List of ‘sanctuary jurisdictions' removed from US government website following criticism
WASHINGTON — A widely anticipated list of 'sanctuary jurisdictions' no longer appears on the Department of Homeland Security's website after receiving widespread criticism for including localities that have actively supported the Trump administration's hard-line immigration policies.
The department last week published the list of the jurisdictions. It said each one would receive formal notification the government deemed them uncooperative with federal immigration enforcement and whether they're believed to be in violation of any federal criminal statutes.
The list was published Thursday on the department's website but on Sunday there was a 'Page Not Found' error message in its place.
What is a 'sanctuary jurisdiction' and how was the US list of them made?The list was part of the Trump administration's efforts to target communities, states and jurisdictions that it says aren't doing enough to help its immigration enforcement agenda and the promises the president made to deport more than 11 million people living in the U.S. without legal authorization.
The list is being constantly reviewed and can be changed at any time and will be updated regularly, a DHS senior official said.
'Designation of a sanctuary jurisdiction is based on the evaluation of numerous factors, including self-identification as a Sanctuary Jurisdiction, noncompliance with Federal law enforcement in enforcing immigration laws, restrictions on information sharing, and legal protections for illegal aliens,' the official said in a statement.
Homeland Security Secretary Kristi Noem said on Fox News' 'Sunday Morning Futures' that there had been anger from some officials about the list. However, she didn't address why it was removed.
'Some of the cities have pushed back,' Noem said. 'They think because they don't have one law or another on the books that they don't qualify, but they do qualify. They are giving sanctuary to criminals.'
The list, which was riddled with misspellings, received pushback from officials in communities spanning from urban to rural and blue to red who said the list doesn't appear to make sense.
In California, the city of Huntington Beach made the list even though it had filed a lawsuit challenging the state's immigration sanctuary law and passed a resolution this year declaring the community a 'non-sanctuary city.'
Jim Davel, administrator for Shawano County, Wisconsin, said the inclusion of his community must have been a clerical error. Davel voted for Trump as did 67% of Shawano County.
Davel thinks the administration may have confused the county's vote in 2021 to become a 'Second Amendment Sanctuary County' that prohibits gun control measures with it being a safe haven for immigrants. He said the county has approved no immigration sanctuary policies.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
CBS News
18 minutes ago
- CBS News
Senate forges ahead with tight timeline to approve Trump's "big beautiful bill"
Washington — The Senate is forging ahead this week on President Trump's "one big beautiful bill," facing a tight, self-imposed deadline to get the legislation to his desk ahead of the July 4 holiday. "It's going to be a busy month — we have a lot to get done," Senate Majority Leader John Thune said on the Senate floor Monday, adding that the upper chamber's "biggest focus" will be on getting the president's agenda passed. In a razor-thin vote last month, the House passed the legislation, which addresses the president's tax, defense and energy priorities. The vote came after weeks of intraparty disagreement over a number of provisions, like Medicaid restrictions. That bill has now made its way to the Senate, where some of the same tensions exist — and new dynamics have begun to take shape. Thune, a South Dakota Republican, outlined to reporters Monday that the process is underway, saying "I think we're on track — I hope, at least — to be able to produce something that we can pass through the Senate, send back to the House, have them pass and put on the president's desk by the Fourth of July." But Thune can only afford to lose three Republican votes on the bill, with all Democrats expected to vote against it. A handful of Senate Republicans have already expressed opposition to the House-passed bill. GOP leaders will be focused on uniting the conference around the bill, and possible changes, in the days ahead. Senate Majority Leader John Thune, a Republican from South Dakota, speaks to members of the media at the U.S. Capitol in Washington, D.C., on Monday, June 2, 2025. Al Drago/Bloomberg via Getty Images The majority leader acknowledged the delicate balance on Monday, telling reporters that the Senate bill will "have to be tracked fairly closely, obviously, with the House bill," citing its "fragile majority." Thune said the House "struck a very delicate balance in getting it passed in the House in the first place." "But there are some things that senators want, you know, added to the bill, or, you know, things that we would do slightly differently," Thune said. Meanwhile, the president took an active role in the process as the Senate returned to Washington from recess on Monday. He met with Thune and spoke with a handful of key Senate Republicans, including Sens. Ron Johnson of Wisconsin and Josh Hawley of Missouri, who have expressed opposition to some of the bill's components. Johnson, along with Sen. Rand Paul of Kentucky, has been among the leading voices in the upper chamber calling for deeper spending cuts in the bill, which aims at present to cut $1.5 trillion, while also advocating for separating a debt ceiling increase from the legislation. The Wisconsin Republican said he had a "very respectful conversation" with Mr. Trump, telling reporters that he and the president "by and large share the same goal," but have a "difference in opinion in terms of how to do it." Paul has pledged to oppose the bill due to its debt ceiling increase. Mr. Trump again called out the Kentucky Republican on Truth Social on Tuesday, saying Paul "votes NO on everything, but never has any practical or constructive ideas." Beyond concern about spending cuts, other Senate Republicans have voiced concern for Medicaid restrictions, including Hawley. The Missouri Republican told reporters Monday that the president told him when they spoke that there should be "no Medicaid benefit cuts," adding that he told Mr. Trump that they are "singing from the same hymnbook." But Hawley remains concerned about changes to provider taxes and copay requirements in the legislation. The president also weighed in on Truth Social on Monday, urging Senate Republicans to work quickly on the bill. "With the Senate coming back to Washington today, I call on all of my Republican friends in the Senate and House to work as fast as they can to get this Bill to MY DESK before the Fourth of JULY," Mr. Trump wrote. Further complicating matters, the Senate also has to contend with strict limits on the reconciliation process, which governs the legislation. Though the process allows the Senate to bypass a 60-vote threshold required to advance most legislation, it also comes with its own hurdles. Under what's known as the Byrd rule, all provisions in the legislation must have direct budgetary consequences. And senators may challenge any portion of the bill that they say doesn't deal with taxes, spending or the debt limit and ask the Senate parliamentarian to resolve the dispute. Thune said "Byrd conversations" have been going on for the last week and would continue this week and next. And when asked whether Senate Republicans would rule out overruling the parliamentarian, he told reporters "we're not going there." and contributed to this report.
Los Angeles Times
18 minutes ago
- Los Angeles Times
Ex-Homeland Security official fights back against Trump's ‘unprecedented' investigation order
WASHINGTON — A former Homeland Security official during President Trump's first administration who authored an anonymous op-ed sharply critical of the president is calling on independent government watchdogs to investigate after Trump ordered the department to look into his government service. Miles Taylor, once chief of staff at the Department of Homeland Security, warned in an interview with the Associated Press of the far-reaching implications of Trump's April 9 memorandum, 'Addressing Risks Associated with an Egregious Leaker and Disseminator of Falsehoods,' when it comes to suppressing criticism of the president. That memo accused Taylor of concocting stories to sell his book and directed the secretary of Homeland Security and other government agencies to look into Taylor and strip him of any security clearances. Taylor sent a letter via email to inspectors general at the departments of Justice and Homeland Security on Tuesday. Coming on the same April day that Trump also ordered an investigation into Chris Krebs, a former top cybersecurity official, the dual memoranda illustrated how Trump has sought to use the powers of the presidency against his adversaries. Speaking to the AP, Taylor said the order targeting him sets a 'scary precedent' and that's why he decided to call on the inspectors general to investigate. 'I didn't commit any crime, and that's what's extraordinary about this. I can't think of any case where someone knows they're being investigated but has absolutely no idea what crime they allegedly committed. And it's because I didn't,' Taylor said. He called it a 'really, really, really scary precedent to have set is that the president of the United States can now sign an order investigating any private citizen he wants, any critic, any foe, anyone.' Since taking office again in January, Trump has stripped security clearances from a number of his opponents. But Trump's order for an investigation into Taylor, as well as Krebs, marked an escalation of his campaign of retribution in his second term. Trump fired Krebs, who directed the Cybersecurity and Infrastructure Security Agency, in November 2020 after Krebs disputed the Republican president's unsubstantiated claims of voting fraud and vouched for the integrity of the 2020 election, which Trump lost to Democrat Joe Biden. Taylor left the first Trump administration in 2019. In the anonymous New York Times op-ed published in 2018, he described himself as part of a secret 'resistance' to counter Trump's 'misguided impulses.' The op-ed's publication touched off a leak investigation in Trump's first White House. Taylor later published a book by the same name as the op-ed and then another book under his own name called 'Blowback,' which warned about Trump's return to office. After signing the memorandum April 9, Trump said Taylor was likely 'guilty of treason.' The letter by Taylor's lawyer to the inspectors general calls Trump's actions 'unprecedented in American history.' 'The Memorandum does not identify any specific wrongdoing. Rather, it flagrantly targets Mr. Taylor for one reason alone: He dared to speak out to criticize the President,' the letter reads. Taylor's lawyer, Abbe Lowell, said the request to the inspectors general was an attempt to 'get the administration to do the right thing.' Lowell said that depending on the outcome of their complaint, they'll explore other options including a possible lawsuit. Lowell, a veteran Washington lawyer, announced earlier this year that he was opening his own legal practice and would represent targets of Trump's retribution. In the letter, Lowell calls on the inspectors general to do their jobs of 'addressing and preventing abuses of power.' The letter says Trump's April 9 memo appears to violate Taylor's First Amendment rights by going after Taylor for his criticism of the president, calling it a 'textbook definition of political retribution and vindictive prosecution.' And, according to the letter, Trump's memo also appears to violate Taylor's Fifth Amendment due process rights. The letter highlights Taylor's 'honorable and exemplary' work service including receiving the Distinguished Service Medal upon leaving the department, and it details the toll that the April 9 memorandum has taken on Taylor's personal life. His family has been threatened and harassed, and former colleagues lost their government jobs because of their connection with him, according to the letter. Taylor told the AP that since the order, there's been an 'implosion in our lives.' He said he started a fund to pay for legal fees, has had to step away from work and his wife has gone back to work to help pay the family's bills. Their home's location was published on the internet in a doxxing. Taylor said that by filing these complaints with the inspectors general, he's anticipating that the pressure on him and his family will increase. He said they spent the last few weeks debating what to do after the April 9 memorandum and decided to fight back. 'The alternative is staying silent, cowering and capitulating and sending the message that, yes, there's no consequences for this president and this administration in abusing their powers in ways that my legal team believes and a lot of legal scholars tell me is unconstitutional and illegal,' Taylor said. Santana writes for the Associated Press.
Boston Globe
18 minutes ago
- Boston Globe
Republican push for proof of citizenship to vote proves a tough sell in the states
Advertisement 'The bill authors failed spectacularly to explain how this bill would be implemented and how it would be able to be implemented without inconveniencing a ton of voters,' said Anthony Gutierrez, director of the voting rights group Common Cause Texas. Get Starting Point A guide through the most important stories of the morning, delivered Monday through Friday. Enter Email Sign Up Voting by noncitizens is rare Voting by noncitizens is already illegal and punishable as a felony, potentially leading to deportation, but Trump and his allies have pressed for a proof-of-citizenship mandate by arguing it would improve public confidence in elections. Before his win last year, Trump falsely claimed noncitizens might vote in large enough numbers to sway the outcome. Although noncitizen voting does occur, research and reviews of state cases has shown it to be rare and more often a mistake. Advertisement Voting rights groups say the various proposals seeking to require proof-of-citizenship are overly burdensome and threaten to disenfranchise millions of Americans. Many do not have easy access to their birth certificates, have not gotten a U.S. passport or have a name that no longer matches the one on their birth certificate — such as women who changed their last name when they married. Married women who changed names are a particular concern The number of states considering bills related to proof of citizenship for voting tripled from 2023 to this year, said Liz Avore, senior policy adviser with the Voting Rights Lab, an advocacy group that tracks election legislation in the states. That hasn't resulted in many new laws, at least so far. Republicans in Wyoming passed their own proof-of-citizenship legislation, but similar measures have stalled or failed in multiple GOP-led states, including Florida, Missouri, Texas and Utah. A proposal remains active in Ohio, although Gov. Mike DeWine, a Republican, has said he doesn't want to sign any more bills that make it harder to vote. In Texas, the legislation swiftly passed the state Senate after it was introduced in March but never made it to a floor vote in the House. It was unclear why legislation that was such a priority for Senate Republicans – every one of them co-authored the bill -- ended up faltering. 'I just think people realized, as flawed as this playbook has been in other states, Texas didn't need to make this mistake,' said Rep. John Bucy, a Democrat who serves as vice chair of the House elections committee. Bucy pointed to specific concerns about married women who changed their last name. This surfaced in local elections earlier this year in New Hampshire, which passed a proof-of-citizenship requirement last year. Advertisement Similar laws have created confusion Other states that previously sought to add such a requirement have faced lawsuits and complications when trying to implement it. In Arizona, a state audit found that problems with the way data was handled had affected the tracking and verification of residents' citizenship status. It came after officials had identified some 200,000 voters who were thought to have provided proof of their citizenship but had not. A proof-of-citizenship requirement was in effect for three years in Kansas before it was overturned by federal courts. The state's own expert estimated that almost all of the roughly 30,000 people who were prevented from registering to vote while it was in effect were U.S. citizens who otherwise had been eligible. In Missouri, legislation seeking to add a proof-of-citizenship requirement cleared a Senate committee but never came to a vote in the Republican-led chamber. Republican state Sen. Ben Brown had promoted the legislation as a follow-up to a constitutional amendment stating that only U.S. citizens can vote, which Missouri voters overwhelmingly approved last November. He said there were several factors that led to the bill not advancing this year. Due to the session's limited schedule, he chose to prioritize another elections bill banning foreign contributions in state ballot measure campaigns. 'Our legislative session ending mid-May means a lot of things die at the finish line because you simply run out of time,' Brown said, noting he also took time to research concerns raised by local election officials and plans to reintroduce the proof-of-citizenship bill next year. Complications prompt states to focus on other issues The Republican-controlled Legislature in Utah also prioritized other election changes, adding voter ID requirements and requiring people to opt in to receive their ballots in the mail. Before Gov. Spencer Cox signed the bill into law, Utah was the only Republican-controlled state that allowed all elections to be conducted by mail without a need to opt in. Advertisement Under the Florida bill that has failed to advance, voter registration applications wouldn't be considered valid until state officials had verified citizenship, either by confirming a previous voting history, checking the applicant's status in state and federal databases, or verifying documents they provided. The bill would have required voters to prove their citizenship even when updating their registration to change their address or party affiliation. Its sponsor, Republican state Rep. Jenna Persons-Mulicka, said it was meant to follow through on Trump's executive order: 'This bill fully answers the president's call,' she said. Cassidy reported from Atlanta. Associated Press writers Mead Gruver in Cheyenne, Wyoming; David A. Lieb in Jefferson City, Missouri; Kate Payne in Tallahassee, Florida; Hannah Schoenbaum in Salt Lake City; Julie Carr Smyth in Columbus, Ohio; and Isabella Volmert in Lansing, Michigan, contributed to this report.
