States and cities defying federal immigration enforcement now face a financial gut punch. Transportation Secretary Sean Duffy announced on June 16, 2025, that non-compliant jurisdictions will lose Department of Transportation funding.
The Daily Wire reported that President Donald Trump has ordered ICE to execute the largest deportation program in U.S. history, targeting cities like Los Angeles, Chicago, and New York, where he claims millions of unauthorized migrants reside.
Duffy’s policy also penalizes cities that fail to protect transportation infrastructure from rioters. It’s a bold escalation, linking federal funds to local law enforcement priorities.
“The USDOT will NOT fund rogue state actors who refuse to cooperate with federal immigration enforcement,” Duffy declared.
His words drip with resolve, but critics argue it’s a coercive overreach, strong-arming states into aligning with Trump’s agenda. The policy’s clarity leaves little room for negotiation: comply or lose out.
Trump’s deportation directive has sparked chaos in major cities. In Los Angeles, anti-ICE riots have raged for over a week, with looters targeting stores and rioters torching Waymo robotaxis. Federal officers have faced direct attacks, prompting Trump to deploy the Marines and National Guard to safeguard agents and federal buildings.
Los Angeles Mayor Karen Bass called the National Guard deployment unacceptable, accusing Trump of “manufacturing a crisis.” “Enough is enough. Stop the raids,” she demanded. Her defiance reflects a broader progressive pushback, but it risks painting her city as a lawless outlier.
Bass’s claim that the policy is “illegal, divisive” ignores the federal government’s constitutional authority over immigration. Her rhetoric, while passionate, sidesteps the reality that unchecked riots threaten public safety and infrastructure. It’s a classic case of local leaders prioritizing optics over order.
In Seattle, masked protesters surrounded an ICE field office last week, trapping agents and detained migrants inside. After agents escaped with detainees, the crowd turned on nearby police vehicles, escalating tensions. The scene underscores the volatility of anti-ICE sentiment in progressive strongholds.
Portland’s “No Kings” protest on Saturday devolved into a full-blown riot at an ICE facility. Demonstrators hurled fireworks, smoke grenades, and rocks at federal officers, as reported by The Daily Caller. Such aggression only fuels the administration’s argument that non-cooperation breeds chaos.
“And to cities that stand by while rioters destroy transportation infrastructure — don’t expect a red cent either,” Duffy warned. His ultimatum ties funding to public safety, a move that resonates with Americans tired of urban disorder. Yet, it risks alienating cities already skeptical of federal overreach.
Trump’s directive emphasizes “remigration” of unauthorized migrants to their countries of origin. He’s vowed to put “every resource possible” behind the effort, aiming to “reverse the tide of Mass Destruction Migration.” The language is dramatic, but it rallies his base, who see unchecked immigration as a strain on national resources.
“Our Federal Government will continue to be focused on the REMIGRATION of Aliens to the places from where they came,” Trump stated. The term “remigration” is a rhetorical flourish, but it signals an uncompromising stance. Critics argue it oversimplifies a complex issue, ignoring economic and humanitarian realities.
Bass’s assertion that Trump’s actions “fly in the face of everything we stand for in Los Angeles” highlights a cultural divide. Her vision of inclusivity clashes with the administration’s focus on enforcement. It’s a standoff where neither side seems willing to budge.
Duffy’s policy uses transportation funding as a cudgel to enforce compliance. States and cities reliant on federal dollars for roads, bridges, and transit now face a stark choice: align with ICE or risk fiscal pain. It’s a savvy, if controversial, tactic to bend local governments to the administration’s will.
The policy’s broader implications are troubling for progressive mayors. By tying infrastructure to immigration enforcement, the administration could reshape urban priorities, forcing cities to prioritize federal mandates over local values. It’s a power play that could redefine federal-state relations.
While riots and protests dominate headlines, the real story is the administration’s willingness to wield financial leverage to achieve its goals. Duffy and Trump are betting that the threat of lost funding will quell dissent and restore order. Whether it works depends on how fiercely cities like Los Angeles fight back.
