On August 18, 2025, a coalition of twenty states and the District of Columbia launched a sweeping legal challenge against the Trump administration, alleging that the federal government is using vital crime victim funding as leverage in a broader crackdown on immigration. The lawsuit, filed in federal court in Rhode Island, marks the latest flashpoint in the ongoing battle between Republican-led federal immigration enforcement and Democratic-led states with so-called "sanctuary" policies.
At the heart of the dispute are the Victims of Crime Act (VOCA) grants, a cornerstone of federal support for victims and survivors of crime since their creation in 1984. These funds, administered by the Office for Victims of Crime (OVC) within the Justice Department, have long been a lifeline for millions of Americans. According to Reuters, the grants are funded by fines and penalties from federal criminal cases, and in 2025, nearly $1.4 billion was available to support programs offering everything from emergency shelter and counseling to medical care, funeral expenses, and crisis hotlines.
Yet, as reported by CBS News and The Hill, the Trump administration introduced a controversial new condition: states must cooperate fully with federal immigration enforcement—including granting access to Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) agents and honoring Department of Homeland Security requests—or risk losing access to these funds. The Justice Department’s policy, championed by Attorney General Pam Bondi in a February directive, explicitly targets "sanctuary jurisdictions" that limit cooperation with ICE, effectively tying the hands of states that have adopted policies to protect immigrant communities.
For states like California, New York, New Jersey, Illinois, Massachusetts, Maryland, Michigan, Minnesota, Colorado, and Oregon, the stakes are enormous. Since 2021, these states have collectively received more than $500 million annually in crime victim grants, according to the lawsuit. The impact of losing such funding would be immediate and severe. Oregon Attorney General Dan Rayfield described the grants as essential, supporting "the counselor who picks up the phone at 2 a.m., the shelter bed that keeps a mom and her kids safe tonight, or the advocate who walks a victim through the court process." In Oregon alone, 146 victim service providers depend on VOCA grants, and they now face a potential $15 million shortfall, as reported by USA TODAY.
The Democratic attorneys general argue that the new conditions are not only "unprecedented" but also unlawful. Their complaint, quoted by The Hill, reads: "The challenged conditions would force these States into an untenable position: either forfeit access to critical resources for vulnerable crime victims and their families, or accept unlawful conditions, allowing the federal government to conscript state and local officials to enforce federal immigration law and destroying trust between law enforcement and immigrant communities that is critical to preventing and responding to crime." The lawsuit contends that Congress clearly intended VOCA funds to be used solely for helping victims, not as a tool to advance executive branch immigration priorities.
California Attorney General Rob Bonta echoed this sentiment, calling the administration’s attempt to use funding to "strong-arm California and states nationwide into doing the federal government’s job for it... blatantly beyond the power of the president." Oregon’s Dan Rayfield was equally direct, stating, "This is yet another attempt to place unlawful conditions on federal funds coming into Oregon to advance the President’s unpopular agenda, this time at the expense of crime victims and survivors." New York Attorney General Letitia James added, "The federal government is attempting to use crime victim funds as a bargaining chip to force states into doing its bidding on immigration enforcement."
Supporters of the Trump administration’s policy, including Attorney General Pam Bondi, argue that sanctuary policies impede law enforcement and put American citizens at risk. In an August 5 statement, Bondi said, "Sanctuary policies impede law enforcement and put American citizens at risk by design." She criticized jurisdictions for failing to collaborate with ICE agents, providing government benefits to undocumented immigrants, or refusing to share immigration information about jail detainees. The administration maintains that limiting local cooperation with federal immigration authorities makes it harder to enforce laws, especially against criminal offenders in state or local custody.
However, the states and their allies counter that forcing local law enforcement to participate in immigration enforcement undermines trust within immigrant communities, making victims and witnesses less likely to report crimes or cooperate with police. Their lawsuit warns that the new conditions risk "destroying trust between law enforcement and immigrant communities that is critical to preventing and responding to crime." As CBS News notes, the threat to funding has already led some nonprofits to warn of layoffs or the closure of vital hotlines for victims of hate crimes, sex trafficking, and violence against children.
The urgency of the legal challenge is heightened by the timing: most grant applications were due just two days after the lawsuit was filed, on August 20, 2025. The states are seeking "urgent relief," asking the federal judge to block enforcement of the new rules and declare them illegal. They argue that the Justice Department’s actions violate the U.S. Constitution by undermining Congress’s power of the purse. "In enacting these grant programs, Congress’s focus was crystal clear: the funds must be used to help victims," their complaint states. "Yet the Office for Victims of Crime... has now declared that States will be unable to access VOCA funds unless they accede to the Executive Branch’s immigration enforcement priorities."
Legal observers note that this is not the first time the Trump administration has attempted to condition federal funding on state cooperation with immigration enforcement. According to Reuters, judges in Rhode Island have previously blocked similar efforts, most recently barring new restrictions on grants for victims of domestic violence and sexual assault. The current lawsuit builds on those precedents, with the Democratic attorneys general hoping for another favorable ruling.
The Justice Department has declined to comment on the pending litigation. Meanwhile, the outcome of this case could have far-reaching implications—not only for the millions of crime victims who rely on federally funded services each year, but also for the ongoing balance of power between states and the federal government in the contentious arena of immigration policy. As the legal battle unfolds, both sides are bracing for a decision that could reshape the landscape of victim support and federal-state relations for years to come.
With critical funding and the trust of vulnerable communities hanging in the balance, the courtroom in Rhode Island has become the latest stage for a national debate over justice, compassion, and the limits of federal authority.
