In a bold escalation of his administration's immigration policies, US President Donald Trump declared on Wednesday, January 21, 2026, that the federal government would "immediately" cease payments to so-called sanctuary cities and jurisdictions. Speaking at the World Economic Forum (WEF) in Davos, Switzerland, Trump framed the move as a necessary step to combat crime and protect American communities, accusing these areas of harboring "murderers, drug dealers, the mentally insane."
"Starting immediately, there will be no more payments to sanctuary cities, because they are really just sanctuaries for criminals," Trump stated during a high-profile session on global economic security. This announcement represents a swift pivot from his earlier declaration on his social media platform Truth Social last week, where he had set a February 1, 2026, deadline for states and cities to comply with federal immigration enforcement or face funding cuts. The accelerated timeline underscores the president's urgency in addressing what he describes as a national security crisis fueled by lax local policies.
Sanctuary jurisdictions, which include policies limiting cooperation between local law enforcement and federal immigration authorities like Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE), have long been a flashpoint in US politics. According to the US Department of Justice (DOJ), 11 states—California, Colorado, Connecticut, Illinois, Massachusetts, New Jersey, New Mexico, New York, Oregon, Vermont, and Washington—along with the District of Columbia, are designated as sanctuary entities. Additionally, hundreds of cities and counties, such as Chicago, Los Angeles, New York City, and San Francisco, adopt similar stances, arguing that such policies build trust with immigrant communities, encourage crime reporting, and focus resources on local priorities rather than federal deportation efforts.
Trump's remarks in Davos went beyond the funding halt, delving into specific allegations of fraud and cultural incompatibility. He highlighted ongoing investigations into more than $19 billion in alleged fraud in Minnesota, attributing it to "Somalian bandits" and suggesting that eliminating half of such nationwide fraud could balance the federal budget without relying on economic growth. "The situation in Minnesota reminds us that the West cannot mass import foreign cultures which have failed to ever build a successful society of their own," he added, drawing sharp criticism from immigrant rights groups and Democratic leaders for what they called inflammatory and racially charged rhetoric.
The president's comments reference a DOJ probe into welfare and Medicaid fraud in Minnesota, where a significant Somali-American community resides. Federal audits have uncovered instances of organized schemes exploiting programs like the Child Care Assistance Program, leading to indictments of dozens of individuals since 2023. However, experts note that fraud rates in these programs are not disproportionately linked to any ethnic group, and Trump's characterization has been decried as misleading. The White House has not provided immediate details on how the funding cuts would be implemented or which specific federal grants—potentially including those for housing, transportation, education, and law enforcement—would be affected.
This policy shift aligns with Trump's broader immigration agenda in his second term, which began on January 20, 2025, following his victory in the 2024 election. Since taking office, the administration has ramped up deportations, reinstated border wall construction, and expanded executive orders targeting undocumented immigrants. The sanctuary city crackdown echoes efforts during his first term (2017–2021), when the DOJ attempted to withhold grants from non-compliant jurisdictions under the Edward Byrne Memorial Justice Assistance Grant (Byrne JAG) program. Those moves faced legal challenges, with courts ruling that the executive branch could not unilaterally impose immigration-related conditions on unrelated federal funds.
Legal experts anticipate similar pushback this time. "This announcement is likely to spark a wave of lawsuits from affected states and cities," said Sarah Pierce, a policy analyst at the Migration Policy Institute. "The Supreme Court has historically limited the federal government's ability to coerce local entities into enforcing immigration laws, viewing it as a violation of the 10th Amendment's anti-commandeering doctrine." Indeed, during Trump's first term, rulings from the US Courts of Appeals for the 3rd, 7th, and 9th Circuits blocked similar withholding efforts, though the administration scored some victories in narrower cases.
Democratic leaders swiftly condemned the decision. House Minority Leader Hakeem Jeffries called it "a reckless assault on American cities that will harm public safety and vulnerable families." California Governor Gavin Newsom, whose state stands to lose billions in federal aid, vowed to challenge the cuts in court, stating, "We will not be bullied into abandoning our values of inclusivity and justice." Meanwhile, Republican allies praised the move; Texas Governor Greg Abbott tweeted support, saying it would "finally hold accountable those who shield criminals from justice."
The economic implications are substantial. Sanctuary jurisdictions receive tens of billions annually in federal funding. For instance, California alone gets over $100 billion yearly, including for infrastructure under the Bipartisan Infrastructure Law and health programs via Medicaid. Cutting these could strain local budgets, potentially leading to reduced services in education, healthcare, and policing—ironically, areas Trump claims to protect.
Internationally, Trump's Davos appearance aimed to project US strength amid global economic uncertainties, including trade tensions with China and Europe's energy crises. However, his domestic-focused remarks on immigration drew mixed reactions from WEF attendees, with some business leaders expressing concern over potential disruptions to labor markets reliant on immigrant workers.
As implementation details emerge, the White House has indicated that the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) and DOJ will oversee compliance audits, with possible exemptions for emergency funding like disaster relief. Critics argue this could exacerbate divisions in an already polarized nation, while supporters see it as fulfilling campaign promises to prioritize "America First" policies.
This development comes amid broader debates on immigration reform, with Congress stalled on comprehensive legislation. As legal battles loom, the immediate halt to payments signals a confrontational start to 2026, testing the limits of federal power and local autonomy in America's ongoing immigration saga.
