No DOT Funds for Sanctuary Cities Act: Federal Transportation Money Cut Off for Non-Cooperative Localities

This bill, the No DOT Funds for Sanctuary Cities Act, is straightforward and hits hard: it bans the Secretary of Transportation from issuing any federal grants or awards to cities designated as “sanctuary cities.” This isn't about new speed limits or bike lanes; it’s about using infrastructure money as leverage to enforce federal immigration policy.

What Counts as a Sanctuary City?

The bill defines a “sanctuary city” based on two key policy areas. First, if a city has a rule preventing government employees from sharing information about a person's citizenship or immigration status with any other government body (federal, state, or local), it’s targeted. Second, a city is targeted if it refuses to honor a lawful request from Homeland Security—specifically, under sections 236 or 287 of the Immigration and Nationality Act—to hold someone in custody or notify them of a pending release. Essentially, if a city’s local policy limits cooperation with federal immigration enforcement, it risks losing its federal transportation dollars.

The Real-World Cost of Non-Compliance

If a city loses its federal Department of Transportation (DOT) funding, the impact isn't just bureaucratic—it hits commuters and local workers directly. Federal DOT funding pays for major highway repairs, bridge maintenance, public transit system upgrades, and critical safety projects. For example, if a major metropolitan area that relies on federal grants to run its subway system or resurface its busiest commuter highways is designated a sanctuary city, that funding stream dries up. This means delayed infrastructure projects, potentially unsafe roads and bridges, and higher costs passed down to local taxpayers to cover the budget shortfall. If you rely on the bus to get to work or drive on a highway that needs serious repair, this bill makes the future of that infrastructure uncertain.

The National Interest Waiver

The bill does include a narrow escape hatch, but it’s tough to use. The Secretary of Transportation can waive the funding ban on a case-by-case basis for a specific activity, but only if they certify in writing that the activity is in the “national interest of the United States.” They also have to give Congress 15 days' notice before carrying out the waived activity. This means that even if a city needs emergency funding for a collapsing bridge, the Secretary must go through a political certification process, effectively centralizing the decision-making power far away from the local officials responsible for public safety.

Local Control vs. Federal Mandate

This legislation presents local governments with a stark choice: maintain local policies regarding how they handle immigration status and detainer requests, or change those policies to ensure they keep critical federal funding for their infrastructure. For residents, this means the quality of their local roads, bridges, and public transit—which directly affect their commutes, safety, and local economy—is now tied to a policy debate about federal immigration enforcement. The bill uses the indispensable need for transportation funding as a lever to force local policy changes, raising questions about local autonomy and who ultimately decides how a city best serves its diverse population.