Transportation Secretary Sean Duffy announced that states and cities refusing to cooperate with Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) could lose federal transportation funding. He emphasized that jurisdictions must adhere to federal law or forfeit resources for roads, bridges, and public transit.
Secretary Duffy said, “The USDOT will NOT fund rogue state actors who refuse to cooperate with federal immigration enforcement,” adding that municipalities allowing “rioters” to damage infrastructure shouldn’t expect “a red cent” in federal support.
The announcement follows President Trump’s directive to ICE to carry out what he called the “single largest Mass Deportation Program in History” targeting sanctuary cities including Los Angeles, Chicago, and New York. Duffy stressed that losing funding isn’t a hypothetical warning. The letter delivered on April 24 informed grant recipients they must cooperate with federal immigration efforts and ditch certain diversity, equity, and inclusion (DEI) policies.
Violent protests have already erupted in multiple sanctuary cities. In Los Angeles, rioters have looted, burned Waymo robotaxis, and attacked federal officers—prompting deployment of the Marines and National Guard. Instances in Seattle and Portland also involved aggressive confrontations around ICE facilities.
Democratic leaders and state attorneys general mounted legal resistance. California AG Rob Bonta and nineteen other Democrats filed lawsuits in mid-May, claiming the federal demands unlawfully tie immigration enforcement to transportation funding, infringing on congressional authority under the Spending Clause. They argue the threats are “blatantly illegal” and divert funds meant for infrastructure and emergency preparedness.
Transportation officials maintain no funds have been directly cut yet, but they warn recipients that compliance with federal laws, including merit-based hiring and cooperation with ICE, is mandatory to maintain funding.
This unfolding conflict marks a high-stakes battle over federal authority. Conservatives see it as a necessary effort to uphold the rule of law and ensure taxpayer dollars are not supporting sanctuary jurisdictions. Critics argue it represents unprecedented federal overreach, risking essential infrastructure and emergency funding in states that refuse to comply.
