Trump Administration Scraps Sanctuary City List Amid Law Enforcement Outcry

WASHINGTON — The U.S. Department of Homeland Security (DHS) has removed a public list categorizing cities as “sanctuary” jurisdictions, following backlash from a coalition of local law enforcement leaders. The National Sheriffs’ Association voiced strong objections to the list, which was released on Thursday and disappeared by Sunday.

Sheriff Kieran Donahue, president of the National Sheriffs’ Association, criticized the disclosure as detrimental to cooperation between local law enforcement and federal authorities. He emphasized that the list undermines trust and unity, stating, “This approach has the potential to strain the relationship between Sheriffs and the White House administration.”

While DHS did not clarify the reason for the removal, a spokesperson indicated that the list is subject to ongoing review and updates. “Designation of a sanctuary jurisdiction is based on numerous factors,” the spokesperson noted, referencing compliance with federal immigration law and local restrictions on information sharing.

During an appearance on Fox News Sunday, DHS Secretary Kristi Noem acknowledged that some localities have resisted federal oversight but did not mention the list’s removal. She asserted that localities mistakenly believe their lack of specific laws exempts them from being classified as sanctuary jurisdictions, arguing, “They are giving sanctuary to criminals.”

This list’s creation was rooted in an executive order from former President Trump, mandating DHS to identify cities that do not cooperate with federal immigration enforcement. The intent was to threaten federal funding for these jurisdictions, despite the fact that local jurisdictions continue to enforce immigration laws, albeit without federal coordination.

Local law enforcement agencies, including those in North Dakota, expressed confusion over their designation. The North Dakota Sheriff’s and Deputies Association noted that several counties listed as sanctuary jurisdictions actively collaborate with federal officials. “The methodology and criteria used to compile this list is unknown,” they stated, criticizing the lack of communication from DHS.

Local advocacy organizations echoed these concerns, suggesting that the list’s removal was likely due to complaints regarding its inaccuracies. Steven Brown, executive director of the ACLU of Rhode Island, commented on the backlash faced by DHS regarding the reported designations.

According to records from the Internet Archive, the list included numerous states, such as California, Texas, and New York, raising questions about the accuracy and criteria behind the classification process.

Christopher Shea and Amy Dalrymple contributed to this report.