“We will end the Sanctuary Cities that have resulted in so many needless deaths. Cities that refuse to cooperate with federal authorities will not receive taxpayer dollars.”
Sources (click to view full provenance)
Propose an edit to this promise's details
Suggest a sourced correction to the promise text, topic, scope, significance, or dates. Changing the promise text requires a source. Your suggestion is reviewed before it changes the record.
Free — it takes a minute. New here? Create an account and complete the Contributor Agreement once.
Assessments
evidence-backed verdictsThese are sourced verdicts from fact-checkers or community evidence reviews — not opinions.
Adversarial re-check confirms the rating. Trump self-initiated and repeatedly drove the effort to cut sanctuary-jurisdiction funding, far beyond a single supporting vote: he signed Executive Order 13768 (Jan. 25, 2017) directing the AG and DHS to withhold federal grants from sanctuary jurisdictions; DOJ added immigration conditions to Byrne JAG grants; and in his second term he signed the April 28, 2025 EO 'Protecting American Communities from Criminal Aliens' directing AG Bondi and DHS Secretary Noem to identify and suspend/terminate sanctuary funds. The effort did NOT land, however: Judge William Orrick and the Ninth Circuit repeatedly found the funding cutoffs unconstitutional (Spending Clause / separation of powers / Tenth Amendment), and again in 2025 courts enjoined the new EO for 50+ jurisdictions; sanctuary cities were not ended. There was limited partial success (the Second Circuit upheld some Byrne JAG conditions in New York v. DOJ, 2020, creating a circuit split), but the promise's core aim was largely blocked. This is driven, self-initiated leadership that did not fully land = CHAMPIONED (+0.75), scored on effort not achievement. The label is nonpartisan: a president of either party who signed multiple EOs and pursued a signature policy through DOJ but was blocked by courts would earn the same CHAMPIONED. Confidence held at 0.85 given rock-solid, independently verified sourcing and a defensible (if debatable CHAMPIONED-vs-PARTIAL) outcome boundary.
Your opinion on this assessment(clearly labeled opinion)
Sign in to vote.
Discussion
community opinionsComments are user opinions — not verdicts. They do not affect the official assessment.
Sign in to join the discussion.
Propose a correction
community accountabilitySee an error in the promise text, status, significance, or missing source? Submit a sourced correction — a reviewer will evaluate and apply it if accurate. Your submission must cite evidence; unsourced changes are not accepted.
Sign in or create an account to propose a correction.
Debate
sourced community argumentsThese are sourced community arguments — not StumpWatch assessments. Each cites a source and is community-contributed; it does not change the official status or rating above.
No arguments yet
Be the first to weigh in. Every argument cites a source and is reviewed before it publishes. Create an account to add one and help keep this promise honest.
Add a sourced argument
Cite a source for your point. Submissions are held for reviewer approval before they appear.
Sign in or create an account to add an argument.