Senate Budget Committee Clashes Over Sanctuary Cities in First Hearing in a Year

Why it matters

The Senate Budget Committee held a combative sanctuary cities hearing on March 10, 2026, with Chairman Sen. Lindsey Graham (R-SC) using the session to build a legislative case for criminalizing local officials who refuse to cooperate with federal immigration enforcement. The hearing — the committee's first meeting in a full year — laid bare the deep partisan divide over whether sanctuary city policies protect communities or endanger them, with Graham openly labeling it a "Republican hearing" before Democrats had even taken their seats. The Trump administration has made eliminating sanctuary policies a central pillar of its immigration agenda, and this hearing was designed to provide the budgetary justification for doing so through legislation drafted in close consultation with the White House.

The big picture

A Year of Escalation Led to This Moment

The hearing did not emerge in a vacuum. In January 2026, President Trump announced he would end federal funding to sanctuary cities and states effective February 1, declaring that sanctuary cities "do everything possible to protect criminals at the expense of American citizens." The Department of Homeland Security released statistics showing a more than 1,300 percent increase in assaults against ICE officers, blaming "radical rhetoric by sanctuary politicians."

In February, Graham unveiled the End Sanctuary Cities Act of 2026, which would impose criminal penalties on state and local officials who ignore DHS requests to detain individuals subject to federal immigration orders. The bill was placed on the Senate calendar as S. 3805.

The strategic decision to hold this hearing in the Budget Committee — rather than the Judiciary Committee — is significant. It positions sanctuary city enforcement as a fiscal issue, potentially opening a pathway to include funding restrictions in a budget reconciliation package that would require only 51 Senate votes, bypassing the 60-vote filibuster that has killed every prior anti-sanctuary bill over the past two decades.

Courts have repeatedly blocked the administration's attempts to withhold federal funding from sanctuary jurisdictions through executive action alone, making a legislative solution the administration's best remaining option.

What they're saying

Sanctuary Cities Hearing Erupts Over Law and Order

The hearing featured a five-witness panel split 3-to-2 in favor of enforcement perspectives, and the exchanges were heated from the start.

Graham set the tone in his opening, presenting statistics claiming 25,000 people with ICE detainers were refused turnover by sanctuary jurisdictions, 10,000 criminals released under sanctuary policies were subsequently re-arrested, and illegal immigrant households cost $42 billion per year in government welfare. He highlighted the case of a man in Fairfax County, Virginia, arrested 30 times for offenses including rape and assault, who was repeatedly released despite ICE detainers and ultimately murdered a woman named Stephanie Minter in February 2026.

• "You've got to make it so that those who hang on to these illegal immigrants in defiance of federal law feel the pain, not just the public," Graham declared.

Ranking Member Sen. Jeff Merkley (D-OR) fired back by noting the committee hadn't met in a year and accused the majority of ignoring far more pressing budgetary issues. He argued the term "sanctuary city" is a misnomer — these policies simply mean local police focus on local policing rather than being "commandeered to be assistant ICE agents." He cited research showing sanctuary jurisdictions have higher median household income, less poverty, and lower crime rates.

Merkley also turned the public safety argument on its head, citing three American citizens — Renée Good, Alex Preddy, and Ruben Ray Martinez — who he said died at the hands of ICE.

The exchanges grew sharp during witness questioning. Graham bristled at a witness who challenged the framing of his questions:

• "Hey, listen, listen. You don't want to answer a question, that's fine, but don't tell me what's fair and unfair," he snapped.

When the constitutional argument for sanctuary policies was raised, Graham was dismissive: "The novel approach — the 10th Amendment protects sanctuary cities. I hadn't heard that one."

Chad Wolf, America First Policy Institute, the former Acting DHS Secretary, testified that "the American people are safer when state and local governments cooperate with federal immigration agencies," as reported by CNS Maryland.

Jessica M. Vaughan, Center for Immigration Studies, testified that "more than half of removable aliens live in those jurisdictions that have sanctuary policies" and argued there is no evidence that cooperation with ICE suppresses crime reporting by immigrants.

David J. Bier, Cato Institute, pushed back with data, submitting testimony showing that "only 5 percent of people booked into detention had a violent criminal conviction, and 73 percent had no conviction." He warned that proposed legislation "would force law enforcement to violate court orders" barring detention based solely on immigration detainers.

Brendan Duke, Center on Budget and Policy Priorities, made the hearing's most explosive claim, stating: "When I talk about population purge, I'm talking about the fact that they're trying to deport U.S.-born citizens, people who have every right to be here." That drew a sharp response from Sen. Bernie Moreno (R-OH), who turned to the chair and said: "This is the best the Democrats can come up with, Mr. Chairman?"

Sheriff Michael L. Chapman, Loudoun County Sheriff's Office, provided ground-level testimony contrasting his county's cooperation with ICE against neighboring sanctuary jurisdictions, citing a figure that "at a certain point a few years ago, ICE determined that there were 10,000 deportable" aliens in sanctuary jurisdictions who could not be reached.

Sen. Rick Scott (R-FL) pressed Vaughan on federal benefits, eliciting the claim that more than 60 percent of illegal immigrants receive federal benefits — then shot back: "So more than 60 percent of illegal immigrants receive federal benefits, and it has absolutely no budget impact. Well, that's not true."

Sen. Sheldon Whitehouse (D-RI) pointed to a federal court decision in his state that makes local officials liable for errors if they hand over an individual wrongfully requested under a detainer — highlighting the legal risk that cooperation imposes on local governments.

Graham had to intervene at least twice to restore order during crosstalk, at one point declaring: "So gentlemen, wait a minute. I'm in charge."

Political Stakes

The 2026 Hearing on Immigration Enforcement Raises the Legislative Bar

For the Trump administration, this hearing is about more than messaging. Courts have sided against the administration in nearly every case involving executive attempts to withhold funding from sanctuary jurisdictions. Graham's legislation, drafted in coordination with the White House, would give the administration the statutory authority it currently lacks.

The Budget Committee venue is the key strategic innovation. Every prior anti-sanctuary bill over the past 18 years — including Kate's Law and the No Sanctuary for Criminals Act in the 114th Congress — passed the House but died in the Senate, unable to clear the 60-vote filibuster. If sanctuary city funding restrictions can be packaged into a budget reconciliation bill, they could pass with a simple majority.

For Democrats, the stakes are defensive. Many committee members represent states with sanctuary policies — Sen. Alex Padilla (D-CA) represents the state with the most expansive sanctuary law, and Sen. Ron Wyden (D-OR) has called ICE enforcement in Portland harmful to communities. Both Virginia senators on the committee — Sen. Tim Kaine (D-VA) and Sen. Mark Warner (D-VA) — sat across from a witness from their own state in Sheriff Chapman.

Lobbying dollars reflect the intensity. UnidosUS reported spending approximately $360,000 over four quarters on issues including H.R. 32, the No Bailout for Sanctuary Cities Act. The Federation for American Immigration Reform spent an estimated $160,000 on the other side. The Fraternal Order of Police and National Sheriffs' Association together spent roughly $320,000 supporting enhanced federal-local cooperation.

The other side

The Cato Institute made a constitutional argument that cuts across partisan lines. In a separate commentary, Cato warned conservatives: "Conservatives tempted to jettison these constitutional rules in order to stick it to liberal immigration sanctuaries would do well to remember that the same principles also protect red-state 'gun sanctuaries,' such as Missouri and Montana, which deny state assistance for enforcement of federal gun control laws."

This federalism tension within the Republican coalition is real. Sen. Mike Lee (R-UT), a committee member known for strict constitutionalism, could harbor reservations about criminal penalties for local officials who decline to enforce federal immigration law — a principle that cuts both ways depending on which federal law is at issue.

The ACLU condemned the administration's approach as "just the latest escalation in the Trump administration's shakedown of cities, states, and elected officials." Research from UC San Diego's Tom Wong found that sanctuary counties "actually were safer and had less crime than comparable non-sanctuary counties."

What's next

The day after the hearing, GOP lawmakers pushed the End Sanctuary Cities Act forward, signaling the hearing served as a direct springboard for floor action. The House has its own parallel track, with H.R. 3861, the Mobilizing Against Sanctuary Cities Act, already introduced.

The critical question is whether sanctuary city provisions can be included in a budget reconciliation package — which would require demonstrating sufficient budgetary impact to satisfy the Byrd Rule. Graham's reference in his opening remarks to the committee pursuing "round two" of reconciliation suggests that is exactly the plan.

Federal courts will continue to be a battleground. Multiple injunctions remain in place blocking the administration's February 1 funding cutoff, and any new legislation would face immediate legal challenges on anti-commandeering and spending power grounds.

The bottom line

After 18 years of sanctuary city hearings that produced zero enacted legislation, the Budget Committee's reconciliation pathway represents the first credible mechanism to break the pattern — but the constitutional and political obstacles remain formidable.

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

Spot something wrong? Report an issue with this article