Proposed Act Puts Local Sanctuary Jurisdictions on Public Database, Threatens All Future Federal Funding

The newly proposed Sanctuary Penalty and Public Protection Act of 2025 is a direct attempt to force local and state governments to cooperate fully with federal immigration enforcement—or face immediate, serious financial consequences. Put simply, this bill creates a federal blacklist for jurisdictions that don't tow the line on immigration and then cuts off their money supply.

The Federal Blacklist: What Triggers the Penalty?

This bill tasks the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) and the Attorney General (AG) with creating a public database, updated at least quarterly, listing any state or local government they decide has a policy that “conflicts with or violates specific parts of immigration law” (SEC. 2). What counts as a conflict? The bill specifically targets policies that stop local police from honoring a detainer request from federal Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) or prevent federal agents from interviewing people held in local jails. If your city or state has adopted a policy to limit local resources spent on federal immigration enforcement—often referred to as a 'sanctuary' policy—it’s going straight onto this list.

The Real-World Cost of Being Labeled a 'Sanctuary'

This is where the bill gets heavy. Once a state or local government is officially labeled a “sanctuary jurisdiction” and added to this database, they are immediately prohibited from receiving or using any federal money made available after the law is enacted (SEC. 2). Think about what that means for everyday life: Federal funds pay for crucial infrastructure projects, local police training grants, school lunch programs, housing assistance, and public transit upgrades. If a city loses access to all future federal funding, that means the new bridge project gets shelved, the local police department struggles to afford new equipment, and critical social services designed to help low-income families might dry up.

For a state or county that relies on federal dollars for a significant chunk of its budget, this is a nuclear option. The bill doesn't specify a grace period or a phase-out; the prohibition is immediate. This creates a massive financial burden on local taxpayers who would suddenly have to cover the full cost of services previously subsidized by the federal government.

Power Shift: Who Decides and Why It Matters

One of the most significant aspects of this bill is the immense power it concentrates in the hands of the DHS Secretary and the AG. They jointly decide what constitutes a conflicting policy and, therefore, who gets blacklisted and financially penalized. The criteria for being put on the database—like refusing to honor a detainer request—are clear enough, but the bill gives these federal officials significant discretion in interpreting whether a local rule “conflicts with” federal law. This lack of judicial review or clear appeal process before the funding hammer drops means a local government could be penalized based solely on the executive branch’s interpretation of their local ordinance.

For the average person, this means that local decisions about how police resources are allocated—decisions often made by elected city councils or county boards—can be instantly overridden by the threat of losing federal money for the entire community. It effectively uses the federal budget as a mechanism to centrally enforce a specific immigration policy, regardless of the priorities or concerns of local voters and governments.