President Trump is vowing to cut federal payments to sanctuary states and cities in a matter of weeks, with Washington and Seattle both designated by the Department of Justice as sanctuary jurisdictions that “impede enforcement of federal immigration laws.” Trump claimed in Detroit Monday that “we’re not making any payments to sanctuary cities or states having sanctuary cities because they do everything possible to protect criminals at the expense of American citizens,” saying the funding would stop February 1. But Seattle receives approximately $120 million from the federal government for critical programs including transportation, senior services, nutrition, and housing resources, and it remains unclear exactly what could be cut or whether Trump has legal authority to withhold funds that Congress appropriated for specific purposes. The threat revives battles from Trump’s first term when federal judges blocked his administration from denying funding to cities for policies limiting cooperation with federal immigration enforcement, creating uncertainty about whether new attempts will succeed or face similar legal defeats.
Washington State Attorney General Nick Brown’s office told reporters they’re waiting on specifics from the Trump administration about exactly what funding could be limited or stopped and how. “Previous attempts they’ve made to make federal funding contingent on state immigration enforcement have sparked several of our lawsuits against the administration for illegally withholding or canceling grants, and so far they have lost at every turn,” Brown’s office stated. That track record from Trump’s first term, where courts consistently ruled against his attempts to condition federal funding on sanctuary policy changes, provides legal foundation for challenging similar efforts now. But whether courts will reach identical conclusions under potentially different legal theories or changed Supreme Court composition remains uncertain.
Seattle City Attorney Erika Evans emphasized that “Seattle and countless other cities have already successfully challenged similar directives in court. A federal judge’s injunction prohibiting President Trump’s previous attempt to starve and impoverish people for making policy decisions he dislikes still stands. The City will continue to defend the rule of law and advocate for its legal right to be a welcoming place for all people.” That reference to a standing injunction from August when a judge blocked the Trump administration from denying funding to more than 30 cities suggests existing court orders might prevent implementation of new funding threats, though whether those orders apply to February 1 deadline Trump announced depends on scope of injunctions and whether Trump administration structures new funding restrictions to avoid existing prohibitions.
The $120 million Seattle receives from federal sources represents roughly 10% of the city’s general fund budget, making potential loss significant but not catastrophic if cuts are limited rather than total. The funding supports transportation projects like transit infrastructure and street maintenance, senior services including meal programs and community centers, nutrition assistance for low-income residents, and housing resources for people experiencing homelessness. Whether Trump can legally cut all those programs or only some, and whether cuts require congressional action or can be implemented through executive authority, determines actual impact versus rhetorical threat.
Councilmember Alexis Mercedes Rinck, who chairs a committee identifying federal policy changes threatening city funding, said “I look forward to talking to City Attorney Evans to assess the legality of something like this, but of course, legal or not, the impact is there, the message this sends to our residents.” That acknowledgment that messaging impact exists regardless of legality reflects how Trump’s threats create uncertainty and fear even if courts ultimately block implementation. Immigrant communities hearing that the president plans to cut funding to their city because of sanctuary policies experience that as hostile federal government punishing them for local protections, regardless of whether funding actually gets cut.
The Seattle City Council’s 2025 resolution reaffirming the city as “welcoming city” provides political foundation for resisting federal pressure to abandon sanctuary policies. “Regardless of background, we want to be accessible and open and welcoming for all,” Rinck said. That framing positions sanctuary policies as about inclusion and access rather than specifically about immigration enforcement, though DOJ’s designation of Seattle as sanctuary jurisdiction specifically references “impeding enforcement of federal immigration laws.” The tension between Seattle’s characterization of welcoming policies and federal characterization of obstruction reflects fundamental disagreement about whether local jurisdictions must actively assist federal immigration enforcement or simply refrain from interfering with it.
Rinck’s committee will meet in March to discuss next steps, acknowledging that “hour by hour, there’s a new headline about some new policy change that will have an impact on our work in the city of Seattle.” That timeline, meeting in March to address a funding threat Trump says takes effect February 1, suggests either that Seattle officials believe February 1 deadline is unrealistic and actual implementation will take longer, or that they’re prioritizing orderly planning over emergency response to what might be empty threats. The challenge of responding to constant stream of policy announcements from the Trump administration, many of which don’t materialize as stated or get blocked by courts, is determining which require immediate action versus which can be monitored and addressed if they actually advance.
Washington State Republican Party Chairman Jim Walsh provided notably measured response compared to Trump’s threats, stating that “Washington state government and the City of Seattle already have budget problems that aren’t related in any way to decisions made in DC. If the current governor and mayor propose more responsible budgets, Olympia and Seattle will be able to absorb any changes coming out of the other Washington. In the meantime, those of us with cooler heads and more experience will make sure Washington’s and Seattle’s essential functions and projects proceed.” That statement, from Republican Party leader, doesn’t endorse Trump’s funding threats but instead suggests state and city should focus on fiscal responsibility that would create resilience regardless of federal funding decisions. The reference to “cooler heads and more experience” ensuring essential functions proceed reads as implicit criticism of both Trump’s threats and local officials’ sanctuary policies.
The legal question of whether presidents can withhold congressionally appropriated funds for policy leverage has been repeatedly answered in the negative by federal courts. The Constitution grants Congress, not the president, power of the purse. When Congress appropriates funding for specific purposes through legislation, presidents generally lack authority to refuse spending that money based on disagreements with recipients’ policies unrelated to the funding’s statutory purpose. Trump’s first-term attempts to withhold funding from sanctuary cities failed in courts precisely because judges determined he lacked authority to add immigration enforcement conditions to grants that Congress appropriated for transportation, housing, or other purposes.
Whether Trump’s second-term attempts will fare differently depends on whether his administration structures funding restrictions to avoid legal vulnerabilities that doomed first-term efforts. If new restrictions target only specific grant programs where statutory language arguably authorizes immigration-related conditions, or if they focus on future appropriations where Trump can request Congress include such conditions rather than retroactively adding them to existing grants, courts might view them differently than first-term attempts. If they’re simply repackaged versions of previously rejected theories, courts will likely block them again.
For Seattle’s budget planning, the uncertainty about whether federal funding cuts will actually occur and which programs they’ll affect creates significant complications. The city must prepare for possible loss of $120 million while also avoiding unnecessary service cuts or tax increases based on threats that might not materialize. That balancing act, planning contingencies while maintaining current services, requires city officials to model scenarios where various percentages of federal funding disappear and identify which programs would be cut, which would be funded through alternative sources, and which might be reduced in scope or eliminated entirely.
The February 1 deadline Trump announced provides only two weeks from his Monday statement for implementation of funding cuts affecting hundreds of jurisdictions. That timeline is almost certainly unrealistic for federal agencies to identify all affected grants, notify recipients, modify payment systems, and implement withholding mechanisms while complying with administrative procedures and addressing inevitable legal challenges. More likely, February 1 represents aspirational date that will slip to later in February or March as administrative realities and legal obstacles slow implementation.
For immigrant communities in Seattle, Trump’s threats create anxiety regardless of whether they’re implemented. People who rely on federally funded services, from housing assistance to nutrition programs to transportation, face uncertainty about whether those services will continue. Immigrants who chose Seattle partially because of its sanctuary policies hear the president characterizing their city as “protecting criminals at the expense of American citizens,” rhetoric that positions them as threats rather than community members. That hostile framing from the nation’s highest elected office affects sense of belonging and safety even when local officials affirm welcoming policies.
The characterization of sanctuary jurisdictions as “doing everything possible to protect criminals” misrepresents what sanctuary policies actually do. Seattle’s policies generally limit city employees’ cooperation with ICE enforcement activities, preventing Seattle police from acting as de facto immigration agents and preventing city resources from being used to facilitate deportations. Those policies don’t prevent federal agents from conducting immigration enforcement in Seattle or protect people from consequences of federal immigration violations. They simply decline to make local government an extension of federal immigration enforcement, preserving resources for local priorities and maintaining trust with immigrant communities who might not report crimes or cooperate with police if they fear interactions will lead to deportation.
The broader pattern of Trump using federal funding as leverage to pressure cities and states to abandon policies he opposes extends beyond immigration to include law enforcement, COVID policies, voting procedures, and various other areas where federal-local disagreements exist. Whether courts allow presidents to condition federal funding on policy compliance with administration preferences affects fundamental balance of power between federal and local governments. If presidents can withhold congressionally appropriated funds to coerce policy changes in areas outside federal programs being funded, it dramatically expands executive power while reducing local autonomy and congressional authority.
For Seattle specifically, the choice between maintaining sanctuary policies despite federal funding threats or abandoning those policies to preserve federal dollars represents values decision more than practical calculation. The $120 million in federal funding is significant but not existential for a city with roughly $7 billion total budget across all funds. Seattle could absorb loss of federal funding through combination of service cuts, tax increases, and reallocation from other priorities, though such changes would be painful and politically difficult. The question is whether maintaining sanctuary policies is worth that potential cost, or whether federal funding is too important to sacrifice for immigration policies that Trump administration opposes.
Political responses to Trump’s threats reveal divisions not just between federal and local government but within local politics. Democratic officials like Rinck and Evans emphasize defending sanctuary policies and preparing legal challenges to federal overreach. Republican Chairman Walsh suggests the real issue is local fiscal mismanagement that would make federal funding loss more damaging than necessary. Immigrant rights advocates frame this as civil rights struggle against discriminatory federal policies. Law enforcement-oriented voices might argue that sanctuary policies do impede legitimate federal enforcement and that cities shouldn’t be surprised when federal government responds by withdrawing financial support.
The March committee meeting Rinck referenced suggests Seattle is taking measured rather than emergency approach to Trump’s threats, reflecting either confidence that courts will block implementation or recognition that premature responses to threats that don’t materialize waste resources and create unnecessary alarm. Whether that measured approach is appropriate or whether Seattle should be preparing more aggressively for possible February 1 funding loss depends on assessment of how seriously to take Trump’s deadline and whether his administration has legal and administrative capacity to implement threatened cuts on that timeline.
For Washington State, the designation as sanctuary jurisdiction creates similar dynamics at state level, with Governor Ferguson’s administration preparing legal challenges while Republican legislators likely argue the state should prioritize federal funding over sanctuary policies. The state receives vastly more federal funding than Seattle alone, including Medicaid reimbursements, transportation grants, education funding, and various other programs totaling billions of dollars. Whether Trump can legally threaten all that funding based on state immigration policies, or whether he’s limited to specific grants where statutory authority exists, determines whether threat is existential or manageable for state budget.
The ultimate resolution likely comes through courts rather than negotiation or voluntary compliance. Trump will attempt to implement funding cuts. Affected jurisdictions will sue claiming he lacks authority to withhold congressionally appropriated funds. Federal judges will issue preliminary injunctions blocking cuts while litigation proceeds. The disputes will wind through appellate courts potentially reaching the Supreme Court, which will determine whether presidents can condition federal funding on sanctuary policy changes. That process takes months or years, during which preliminary injunctions typically maintain status quo of continued funding while legal questions are resolved.
Seattle’s preparation for potential federal funding loss represents prudent contingency planning even if cuts never materialize or get blocked by courts. Identifying which programs depend on federal dollars, modeling scenarios for absorbing cuts, and developing alternative funding sources all strengthen city’s fiscal resilience regardless of Trump’s actions. Whether Seattle ultimately faces choice between sanctuary policies and federal funding, or whether courts block Trump’s threats as they did in his first term, the city’s position as sanctuary jurisdiction guarantees continued federal-local conflict over immigration enforcement and the role local governments play in supporting or resisting federal priorities that city officials and residents oppose.
