Why It Matters

The battle over whether the federal government can weaponize its funding to force local police to work with ICE will be on display at the Senate Budget Committee’s examination of sanctuary city policies on February 24th.

At stake is control over how cities deploy limited law enforcement resources.

Republican senators such as Mike Lee of Utah state: "sanctuary cities undermine the rule of law, endanger our families, and leave too many Americans dead. " The centerpiece of the debate is the No Bailout for Sanctuary Cities Act, which would strip federal dollars from jurisdictions that limit cooperation with federal immigration enforcement.

Civil liberties groups including the ACLU, SEIU, and AFSCME are actively opposing the legislation.

And for many blue state municpalities such as Monterey County, California the potential loss of federal funding represents a real threat.

Chairman Graham has made this a personal priority, recently holding up federal spending to force votes on sanctuary provisions.

Broader Context

Republican lawmakers have intensified scrutiny of sanctuary jurisdictions, centering their case on public safety arguments and federal funding leverage.

Senator Ron Johnson (R-WI) has called for sanctuary cities to be outlawed, and Senator John Cornyn (R-TX) has explicitly rejected such policies.

The legislative centerpiece is the "No Bailout for Sanctuary Cities Act," introduced by Senators Mike Crapo and Jim Risch (both R-ID), which would block federal funds from benefiting undocumented immigrants in non-cooperating jurisdictions.

Graham has made opposing sanctuary policies a priority even holding up a major spending package to force votes on sanctuary city provisions.

Key Stakeholders

The ACLU has lobbied against the sanctuary cities bill, spending $60,000 in mid-2025. SEIU reported $90,000 in lobbying expenses in opposition, while AFSCME spent $630,000 in early 2025 fighting the proposal.

The National Association of Police Organizations has supported related sanctuary city enforcement measures. Monterey County spent $40,000 lobbying on the bill as municipalities face potential federal fund loss.

What’s at Stake

The hearing will focus on federal-local cooperation, public safety claims, and budgetary consequences for non-compliant cities. Senator Chuck Grassley (R-IA) has argued the policies are unconstitutional, contending they interfere with Congress’s immigration authority.

The outcome could reshape federal-local law enforcement relationships and determine whether sanctuary jurisdictions retain federal funding streams.

The Agenda

The bill has broad Republican support, with co-sponsors including Sens. Pete Ricketts (R-NE), Steve Daines (R-MT), Tim Sheehy (R-MT), Eric Schmitt (R-MO), Jim Banks (R-IN), and Cindy Hyde-Smith (R-MS).

Senator Chuck Grassley argues sanctuary policies "interfere with Congress’s authority to regulate immigration," while Senator Pete Ricketts claims they "make Americans less safe."

Opposition groups have spent over $780,000 combined in 2025 lobbying against the measure, highlighting the stakes involved.

Competitive Landscape

Civil rights organizations and labor unions have spent heavily to oppose federal restrictions, while law enforcement groups have supported stricter measures.

Opposition spending includes the ACLU’s $60,000, SEIU’s $90,000, and AFSCME’s $630,000 in lobbying expenses. The Leadership Conference on Civil and Human Rights and America’s Voice are also actively fighting the measure.

The financial disparity is notable: opposition groups have disclosed over $780,000 in combined spending, while supporting organizations’ figures remain less detailed in available filings.

The Bottom Line

The hearing will pit competing perspectives against each other, with Republicans pressing on public safety claims while Democrats defend municipal autonomy.

Access the Legis1 platform for comprehensive political news, data, and insights.

Spot something wrong? Report an issue with this article