As the Trump administration intensifies its crackdown on so-called sanctuary jurisdictions, cities and states across the country are digging in their heels, refusing to comply with federal demands to rescind policies that limit cooperation with immigration authorities. The latest flashpoint erupted after U.S. Attorney General Pam Bondi, on August 13, 2025, sent letters to dozens of governors, mayors, and county executives, warning that failure to align with federal immigration enforcement could result in lawsuits, loss of funding, and even criminal charges for local officials.
Bondi’s missives, which cited President Trump’s April executive order (No. 14,287), directed recipients to confirm by August 19 their commitment to federal law and to detail any steps taken to eliminate local laws or practices that “thwart federal immigration enforcement.” The letters landed in inboxes across a newly published Department of Justice list that included 12 states, the District of Columbia, four counties, and 18 cities. Among them: Hoboken, Jersey City, Newark, Paterson, Washington state, Colorado, Connecticut, and Rochester, New York.
The response from targeted jurisdictions was swift and defiant. Hoboken Mayor Ravi Bhalla, in a sharply worded letter to Bondi, declared, “As the nation witnesses the tearing apart of families, inhumane treatment of human beings, and unlawful detention of children, Hoboken will not bend its knee in response to the lawlessness of federal immigration authorities.” Bhalla, who has led Hoboken since 2018 and is now seeking a seat in the state Assembly, reaffirmed the city’s “fair and welcoming city” policy, which restricts when local officials and police can cooperate with federal immigration agents. “We will not capitulate to your demand that we rescind our policies, and in this case our morals and values,” he wrote, adding that any revisions to Hoboken’s policies would be made only to protect residents from unlawful enforcement—not to appease federal threats.
Other leaders echoed Bhalla’s sentiment. Washington Governor Bob Ferguson, speaking at a press conference on August 19, dismissed Bondi’s letter as “legally baseless accusations.” He said, “Washington state will not be bullied or intimidated by threats and legally baseless accusations.” Ferguson further remarked, “In the America that I love, and have taught my children to revere, we resolve our differences peacefully through public discourse, and if necessary through the courts—not by threatening political opponents with imprisonment.” Senator Maria Cantwell weighed in as well, stating, “Our limited state and local law enforcement resources are needed to fight violent crime and fentanyl. Washington law prioritizes public safety and provides due process. The Trump administration should stop threatening states and focus on upholding the rule of law and the U.S. Constitution.”
In New Jersey, the standoff has become particularly heated. The Department of Justice has already sued Hoboken, Jersey City, Newark, and Paterson over their sanctuary laws. The state’s Attorney General, Matt Platkin, joined a multi-state lawsuit this week challenging the administration’s move to withhold federal grants intended for victims and witnesses of crime, arguing that the funding block is retaliation for sanctuary policies. Federal authorities, meanwhile, have opened investigations into New Jersey’s “Immigrant Trust Directive,” which limits state and local cooperation with immigration enforcement.
The Trump administration’s push comes amid a dramatic escalation in immigration enforcement. Since Trump’s second term began in January 2025, immigration arrests have doubled, and the number of people held in detention has soared. The administration has also threatened to cut off federal funds to non-cooperative jurisdictions and, according to Bondi’s letter, may seek criminal or civil penalties against officials who “facilitate violations of federal immigration laws or impede lawful federal immigration operations.”
Yet, cities and states are not backing down. In Colorado, Governor Jared Polis has repeatedly insisted that his state is not a sanctuary jurisdiction, even as the administration has filed suit. Polis signed a law in May 2025 that limits local law enforcement’s communication with federal immigration authorities and restricts federal agents’ access to sensitive locations like schools and hospitals without a judicial warrant. “In Colorado, we are improving public safety, apprehending dangerous criminals, cooperating with federal law enforcement on criminal investigations, and keeping our communities safe,” said Ally Sullivan, a spokesperson for Polis. “The Governor continues to be frustrated by this mistaken and incorrect label.”
Connecticut Governor Ned Lamont also defended his state’s position, citing the Trust Act, which was passed in 2013 and expanded in 2019. The law limits information sharing with federal immigration authorities and restricts compliance with federal detainer requests. “Nothing about this makes Connecticut a sanctuary in any legal or practical sense — it makes our state one that upholds the Constitution, respects the rule of law, and prioritizes the safety and well-being of our communities,” Lamont said. He emphasized that the Trust Act had bipartisan support and was designed to ensure police focus on serious crimes, not civil immigration matters.
Legal experts point to recent court decisions as a potential shield for sanctuary jurisdictions. On July 25, 2025, a federal judge dismissed a Trump administration case against Illinois, Chicago, and Cook County. The ruling, now under appeal, cited the Tenth Amendment’s protections against federal commandeering of state and local resources for civil immigration enforcement. Judge Lindsay Jenkins wrote, “The state and local policies reflect a decision to not participate in enforcing civil immigration law — a decision protected by the Tenth Amendment.” Other federal courts have issued injunctions blocking the administration from withholding unrelated federal funding from governments that don’t cooperate on immigration.
Despite these legal setbacks, Bondi’s letters signal a “maximalist approach,” as Jonathan Miller of the Public Rights Project described it, to pressure local governments. The administration’s August 5 list, although pared down from previous versions, still includes a wide array of jurisdictions—some of which, like Colorado, dispute the very label of “sanctuary.”
Reactions across the country have ranged from defiant to weary. Boston Mayor Michelle Wu declared the city would “never back down,” while Rhode Island Attorney General Peter Neronha called the administration’s tactics “the tactic of a bully.” In Rochester, New York, city spokesperson Barbara Pierce dismissed Bondi’s letter as legally meritless, saying, “Nothing in Attorney General Bondi’s letter is new and none of it has legal merit.”
Meanwhile, the debate has spilled into local politics and law enforcement. In New Jersey, Rep. LaMonica McIver faces assault charges stemming from an incident during the arrest of Newark’s mayor, while detainees at Newark’s Delaney Hall immigration detention center rioted over poor conditions. The White House has even blamed a fatal drunken driving crash involving an undocumented immigrant on New Jersey’s sanctuary policies, further inflaming the political rhetoric.
As the August 19 deadline passes, it’s clear that the battle over sanctuary policies is far from over. Cities and states are standing their ground, citing constitutional protections, public safety, and local values, while the Trump administration continues to wield the threat of litigation and funding cuts. In the words of Governor Ferguson, “A letter like this cannot be normalized.” The coming months are likely to see more lawsuits, more heated press conferences, and no easy resolution to a conflict that goes to the heart of American federalism and the nation’s identity.
