Consider this the predictable sequel to the performative La Résistance theatrics from blue states and cities in response to immigration enforcement. When progressive jurisdictions choose to manufacture chaos and invite violence around lawful federal operations, they leave the president with tools he is fully entitled to use. Donald Trump has options, and the most drastic is the Insurrection Act—a power he has floated before but never pulled. Minnesota likely tested that restraint.
When Governor Tim Walz declared the state “at war” with the federal government and openly mused about deploying the National Guard against ICE, he didn’t just escalate the rhetoric; he dared Washington to respond.
Enjoying our conservative news and commentary? Make sure you share and tell your friends about us!
Instead, Trump has chosen a more precise—and far more painful—pressure point: money. Speaking yesterday at the Detroit Economic Club, he announced that any state or city advertising itself as a “sanctuary” for illegal aliens while refusing to cooperate with the Department of Homeland Security would see its federal funding cut off. No theatrics, no bayonets—just consequences. If blue jurisdictions want to defy federal law, they can do it on their own dime:
“Starting February 1, we are not making any payments to sanctuary cities or states having sanctuary cities because they do everything possible to protect criminals at the expense of American citizens,” Trump said during his address at the Detroit Economic Club.
He continued, “It breeds fraud and crime and all of the other problems that come, so we’re not making any payment to anybody that supports sanctuary cities.”
Sanctuary cities often have policies limiting local law enforcement’s ability to cooperate with federal immigration officers.
The Department of Justice has identified 11 states as sanctuary jurisdictions, including California, Illinois, Minnesota and New York. The District of Columbia is also considered a sanctuary jurisdiction.
Only eleven? That sounds less like a comprehensive accounting and more like a starter list. The Justice Department may want to dust off its files, because plenty of states—and even more cities—have been playing sanctuary games for the better part of two decades. The real question is whether the White House intends to drill down to the municipal level or simply begin by making examples of these eleven states.
Either way, this is not empty rhetoric. Trump doubled down on the threat this morning on Truth Social—this time with the customary excess of capital letters:
EFFECTIVE FEBRUARY FIRST, NO MORE PAYMENTS WILL BE MADE BY THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT TO STATES FOR THEIR CORRUPT CRIMINAL PROTECTION CENTERS KNOWN AS SANCTUARY CITIES. ALL THEY DO IS BREED CRIME AND VIOLENCE! If States want them, they will have to pay for them! MAKE AMERICA GREAT AGAIN!!!
If Trump follows through, the fiscal shock to these states would be immediate and severe. Most of them are already skating on thin ice, budget-wise. California, in particular, is drowning in red ink; even a temporary disruption in federal funding would be catastrophic. The rest would feel the pain to varying degrees, but none would escape it. Sanctuary posturing is easy when Washington keeps writing checks.
Take the checks away, and the slogans get very expensive, very fast. I say, go for it, Mr. President.
