DHS retracts controversial sanctuary cities list amid backlash

On June 1, 2025, the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) took down a recently published list that identified over 500 sanctuary jurisdictions throughout the United States, which were accused of obstructing federal immigration enforcement. The list had sparked significant backlash from local officials, including many mayors and law enforcement representatives, which led to questions regarding its accuracy and the criteria used for including specific jurisdictions. The publication of the list had been part of the Trump administration's ongoing efforts to target areas perceived as obstructing federal immigration laws. Many jurisdictions, including those with strong Republican backing, found themselves mistakenly included. Local leaders expressed confusion and frustration, as communities like Shawano County in Wisconsin and Huntington Beach in California were listed despite voting patterns and policies that aligned with the administration’s stance on immigration. Sheriff Kieran Donahue, president of the National Sheriffs’ Association, publicly criticized the list for lacking transparency and accountability. Local officials reported that the list had caused a vacuum in trust between their departments and DHS, claiming it was created without input from sheriffs and lacked detailed criteria for how jurisdictions could object to their designations. DHS representatives maintained they were reviewing the list regularly and stated it would be updated as necessary. The list, initially published under an executive order from President Trump, was intended to document areas that allegedly shielded undocumented immigrants from federal enforcement. The swift removal of the list may indicate a recognition of the backlash it received and a need to reassess the administration's strategy regarding sanctuary jurisdictions. While DHS had indicated it would notify each jurisdiction of its non-compliance, the sudden withdrawal has left many questions unanswered about future plans and the implications for local governance and federal relations regarding immigration enforcement.