A surprising vote in the House of Representatives has stirred up Washington — and it’s not the usual partisan divide. This week, a handful of Democrats crossed party lines to support two Republican-led bills cracking down on so-called “sanctuary cities,” jurisdictions that limit cooperation with federal immigration enforcement. The move has sparked debate about immigration policy, political strategy, and what it means for trust in our government. Let’s unpack what happened, why it matters, and what it tells us about the state of American democracy.
The bills, passed on June 5 and 6, 2025, aim to withhold federal resources from cities that shelter undocumented immigrants. One cuts Small Business Administration (SBA) services, while the other bans SBA loans for people in the U.S. illegally. It’s a bold step — and a politically charged one. So why did some Democrats break ranks? And what does this mean for the bigger picture?
What Are Sanctuary Cities, Anyway?
First, a quick primer. Sanctuary cities — think places like New York, Chicago, or San Francisco — have policies that limit how much local police work with Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE). They might refuse to honor ICE detainer requests or restrict sharing information about undocumented residents. Supporters say these policies protect immigrant communities and let local law enforcement focus on local crimes. Critics, like House Majority Whip Tom Emmer, argue they “prioritize illegal aliens” and undermine federal law.
This isn’t a new fight. Immigration has been a hot-button issue for years, especially since it helped fuel Republican victories in the 2024 elections. But seeing Democrats join the GOP on this is a twist worth exploring.
The Vote: Who Broke Ranks?
On Thursday, the House passed the first bill, withdrawing SBA services from sanctuary jurisdictions, by a vote of 211 to 199. Five Democrats — Reps. Henry Cuellar (Texas), Laura Gillen (New York), Don Davis (North Carolina), Jared Golden (Maine), and Marie Gluesenkamp Perez (Washington) — voted with Republicans. The next day, a second bill banning SBA loans for undocumented individuals passed with eight Democrats on board, including the same five plus three others.
These aren’t random names. Many, like Cuellar and Golden, represent swing districts where immigration is a top voter concern. Their votes suggest a calculation: align with tougher enforcement to appeal to constituents, even if it means bucking party leadership. House Democratic leaders, including Minority Leader Hakeem Jeffries, didn’t whip votes against the bills, leaving room for this crossover.aclu sanctuary cities
Why Did They Do It?
Immigration is a political lightning rod, and 2024 showed it’s a winning issue for Republicans. The GOP’s messaging — tying sanctuary cities to crime and lax borders — resonates in competitive districts. For Democrats like Gillen or Davis, supporting these bills might be a way to neutralize GOP attack ads come 2026. As Rep. Darren Soto (D-Fla.) put it, lawmakers often “pick and choose” based on what their districts believe.
But it’s not just politics. Some Democrats genuinely share concerns about sanctuary policies. Cuellar, a longtime moderate, has criticized lax enforcement in border states like Texas. Others might see the bills as narrow enough — targeting SBA resources, not broader funding — to support without alienating their base.
Still, not everyone’s on board. Progressive groups like the ACLU call the bills a “test case” for Democrats to resist, warning they could erode trust with immigrant communities. Naureen Shah of the ACLU said Democrats must “hold together” to protect local policies.
What The Supremacy Clause Says – And The Tenth Amendmend Catch
This debate isn’t just about immigration — it’s about federal power versus local control. The Constitution’s Supremacy Clause (Article VI, Clause 2) says federal law trumps state or local policies. Republicans argue sanctuary cities defy this by obstructing ICE. The bills lean on Congress’s spending power (Article I, Section 8) to incentivize compliance, much like past laws tied federal funds to state drinking ages.
But there’s a catch. The Tenth Amendment reserves powers to states and localities, and courts have upheld sanctuary policies as legal, provided they don’t actively block federal enforcement. A 2017 ruling by Judge William Orrick blocked Trump’s attempt to cut sanctuary city funding, citing separation of powers. If these new bills face legal challenges, they’ll test how far Congress can go in punishing local governments.
A Familiar Divide of Ethics vs. Legality
Even if the bills are legal, are they ethical? Supporters, like Rep. Brad Finstad (R-Minn.), say they’re about accountability: cities shouldn’t get federal dollars while flouting federal law. Critics, including immigrant advocates, argue they punish communities that prioritize safety and inclusion. It’s that age-old question: just because you *can* do something, does it mean you *should*?
This divide matters because it erodes trust. When local governments and federal authorities clash, citizens — especially in immigrant communities — feel caught in the middle. If sanctuary cities lose resources, it could strain local budgets, affecting everyone, not just undocumented residents.
What’s at Stake for Democracy?
At its core, this story is about how we govern ourselves. Immigration policy tests our values: rule of law, compassion, federal authority, local autonomy. When Democrats join Republicans, it shows the issue isn’t black-and-white — but it also risks deepening partisan divides if voters see it as betrayal or pandering.
The bigger question is trust. If citizens feel their leaders are playing politics with immigration — whether it’s GOP fearmongering or Democratic waffling — faith in democracy takes a hit. That’s why moments like this matter, even if they seem like just another vote in Congress.
Here are some questions to chew on:
- Can Congress balance federal authority with local rights without overreaching?
- Are these bills about enforcement or political posturing?
- How do we rebuild trust when immigration divides us?
Looking Ahead
These bills still need Senate approval, and with a 60-vote threshold, their fate is uncertain. Democrats in competitive Senate races, like Sens. Sherrod Brown or Jon Tester, have distanced themselves from sanctuary policies in the past, so more crossover isn’t impossible. But progressive pushback and potential lawsuits could stall things.
For now, this vote is a reminder: immigration isn’t just a policy debate; it’s a test of who we are. It’s about finding a way to uphold the law, protect communities, and keep the public’s trust — no easy task in a polarized world.
- Elkind, Elizabeth. “Handful of House Democrats join Republicans in sanctuary city crackdown.” Fox News, June 6, 2025.
- DeWitt, Ethan. “House Democrats join Republicans in passing anti-sanctuary city bill, pointing to compromise.” New Hampshire Bulletin, February 7, 2025.
- Shaw, Adam. “House Republicans move to use DHS funding bill to ramp up immigration enforcement, hit sanctuary cities.” Fox News, September 10, 2023.