In a new executive order published yesterday, President Donald Trump placed a target on sanctuary cities and created yet another trap for his political foes. This new proposal requires the federal government to create a list of “sanctuary” jurisdictions which refuse to cooperate with federal authorities on immigration law. It instructs various federal departments to defund sanctuary jurisdictions as much as they can under current law, and also to establish policies which verify the legal status of those who receive federal benefits in sanctuary jurisdictions.

What’s more, this executive order telegraphs that the Trump administration may escalate its legal battles. It says that state and local officials are engaged in “lawless insurrection” when they refuse to cooperate with federal immigration efforts. It warns that these “nullification efforts” may violate federal laws, including by obstructing justice, unlawfully harbouring or hiring illegal aliens, and engaging in a conspiracy against the United States or to impede federal law enforcement. The fingerprints of arch-border hawk Stephen Miller can be seen in this take-no-prisoners approach to immigration enforcement.

Trump’s handling of immigration — especially border security — remains one of his strongest areas when measured by public opinion polls, so this new executive order is a way to help shift the policy conversation onto favoured terrain. In raising the salience of sanctuary cities, the EO also casts a spotlight on the internal tensions of the Democratic coalition.

Perhaps MAGA’s main critique of the progressive stance on immigration is that these progressives are more committed to the vision of open borders than the wellbeing of their fellow Americans. The border crisis which sullied the the Biden years helped push more working-class voters into the Republican column in 2024, as well as making the American public as a whole more hawkish on illegal immigration than it has been in decades.

In this executive order, the Trump administration has a target tailor-made for populist plaudits: not illegal immigrants themselves, but progressive elites who have tried to create zones of non-enforcement on immigration law. Democratic elected officials resisting federal immigration law are less likely to inspire sympathy than some deported migrants do. The order also calls out states that provide in-state tuition to illegal immigrants. Tellingly, the White House titles that section “Equal Treatment of Americans”, and giving illegal immigrants a lower tuition rate than US citizens crystallises populist complaints that the progressive project on borders undermines national cohesion.

Trump’s well-honed ability to provoke his opponents has been essential for his political success, and this new gambit on sanctuary cities is a fluttering red cape for progressives. The identity-politics activist base continues to loathe immigration enforcement and remains sceptical about limits on newcomers. In part because of their party’s political vulnerability on the issue, some Democrats would like to moderate on immigration. Earlier this year, a splinter faction of Democrats voted for the Laken Riley Act, requiring illegal immigrants arrested for certain crimes to be detained. At the same time, the progressive grassroots is eager for a full-spectrum clash with Trump, and Democratic officeholders — such as Boston mayor Michelle Wu — have boosted their profiles by defending sanctuary policies.

Within the Democratic upper echelons, the incentives for charging at this red cape are great indeed, but that process-oriented argument about how states and cities should be free to “resist” federal immigration efforts is precisely the battle Trump wants. By offering strident justifications for why illegal immigrants deserve discounted tuition or reduced criminal penalties, progressive elites would drive away working-class voters. In the escalatory spiral of contemporary American politics, immigration has become a central battlefield.

---

Fred Bauer is a writer from New England.

fredbauerblog

---