AG Pam Bondi Demands Sanctuary States and Cities Comply With Trump Immigration Policies

Attorney General Pam Bondi escalated her campaign against sanctuary states and cities in August 2025, urging local leaders nationwide to fall in line with President Trump’s immigration enforcement agenda. In the most direct move yet, Bondi asserted federal control over the District of Columbia (D.C.) police, ordering the Metropolitan Police Department (MPD) to reverse policies that limited cooperation with federal immigration agents. The White House backed the action, saying D.C.’s sanctuary stance was “officially ENDED” under federal authority.

Bondi’s office sent a formal letter to officials in sanctuary states and cities, criticizing policies that limit local help to federal immigration officers. The letter demanded full cooperation to increase arrests and deportations of people without legal status, and tied the push to broader crime-fighting goals. According to analysis by VisaVerge.com, the letter signals a coordinated strategy to pressure local leaders while asserting federal oversight of police practices in key jurisdictions.

Federal order and local pushback

On August 14, 2025, Bondi issued an order naming Drug Enforcement Administration chief Terrence Cole as emergency police commissioner for D.C., placing him above the MPD chief and requiring federal approval for new directives. She also commanded the MPD to suspend sanctuary rules that had restricted work with immigration agents. The department was told to enforce District laws tied to unlawful occupancy and to fully support federal operations.

D.C. leaders responded quickly. Mayor Muriel Bowser opposed the move, and D.C. Attorney General Brian Schwalb called the order “unlawful,” arguing that the Home Rule Act does not let the federal government remove or replace MPD leadership or change the chain of command. Schwalb said local police are not legally required to follow Bondi’s directives and warned that federal overreach could face immediate legal challenge. Sanctuary advocates echoed that view, saying the order threatens local control and could damage trust between police and immigrant communities.

The White House framed the action as a public safety step, linking sanctuary limits to higher crime and unauthorized migration. Officials cast D.C. as a test case for tougher enforcement in jurisdictions that restrict cooperation with immigration authorities.

Key takeaway: The move creates a direct clash between federal enforcement priorities and local control in the nation’s capital, with immediate legal and community consequences.

Policy context and Bondi’s background

Bondi’s stance builds on her long record as Florida’s attorney general from 2011 to 2019, when she supported Trump-era measures such as the travel ban, fought against DACA protections, and backed strict state-level enforcement policies, including Arizona’s “show me your papers” approach. Her appointment as U.S. Attorney General in early 2025 signaled a return to the hard line that marked the first Trump term, with a heavier focus on direct federal involvement where local officials resist.

Sanctuary policies vary, but most:

• Limit how local police share information with federal immigration officers.
• Restrict holding people on civil immigration requests without a judicial warrant.

Supporters of sanctuary policies say they:

• Help victims and witnesses report crimes without fear.
• Keep local police focused on community safety.

Critics, now led by Bondi, argue sanctuary policies:

• Block lawful federal work.
• Let people with criminal records avoid removal.

Bondi’s letter told sanctuary states and cities to cooperate with immigration enforcement, calling friction between local and federal agencies unsafe and unacceptable. It singled out the District of Columbia (D.C.), where she ordered a practical shift that could affect daily policing and immigrant families.

What changes on the ground — the step-by-step process for D.C.

Here is the process Bondi outlined for D.C.:

1. Federal appointment of emergency police commissioner
   • DEA Administrator Terrence Cole now oversees MPD operations.
2. Rescission of sanctuary orders
   • MPD must suspend rules that limit cooperation with federal immigration agents.
3. Mandated enforcement
   • MPD is directed to enforce District laws related to unlawful occupancy and to cooperate in federal immigration actions.
4. Federal review of MPD directives
   • New MPD policies require approval from Commissioner Cole.

Supporters in the federal government view this structure as a way to speed up removals and remove barriers they say were created by local politics. Local officials warn it could:

• Pull officers away from community policing.
• Force encounters that make immigrant families more afraid to report crime, send kids to school, or seek medical care.

Community groups say they are preparing “know your rights” sessions and advising residents to:

• Carry identification.
• Avoid risky encounters.
• Seek legal help if stopped.

Legal questions and the unique status of D.C.

Legal experts note that D.C. has a unique status: it is not a state, but it has its own elected leadership and police. That special setup has produced long fights over who controls the city’s budget, criminal code, and agency heads.

Bondi’s order puts those tensions into the immigration arena, raising questions about whether courts will accept federal command of local policing functions in the nation’s capital. Lawsuits are expected to test the limits of federal authority under the Home Rule Act and related statutes.

Across the country, sanctuary states and cities are watching the D.C. case closely. Bondi’s letter suggests similar steps could roll out elsewhere if local leaders refuse to change their policies. Potential federal actions might include:

• Tying federal grants to cooperation benchmarks.
• Creating federal oversight roles in other police departments.

VisaVerge.com reports that the administration views a series of quick actions and legal tests as the fastest way to force clear rules about the balance of power.

Practical concerns for residents and institutions

For residents in D.C. and other sanctuary areas, immediate questions include:

• Will police ask about immigration status during routine stops?
• How will local jails handle requests from federal agents?

City officials say existing District laws still guide day-to-day work and that officers should not change practices unless required by law. Bondi’s team counters that her order requires compliance now and that federal supervisors will review MPD decisions to ensure follow-through.

Businesses, schools, and hospitals also face new uncertainty:

• Employers could see more identity checks tied to workplace enforcement.
• Schools and clinics worry families may pull back from basic services.
• Faith leaders and nonprofits plan to increase outreach so residents know where to seek help, with or without legal status.

The Justice Department says the actions target people who break the law and that officers will focus on public safety threats. More information on federal enforcement policy is available from the U.S. Department of Justice at https://www.justice.gov/. Local leaders respond that broad cooperation orders often sweep in people with minor records or no records at all, raising the risk of family separations.

What’s at stake

As the legal and political fight intensifies, one point is clear: Bondi has made D.C. the front line.

• If courts uphold her approach, sanctuary states and cities may face direct federal oversight of key police functions.
• If courts block it, local control over immigration-related policing will gain a strong shield, limiting how far Washington can intrude into city halls and precincts.

Final note: The dispute will likely be resolved in courtrooms as much as in city meeting rooms, and its outcome will shape the balance of federal and local power on immigration enforcement for years to come.