White House Chaos Continues as Trump Claims “Absolute Legal Right” on Sanctuary Cities Proposal

Trump tweets about sanctuary cities and his staff scrambles to work out what’s happening—again.

Pete Marovich/CNP/ZUMA Wire

For indispensable reporting on the coronavirus crisis, the election, and more, subscribe to the Mother Jones Daily newsletter.

In a late night tweet on Saturday, President Donald Trump added fuel to his latest immigration row, declaring the United States had “absolute legal right” to send migrants detained at the border to various sanctuary cities throughout the country. The president also demanded that California, a heavily blue-leaning state he has publicly feuded with, bear the supposed burdens of taking in released migrants.

The tweet appeared to be further evidence that the much-maligned proposal was an effort by Trump to exact revenge on cities that have resisted his federal immigration policies. Ironically, it’s that overt political posturing that experts have pointed to as one of the primary reasons the plan would likely violate federal law.

The plan, which had been floated but ultimately scrapped last year, was first reported this week. But one day after administration officials told multiple news outlets that the plan was never seriously under consideration—with many acknowledging how politically explosive it would be— Trump said on Twitter that the plan was still “strongly” under consideration.

The disconnect appears to have carried over into the weekend. On Sunday, when asked about the proposal during an appearance on ABC News, White House press secretary Sarah Huckabee Sanders claimed that the administration was currently exploring viable ways to carry out the plan—a significant departure from the president’s “absolute legal right” claim just hours before.

Sanders also did not seem to be on the same page about Trump’s earlier claim that a New York Times report detailing the sanctuary cities plan, along with Trump’s alleged offers to pardon administration officials if they closed the southern border, was inaccurate, and that the paper had never reached out for confirmation. The Times has since refuted the accusation, with reporter Maggie Haberman saying that they had emailed several times for comment on the report.

“I’m not sure about his particular story,” Sanders told ABC’s George Stephanopoulos. “I’d have to look back to see what story they’re talking about.”

The confusing maneuvers over immigration policy are occurring in something of a power vacuum as a result of Trump reportedly clearing house at the Department of Homeland Security. 

DOES IT FEEL LIKE POLITICS IS AT A BREAKING POINT?

Headshot of Editor in Chief of Mother Jones, Clara Jeffery

It sure feels that way to me, and here at Mother Jones, we’ve been thinking a lot about what journalism needs to do differently, and how we can have the biggest impact.

We kept coming back to one word: corruption. Democracy and the rule of law being undermined by those with wealth and power for their own gain. So we're launching an ambitious Mother Jones Corruption Project to do deep, time-intensive reporting on systemic corruption, and asking the MoJo community to help crowdfund it.

We aim to hire, build a team, and give them the time and space needed to understand how we got here and how we might get out. We want to dig into the forces and decisions that have allowed massive conflicts of interest, influence peddling, and win-at-all-costs politics to flourish.

It's unlike anything we've done, and we have seed funding to get started, but we're looking to raise $500,000 from readers by July when we'll be making key budgeting decisions—and the more resources we have by then, the deeper we can dig. If our plan sounds good to you, please help kickstart it with a tax-deductible donation today.

Thanks for reading—whether or not you can pitch in today, or ever, I'm glad you're with us.

Signed by Clara Jeffery

Clara Jeffery, Editor-in-Chief

payment methods

We Recommend

Latest