Proposed Act Strips Federal Development Funds from 'Sanctuary Jurisdictions,' Shifts Detention Liability to U.S. Government

The “Stop Dangerous Sanctuary Cities Act” is a piece of legislation that zeroes in on local governments that limit cooperation with federal immigration enforcement. Essentially, it takes aim at jurisdictions that have policies preventing local agencies from sharing immigration status information or honoring requests from Homeland Security (DHS) to hold someone for federal agents (called detainer requests).

The Local Cop as a Federal Agent

Section 2 addresses what happens when local police do cooperate. If a state or local officer honors a DHS detainer request, the bill treats that officer as if they are acting as a federal agent for that specific action. Why does this matter? It’s all about lawsuits. If someone sues the local police department or the city over a detention based on a valid detainer, the local entity is off the hook. The lawsuit must instead be filed against the United States government under the Federal Tort Claims Act. This is a massive shift: it removes civil liability from local budgets and puts it squarely on the federal government, potentially encouraging local compliance by removing the financial risk of litigation. However, this protection doesn't cover knowing violations of someone's civil or constitutional rights.

Defining the Line: Who Counts as 'Sanctuary'?

Section 3 defines a “sanctuary jurisdiction” very broadly. It’s any place with a law or even an “established practice” that stops officials from sharing citizenship or immigration status information with other government bodies, or that refuses to honor a lawful DHS detainer request. If your city has a policy that prevents local jails from notifying DHS before releasing someone they want to pick up, that city qualifies.

There is one key exception: a jurisdiction isn't labeled a sanctuary if its policy is designed to protect crime victims or witnesses. If a city limits sharing information or honoring detainers for people who come forward to report a crime, that specific policy won't trigger the sanctuary designation. This attempts to ensure that victims and witnesses aren't afraid to report crimes.

The Financial Hammer: Losing Development Funds

Section 4 is where the real-world impact hits the hardest for everyday citizens, regardless of their immigration status. If a jurisdiction is designated a “sanctuary,” it becomes immediately ineligible for several major federal funding streams. This isn't just a slap on the wrist; it targets money that pays for infrastructure and community development.

Specifically, the bill blocks funding from the Economic Development Administration (EDA), which funds things like public works, planning, and technical assistance. More critically, it blocks access to Community Development Block Grants (CDBG). CDBG funds are the lifeblood for many local projects, paying for things like affordable housing rehabilitation, neighborhood improvements, job training, and services for low-income residents. For a family relying on a subsidized after-school program or a small business benefitting from a local revitalization project, the loss of CDBG funding is concrete and immediate.

Starting October 1, 2025, if a city or state is deemed a sanctuary jurisdiction, it can’t receive these funds. Even worse, if a jurisdiction becomes a sanctuary after receiving CDBG money, the bill mandates that they must return all currently obligated funds immediately. Imagine a city that just started construction on a new community center using CDBG money; if they change their policy or are newly designated a sanctuary, they have to pay that money back, potentially leaving half-finished projects and significant holes in local budgets. This creates enormous pressure on local governments to comply with federal detainer requests, even if they would prefer to maintain policies focused on community trust and local policing.