Trump anti-sanctuary city executive order could target federal funding, says expert

President Donald Trump is set to sign an executive order targeting sanctuary cities on Thursday, sparking yet another legal battle for his administration. The move comes as Trump aims to crack down on jurisdictions that limit or ban cooperation with federal immigration authorities, hindering his efforts to deport illegal immigrants.

Trump has been vocal about his intentions to end sanctuary cities that refuse to work with law enforcement, stating that they are essentially protecting criminals. This executive order is expected to focus on cutting federal funding to jurisdictions that do not comply with immigration enforcement efforts.

Former Kentucky Attorney General Daniel J. Cameron, who now heads the 1792 Exchange, anticipates pushback from the left in response to Trump’s order. He believes that the radical left will continue to challenge the administration’s policies through legal means.

The president has faced numerous legal challenges since taking office, with injunctions blocking his executive actions on various issues. Trump’s order on sanctuary cities is likely to face similar legal scrutiny, as opponents argue that it infringes on states’ rights and undermines local autonomy.

Cameron suggests that Trump’s order will target federal funding as a way to compel compliance from sanctuary cities. He argues that jurisdictions that harbor illegal immigrants or obstruct federal law enforcement should not receive taxpayer money.

Despite the potential legal hurdles, Cameron views the executive order as a necessary step in enforcing federal immigration laws. He points to Trump’s success in using executive actions to address border security issues, emphasizing the president’s ability to take decisive action without waiting for new legislation.

In conclusion, Trump’s executive order on sanctuary cities is expected to be a contentious issue, with legal challenges likely to follow. The administration’s efforts to crack down on jurisdictions that impede immigration enforcement reflect its commitment to upholding federal law. The order’s impact on sanctuary cities and the broader immigration debate remains to be seen as the legal battle unfolds.