Trump’s Tough Stand for Secure Borders Shakes Up State Funding
When President Trump (R) announced his latest policy tying critical crime victim funding to cooperation with federal immigration law, liberal states wasted no time organizing a fight. Led by New Jersey Attorney General Matthew J. Platkin (D), a coalition of 21 Democratic-led states and the District of Columbia rushed to Rhode Island federal court on August 18, 2025, taking aim at the administration’s bold new enforcement measure. According to reports, these states claim Trump’s move ‘plays politics with victims’ and crosses constitutional boundaries.
The controversy centers on funds provided under the Victims of Crime Act (VOCA). Under the new rules, these funds—worth $1.4 billion and serving over 10 million victims—will be withheld from states that refuse to cooperate with Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) on detainers and enforcement activities. Trump’s Department of Justice stands firm, stating: federal money should not flow to states that put illegal immigrants over crime victims. This essential push comes amid an escalating crisis caused by sanctuary city policies undermining national immigration law, raising questions about state responsibility and public safety.
“These are the very states that defy immigration enforcement, then turn around and demand cash intended to help American victims of crime. It’s hypocrisy at its finest,” said a Trump senior advisor in an interview last week.
As state attorneys general—including those from California (D), Illinois (D), Massachusetts (D), New York (D), Connecticut (D), and Oregon (D)—file suit, the lines are drawn. Blue states want taxpayer-funded victim services without supporting federal law and order. Trump’s leadership demands both: uphold the law, receive the funds.
Inside the Lawsuit: Sanctuary States and Victims of Crime Act Funding
This multi-state legal battle isn’t just an abstract skirmish; it’s about real dollars and real victims. Under the new policy, state eligibility for VOCA grants is now contingent on full cooperation with ICE. That means local law enforcement must comply with detainers and notifications on criminal illegal aliens—precisely what sanctuary states have long resisted. This, according to DOJ, protects American lives from repeat offenders who might otherwise be released back onto the streets by sanctuary jurisdictions.
The VOCA funds at stake pay for a wide range of crucial victim services beyond basic advocacy—everything from sexual assault forensic exams and trauma counseling to emergency housing and funeral expenses. Opponents, like AG Platkin (D-NJ), call it ‘reckless’ and ‘cruel’ to tie these funds to federal enforcement.
Yet from a conservative vantage point, the very notion of allowing cities to violate federal law while demanding federal dollars is not only unsound—it’s insulting to the American taxpayer. Why should federal victims’ funds support jurisdictions that block ICE from detaining violent offenders? In the words of a senior DOJ official, “Law-abiding communities should always come first—period.”
“Sanctuary city policies have enabled thousands of criminals to evade deportation, often to tragic result. Requiring basic cooperation with ICE isn’t just fair—it’s common sense,” noted immigration attorney Marcus Kelly (R) in a panel appearance yesterday.
The lawsuit seeks a court order to halt enforcement of the immigration conditions, arguing this infringes on states’ rights and Congressional appropriation power. Yet Trump’s DOJ is well within its authority to protect victim assistance funding from sanctuary abuse. Recent years have seen a surge in crime and illegal alien crime victims, making these resources more critical than ever—another reason Trump’s America First approach resonates far beyond his base.
Legal Tensions and America First Policy: What’s at Stake Nationally?
The Democratic coalition insists the policy “undermines crucial victim support” and exceeds the DOJ’s powers. But this argument ignores a fundamental principle: federal resources come with federal standards. Trump’s administration isn’t playing political games; it’s enforcing the rule of law and holding defiant states accountable.
By linking vital victim funds to immigration enforcement, the administration makes clear that U.S. federal dollars should support public safety—not undermine it. Sanctuary states like New York (D), Massachusetts (D), and California (D) remain outliers in a country that overwhelmingly favors border security and strong immigration enforcement. They are suing, as Oregon’s AG Dan Rayfield (D) admits, simply to keep the spigot open for federal cash without accountability.
Historically, federal grant programs have been linked to compliance with key policies (think highway funding and seat belt laws). What’s different now is that the left frames any pro-enforcement measure as “cruelty”—when in reality, these are basic expectations in a nation of laws. For years, President Trump (R) has been clear: taxpayer dollars are meant to serve American citizens and legal residents first. Sanctuary states, meanwhile, have prioritized the rights of illegal immigrants—even at the expense of the very crime victims they claim to protect.
“Congress did not intend for the Department of Justice to foist unrelated federal priorities onto victims’ aid,” reads a statement from the states’ legal filing. Trump officials counter: “Congress didn’t intend for states to ignore immigration law with impunity, either.”
The wider policy backdrop is undeniable: crime linked to illegal immigration remains a growing concern, especially as porous border policies in previous administrations allowed criminal aliens to slip through the cracks. The Trump administration’s approach—rewarding cooperation, withholding funding from defiance—sends a message: America’s safety comes first, always. And that, ultimately, is a winning formula for both justice and national security.