Legislation “ending sanctuary cities,” as President Donald Trump again called for on Sunday, has been introduced before in Congress, with varying degrees of success.
In fact, there are versions of such a bill that were introduced just last year, but – despite the Republican majority in both the House of Representatives and the Senate – neither have made it out of their chambers’ committees.
In February, Sen. Ted Cruz, R-Texas, reintroduced his Stop Dangerous Sanctuary Cities Act, a bill that prohibits sanctuary jurisdictions from receiving certain federal grants if they don’t cooperate with Immigration and Customs Enforcement.
The legislation defines sanctuary jurisdictions as states or localities that withhold information about a person’s immigration status from ICE or don’t comply with ICE detainers.
A few months later, Rep. Nick Langworthy, R-N.Y., introduced an identical bill in the House of Representatives.
Both pieces of legislation were immediately sent to their chambers’ judiciary committees for review. The House also referred its bill to two other relevant committees. And there, the legislation has stayed – in the Senate since late February and in the House since June.
Cruz first introduced the bill in 2023, where it followed the exact same path, though Democrats then held a narrow majority in the Senate.
During Trump’s first term, others tried to do what Cruz and Langworthy have championed this time around.
In 2017, Virginia Rep. Bob Goodlatte introduced a bill that similarly aimed to withhold certain federal grants from states or localities that didn’t comply with ICE efforts. That year, Republicans also enjoyed a trifecta even stronger than the current one, with a more-than 45-seat majority in the House.
Goodlatte’s No Sanctuary for Criminals Act passed the House mostly along party lines, 228-195, with three Democrats joining 225 Republicans to send the bill to the Senate. However, nothing happened after it crossed over.
Trump has repeatedly tried to withhold funding from sanctuary cities through executive action, but those efforts have largely been blocked by courts so far, saying the president lacks the authority to withhold congressionally approved funds.
If Congress does act on the president’s appeal, it’s unclear whether they’d attempt to resurrect last year’s sanctuary city legislation – and how it would fare if they did. The narrow majorities in the House and Senate would make passing such legislation difficult. The Center Square sought clarification from some House Republicans on how they plan to move forward, but did not receive a response by the time of publication.
Brandon Smith, a former Chief of Staff and Assistant Solicitor General in the Tennessee Attorney General’s Office, spoke to The Center Square about the president’s renewed call to Congress.
“It’s very strategic for the administration to put the onus on Congress,” Smith said. “It creates a much more durable policy win for the administration – one that will outlast this president and have a sense of a legacy behind it.”
A law would “allow [Trump] to sidestep the strongest arguments that have gotten the most traction against him doing this now,” according to Smith, though opponents could still challenge the law in court.
Smith said that a lack of clear guidance from Congress is a key reason sanctuary jurisdictions continue to be a source of conflict between the federal government and local governments.
“Sanctuary policies exist largely because Congress hasn’t spoken clearly on this,” Smith said. “Congress hasn’t spoken much on the subject in a long time.”
