Sheriffs respond after DHS removes list of ‘sanctuary jurisdictions’


This recording was made using enhanced software.

Summary

DHS removes list

The Trump administration rescinded a DHS-published list naming 500 so-called sanctuary jurisdictions after backlash from local sheriffs.

Law enforcement backlash

Officials in Idaho, Wisconsin, and Colorado denied their inclusion and criticized the list's accuracy and lack of transparency.

Future of list unknown

DHS removed the list without explanation, and its future status remains unclear.


Full story

The Trump administration rescinded a list naming 500 so-called sanctuary jurisdictions that were allegedly not complying with federal immigration policies. A sanctuary jurisdiction is a city, county, or state that adopts policies limiting local law enforcement cooperation with federal immigration efforts. Lawmakers designed these policies to reduce how much local law enforcement shares immigration status information with federal authorities.

The Department of Homeland Security posted the list of cities online on May 29, and Trump-backed sheriffs immediately pushed back against it.

Reaction from Idaho officials

Boise, Idaho, was on the list, and just outside Boise is Canyon County.

Canyon County Sheriff Kieran Donahue, who is also president of the National Sheriffs’ Association and a Trump supporter, responded to the list, saying DHS “has done a terrible disservice to President Trump and the sheriffs of this country.”

“The completion and publication of this list has not only violated the core principles of trust, cooperation, and partnership with fellow law enforcement, but it also has the potential to strain the relationship between sheriffs and the White House administration,” Sheriff Donahue said in a statement.

He said he met with DHS officials on Saturday, May 31, to discuss the list and that “no political appointee for the administration could explain who compiled, proofed, and verified the list before publication.”

It’s unclear how or why Boise made the list. According to The Idaho Statesman, sanctuary jurisdictions are banned in the state.

Wisconsin jurisdictions respond

Three Wisconsin jurisdictions also made the list. The Shawano County Sheriff’s Office denied being part of a sanctuary county.

“Prior to this publication, Shawano County had not received any formal notification from federal authorities regarding any non-compliance issues. Upon learning of our inclusion on this list, we proactively reached out to various state and federal agencies to find the reasons behind this designation and to understand the steps necessary for removal,” Shawano County Sheriff George Lenzner posted in a statement on Facebook.

Colorado counties push back

DHS also named several Colorado cities on its list. Baca County Sheriff Aaron Shiplett said he felt “taken aback and deeply concerned” that DHS included his county on the list, since it passed a resolution last year affirming, “That Baca County is not, and will never be, a sanctuary county for illegal immigration.”

Three other Colorado sheriff’s departments — Lincoln, Kit Carson, and Cheyenne — issued statements on social media clarifying that their counties are not designated as sanctuary jurisdictions for immigrants illegally in the U.S. They also noted that the Department of Homeland Security never contacted them about the criteria or development of the list.

DHS removes the list without explanation

By Sunday, June 1, DHS removed its sanctuary jurisdiction list without providing an explanation for the inclusion of certain cities and counties. It remains unclear whether officials are currently reviewing the list to revise or replace it with an updated version.

Even if a city, county or state considers itself a sanctuary place, federal immigration agents can operate anywhere across the country.

Zachary Hill (Video Editor) and Devin Pavlou (Digital producer) contributed to this report.
Tags: , , , ,

Why this story matters

The removal of a widely criticized Department of Homeland Security list of 'sanctuary jurisdictions' highlights concerns about government transparency, accuracy in policy implementation, and the impact on trust between federal authorities and local communities.

Government transparency

Numerous officials and law enforcement groups, including the National Sheriffs’ Association, questioned the transparency and criteria used by DHS to create and publish the list, emphasizing the need for clear government processes and accountability.

Policy accuracy

Many localities and sheriffs disputed their inclusion on the list due to a lack of official sanctuary policies, revealing potential errors and confusion in the development and communication of federal immigration enforcement actions.

Federal-local relations

According to statements from law enforcement and local officials, the list's publication and subsequent removal strained relationships between federal agencies and local governments, raising issues about cooperation and trust in enforcing immigration law.

Get the big picture

Synthesized coverage insights across 244 media outlets

Community reaction

Local officials and law enforcement in numerous jurisdictions protested their inclusion on the DHS list, asserting they comply with federal immigration law. The National Sheriffs’ Association stated the list undermines trust, while community leaders — both in Democratic and Republican-leaning areas—expressed frustration and called for explanations and corrections. Immigrant advocates voiced concerns over fear and mistrust in communities.

Debunking

Numerous jurisdictions on the DHS list disputed their designation, with many officials stating they have never adopted sanctuary policies. For instance, some places were included due to confusion with similar-sounding policies, like Second Amendment sanctuaries, not immigration. The removal of the list suggests the shortcomings in DHS’s vetting and verification process, as acknowledged by the agency after receiving widespread feedback.

History lesson

Efforts to publicly list and penalize sanctuary jurisdictions date back more than a decade, with earlier attempts under previous administrations, including the Obama and Trump administrations. Courts have repeatedly intervened when federal attempts to withhold funding from such areas faced legal challenges, often upholding local autonomy under the Tenth Amendment.

Bias comparison

  • Media outlets on the left frame the removal of the ‘sanctuary jurisdictions’ list as a politically motivated, error-ridden tactic that harms immigrant communities and undermines trust between federal and local law enforcement, using charged terms like “arbitrary,” “fearmongering,” and “terrible disservice” to highlight alleged misuse.
  • Media outlets in the center remain factual and less emotionally charged, focusing on the sequence of events and critiques without framing the conflict as ideologically fraught.
  • Media outlets on the right emphasize the list’s role in exposing jurisdictions “deliberately and shamefully obstructing” federal immigration laws, stressing public safety risks with language such as “dangerous criminals” and “lawless insurrection,” often linking political loyalty to defiance.

Media landscape

Click on bars to see headlines

244 total sources

Key points from the Left

  • The Department of Homeland Security removed a list of sanctuary jurisdictions from its website after criticism for its accuracy and inclusivity of jurisdictions that support the Trump administration's policies.
  • The National Sheriffs' Association criticized the list as arbitrary, stating it was created without input or criteria for compliance.
  • Homeland Security Secretary Kristi Noem acknowledged some officials' anger regarding the list but did not explain its removal.
  • The list's publication had broad implications, potentially affecting federal funding for the included cities and counties, as noted by local leaders opposing the designation.

Report an issue with this summary

Key points from the Center

  • The Department of Homeland Security removed a list of over 500 sanctuary jurisdictions from its website on Sunday after publishing it the previous Thursday.
  • The list, part of the Trump administration's efforts, faced criticism for including localities that actively supported its hard-line immigration policies.
  • Officials across urban, rural, blue, and red communities pushed back, saying the list was riddled with misspellings and did not appear to make sense.
  • Homeland Security Secretary Kristi Noem acknowledged frustration from some officials regarding the list, explaining that even if their communities lack certain laws, they are still considered to meet the criteria.
  • The list’s removal suggests ongoing review and updates, but it highlights tensions between federal immigration enforcement goals and local jurisdictions’ policies.

Report an issue with this summary

Key points from the Right

  • The Department of Homeland Security removed a list of over 500 sanctuary jurisdictions from its website after criticism for inaccuracies and lack of transparency.
  • Homeland Security Secretary Kristi Noem acknowledged the backlash from officials regarding the list but did not explain why it was deleted.
  • DHS's list included jurisdictions like Huntington Beach, which challenged its status as it had passed resolutions against being a sanctuary city.
  • Critics, including the National Sheriffs' Association, stated that the list violated trust between sheriffs and federal law enforcement.

Report an issue with this summary

Other (sources without bias rating):

Powered by Ground News™