‘Comply with immigration laws, or we are coming after you,' Pam Bondi tells sanctuary jurisdictions
Bondi said she has written to 32 sanctuary jurisdictions that they have one week to respond to a 'demand letter' from the Department of Justice.
'Any sanctuary jurisdiction that continues to put illegal aliens ahead of American citizens can either come to the table or see us in court,' Bondi said in a social media post.
'For too long, so-called sanctuary jurisdiction policies have undermined this necessary cooperation and obstructed federal immigration enforcement, giving aliens cover to perpetrate crimes in our communities and evade the immigration consequences that federal law requires,' Bondi's letter to Mayors and Governors of sanctuary jurisdictions said.
Any sanctuary jurisdiction that continues to put illegal aliens ahead of American citizens can either come to the table or see us in court.
Today @TheJusticeDept delivered demand letters to sanctuary cities, counties, and states — a key step in our strategic effort to eradicate… pic.twitter.com/aKWNCY4hJN
— Attorney General Pamela Bondi (@AGPamBondi) August 14, 2025
Bondi also warned that officials obstructing federal immigration enforcement could face criminal charges. The letter stressed the importance of cooperation between federal, state and local agencies to enforce immigration law and protect national security.
Later, speaking to Fox News, Bondi said the recipients had one week to respond.
'I just sent Sanctuary City letters to 32 mayors around the country and multiple governors saying, you better be abiding by our federal policies and with our federal law enforcement, because if you aren't, we're going to come after you,' she said.
'And they have, I think, a week to respond to me, so let's see who responds and how they respond. It starts at the top, and our leaders have to support our law enforcement,' Bondi added.
Sanctuary jurisdictions refer to cities, counties, or states in the US that limit their cooperation with the federal government in enforcing immigration laws and act as havens for undocumented immigrants.
According to a Department of Justice Executive Order on August 5, thirteen states, including Washington and New York, four counties, and eighteen cities have been designated as sanctuary jurisdictions, based on actions and policies that materially impede enforcement of federal immigration statutes and regulations
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Scroll.in
25 minutes ago
- Scroll.in
Trump-Putin summit: Land-for-ceasefire deal will be terrible for everyone
Hours before meeting Russia's leader Vladimir Putin in Alaska, Donald Trump said he wanted to see a ceasefire in Ukraine and was 'not going to be happy' if it wasn't agreed today. The US president appears to have left Alaska with no such agreement in place. 'We didn't get there', Trump told reporters, before later vaguely asserting that he and Putin had 'made great progress'. Trump is likely to return to the idea of engaging Putin in the coming weeks and months, with the Russian leader jokingly suggesting their next meeting could be held in Moscow. A land-for-ceasefire arrangement, an idea Trump has repeatedly raised as an almost inevitable part of a peace settlement between Russia and Ukraine, could still reemerge as a possible outcome. In fact, in an interview with Fox News after the summit where Trump was asked how the war in Ukraine might end and if there will be a land swap, Trump said: 'those are points that we largely agreed on'. Securing territorial concessions from Ukraine has long been one of Moscow's preconditions for any negotiations on a peace deal. Putin is likely betting that insisting on these concessions, while keeping Ukraine under sustained military pressure, plays to his advantage. Public fatigue over the war is growing in Ukraine, and Putin will be hoping that a weary population may eventually see such a deal as acceptable and even attractive. Russia launched a barrage of fresh attacks against Ukrainian cities overnight, involving more than 300 drones and 30 missiles. Ukrainian president Volodymyr Zelensky, who was excluded from the Alaska summit, has maintained that Kyiv will not agree to territorial concessions. Such a move would be illegal under Ukraine's constitution, which requires a nationwide referendum to approve changes to the country's territorial borders. The assumption behind a land-for-ceasefire deal is that it would enhance Ukrainian and European security. Trump sees it as the first step in bringing Putin to the negotiation table for a broader peace deal, as well as unlocking opportunities for reconstruction. In reality, such a deal would do little to diminish the longer-term Russian threat. Moscow's efforts to shore up and modernise its defence capabilities and neo-imperial ambitions would remain intact. Its hybrid attacks on Europe would also continue, and Ukraine's capacity to secure meaningful reconstruction would be weakened. Whether or not Russia ever opts for a direct military strike on a European Nato member state, it has no need to do so to weaken the continent. Its hybrid operations, which extend well beyond the battlefield, are more than sufficient to erode European resilience over time. Russia's disinformation campaigns and sabotage of infrastructure, including railways in Poland and Germany and undersea cables in the Gulf of Finland and Baltic Sea, are well documented. Its strategic objectives have focused on deterring action on Ukraine and sowing disagreement between its allies, as well as attempting to undermine democratic values in the west. Europe is under pressure on multiple fronts: meeting new defence spending targets of 5% of GDP while economic growth is slowing, reducing the dependence of its supply chains on China and managing demographic challenges. These vulnerabilities make it susceptible to disinformation and have deepened divisions along political and socioeconomic fault lines – all of which Moscow has repeatedly exploited. A land-for-ceasefire deal would not address these threats. For Ukraine, the danger of such a deal is clear. Russia might pause large-scale physical warfare in Ukraine under a deal, but it would almost certainly continue destabilising the country from within. Having never been punished for violating past agreements to respect Ukraine's territorial integrity, such as when it annexed Crimea in 2014, Moscow would have little incentive to honour new ones. The government in Kyiv, and Ukrainian society more broadly, would see any accompanying security guarantees as fragile at best and temporary at worst. The result would probably be a deepening of Ukraine's vulnerabilities. Some Ukrainians might support doubling down on militarisation and investment in defence technologies. Others, losing faith in national security and reconstruction, could disengage or leave the country. Either way, in the absence of national unity, reconstruction would become far more difficult. Making reconstruction harder Ukraine's reconstruction will be costly, to the tune of US$524 billion (£387 billion) according to the World Bank. It will also require managing a web of interconnected security, financial, social and political risks. These include displacement and economic challenges brought on by the war, as well as the need to secure capital flows across different regions. It will also need to continue addressing governance and corruption challenges. A permanent territorial concession would make addressing these risks even more difficult. Such a deal is likely to split public opinion in Ukraine, with those heavily involved in the war effort asking: 'What exactly have we been fighting for?' Recriminations would almost certainly follow during the next presidential and parliamentary elections, deepening divisions and undermining Ukraine's ability to pursue the systemic approach needed for reconstruction. Ongoing security concerns in border regions, particularly near Russia, would be likely to prompt further population flight. And how many of the over 5 million Ukrainians currently living abroad would return to help reconstruct the country under these conditions is far from certain. Financing reconstruction would also be more challenging. Public funds from donors and international institutions have helped sustain emergency energy and transport infrastructure repairs in the short term and will continue to play a role. But private investment will be critical moving forward. Investors will be looking not only at Ukraine's geopolitical risk profile, but also its political stability and social cohesion. Few investors would be willing to commit capital in a country that cannot guarantee a stable security and political environment. Taken together, these factors would make large-scale reconstruction in Ukraine nearly impossible. Beyond fundamental issues of accountability and just peace, a land-for-ceasefire deal would be simply a bad bargain. It will almost certainly sow deeper, more intractable problems for Ukraine, Europe and the west. It would undermine security, stall reconstruction and hand Moscow both time and a strategic advantage to come back stronger against a Ukraine that may be ill-prepared to respond. Trump would do well to avoid committing Ukraine to such an arrangement in further talks with Putin over the coming months.
Hindustan Times
an hour ago
- Hindustan Times
NATO-like protection in focus for Trump meeting with Ukraine, Europe
By Trevor Hunnicutt and David Ljunggren NATO-like protection in focus for Trump meeting with Ukraine, Europe -U.S. President Donald Trump could offer NATO-like protection of Ukraine, and Russia is open to the idea, one of his top foreign policy officials said on Sunday ahead of a meeting with Ukraine and European leaders to hammer out details of possible security guarantees for Kyiv. "We were able to win the following concession, that the United States could offer Article 5-like protection," Steve Witkoff, Trump's special envoy to Russia, told CNN's "State of the Union" program. "The United States could offer Article 5 protection, which was the first time we had ever heard the Russians agree to that." Witkoff was referring to Article 5 of the North Atlantic Treaty, which regards any attack against one of its 32 members as an attack on all. He suggested that a security guarantee of that scale could be offered to Ukraine in lieu of NATO membership, which Putin has ruled out. Russia launched a full-scale invasion of Ukraine in February 2022 and has been gradually advancing for months in the deadliest war in Europe for 80 years, Witkoff and Secretary of State Marco Rubio, who were both in the room when Trump met Russian leader Vladimir Putin in Alaska on Friday, gave a series of TV interviews ahead of a Monday meeting in Washington with Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskiy and leaders of some European allies. 'We made some progress, we believe, and now we have to follow up on that progress," Rubio told CNN's "State of the Union" about the meeting with Putin. "Ultimately, where this should lead is to a meeting between the three leaders, between Zelenskiy, Putin and President Trump, where we can finalize, but we got to get this thing closer before we get to that point." Russian officials are opposed to Western troops in Ukraine, but have not ruled out a security guarantee for Kyiv. Speaking during a joint media appearance with Trump after their nearly three-hour long meeting, Putin said on Friday: "I agree with President Trump. He said today that Ukraine's security must be ensured by all means. Of course, we are ready to work on this." Witkoff told "Fox News Sunday" that Russia had also agreed to passing a law against taking any more of Ukraine by force. "The Russians agreed on enshrining legislatively language that would prevent them from - or that they would attest to not attempting to take any more land from Ukraine after a peace deal, where they would attest to not violating any European borders," he said. PEACE DEAL VS SURRENDER Any security guarantees offered to Zelenskiy could also include a commitment from the United States, Rubio told Fox News' "Sunday Morning Futures", an option that many of Trump's MAGA supporters have rejected up to now. "It would be a very big move by the president, if he were to offer a U.S. commitment to a security guarantee," Rubio said. "It tells you how badly he wants peace, how much he values peace, that he would be willing to make a concession like that ...That's what we'll talk about tomorrow." In a social media post, Trump wrote, "BIG PROGRESS ON RUSSIA. STAY TUNED!" But he gave no details. Rubio said U.S. officials discussed security details for Ukraine with the national security advisers of multiple European countries on Saturday, adding that the aim would be to build in details that could ultimately be presented to Russia as part of a peace agreement. He told Fox News that the talks between Trump and Putin on Friday had narrowed the number of key issues, which include drawing borders and military alliances for Ukraine as well as security guarantees. "There's a lot of work that remains," Rubio added. According to sources, Trump and Putin discussed proposals for Russia to relinquish tiny pockets of occupied Ukraine in exchange for Ukraine ceding a swathe of fortified land in the east and freezing the front lines elsewhere. Rubio said Russia and Ukraine would not be able to get everything they want. 'If one side gets everything they want, that's not a peace deal. It's called surrender, and I don't think this is a war that's going to end anytime soon on the basis of surrender,' Rubio told CNN. In a separate interview on ABC, Rubio said if a deal could not be reached to end the war, existing U.S. sanctions on Russia would continue, and more could be added. When Zelenskiy visited the White House in February, the meeting ended in a shouting match. Rubio, speaking to CBS, dismissed the idea that the European leaders were coming to Washington to protect Zelenskiy. "They're not coming here tomorrow to keep Zelenskiy from being bullied. They're coming here tomorrow because we've been working with the Europeans," he said. "We invited them to come." This article was generated from an automated news agency feed without modifications to text.
&w=3840&q=100)
First Post
an hour ago
- First Post
Putin briefs Belarus, Kazakhstan leaders on Trump summit, calls talks ‘useful' for Ukraine peace
President Vladimir Putin spoke to the leaders of Belarus and Kazakhstan on Sunday to update them on the summit with U.S. President Donald Trump which the Kremlin has cast as a potentially significant stepping stone towards peace in Ukraine. Russian President Vladimir Putin on Sunday spoke with the leaders of Belarus and Kazakhstan to share details of his meeting with US President Donald Trump, which Moscow has described as an important step toward resolving the conflict in Ukraine. The Alaska summit, the first US-Russia meeting at this level in more than four years, was followed by consultations with senior Russian officials in the Kremlin on Saturday. Putin called the discussions 'timely and very useful,' saying both sides explored the possibility of ending the war on what he termed a 'fair basis' while addressing its underlying causes. STORY CONTINUES BELOW THIS AD 'We have not had direct negotiations of this kind at this level for a long time. I repeat once again: there was an opportunity to calmly and in detail once again set out our position,' Putin told Russian officials. 'We, of course, respect the position of the American administration, which sees the need for a speedy end to military action. Well, we would also like this and would like to move on to resolving all issues by peaceful means.' The press service of Belarusian President Alexander Lukashenko said Putin had discussed the talks in Alaska. 'Putin informed his Belarusian counterpart in detail about the results of the last Russia-US summit,' the Lukashenko's press service said. Kazakhstan President Kassym-Jomart Tokayev's press service said that Russia-U.S. talks 'contributed to a better understanding of the American side of the Russian position on Ukraine.'
