The Immigration Hub — a national organization dedicated to advancing immigration policies — held a press conference voicing opposition against the No Bailout for Sanctuary Cities Act (HR 32) on Tuesday, March 4.
The bill, introduced by Rep. Nick LaLota (R-NY01), if passed, would make a state or jurisdiction of a state ineligible for any federal funds intended for use to benefit non-U.S. nationals (i.e., aliens under federal law) who are unlawfully present, if the jurisdiction withholds information about citizenship or immigration status or does not cooperate with immigration detainers.
Rep. LaLota originally introduced the No Bailout for Sanctuary Cities Act (then H.R.5717) in the 2023-2024 legislative session, which passed the house, 219-196, but fell flat in the Senate after being referred to the Committee on the Judiciary.
On January 20, 2025, President Trump signed an Executive Order, ordering, under section 17, that “The Attorney General and the Secretary of Homeland Security shall, to the maximum extent possible under law, evaluate and undertake any lawful actions to ensure that so-called “sanctuary”jurisdictions, which seek to interfere with the lawful exercise of Federal law enforcement operations, do not receive access to Federal funds. Further, the Attorney General and the Secretary of Homeland Security shall evaluate and undertake any other lawful actions, criminal or civil, that they deem warranted based on any such jurisdiction’s practices that interfere with the enforcement of Federal law.”
“We’re here because once again Donald Trump is using fear to push his extreme agenda, this time by threatening to strip federal funding from communities across the country,” said Kerri Talbot, Executive Director of Immigration HUB. “The No Bail Act for Sanctuary Cities is not about public safety. It’s about punishing cities who refuse to be complicit in the mass deportation agenda.”
Talbot explained that the bill would gut resources that working families depend on such as funding for schools, public transit, disaster relief, and healthcare all while forcing local governments to do whatever ICE demands.
Talbot further mentioned that the bill is “incredibly broad” both in the types of funding it impacts but also the way in which they demand to do whatever ICE wants without specifically defining what cooperation would mean.
“Trump would not be saving money with this, he’s just creating chaos, attacking cities, defunding critical programs, and destabilizing communities,” said Talbot.
Ramin Fatehi, Commonwealth Attorney and Chief Prosecutor for Norfolk, Virginia, said that he cannot begin to emphasize how this pending legislation endangers public safety.
“Regardless of whatever exceptions are within this bill, in immigrant communities who are already in the margins, the concern for mass deportations is going to drive people into the shadows,” said Fatehi. “It’s going to make a lot of immigrants sitting ducks for criminal actors and is going to make our job dramatically harder. Striking funds is also going to make our job dramatically harder because you strike at the heart at things that prevent crime in the first place. If we really care about public safety, if we really care about protecting our citizens from harm, and if we really care about preventing crimes before they even start in the first place, then we don’t disinvest in our communities for political points.”
Fatehi called the No Bailout for Sanctuary Cities Act a political bill aimed at forcing a specific agenda that directly runs contrary to his agenda as a prosecutor—keeping his citizens safe.
Angelita Morello, City Councilor for the City of Portland, Oregon, and an immigrant from Paraguay herself, also testified against the bill Tuesday calling immigrants a “core part” of the Portland community.
“I’m really concerned about the No Bail Out Sanctuary Cities Act,” said Morello Tuesday. “It is an extremely reckless bill that is going to strip essential federal funding from our community simply for enacting common-sense policies that keep us safe. This bill is not just an attack on immigrant communities, it is an attack on all residents.”
As someone who was formerly a snap policy advocate prior to joining Portland City Council, Morello shared that she has deep concerns about the direct impacts the bill will have on her City’s most vulnerable residents who already rely on federal programs to feed their families, who are also people who greatly contribute to society as workers, tax payers, and as human beings who Sanctuary Cities are required to care for.
Morello also commented that the bill could directly influence some infrastructure projects in the works in Portland that could mean “life or death” for residents. These include federal dollar-dependent seismic upgrades to key bridges and tunnels to keep safe from earthquakes.
She added that the bill is intended to coerce local governments to push his extreme agenda all while gutting essential resources for working class families so that he can offer tax breaks to his “billionaire friends”—Elon Musk, Jeff Bezos, and Mark Zuckerberg—who she called his “oligarch allies.”
“The Trump administration does not care about the safety of working families. This bill is not about safety, it’s about fear,” said Morello. “The Trump administration is using scare tactics and is scapegoating communities, as we know dictators often do, with their anti-immigration agenda. They want to divide us, and they want to isolate us as immigrants to push us out of public life, and to threaten punishment to anyone who stands with us.”
Morello considered the bill a “fascist overtaking of our congressional leaders” and the powers they have over spending.
Mary Moriarty, County Attorney for Hennepin County, Minnesota (which includes the City of Minneapolis and its suburbs) echoed prior speakers points that the Trump Administration’s bill is aimed at eliciting fear, rather than public safety, using federal government data to support her point.
According to the Department of Justice, immigrants are far less likely to commit crimes than American citizens, because they fear the repercussions of deportation.
As a County Attorney Moriarty mentioned that with the No Bailout for Sanctuary Cities Act immigrant witnesses to serious crime will be less likely to come forward in court as a witness threatening the ability to prosecute. She further made the point that prioritizing deportation above prosecution just relocates violent criminals somewhere else where they will continue to be a danger to public safety and could potentially return to the states.
“Our community should have the opportunity to hold people who harm other here accountable,” said Moriarty.
Moriarity also said the federal cuts could be disastrous for local nonprofits who help victims of domestic violence.
In Hennepin County an organization called Cornerstone, for example, serves over 5,000 women and children who have been a victim of domestic violence. Cornerstone receives over 30% of their funding from the federal government. If that funding is cut Moriarty suspects the organization, and others like it who provide essential services (such as the Minnesota Coalition for Sexual Assault which receives 90% of its budget from the feds), will have to close.
Lastly, Jacqueline Sartoris, District Attorney with the City of Portland, Maine, shared a story about the Portland jail being closed during the pandemic. Even now the jail does not have the resources to hire the proper Correction Officers to open the jail fully.
Consequentially, Sartoris noted that the jail system’s inability to house criminals has led to a spike in crime. She noted that the Trump administration’s No Bail for Sanctuary Cities Act will either slash funds so that the jail could not operate at all, or law enforcement officers will need to redirect their attention to immigrants instead of keeping violent criminals off the streets.
Background on Sanctuary States and pending lawsuit
The eleven Sanctuary States in the U.S. include: California, Colorado, Connecticut, Illinois, Massachusetts, New Jersey, New York, North Dakota, Oregon, Rhode Island, and Vermont.
Seattle, by definition, does not use the term “Sanctuary City” but chooses to use the word “Welcoming City” – or adopting a “don’t ask, don’t tell” approach in its municipal code.
Still, on Monday, March 3, the City of Seattle joined a coalition of cities across the country who filed a lawsuit against the Trump Administration’s No Bailout for Sanctuary Cities Act calling the bill an abuse of federal overreach.
Cities and counties joining Seattle in this lawsuit include: San Francisco, County of Santa Clara, California, Portland, King County, Washington, New Haven, Oakland, Emerville, San José, San Diego, Sacramento, Santa Cruz, Monterey, Minneapolis, St. Paul, and Sante Fe.
Background on HR 32
The No Bailout For Sanctuary Cities Act of 2025-2026 (HR.3.2) was introduced to the House of Representatives on January 3, 2025 where it was referred to the House Committee on the Judiciary.
The bill states the following:
This bill makes a state or political subdivision of a state ineligible for any federal funds that the jurisdiction intends to use to benefit non-U.S. nationals (i.e., aliens under federal law) who are unlawfully present if the jurisdiction withholds information about citizenship or immigration status or does not cooperate with immigration detainers.
Specifically, such funds are denied to any jurisdiction that has a law, policy, or practice that prohibits or restricts any government entity from maintaining, sending, or receiving information regarding the citizenship or immigration status of any individual; exchanging information regarding an individual’s citizenship or immigration status with a federal, state, or local government entity; complying with a valid immigration detainer from the Department of Homeland Security (DHS); or notifying DHS about an individual’s release from custody.
The funding restriction does not apply to a law, policy, or practice that only applies to an individual who comes forward as a victim of or a witness to a criminal offense.
DHS must annually provide to specified congressional committees a list of jurisdictions that have failed to comply with a DHS detainer or have failed to notify DHS of an individual’s release.
The funding restriction begins 60 days after the bill’s enactment or on the first day of the fiscal year following the bill’s enactment, whichever is earlier.
Author: Kienan Briscoe
