Federal housing funds weaponized against sanctuary cities—residents pay the price
S. 2060 — No Community Development Block Grants for Sanctuary Cities Act · Filed by Bill Hagerty (R-TN) · 1 cosponsor · Introduced Jun 12, 2025 · Referred to committee
Your members of Congress
Enter a ZIP to see where your representative and both senators stood on this bill.
Looked up on this device — your ZIP is never stored on our servers.
What it does
This bill amends the Housing and Community Development Act of 1974 to prohibit states and cities designated as 'sanctuary jurisdictions' from receiving federal Community Development Block Grants (CDBG). A jurisdiction is defined as a sanctuary jurisdiction if it has policies restricting the sharing of immigration status information with federal immigration authorities or compliance with federal immigration detainers, with an exception for victims and witnesses to crimes.
Why we flagged it
The bill's operative mechanism is not community development policy but rather a conditional eligibility rule that weaponizes federal housing and infrastructure grants as leverage in immigration enforcement disputes. It uses CDBG as a coercive tool rather than as a housing/development program.
What the text implies
- The bill creates a federal-level enforcement mechanism for immigration policy by making it a condition of receiving unrelated federal funding. A jurisdiction's housing and infrastructure needs become hostage to its immigration enforcement posture.
- The definition of 'sanctuary jurisdiction' is broad and captures policies protecting crime victims and witnesses from immigration enforcement—the exception in subparagraph (B) is narrow and may not shield jurisdictions with victim-protection ordinances from the funding ban.
The full analysis lists 5 implications of this text.
Who it affects
The bill withholds federal community development funding from jurisdictions based on their immigration enforcement policies, not on the quality or need for community development. Low-income residents in sanctuary jurisdictions—who depend on CDBG for housing, infrastructure, and services—bear the cost of a federal-state immigration policy dispute in which they have no voice.