The Trump administration is dramatically increasing pressure on state governments to cooperate with federal immigration enforcement, warning that states could lose billions of dollars in federal welfare funding if their agencies fail to report immigrants they know are living in the United States without legal status. The move represents another significant expansion of President Donald Trump’s broader immigration crackdown and is likely to trigger new legal battles between Washington and states that limit cooperation with federal immigration authorities.
The new policy comes from the Justice Department’s Office of Legal Counsel, which issued a legal opinion concluding that states participating in two major federal welfare programs must require all state agencies—not simply welfare offices—to report people known to be unlawfully present in the country to the Department of Homeland Security.
The programs involved are Temporary Assistance for Needy Families, or TANF, and Supplemental Security Income, or SSI. Every state, the District of Columbia and several U.S. territories participate in them. Federal TANF grants exceed $16 billion annually, while SSI benefits exceed $60 billion.
Importantly, immigrants without legal status are generally not eligible to receive benefits through either program. The controversy instead concerns whether accepting federal money for those programs gives Washington the authority to require information-sharing across an entire state government.
The Justice Department argues that it does.
The new interpretation reverses a 1998 Clinton administration legal opinion. Under that earlier policy, the reporting obligation applied primarily to the particular state agencies responsible for administering TANF and SSI.
Deputy Assistant Attorney General Joshua Craddock, who authored the new opinion, concluded that the previous interpretation incorrectly defined the word “state” too narrowly. Under the Trump administration’s reading of the 1996 welfare-reform law, when a state accepts TANF or SSI funding, the reporting requirement applies across the state government.
That could significantly expand the amount of information available to federal immigration authorities.
At least 19 states and Washington, D.C., allow immigrants without lawful status to obtain driver’s licenses, while public universities and other state institutions may also possess information about immigration status. Under the Justice Department’s interpretation, agencies far removed from welfare administration could potentially become part of the federal government’s immigration-information network.
The Justice Department says states will not be punished retroactively for following the previous interpretation. However, federal agencies can now revise future grant agreements and compliance requirements, and states refusing to cooperate could potentially lose federal funding.
The opinion itself is not a new federal law. However, Office of Legal Counsel opinions are generally binding on executive-branch agencies, meaning federal departments can begin implementing the interpretation unless courts intervene.
Legal challenges are widely expected.
Courts have previously restricted some Trump administration attempts to force state and local governments to share immigration information or cooperate with federal enforcement. Judges have also examined whether the federal government can condition unrelated funding on compliance with immigration policies.
The dispute is particularly important for so-called sanctuary jurisdictions, where state or local policies limit cooperation with federal immigration authorities. The Justice Department has already identified states including California, New York, Illinois, Colorado, Oregon and Washington among jurisdictions it says obstruct federal immigration enforcement.
The administration argues that the new interpretation simply enforces a requirement Congress established decades ago.
Assistant Attorney General T. Elliot Gaiser said states accepting federal welfare funding must comply with the reporting obligations attached to those programs. Justice Department officials argue that federal assistance intended for vulnerable Americans should reinforce rather than undermine immigration law.
Critics are likely to argue that the policy attempts to transform state governments into extensions of federal immigration enforcement and could discourage immigrant families—including families containing U.S. citizens or people with lawful status—from interacting with government institutions.
The consequences could therefore extend well beyond immigration enforcement itself.
States now face a potentially difficult choice: expand cooperation with federal immigration authorities or risk a confrontation with Washington over funding supporting some of America’s most vulnerable residents.
The policy represents another major test of how far the federal government can use its financial power to influence state immigration policies. With tens of billions of dollars potentially involved, the dispute is almost certain to move from federal agencies into the courts—where judges may ultimately determine whether Washington can attach such sweeping immigration-reporting requirements to crucial federal assistance.
