As the incoming Trump administration looks to make good on its promise to restart deportations, migrants are expected to seek refuge in “sanctuary” cities. Leaders in these predominantly Democratic localities have enthusiastically supported sanctuary policies until now, often overlooking the potential financial burdens these measures may impose. That may soon be harder to do. The exact number of migrants who crossed the southern border illegally over the past year remains unknown, but estimates range from 10 million to 15 million.
On November 19, the Los Angeles City Council voted 13–0 to join the ranks of sanctuary cities. The ordinance prohibits the use of city resources and personnel to aid in federal enforcement of immigration laws. Notably absent from the vote were councilmembers John Lee and Traci Park, who self-identify as moderates. Critics have interpreted their silence as either an act of defiance or a cowardly avoidance of taking a public stance; the second view seems more plausible.
It’s unclear what additional protections a city ordinance would grant beyond those already provided by California, which declared itself a “sanctuary state” in 2017 following Donald Trump’s first election victory. Indeed, Governor Gavin Newsom has already convened an emergency session of the state legislature to further “Trump-proof” the Golden State by codifying policies aligned with “California values” in the areas of immigration, climate change, and abortion rights. These actions suggest that California’s political leaders want to strengthen their commitments to policies that proved politically damaging to Democrats in the 2024 election, both nationally and at the state level.
Even local entities like the Los Angeles Unified School District have joined the movement, formally declaring the school system a sanctuary not only for immigrants but also for the LGBTQ+ community. This broadening of sanctuary policies shows, again, a continued commitment to progressive priorities, regardless of their national unpopularity or potential legal challenges.
A Los Angeles Police Department policy instructs officers not to inquire about a person’s immigration status or make arrests based on that status. The newly sworn-in police chief, Jim McDonnell, selected by L.A. mayor Karen Bass, has also pledged not to cooperate with mass deportations or with federal agencies on immigration enforcement.
Mayor Bass held emergency meetings over the weekend with the city attorney to expedite the sanctuary city ordinance. This move is a direct challenge to the incoming Trump administration. Incoming Trump immigration officials, including border czar pick Tom Homan, have warned of potential cuts to federal funding for cities that fail to comply with federal immigration laws.
Los Angeles faces significant uncertainty regarding its ability to operate without federal funding, but for city leaders, political posturing appears to take precedence. The city teeters on the brink of bankruptcy, driven by unsustainable pay raises across departments, reckless spending on ineffective homelessness initiatives, and an alarming rate of lawsuit settlements over everything from sewers to street vendors to federal housing funding. Instead of holding city departments accountable for their financial liabilities, Los Angeles plans to borrow $80 million merely to sustain its operations. Meantime, the city is set to host high-profile events such as the 2026 World Cup and the 2028 Olympics. With public safety as its largest budget item, it remains unclear how Los Angeles can effectively manage these global events while struggling with its finances and potentially forfeiting crucial federal funding.
While Mayor Bass is picking fights with Trump on immigration, she has expressed willingness to collaborate with him to address the housing crisis of the city’s estimated 46,000 homeless residents, including the use of federal property for temporary shelters. This plan mirrors one that Trump proposed in his first term and that L. A. officials failed to act on, probably because of opposition from “housing first” advocates.
In August 2023, the Biden administration’s Department of Housing and Urban Development, responding to Bass’s appeals, waived longstanding requirements for housing applicants. Local housing providers no longer need to obtain identification, income or disability verification, or proof of homelessness before admitting individuals into housing. Advocates of the policy change viewed it as a progressive victory, as it streamlined the process of moving the homeless into vacant units. Previously, securing housing required documentation such as a driver’s license, Social Security card, proof of income, and legal residency, all of which significantly delayed placements. The new policy lets applicants move in first and complete documentation later. Anyone with common sense can see how this change in policy could be exploited, particularly by a sudden influx of noncitizens desperate for taxpayer-subsidized housing alternatives.
Federal funding for migrants has become a significant revenue source for Los Angeles. However, the city is unlikely to rely on the incoming administration to continue providing financial support. In August, the city secured $22 million from the Federal Emergency Management Agency to provide housing and support services on Skid Row for newly arrived migrants struggling to secure housing. Already home to the nation’s largest concentration of homeless individuals and service providers, Skid Row faces additional challenges in accommodating migrants. Los Angeles classifies any individual experiencing homelessness within its borders, regardless of state or country of origin, as being eligible for assistance, further straining city resources.
President-elect Trump should consider withholding federal funds from Los Angeles unless Mayor Bass can ensure that federal aid for homelessness is allocated exclusively to Americans. But given city leaders’ devotion to sanctuary policies, even this guarantee appears unlikely.
Photo by ETIENNE LAURENT/AFP via Getty Images