DOT Chief Declares War on Sanctuary Cities: 'Not a Red Cent' for Resisters

Paul Riverbank, 6/17/2025Biden administration threatens sanctuary cities' infrastructure funding in aggressive new immigration enforcement stance.

Transportation Secretary Duffy's announcement wasn't just a warning shot - it represents a fundamental challenge to how we've traditionally understood federal-state cooperation. By threatening to withhold DOT funding from sanctuary jurisdictions, the administration is effectively asking cities to choose between maintaining their infrastructure and preserving their sanctuary policies.

I spoke with several urban policy experts last week about the practical implications. Consider Los Angeles, where aging subway systems desperately need federal support for maintenance and expansion. The city received $716 million in DOT grants last year alone. Losing that funding would force impossible choices between basic services and deeply held community values.

But here's what troubles me most about this approach: It may not even be constitutional. The Supreme Court's decision in South Dakota v. Dole set clear limits on federal funding conditions. Several legal scholars I've consulted believe this could cross that line.

The president's deportation directive adds another layer of complexity. While previous administrations have conducted targeted enforcement operations, nothing approaches this scale. Trump's characterization of it as the "largest Mass Deportation Program in History" isn't just rhetoric - it represents a fundamental shift in how we approach immigration enforcement.

Some context is crucial here. When ICE conducted Operation Return to Sender in 2006, it resulted in about 13,000 arrests. Current plans would dwarf those numbers. And unlike past operations that focused on specific criminal offenders, this appears far more sweeping in scope.

The resistance from Democratic governors isn't surprising, but Newsom's response highlights a growing concern about potential civil unrest. We've already seen tensions boil over in Los Angeles, where what began as peaceful protests evolved into something more volatile. The president's decision to federalize the National Guard there - over local objections - sets a troubling precedent.

What's particularly striking is the selective enforcement approach. While the administration has indicated some flexibility regarding agricultural workers and service industry employees, the focus on urban centers seems calculated to maximize political impact rather than address systematic immigration challenges.

From my perspective, this confrontation was probably inevitable. Years of gridlock on comprehensive immigration reform have left both sides increasingly willing to take extreme positions. But using infrastructure funding as a weapon risks damaging communities in ways that could take decades to repair.

The coming months will likely see this battle play out in both courtrooms and city streets. For now, local leaders face an impossible choice between their principles and their communities' practical needs. It's a dilemma that speaks volumes about our increasingly fractured approach to governance.

The Biden administration's latest move against sanctuary cities marks a dramatic shift in federal-local relations that could reshape America's urban landscape. As someone who's covered immigration policy for over two decades, I can't help but note the unprecedented nature of using infrastructure funding as leverage in immigration enforcement.Transportation Secretary Duffy's announcement wasn't just a warning shot - it represents a fundamental challenge to how we've traditionally understood federal-state cooperation. By threatening to withhold DOT funding from sanctuary jurisdictions, the administration is effectively asking cities to choose between maintaining their infrastructure and preserving their sanctuary policies.I spoke with several urban policy experts last week about the practical implications. Consider Los Angeles, where aging subway systems desperately need federal support for maintenance and expansion. The city received $716 million in DOT grants last year alone. Losing that funding would force impossible choices between basic services and deeply held community values.But here's what troubles me most about this approach: It may not even be constitutional. The Supreme Court's decision in South Dakota v. Dole set clear limits on federal funding conditions. Several legal scholars I've consulted believe this could cross that line.The president's deportation directive adds another layer of complexity. While previous administrations have conducted targeted enforcement operations, nothing approaches this scale. Trump's characterization of it as the "largest Mass Deportation Program in History" isn't just rhetoric - it represents a fundamental shift in how we approach immigration enforcement.Some context is crucial here. When ICE conducted Operation Return to Sender in 2006, it resulted in about 13,000 arrests. Current plans would dwarf those numbers. And unlike past operations that focused on specific criminal offenders, this appears far more sweeping in scope.The resistance from Democratic governors isn't surprising, but Newsom's response highlights a growing concern about potential civil unrest. We've already seen tensions boil over in Los Angeles, where what began as peaceful protests evolved into something more volatile. The president's decision to federalize the National Guard there - over local objections - sets a troubling precedent.What's particularly striking is the selective enforcement approach. While the administration has indicated some flexibility regarding agricultural workers and service industry employees, the focus on urban centers seems calculated to maximize political impact rather than address systematic immigration challenges.From my perspective, this confrontation was probably inevitable. Years of gridlock on comprehensive immigration reform have left both sides increasingly willing to take extreme positions. But using infrastructure funding as a weapon risks damaging communities in ways that could take decades to repair.The coming months will likely see this battle play out in both courtrooms and city streets. For now, local leaders face an impossible choice between their principles and their communities' practical needs. It's a dilemma that speaks volumes about our increasingly fractured approach to governance.