigration laws – states cannot have their own immigration policies that contradict federal law.
However, the Constitution also protects states from being commandeered into federal service. In other words, while only the federal government (through agencies like ICE) can deport people, it cannot force state or local police to participate in that process. This principle, known as the “anti-commandeering doctrine,” was affirmed in Supreme Court cases that say the feds cannot dragoon state officials into carrying out federal regulatory programs.
Sanctuary policies largely rely on this doctrine: a city or state can choose not to use its resources (police, jails, employees) to help enforce federal immigration law, as long as they aren’t actively obstructing federal agents from doing their jobs.
State and local governments have passed a variety of laws and ordinances to formalize this non-cooperation. For example, California’s “Sanctuary State” law (the California Values Act) prohibits local law enforcement from honoring ICE detainer requests in most cases and from sharing personal information like release dates or addresses with immigration authorities, except when required by law.
Illinois has the Trust Act, which similarly bars police from holding someone solely due to immigration status or an ICE request.
Many cities – including New York, Chicago, Philadelphia, and Seattle – have local policies that refuse ICE access to jails without a judicial warrant, and forbid city employees from asking residents about immigration status in most situations. Some jurisdictions also ban cooperation with any ICE raids or roundups in the field. In many cases, local law enforcement agencies will not cooperate with federal immigration authorities unless a court order is present.
These laws were crafted not only to protect immigrants but to shield local governments from liability – there have been court rulings that holding someone on an ICE detainer (which is a civil request, not a criminal warrant) can violate the Fourth Amendment if it’s done without probable cause. In fact, some cities got sued in the past for wrongfully detaining U.S. citizens or others due to ICE “holds,” and they paid settlements.
So the legal rationale for sanctuary policies is part constitutional principle and part practical risk management.
On the other side, the Trump administration’s legal arguments assert that certain sanctuary behaviors do cross the line into unlawfulness.
They cite a federal law, 8 U.S.C. § 1373, which (as originally written) forbids local governments from restricting their officials from sharing information about a person’s immigration status with federal authorities.
The administration argues that any local law blocking communication or data sharing with ICE is a violation of this federal statute. (Notably, some courts have found §1373 unconstitutional as applied, because it effectively commands local governments what they can or cannot do, violating the Tenth Amendment – but that’s still a matter of legal debate.)
The administration also claims that sanctuary policies might amount to “harboring” or shielding illegal aliens in violation of federal criminal law, and that non-compliance with immigration laws could result in criminal penalties, including fines or other legal consequences. These are aggressive positions that haven’t been fully tested in court at the highest levels. Federal courts have generally been skeptical of the Trump administration’s attempts to punish sanctuary cities.
Earlier efforts to cut off all funding via a 2017 executive order were blocked by multiple judges, who ruled the President cannot attach new conditions to money that Congress hasn’t authorized. Lawsuits over Justice Department grants (like the Byrne JAG grants for law enforcement) saw mixed results in appellate courts – some upheld the administration’s right to set immigration cooperation as a condition, others struck it down.
The Supreme Court has not delivered a definitive ruling on this conflict yet (as of this writing), meaning the current escalation could well bring these issues back to the Supreme Court for a landmark decision.
In the meantime, state vs. federal tensions are at an all-time high. Several states with sanctuary laws are not only defending those laws in court but are proactively suing the federal government.
For example, California has sued over the deployment of troops and over federal attempts to commandeer its National Guard (since Guard units are usually under state control unless federalized). States like New York and Massachusetts are likely to sue if the administration actually withholds funding, arguing that such punishment violates the separation of powers (since Congress controls spending) and the conditions are coercive.
There’s also pushback on the rhetorical level – terms like “anarchy” and “insurrection” used by federal officials to describe sanctuary cities have prompted strong rebuttals.
Local law enforcement leaders in these areas often say: “We aren’t violating any laws – we’re simply focusing on our own priorities. Immigration enforcement is federal responsibility, not ours.” They emphasize that nothing in their policies prevents ICE from doing its job, it just means the local police won’t actively assist.
The administration, however, views that stance as an unlawful hindrance and is trying novel legal tactics to break it.
One such tactic is targeting specific state provisions that benefit undocumented immigrants. President Trump’s April executive order explicitly mentions things like in-state college tuition for undocumented students and local laws that consider immigration status in criminal sentencing (presumably to show leniency).
The order directs the Attorney General to challenge any state or local laws that “unlawfully prioritize” undocumented aliens over citizens. This is a culture-war aspect of the crackdown: the administration is making an example out of policies it deems to be rewarding illegal immigration (like giving a student who grew up in the state resident tuition, or cities with ID cards for undocumented residents).
While the practical effect of this part of the order is not entirely clear yet, it could mean federal lawsuits or even new legislation to preempt those state laws. Legally, the federal government might face an uphill battle – education policies and criminal justice policies are traditionally state domains.
But it shows how far the current administration is willing to go to pressure states on all fronts, not just the narrow issue of detainers.
For immigrants and their allies, it’s critical to understand that sanctuary policies do not grant complete immunity from deportation – they merely restrict local involvement. ICE can and will operate in any jurisdiction.
The legal fights matter because they determine how easy or hard it is for ICE to do so, and whether local taxpayers and officials must be complicit in those efforts. Sanctuary cities often argue that by refusing to help ICE, they are not obstructing justice; they are simply opting out of a voluntary role.
The Trump administration’s stance is that by opting out, sanctuaries are obstructing justice, because they “release criminals back into the community” and force ICE to “go find them,” allegedly putting agents and the public at risk. The administration also justifies its enforcement actions by emphasizing the need to target criminal aliens—individuals involved in criminal activities who are considered a threat to public safety—as part of its broader efforts to uphold immigration laws. This fundamental disagreement is playing out in court filings and public statements.
Until it’s resolved, we have a patchwork nation: some places actively cooperating and even entering partnerships with ICE, and others doing everything legally permissible to distance themselves.
The legal landscape is shifting almost weekly.
For instance, after publishing the sanctuary list and facing backlash (including concerns that the list had inaccuracies and would be used punitively), DHS abruptly removed the list from its website – possibly to review it or under legal advice that public “shaming” could bias pending cases.
There is also talk that Congress might get involved: the administration has floated a “Big Beautiful Bill” (a sweeping immigration and border enforcement funding bill) that would, among many things, try to explicitly tie federal funding to cooperation on immigration.
If passed, such a law could strengthen the administration’s hand (since Congress does have power to set conditions on grants). However, passing such a bill is far from certain, and states would surely challenge overly harsh conditions as unconstitutional coercion.
In parallel, community legal organizations are preparing defenses for immigrants caught in the new dragnet, and constitutional lawyers are preparing for a Supreme Court showdown on questions of federalism. In summary, the protective shield that sanctuary jurisdictions have tried to provide is being stress-tested like never before.
Whether that shield holds will depend on the outcomes of these legal battles – and possibly on political shifts in Congress or the White House down the line.
For now, immigrants and local governments should assume that current sanctuary laws remain in effect and valid unless a court explicitly strikes them down.
No court has yet compelled a police department to honor ICE detainers or assist in raids if local law forbids it. So police in sanctuary cities generally still will not hand you over to ICE for minor offenses, for example.
But everyone should also be aware that federal enforcement in those areas will be more visible and possibly backed by new federal powers (like the National Guard deployments). Stay informed on your city or state’s legal responses – many have special hotlines or websites with updates on the status of the sanctuary policies and what to do if federal agents come knocking.
What Immigrants & Employers Should Know
In this charged environment, immigrants – especially undocumented individuals or those with precarious status – need to be prepared and know their rights.
Simply living in a “sanctuary” city does not mean ICE can’t reach you. It means that your local police and government won’t actively help ICE, but ICE can and does operate independently.
Here are some key points and tips for immigrants in sanctuary jurisdictions (and everywhere else):
Know Your Rights During ICE Encounters:
- You have fundamental rights under the U.S. Constitution regardless of immigration status. If an ICE agent or police officer stops you on the street, you have the right to remain silent about your immigration status. You do not have to answer questions about where you were born or how you entered the country. If they come to your home, you do not have to open the door unless they show a warrant signed by a judge (an administrative ICE warrant is not the same thing). Through the door, you can ask the agent to slip the warrant under the door or hold it up to a window. Look for a judge’s signature – if it’s not there, you can lawfully refuse entry. Do not sign anything without consulting a lawyer. ICE may try to get you to sign a form agreeing to voluntary departure or waiving your rights; you are not obligated to sign.
Have an Emergency Plan:
- Given the increase in raids, it’s wise to prepare a plan for your family. This includes arranging care for children or elderly relatives in case you are detained. Memorize important phone numbers – for example, a family member and an immigration attorney or legal aid organization. Make sure someone you trust knows how to find you if you’re taken by ICE (they can use the ICE Online Detainee Locator or contact your consulate). Keep copies of important documents (birth certificates, immigration papers, marriage certificates) in a safe place and accessible to a family member or lawyer. Some advocates suggest preparing a “rapid response” binder or folder with your identifying information and any proof that might help your case (like proof of long-term residence, school records, etc.). If you have a work permit, asylum application, or any lawful status pending, carry proof of it.
Stay Informed and Vigilant:
- With mass enforcement underway, rumors of ICE sweeps can cause panic. Follow credible local immigrant rights groups or community organizations for verified information. Many cities have text alert systems or community hotlines to verify if an ICE raid is happening. Avoid spreading unconfirmed rumors, but do stay alert about your surroundings. If you see unusual law enforcement activity (unmarked vehicles, agents in tactical gear) in your neighborhood, it could be an operation – at that point, it may be best to stay indoors and alert others. Sanctuary city police departments generally do not participate in these operations, but they also will not physically prevent ICE from conducting them. Some localities offer “Know Your Rights” workshops – attending one can teach you practical skills, like how to assert your rights calmly and how to document an enforcement action (if safe to do so).
If You Are Arrested or Detained:
- Remain calm and ask to speak with an attorney immediately. Do not volunteer information about your country of origin or immigration history. You have the right to a phone call – use it to call a family member or lawyer, not to chat with officers. Remember that immigration detention is not criminal jail; you will have a separate process. You have the right to a hearing before an immigration judge in most cases (unless you have certain prior orders). Do not sign your own deportation or “stipulated removal” without legal counsel. If you’re detained, relatives or lawyers can help by locating you and securing representation. There may be free or low-cost legal service providers; have a family member reach out immediately.
Use City Services Without Fear:
- Sanctuary policies often mean that accessing local services (like schools, hospitals, courts, and police protection) is safer for undocumented immigrants. For example, local police in sanctuary cities usually will not inquire about immigration status if you report a crime or act as a witness. Hospitals generally do not share patient immigration data. Public schools are legally required to educate children regardless of status (and by law, they do not collect data on immigration status during enrollment). Even during this crackdown, those local protections still exist. So immigrants should continue to send their kids to school, seek medical care when needed, and cooperate with local law enforcement as victims or witnesses of crime – sanctuary policies are meant to reassure you on these points. ICE has its own guidelines (which have changed over time) about “sensitive locations” – under previous policy, places like schools, churches, and hospitals were generally off-limits for enforcement. The Trump administration has signaled it may not honor those limits strictly, but so far, schools and places of worship remain rare locations for ICE raids. Exercise caution but don’t completely retreat from community life out of fear – know that localities still want you to use services and report crimes so everyone stays safe.
Now, for employers and business owners, especially in sanctuary jurisdictions (but truly nationwide), there are also crucial considerations:
Compliance with Employment Verification (I-9 and E-Verify):
- All employers must ensure their employees are authorized to work in the U.S. This means properly filling out Form I-9 for every new hire and examining the required identity and work authorization documents. During the Trump administration, there is a strong emphasis on worksite enforcement – so expect more frequent audits of I-9 forms and possibly raids targeting industries known to hire undocumented workers. If you haven’t already, consider doing an internal audit of your I-9 forms for current employees to correct any errors (with legal guidance, as there are rules on how to make corrections). The administration is also pushing for broader use of E-Verify, an electronic system that checks new hires’ work authorization against government databases. Some states or federal contractors are required to use it by law; even if not mandated for you, voluntarily using E-Verify can be a good faith step (though it’s not legally required in every state). Keep in mind, however, that E-Verify isn’t foolproof and sometimes flags authorized workers – have procedures in place to promptly address tentative non-confirmations to avoid losing good employees unfairly.
Do Not Discriminate or Violate Labor Laws:
- It’s a delicate balance – you must avoid employing unauthorized workers, but you also must not discriminate based on nationality or perceived status. The Department of Justice’s Immigrant and Employee Rights section monitors for employers who, for example, ask only workers of certain ethnicities for extra documents or who refuse valid documents that appear foreign. Train your hiring managers on proper I-9 procedure: they should accept any valid documents from the approved list and not demand specific ones (like insisting on a green card if a worker offers a driver’s license and Social Security card, which are acceptable). In this enforcement climate, some employers might overreact and start treating anyone who looks or sounds “foreign” with suspicion – that could land you in trouble for discrimination. Maintain consistent hiring practices for all candidates.
Be Prepared for ICE Workplace Visits:
- ICE can approach in a couple of ways – through an audit (Notice of Inspection) or a raid (with or without a warrant). If you receive a Notice of Inspection, you usually have three business days to turn over your I-9 forms and supporting documents. This is essentially an administrative audit. Upon receiving notice, call your attorney right away and begin gathering the documents. During the inspection period, do not make any false statements or backdate documents (those are serious offenses). It’s wise to have an emergency plan if ICE agents actually show up unannounced for a raid: designate a manager or point person to interact with the agents. Ask politely for identification and the reason for the visit. If they claim to have a warrant, request to see it. If it’s a judicial search or arrest warrant, it will specify areas to search or persons to arrest – cooperate within that scope. If it’s an ICE administrative warrant (which is often just a piece of paper signed by an ICE supervisor), that does not give them authority to enter non-public areas of your business without consent. You can deny entry to private areas (like employee-only zones) unless they have a real court warrant. However, do not physically obstruct or lie to agents. If agents enter your premises, do not interfere with their activity, but you and your employees may remain silent or ask for legal counsel.
Know Your State’s Worker Protection Laws:
- Some sanctuary states like California have laws that extend to the workplace regarding immigration enforcement. For example, California’s Immigrant Worker Protection Act prohibits employers from voluntarily allowing ICE to access non-public areas or to view employee records without a warrant or subpoena. It also requires that employers give notice to employees if an ICE audit of I-9s is happening, and to notify affected employees of the results of such audits. Make sure you’re aware of any such laws in your state, because you’d need to balance those requirements with federal law. Consult with legal counsel to create a plan that complies with both – for instance, if ICE shows up, how to ask for the warrant in a way that’s consistent with state law, and how to inform employees of their rights.
Impact on Workforce and Operations:
- Be aware that heightened enforcement can cause anxiety among your employees, even those with legal status. It’s good management to communicate with your staff that you value all employees and that you will comply with the law in a way that respects their rights. Some businesses have chosen to offer “know your rights” information to their workers or to designate someone in HR as a confidential point of contact for any concerns about immigration status or rumors of ICE activity. Also, consider what you would do if a significant number of workers were suddenly detained – do you have a way to temporarily fill roles, or support the remaining team under stress? While we hope it doesn’t happen, the reality is ICE has conducted high-profile raids on factories, farms, and restaurants in recent years, hauling away dozens of workers in a single day. Planning for that scenario could be the difference between your business recovering or not. It could be as simple as cross-training employees so others can cover roles, or having a communication tree to reach family members, legal aid, and so on quickly.
Engage with Legal and Community Resources:
- Employers, especially small businesses, might feel caught in the middle of this conflict. There are resources to help you navigate it. You can consult the official USCIS Employer Handbook for guidance on I-9 completion and avoiding discrimination – it’s an invaluable resource straight from the government, updated with current rules. The ICE Worksite Enforcement webpage also provides an overview of what they expect from employers and the penalties for violations. Being proactive by understanding these can protect you. Additionally, local chambers of commerce or industry groups may offer seminars on immigration compliance given the current climate. Don’t hesitate to seek advice – it’s better to be prepared than to face hefty fines or even criminal charges for knowingly hiring unauthorized workers.
Conclusion and Implications
The Trump administration’s approach to immigration enforcement—marked by military-backed operations, aggressive ICE tactics, and efforts to eliminate sanctuary cities—has far-reaching implications for American communities. The focus on enforcement and restriction has heightened fear and uncertainty among undocumented immigrants, while also straining relationships between federal authorities and local law enforcement agencies.
The controversy over sanctuary cities is likely to persist, as many local governments remain committed to protecting their immigrant residents and maintaining community trust. Legal challenges to the administration’s use of federal funding as a coercive tool are expected to continue, and courts may ultimately determine the constitutionality of these policies.
The broader implications of these enforcement measures extend beyond immigration alone. They affect public safety, economic growth, and the cohesion of communities across the country. As the debate over immigration policy continues, it is crucial for the federal government, local law enforcement, and immigration enforcement agencies to work together in a way that upholds public safety, respects the rule of law, and protects the rights and dignity of all residents.
Ultimately, finding a balanced approach to immigration enforcement—one that addresses security concerns while honoring America’s tradition of welcoming immigrants—will be essential for the health and future of our communities. The path forward requires cooperation, compassion, and a commitment to the values that define the nation.
Frequently Asked Questions on Trump’s Use of the Military in Sanctuary Cities for Immigration Enforcement
What does it mean that Trump is using the military for immigration enforcement in sanctuary cities?
It refers to President Trump deploying National Guard troops and, in some instances, federalized personnel to assist immigration enforcement activities in areas that have adopted “sanctuary” policies limiting cooperation with ICE.
Is the military allowed to enforce immigration laws inside the United States?
No. Under the Posse Comitatus Act, federal military forces (like the Army or Air Force) are generally prohibited from directly enforcing domestic law, including immigration law. However, National Guard units under state authority can assist with logistical support, surveillance, and transportation, not arrests or raids.
What legal justification is the Trump administration using for deploying the military in immigration-related actions?
The administration relies on executive powers under the Immigration and Nationality Act, national emergency declarations, and coordination with state governors under Title 32 of the U.S. Code to justify the National Guard’s support role in immigration operations.
How are sanctuary cities defined?
Sanctuary cities are jurisdictions (cities, counties, or states) that have adopted policies to limit cooperation with federal immigration enforcement—such as refusing to honor ICE detainer requests or declining to share local jail data with federal authorities.
Can Trump force cities or states to comply with ICE?
No. The Tenth Amendment prohibits the federal government from “commandeering” state and local governments to enforce federal immigration laws. Courts have repeatedly upheld the rights of local jurisdictions to adopt sanctuary policies.
What kind of military presence has been seen in sanctuary cities?
Examples include National Guard deployments to areas like Los Angeles and Chicago for intelligence sharing, logistical support, and aerial surveillance—not direct involvement in arrests or detentions.
Has this type of military involvement happened before?
Yes, though rarely. Previous presidents (including Obama and Bush) used the National Guard for border security, not interior immigration enforcement. Trump’s use in sanctuary cities marks a more aggressive interior-focused approach.
What role does the National Guard actually play in immigration enforcement?
When deployed under state control (Title 32), National Guard units can support CBP or ICE by providing transportation, infrastructure support, surveillance, and data analysis. They do not make arrests or conduct immigration interviews.
Are there any constitutional concerns with this use of the military?
Yes. Civil liberties advocates raise concerns about militarization of domestic law enforcement, erosion of the Posse Comitatus Act’s protections, and potential violations of Fourth and Tenth Amendment rights.
Can a governor refuse to allow National Guard troops to be used this way?
Yes, if the National Guard remains under state authority. However, if the President federalizes the Guard under Title 10, the governor’s consent is no longer required, though this move can be politically and legally contested.
How are sanctuary jurisdictions being punished under Trump’s Executive Order 14159?
EO 14159 threatens to withhold federal funding from sanctuary jurisdictions that “interfere” with federal immigration enforcement. This includes grants related to policing, transportation, and homeland security.
Are these funding threats legal?
Federal courts have struck down previous attempts to broadly withhold funding from sanctuary cities, ruling that only Congress has the power to impose such conditions on federal grants.
Can military deployment to sanctuary cities lead to ICE raids?
While the military itself cannot conduct raids, their logistical and intelligence support can indirectly facilitate ICE operations, including identifying undocumented individuals and coordinating arrests.
How are local law enforcement agencies reacting?
Reactions vary. Some police departments in sanctuary cities reject military or ICE coordination, citing concerns about community trust and public safety. Others cooperate selectively, especially when federal funding is at stake.
Are immigrants at greater risk in sanctuary cities now?
While sanctuary policies still offer some protection, the increased federal and military presence may heighten surveillance, pressure local officials, and escalate risk of workplace or public arrests by ICE.
Can the military be used to deport people?
No. Only ICE and CBP officers can initiate removal proceedings or conduct deportations. The military is not authorized to perform such duties, even in support roles.
What should immigrants in sanctuary cities do if they see military presence?
They should not panic. Military personnel are not authorized to detain individuals. Immigrants should contact a local immigration attorney or advocacy organization for guidance if they feel targeted or unsafe.
Can military personnel check immigration status during stops or interactions?
No. The military has no legal authority to ask civilians for immigration documents or conduct immigration-related stops.
How does this affect mixed-status families?
The increased enforcement pressure in sanctuary cities may create fear and confusion in families with both undocumented and U.S. citizen members, particularly if ICE is receiving logistical support from Guard troops.
Are there privacy risks with military surveillance in sanctuary cities?
Yes. Surveillance technology operated by National Guard units may collect data that ends up in federal enforcement systems. Civil liberties groups worry about bulk data collection and racial profiling.
Can individuals sue if their rights are violated during military-assisted immigration enforcement?
Yes. If military personnel or ICE officers overstep their legal authority and violate constitutional rights, affected individuals can seek legal remedies through civil rights lawsuits.
What legal resources are available to sanctuary jurisdictions under threat?
Cities can file lawsuits challenging executive orders, seek injunctions against funding cuts, and assert Tenth Amendment protections. Many have already partnered with legal advocacy groups for coordinated defense.
How can local governments push back against military-assisted immigration enforcement?
They can strengthen sanctuary laws, restrict local-federal data sharing, adopt non-cooperation ordinances, and publicly oppose troop deployments.
Is this military use unique to immigration enforcement?
No, but it’s unusual. Military support is sometimes used in disaster response or major public events. Its use in immigration enforcement within U.S. cities raises new legal and ethical concerns.
Are businesses in sanctuary cities at risk of military-backed ICE workplace raids?
Yes. National Guard intelligence or transportation support may facilitate ICE access to worksite data or personnel. Employers should ensure they understand I-9 requirements and their legal obligations before any enforcement action.
Can employers or landlords be compelled to cooperate with military or ICE officials?
Generally, no. They are not required to grant access to private property without a proper warrant. Legal advice should be sought immediately if approached.
What should advocacy groups and legal counsel do in response?
Monitor military deployments, document potential abuses, educate communities, and prepare rapid-response legal teams. Attorneys should also advise city officials on resisting unlawful federal overreach.
Why is this issue important even outside sanctuary cities?
Because it sets a precedent for expanding military involvement in domestic law enforcement and immigration policy. What happens in sanctuary cities could spill into other jurisdictions if left unchecked.
Can this military use continue if Trump is re-elected in 2025?
Yes. Trump’s second-term immigration plan includes aggressive enforcement, possible expansion of military roles, and even mass detention efforts—especially in states that resist federal immigration priorities.
What legal challenges are likely to arise?
Litigation over funding cuts (EO 14159), misuse of the National Guard, violations of immigrant rights, and Tenth Amendment violations are expected to dominate federal court dockets.
Should immigrants in sanctuary cities consult a lawyer?
Yes. If you’re undocumented or in mixed-status households, or if you’ve been approached by ICE or notice increased military presence, legal consultation can help you understand your rights and options.
Can Attorney Richard Herman help in these situations?
Absolutely. With decades of immigration law experience and a national reputation for defending immigrants in high-risk environments, Attorney Herman and his legal team can advise individuals, families, city leaders, and businesses navigating these unprecedented enforcement tactics.
How Our Firm Can Assist
Navigating the intersection of federal immigration crackdowns and local sanctuary policies can be daunting for anyone – whether you’re an individual at risk, a business owner, or a government official trying to reconcile these conflicting mandates. Our law firm is uniquely positioned to help because we specialize in immigration law and have deep experience advocating for sanctuary communities. We understand the rapidly evolving policies and have been tracking all the executive orders, legal challenges, and enforcement trends discussed above. Here are some of the ways we can assist:
Legal Counsel for Sanctuary Jurisdictions:
- If you represent a city, county, or state body grappling with the implications of the Trump administration’s orders, our attorneys can provide guidance on your options. We advise local governments on crafting policies that protect immigrant residents while staying within the bounds of federal law. For example, we can help review or draft ordinances to ensure they comply with relevant statutes and court decisions. We also stand ready to represent jurisdictions in litigation – whether that means defending against a federal lawsuit aimed at striking down your sanctuary law, or challenging unlawful federal actions such as withholding of funds. Our team includes constitutional lawyers familiar with Tenth Amendment and spending clause issues who can mount a strong defense of your autonomy. We believe in the principle that local communities should have a say in how they police and protect their residents, and we’ll bring that ethos into the courtroom on your behalf.
Defense for Immigrants Facing Deportation:
- For individuals and families, we provide compassionate, aggressive representation in all types of immigration cases. If you or a loved one has been swept up in a raid or targeted by ICE, you do not have to face the deportation process alone. Our immigration attorneys can assist with bond hearings to get you out of detention, represent you in removal proceedings before the immigration judges, and pursue any available relief. This could include applying for asylum, cancellation of removal, adjustment of status, or other defenses depending on your situation. We also conduct “know your rights” briefings and help clients develop emergency plans (like powers of attorney for childcare, asset protection, etc.) in case of detention. In the current environment of expedited removals and increased detention, having a skilled lawyer might make the difference in keeping your family together. We take that responsibility seriously. Every case gets personalized attention – we’ll examine your immigration history and future options carefully, and fight for the best possible outcome.
Advising Employers and Businesses:
- Our firm’s expertise isn’t limited to individuals – we also advise business owners and employers on immigration compliance and strategy. We can perform internal audits of your I-9 forms to ensure you’re in good shape if ICE comes knocking. We’ll guide you through enrolling in and using E-Verify if that’s appropriate for your business. Importantly, we’ll help you develop a sensible protocol for handling any ICE worksite enforcement actions. This might involve training your management on how to respond to ICE agents, what your rights and obligations are as an employer, and how to avoid common pitfalls (like inadvertently discriminating or obstructing justice). If your business does get cited or fined for a violation, our attorneys can represent you in negotiating or litigating those penalties – sometimes showing good faith compliance efforts can reduce fines. We can also assist if you wish to sponsor immigrant employees for work visas or green cards, which is one way to legally secure your workforce in the long run. Our goal is to help businesses remain both law-abiding and immigrant-friendly, because we believe those are not mutually exclusive goals.
Community Education and Advocacy:
- As a firm deeply rooted in this field, we see part of our mission as empowering the community with information. We host free workshops on immigrant rights under the new enforcement regime and publish updates on changes in law or policy (for instance, if a new court ruling impacts sanctuary cities, or if there’s a change in ICE’s operating guidelines). We can tailor sessions for groups – whether it’s a town hall for concerned residents or a training for local police on how to comply with state sanctuary laws – leveraging our knowledge to foster cooperation and understanding. In the current climate, misinformation and fear are rampant. By providing clear, factual guidance, we aim to replace panic with preparedness. Keep an eye on our website’s blog and resource pages for downloadable guides, and follow our social media for timely alerts. And of course, we’re always just a phone call away for specific questions.
Advocacy at the Policy Level:
- Beyond case-by-case assistance, our firm actively engages in legislative and policy advocacy. We collaborate with national and local organizations in support of pro-immigrant policies. For instance, we’ve contributed legal analysis in support of bills to limit ICE access to sensitive locations and have submitted amicus (friend of the court) briefs in key lawsuits upholding sanctuary laws. Our attorneys are not just legal representatives; they are advocates for a fairer immigration system. We believe that by helping shape the conversation – whether in city council meetings, state legislatures, or Congress – we can defend the values of inclusion and due process. If you’re an elected official or advocate seeking expert testimony or analysis on these issues, we are available to assist. We want our expertise to benefit not just our clients, but the broader cause of rational and humane immigration policy.
In these uncertain times, having knowledgeable legal allies can bring peace of mind. Our firm stands firmly on the side of protecting individuals’ rights and upholding the rule of law. Sanctuary cities, by design, try to strike a balance between the federal government’s immigration mandate and the trust and safety of local communities.
When that balance is under attack, legal intervention is often necessary – and that’s where we come in. Whether it’s guiding a city through a standoff with Washington, defending a family from an unjust removal, or counseling a business on compliance without cruelty, we approach each matter with passion and professionalism.
The landscape of immigration enforcement is evolving rapidly under President Trump’s directives. It can feel overwhelming, but you don’t have to navigate it alone. If you’re reading this and have concerns about how these developments affect you, your loved ones, or your organization, please reach out to us.
We offer confidential consultations and can devise a strategy tailored to your situation, however simple or complex.
Our lawyers are immigrants, children of immigrants, and longtime champions of immigrant rights – we understand what’s at stake on a personal level, and we’re committed to standing with our clients every step of the way.
In summary, the Trump administration’s military-backed immigration enforcement is challenging the status quo and putting sanctuary cities on the defensive. But there are still laws, rights, and resources that protect individuals and localities.
Staying informed and obtaining sound legal advice is your best defense. Our firm is here to provide that advice and to fight for the values of due process, human dignity, and community that define America at its best. Together, we can weather this storm – and continue to work toward an immigration system that respects both our nation’s security and the contributions and rights of immigrants who call our communities home.
Stay safe, stay informed, and don’t hesitate to contact us for help or further information.
Why You Should Consult with Immigration Attorney Richard Herman Now
In today’s climate of heightened immigration enforcement—especially with Trump deploying military resources in sanctuary cities—it’s critical to have experienced legal protection on your side. Whether you’re an immigrant, a concerned family member, a local official, or a business at risk, you need a lawyer who understands both the law and the political landscape.
Attorney Richard Herman, founder of the nationally respected Herman Legal Group, has over three decades of experience helping immigrants defend their rights, avoid detention or removal, and secure legal status. His team is fully equipped to respond to emerging threats like military-supported ICE operations and funding pressure on sanctuary cities.
Schedule a Confidential Consultation with the Herman Legal Group Today
- Online: Visit www.LawFirm4Immigrants.com and click “Schedule Consultation”
- By Phone: Call 1-800-808-4013 to reach our intake team
- Remote or In-Person: Consultations available via Zoom. We serve clients nationwide.
Don’t wait for ICE or the National Guard to show up at your home, job site, or city hall. Take action now. Protect yourself, your loved ones, or your community—by consulting with Richard Herman and the Herman Legal Group.
