(COLUMBUS, OHIO) Columbus, Ohio remains on the federal radar as a “sanctuary jurisdiction,” with the Department of Homeland Security saying the city and Franklin County have limited cooperation with federal immigration enforcement, even as local leaders reject the label and fight funding cuts in court. The clash intensified this week as Attorney General Pam Bondi set a one-week response deadline for city leaders to explain their policies or face legal action.
DHS listing and immediate response
On May 30, 2025, the Department of Homeland Security publicly listed Columbus, along with Cincinnati, Lorain County, and Warren County, as jurisdictions that limit cooperation with federal immigration authorities. DHS cited:
- alleged non-compliance with detainer requests
- local information-sharing limits
- local protections for undocumented residents
Columbus officials say the city has never declared itself a sanctuary city, and that its policies follow the law and protect community trust.
The list quickly became a political flashpoint. Published in late May, it was removed from the DHS website in early June after criticism about accuracy and methodology. DHS says the list is under constant review and subject to updates, a process that has left city officials, service providers, and immigrant families unsure about which jurisdictions remain flagged at any given moment.
Lawsuit and funding fight
On July 8, 2025, Columbus joined a coalition of 50 cities in a lawsuit filed in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California. The suit challenges the Trump administration’s decision to withhold more than $10 million in grants, arguing the cuts are unlawful and based on a mischaracterization of local policies.
City Attorney Zach Klein says Columbus is being targeted even though it never adopted a formal sanctuary resolution.
Attorney General Pam Bondi has since stepped up federal pressure. On August 14, 2025, she sent demand letters to 32 mayors and governors, including Columbus, warning of potential civil and criminal consequences if jurisdictions do not meet federal demands. Her February 2025 memo to the Department of Justice directed components to identify and restrict funding to organizations and jurisdictions that support undocumented immigrants.
DHS Secretary Kristi Noem framed the administration’s stance bluntly:
“These sanctuary city politicians are endangering Americans and our law enforcement in order to protect violent criminal illegal aliens… Sanctuary politicians are on notice: comply with federal law.”
Supporters of the federal approach argue local limits on cooperation put the public at risk and conflict with national immigration enforcement.
Federal actions, timelines, and stakes
Federal funding is squarely at stake. DHS and DOJ actions could halt or claw back grants for public safety, housing, and other programs—dollars that city leaders say support services for all residents.
Columbus is seeking to:
- Restore funds through the multi-city lawsuit.
- Block future restrictions linked to the sanctuary tag.
The formal process has moved quickly:
- Jurisdictions receive DHS notifications outlining alleged failures to meet federal statutes.
- These are followed by letters from DOJ.
- Bondi’s latest letters give leaders one week from August 14, 2025 to respond or face lawsuits and potentially criminal referrals.
For Columbus, that timeline forces rapid decisions on legal strategy, communications with residents, and contingency planning for grant-dependent programs.
According to analysis by VisaVerge.com, the debate often turns on labels versus outcomes: whether a jurisdiction’s policies are called “sanctuary” matters less than whether those policies trigger federal penalties or court orders. In Columbus, the court fight centers on whether the government can condition grants on local policing choices and records-sharing rules.
Local policy and practical impacts
Columbus’s 2017 policy, still in place, includes:
- City staff do not deny services based on birthplace.
- City staff do not arrest people solely because of immigration status.
That approach is supported by many community groups and some law enforcement leaders who say trust helps solve crimes. Critics argue it sends the wrong signal and can allow people with criminal records to avoid federal detection.
Practical effects of the uncertainty include:
- Service providers worry about planning if funds stop mid-year.
- Families with mixed immigration status may avoid reporting crimes or seeking help if they fear local records could flow to federal databases.
- Employers and universities question whether local partnerships tied to federal money will be delayed or canceled if the sanctuary label sticks.
City leaders want clarity from Washington on what compliance looks like. Without a uniform definition, cities face a moving target. The DHS list’s publication, criticism, and removal—and DHS’s promise to keep updating it—raise the risk that a city could be labeled, de-labeled, and labeled again within weeks. City attorneys say that instability makes long-term planning difficult.
Supporters of federal action counter that localities can end the fight by meeting clear conditions tied to existing statutes and federal information-sharing protocols. They argue Congress has the power of the purse and DOJ can defend conditions that support public safety. Critics reply that Congress did not authorize these new conditions and that tying broad grants to immigration demands exceeds executive authority.
Legal questions and possible outcomes
The multi-city lawsuit could answer several key legal questions:
- Can the federal government condition general grants on cooperation with immigration enforcement?
- How specific must the conditions be?
- Can the executive branch impose new terms without action by Congress?
Cities including Columbus argue the cuts are unlawful and that the term “sanctuary jurisdiction” is being used too broadly.
Meanwhile, DHS Secretary Noem’s public warnings and Bondi’s threat of criminal referrals raise the stakes. No criminal charges have been filed, but the letters signal prosecutors could test criminal theories against public officials or entities seen as facilitating violations of federal law. City lawyers say their policies comply with existing statutes and reflect local priorities set by voters.
Where to find updates
Residents and interested parties can monitor official sources:
- Department of Homeland Security: https://www.dhs.gov/
- U.S. District Court, Northern District of California docket (for filings in the multi-city case)
- Columbus Mayor’s Office contact: (614) 645-7671
- DHS main line: (202) 282-8000
- DOJ main line: (202) 514-2000
Important: As of August 15, 2025, Columbus remains listed by DHS as a sanctuary jurisdiction, even as the city contests that label and its financial consequences. The lawsuit against the administration of President Trump, pending DOJ responses, and the possibility of more DHS list updates leave the city—and its immigrant communities—in a holding pattern that could shift quickly with the next court order or federal notice.
This Article in a Nutshell
Columbus fights a federal “sanctuary” label after DHS listed it May 30, 2025. The city joined fifty others suing to recover over ten million dollars in withheld grants. Attorney General Pam Bondi set a one-week August 14 deadline, intensifying legal and funding stakes for local services and immigrant trust.
