logo
Trump administration 'sanctuary jurisdictions' list vanishes after pushback from sheriffs

Trump administration 'sanctuary jurisdictions' list vanishes after pushback from sheriffs

USA Today4 days ago

Trump administration 'sanctuary jurisdictions' list vanishes after pushback from sheriffs The president of the National Sheriffs' Association said sheriffs felt 'betrayed' by the list.
Show Caption
Hide Caption
Tallahassee, Florida ICE raid, detained workers speak from bus.
ICE raid took place in Tallahassee, Florida, detained workers speak from bus.
The list, created following a Trump executive order, aimed to identify jurisdictions hindering federal immigration laws and potentially withhold their funding.
Several sheriffs and county officials, including those from Republican-led areas, disputed their inclusion on the list, citing compliance with ICE.
After pushback from sheriffs nationwide, a list of "sanctuary jurisdictions" has disappeared from the Department of Homeland Security's website.
The list was published last week, about a month after President Donald Trump issued an executive order directing the Departments of Justice and Homeland Security to create a list of jurisdictions that have been obstructing federal immigration laws. These jurisdictions would risk their federal funds being terminated or suspended.
Greater Cincinnati Republicans were confused after two GOP-controlled counties, Warren County in Ohio and Campbell County in Kentucky, were included on the list.
"We have supported ICE's mission since I took office," Warren County Sheriff Barry K. Riley previously told The Enquirer, part of the USA TODAY Network. "They got this wrong."
An official in Campbell County told The Enquirer their inclusion on the list was a mistake.
Sheriffs and county officials in several other states were also mystified at being deemed noncompliant.
Sheriff Kieran Donahue, president of the National Sheriff's Association, released a statement on May 31 saying sheriffs felt "betrayed" by the list.
"DHS has done a terrible disservice to President Trump and the Sheriffs of this country. The President's goals to reduce crime, secure the Borders, and make America safer have taken a step backward," the statement read. "In a meeting today called by the National Sheriffs' Association (NSA), with members of DHS, no political appointee for the administration could explain who compiled, proofed, and verified the list before publication."
List removed over the weekend
The sheriffs' association called on Homeland Security to immediately share the criteria for the list, take it offline and apologize to sheriffs. The list was removed from Homeland Security's website on June 1, according to the Wayback Machine.
Sheriff's offices have played a major role in the Trump administration's mass deportation effort by supporting ICE. Across the country, including in Southwest Ohio's Butler County, sheriffs have signed contracts with ICE, allowing agents to use their jails to hold detainees.
"This list was created without any input, criteria of compliance, or a mechanism for how to objectto the designation. Sheriffs nationwide have no way to know what they must do or not do toavoid this arbitrary label," the sheriffs' association statement read.
The list, which the association blamed on Homeland Security, said "not only violated the core principles of trust, cooperation, and partnership with fellow law enforcement, but it also has the potential to strain the relationship between Sheriffs and the White House administration … This decision by DHS could create a vacuum of trust that may take years to overcome."
Cincinnati, a Democrat-controlled city, was also included on the now-deleted list. City council did declare Cincinnati a "sanctuary city" in 2017, but the move was symbolic and did not result in any new policies.
After the list was published, Mayor Aftab Pureval told The Enquirer the city would continue to follow federal laws and had not been informed why they were deemed noncompliant.

Orange background

Try Our AI Features

Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:

Comments

No comments yet...

Related Articles

Trump threatens to cut Musk government contracts amid agenda bill spat
Trump threatens to cut Musk government contracts amid agenda bill spat

UPI

time3 minutes ago

  • UPI

Trump threatens to cut Musk government contracts amid agenda bill spat

Tesla CEO Elon Musk and President Donald Trump hold a press conference in the Oval Office at the White House on Friday as Musk ends his tenure as director of the Department of Government Efficiency. Photo by Francis Chung/UPI | License Photo June 5 (UPI) -- President Donald Trump on Thursday threatened to cut Elon Musk's government contracts through Tesla amid his departure from his role cutting government spending and opposition to Trump's sweeping legislative agenda bill. Trump threatened to end all government contracts with the Musk-founded Tesla in a post on Truth Social and suggested that would be a fast way to reduce government spending. "The easiest way to save money in our budget, billions and billions of dollars, is to terminate Elon's governmental subsidies and contracts," Trump wrote. Tesla share prices declined by more than 14% on Thursday and shed $152 billion in value from the EV maker. Trump on Thursday accused Musk of going "crazy" after the president canceled the federal electric vehicle mandate imposed by the Biden administration. "I took away his EV mandate that forced everyone to buy electric cars that nobody else wanted," Trump said in a Truth Social post on Thursday. "He just went crazy!" Trump said he asked Musk to leave his advisory position with DOGE, although Musk was scheduled to exit the position at the end of May. Musk earlier said Trump would not have won the Nov. 5 election without his help. He contributed an estimated $250 million to Trump's campaign effort. "Without me, Trump would have lost the election, Dems would control the House and the Republicans would be 51-49 in the Senate," Musk said Thursday morning in a post on X. Musk has criticized the proposed "one big, beautiful" federal government budget bill as increasing the nation's debt and negating his work with DOGE. The entrepreneur opposes the spending bill that the House has passed and is before the Senate because it removed tax credits and subsidies for buying EVs, Trump claimed. "I don't mind Elon turning against me, but he should have done that months ago," Trump said in a subsequent Truth Social post on Thursday afternoon. "This is one of the greatest bills ever presented to Congress," he continued. "It's a record cut in expenses, $1.6 trillion dollars, and the biggest tax cut ever given." If the measure is not passed, Trump said it will trigger a 68% tax increase, "and things far worse than that." The president said the "easiest way to save money ... is to terminate Elon's governmental subsidies and contracts" with Tesla. Later on Thursday, Musk in an X post said it is "time to drop the really big bomb" on the president. Trump "is in the Epstein files," Musk said. "That is the real reason they have not been made public." Musk did not say in what context Trump allegedly appears in the Epstein files, but ended his post with: "Have a nice day, DJT!" He made a subsequent post that asks: "Is it time to create a new political party in America that actually represents the 80% in the middle?" Trump and Musk often appeared together at high-profile events in the first four months of the administration.

Bloomberg Daybreak: Trump-Musk Feud
Bloomberg Daybreak: Trump-Musk Feud

Bloomberg

time5 minutes ago

  • Bloomberg

Bloomberg Daybreak: Trump-Musk Feud

On today's podcast: 1) Elon Musk and President Donald Trump engage in a public dispute the traded personal barbs and weighed down Tesla stock and Musk's personal wealth. The dispute began over differences on the GOP tax legislation, with Musk opposing the bill and Trump accusing Musk of being motivated by self-interest. After Tesla shares tanked 14% and Musk's personal wealth dropped by $34 billion, Musk signaled a willingness to cool tensions with Trump, responding to a user's advice to "cool off and take a step back for a couple days" with "Good advice." 2) Tensions appear to be easing between the US and China. President Trump and Chinese President Xi Jinping agreed to further trade talks to resolve disputes over tariffs and rare earth minerals. The two leaders had a 90-minute call, during which Trump acknowledged that the trade relationship with China had gotten "a little off track" but said they are now "in very good shape" with a trade deal. 3) Investors brace for a critical May Jobs Report. Traders are awaiting the key monthly nonfarm payrolls report, which may reinforce expectations that the Federal Reserve will cut interest rates at least twice this year.

Federal vs. state power at issue in a hearing over Trump's election overhaul executive order
Federal vs. state power at issue in a hearing over Trump's election overhaul executive order

Associated Press

time8 minutes ago

  • Associated Press

Federal vs. state power at issue in a hearing over Trump's election overhaul executive order

BOSTON (AP) — Democratic state attorneys general on Friday will seek to block President Donald Trump's proposal for a sweeping overhaul of U.S. elections in a case that tests a constitutional bedrock — the separation of powers. The top law enforcement officials from 19 states filed a federal lawsuit after the Republican president signed the executive order in March, arguing that its provisions would step on states' power to set their own election rules and that the executive branch had no such authority. In a filing supporting that argument, a bipartisan group of former secretaries of state said Trump's directive would upend the system established by the Constitution's Elections Clause, which gives states and Congress control over how elections are run. They said the order seeks to 'unilaterally coronate the President as the country's chief election policymaker and administrator.' If the court does not halt the order, they argued, 'the snowball of executive overreach will grow swiftly and exponentially.' Trump's election directive was part of a flurry of executive orders he has issued in the opening months of his second term, many of which have drawn swift legal challenges. It follows years of him falsely claiming that his loss to Democrat Joe Biden in the 2020 presidential election was due to widespread fraud and an election year in which he and other Republicans promoted the notion that large numbers of noncitizens threatened the integrity of U.S. elections. In fact, voting by noncitizens is rare and, when caught, can lead to felony charges and deportation. Trump's executive order would require voters to show proof of U.S. citizenship when registering to vote in federal elections, prohibit mail or absentee ballots from being counted if they are received after Election Day, set new rules for voting equipment and prohibit non-U.S. citizens from being able to donate in certain elections. It also would condition federal election grant funding on states adhering to the strict ballot deadline. The hearing Friday in U.S. District Court in Boston comes in one of three lawsuits filed against the executive order. One is from Oregon and Washington, where elections are conducted almost entirely by mail and ballots received after Election Day are counted as long as they are postmarked by then. The provision that would create a proof-of-citizenship requirement for federal elections already has been halted in a lawsuit filed by voting and civil rights groups and national Democratic organizations. In that case, filed in federal court in the District of Columbia, the judge said the president's attempt to use a federal agency to enact a proof-of-citizenship requirement for voting usurped the power of states and Congress, which at the time was considering legislation that would do just that. That bill, called the SAVE Act, passed the U.S. House but faces an uncertain future in the Senate. Trump's executive order said its intent was to ensure 'free, fair and honest elections unmarred by fraud, errors, or suspicion.' The Justice Department, in arguing against the motion by the attorneys general for a preliminary injunction, said the president is within his rights to direct agencies to carry out federal voting laws. The order tasks the U.S. Election Assistance Commission with updating the federal voter registration form to require people to submit documentation proving they are U.S. citizens. Similar provisions enacted previously in a handful of states have raised concerns about disenfranchising otherwise eligible voters who can't readily access those documents. That includes married women, who would need both a birth certificate and a marriage license if they had changed their last name. A state proof-of-citizenship law enacted in Kansas more than a decade ago blocked the registrations of 31,000 people later found to be eligible to vote. The two sides will argue over whether the president has the authority to direct the election commission, which was created by Congress as an independent agency after the Florida ballot debacle during the 2000 presidential election. In its filing, the Justice Department said Trump's executive order falls within his authority to direct officials 'to carry out their statutory duties,' adding that 'the only potential voters it disenfranchises are noncitizens who are ineligible to vote anyway.'

DOWNLOAD THE APP

Get Started Now: Download the App

Ready to dive into the world of global news and events? Download our app today from your preferred app store and start exploring.
app-storeplay-store