Federal Earmark Funds Banned for 'Sanctuary Cities' Starting 2026: New Law Defines Terms, Sets Restrictions

The 'No Congressional Funds for Sanctuary Cities Act' directly bans federal funds from being used for congressional earmarks that benefit sanctuary jurisdictions, starting in fiscal year 2026. Basically, if a city or state has policies limiting cooperation with federal immigration enforcement, they could lose out on earmarked federal dollars.

What Counts as a 'Sanctuary Jurisdiction'?

The bill defines a 'sanctuary jurisdiction' (in Sec. 3) as any state or local government that restricts its agencies or employees from sharing immigration information or complying with Department of Homeland Security (DHS) requests to detain individuals (under sections 236 or 287 of the Immigration and Nationality Act). Think of it this way: if a local police department can't, by policy, tell DHS about someone's immigration status, or hold someone based on a DHS request, that locality could be labeled a 'sanctuary jurisdiction'.

However, there's a carve-out: if the only reason a city or state doesn't cooperate is to protect victims or witnesses of crimes, they're in the clear. This means jurisdictions focused on protecting vulnerable individuals won't automatically be penalized.

Real-World Impacts: Dollars and Enforcement

This law could have significant impacts on how local governments operate. Imagine a city that relies on federal earmarks for infrastructure projects, but also has a policy limiting cooperation with ICE. Starting in 2026, that city could face a tough choice: change their local policy or potentially lose funding for, say, road repairs or upgrades to a local community center. It could also mean that a county sheriff's office, in order to keep federal funding flowing, might have to change its policies on holding individuals solely based on DHS detainers.

Potential Challenges and the Bigger Picture

One of the biggest challenges will likely be the interpretation of 'sanctuary jurisdiction'. Different cities and states have varying policies, and what one considers 'restricting information sharing' might be different elsewhere. This could lead to inconsistent application of the law. It also raises questions about the balance between federal immigration enforcement and local autonomy. Does this incentivize local law enforcement to shift their focus towards immigration, potentially away from other community policing priorities? It will be important to see how different jurisdictions interpret the law and decide how to respond, whether through policy changes, legal challenges, or budget adjustments. This law directly connects the flow of federal money to local immigration policy, a move that will undoubtedly reshape the relationship between different levels of government.