20 Democratic-led states sue Trump admin over immigration policy


This recording was made using enhanced software.

Summary

The issue

Twenty Democratic-led states are suing the Trump administration over its vow to withhold federal funding if states refuse to cooperate with federal immigration enforcement.

The lawsuits

A pair of lawsuits filed Tuesday in federal court seek to block the Trump administration from withholding federal funds based on whether a state cooperates with federal immigration policy.

The argument

The states argue that the executive branch does not have the authority to withhold federal funding as that power lies with Congress.


Twenty Democratic states, led by California, are suing the Trump administration as they seek to halt President Donald Trump’s threat to withhold funding for transportation, counterterrorism and disaster relief if they don’t work with federal immigration enforcement. The states filed a pair of lawsuits Tuesday, May 13, in a Rhode Island federal court. 

What do the states allege?

The states accuse the U.S. Department of Transportation and the U.S. Department of Homeland Security (DHS) of illegally withholding federal money to force them into complying with Trump’s federal immigration policy, which aims to achieve the largest mass deportation in U.S. history. 

California Attorney General Rob Bonta, who is leading the legal effort against the federal government, argues the administration’s vow to withhold federal funding from states that do not comply with the president’s immigration agenda is “blatantly illegal.”

“He’s treating these funds, which have nothing to do with immigration enforcement and everything to do with the safety of our communities, as a bargaining chip,” Bonta said in a statement. 

The plaintiffs argue that Trump’s threat to withhold grant money is unconstitutional because only Congress has the authority to allocate federal funding.

What has the administration said and done?

In a statement, DHS spokesperson Tricia McLaughlin defended the practice of tying federal funding to immigration enforcement.

“Radical sanctuary politicians need to put the safety of the American people first– not criminal illegal aliens,” McLaughlin said.

Trump signed several executive orders reducing federal funding for states or communities that fail to cooperate with federal immigration enforcement. These communities, known as sanctuary jurisdictions, typically have rules and laws that restrict or outlaw local authorities from working with federal agents on civil immigration arrests. They also typically require a signed warrant before cooperating with federal immigration enforcement. 

The lawsuits come after a federal judge issued an injunction blocking the administration from keeping federal funding from more than a dozen cities and counties due to their refusal to assist with civil immigration arrests. In April, A California-based federal judge said that withholding money already appropriated by Congress runs afoul of the U.S. Constitution’s separation of powers provision. The judge issued a similar ruling during Trump’s first term.

The U.S. Department of Justice also filed lawsuits against Illinois, New York and Colorado in an attempt to block laws in these states that the department argues hurt federal immigration enforcement efforts. 

The lawsuits

One of the two lawsuits filed Tuesday challenges DHS rules that require states to work with federal civil immigration authorities. If the states don’t comply, they are deemed ineligible for emergency, disaster recovery and cybersecurity grants.

The second lawsuit aims to challenge a memo issued by U.S. Transportation Secretary Sean Duffy, who wrote on April 24 that the administration may withhold transportation funding from states that refuse to help federal immigration authorities or have diversity, equity and inclusion initiatives in place. 

New Jersey Attorney General Matthew Platkin took issue with Duffy’s letter, given Newark airport’s rash of problems recently, including with its radar systems. “I wish the administration would stop playing politics with people’s lives,” Platkin said. “I wish Secretary Duffy would do his damn job, which is to make sure planes land on time, not direct immigration enforcement.”

The states in the lawsuits include California, Colorado, Connecticut, Delaware, Hawaii, Illinois, Maine, Maryland, Massachusetts, Michigan, Minnesota, Nevada, New Jersey, New Mexico, New York, Oregon, Rhode Island, Washington, Wisconsin and Vermont.

The lawsuits follow other efforts by Democratic-led states against the Trump administration, including challenges to the president’s policy on tariffs and the mass firings of federal workers.

Tags: , , , , , , , ,

Straight Arrow
Fear No Fact.

Don't just take our word for it.


Center-rated reporting

According to media bias experts at AllSides

AllSides Center-rated reporting May 2026

Transparent and credible

Awarded a perfect reliability rating from NewsGuard

100/100

Welcome back to trustworthy journalism.

Find out more

Why this story matters

The lawsuits filed by 20 states challenge the federal government's authority to withhold funding based on compliance with immigration enforcement, raising important constitutional questions about the executive branch’s power and the allocation of federal funds by Congress.

Federal funding and constitutional authority

The case explores whether the executive branch can withhold funds appropriated by Congress as leverage to enforce federal immigration policies, highlighting constitutional limits and separation of powers.

State-federal relations

The lawsuits underscore ongoing tensions between state governments and the federal government over immigration enforcement and the autonomy of states in setting related policies.

Sanctuary jurisdictions

The dispute centers on sanctuary jurisdictions, which have laws limiting cooperation with federal immigration authorities, reflecting broader debates over immigration enforcement and community safety.

Get the big picture

Synthesized coverage insights across 177 media outlets

Context corner

The controversy arises from a long-standing constitutional debate about federal versus state power. The U.S. Constitution’s spending clause gives Congress authority over federal funds, raising questions about executive overreach. Historically, similar disputes have occurred over federal attempts to withhold funds from states not aligning with national policy objectives, especially around civil rights, education, or law enforcement.

Do the math

Officials highlight figures such as $35 billion in California at risk, $22 billion annually for New Jersey, $122 million for Illinois disaster relief, and $20.6 billion in yearly homeland security grants for California. The grants fund infrastructure like bridges, roads, emergency services, and counterterrorism programs across 20 states.

Policy impact

If implemented, the policies could shift law enforcement and administrative resources in states, diverting them from local priorities like crime prevention and disaster response toward federal immigration enforcement. Critical infrastructure and emergency preparedness projects may be delayed or canceled if grants are withheld, potentially affecting millions of residents.

Straight Arrow
Fear No Fact.

Don't just take our word for it.


Center-rated reporting

According to media bias experts at AllSides

AllSides Center-rated reporting May 2026

Transparent and credible

Awarded a perfect reliability rating from NewsGuard

100/100

Welcome back to trustworthy journalism.

Find out more

Media landscape

Click on bars to see headlines

177 total sources

Key points from the Left

No summary available because of a lack of coverage.

Report an issue with this summary

Key points from the Center

No summary available because of a lack of coverage.

Report an issue with this summary

Key points from the Right

No summary available because of a lack of coverage.

Report an issue with this summary

Other (sources without bias rating):

Powered by Ground News™

Timeline

Timeline