Gregory Bovino Leads California Immigration Crackdown Under Trump Administration

(SACRAMENTO) Gregory Bovino, the Chief Patrol Agent for the U.S. Border Patrol’s El Centro sector, has moved a hard-edged federal immigration campaign from Southern California into the state capital, with stepped-up worksite sweeps and public-space detentions across Sacramento in July and August 2025. The surge follows President Trump’s 2025 enforcement agenda and a major new funding law that has turbocharged deportation operations in California, drawing sharp rebukes from state leaders and a rapid series of lawsuits.

In public remarks, Bovino declared, “There is no sanctuary city. Sacramento is not a sanctuary city. The state of California is not a sanctuary state. There is no sanctuary anywhere. We’re here to stay.” His words, and the methods his teams have used, now sit at the center of a widening fight over where federal power ends and state protections begin.

Key operations and outcomes

On July 17, 2025, agents led by Gregory Bovino staged a high-profile raid at a Home Depot in Sacramento, signaling that operations would no longer be limited to border counties or traditional southern hotspots.

In the weeks that followed:
– Agents mounted “roving patrols” and aggressive sweeps at car washes, construction sites, and big-box stores.
– Detainees were mostly Latino men, many long-time California residents.
– Although officials claim teams focus on people with criminal records, internal tallies from one sweep showed only 1 of 78 people arrested had any prior record—fueling legal claims of overreach and constitutional violations.

Court rulings and legal pushback

A turning point came on August 1, 2025, when a federal judge in Los Angeles temporarily paused warrantless sweeps in the Central District after civil rights groups argued roving stops and broad detentions lacked reasonable suspicion or probable cause.

After that order:
– Border Patrol shifted some operations to the Eastern District, including Sacramento, despite a separate earlier order limiting warrantless raids there.
– Civil rights groups—such as the ACLU and United Farm Workers—won preliminary injunctions that:
– Restrict stops without reasonable suspicion or probable cause.
– Require detailed documentation of each stop.
– A federal appeals court rejected the Department of Homeland Security’s bid to pause those restrictions, keeping them in place while cases move forward.

The back-and-forth has not slowed new directives from Washington, where executive actions and funding are reshaping enforcement.

Federal policy and funding context

Since President Trump returned to office in January 2025, the administration has issued executive orders to:
– Marshal resources for border enforcement,
– Limit asylum access, and
– Expand deportation operations, with California as a key focus.

On July 7, 2025, the “One Big Beautiful Bill Act” (H.R.1) became law, steering more than $170 billion into immigration and border enforcement. That funding is already enabling ICE and Border Patrol to:
– Expand staffing,
– Widen detention capacity, and
– Stage operations deeper inside California’s interior.

As of May 2025:
– ICE held 3,199 people in detention across California.
– Tens of thousands more were on electronic monitoring.
These numbers are expected to rise under the new funding law and the administration’s stated goal of larger-scale removals.

State response and sanctuary framework

State officials say federal agents are bypassing SB 54—California’s sanctuary framework—by running independent operations that avoid local police cooperation.

Actions and reactions:
– Governor Gavin Newsom and Attorney General Rob Bonta condemned the approach and backed lawsuits to constrain federal tactics.
– State lawyers publish know-your-rights materials advising residents to:
– Refuse consent to searches,
– Ask if they are free to leave,
– Keep silent until speaking with a lawyer,
– Not open the door without a judicial warrant.

“Do not sign any document without reviewing it with a lawyer,” state guidance emphasizes.

Human impact and community effects

Immediate impacts on families and communities include:
– Abrupt family separations after workplace and roadside arrests.
– Parents skipping medical appointments and school events.
– Workers leaving jobs or going off the books across agriculture, construction, hospitality, and parts of the tech sector.
– Legal aid groups reporting overwhelmed call lines and capacity limits.

System pressures:
– Immigration courts remain capped at about 800 judges while the national case backlog tops 2 million.
– Legal providers say the current wave is pushing them beyond capacity.

Analysis from VisaVerge.com suggests interior arrests in California, including in places far from the border like Sacramento, represent one of the most aggressive pushes in decades.

Evidence, documentation, and potential legal paths

Federal officials argue operations are lawful when grounded in immigration authority and national security needs, and that agents may conduct limited stops if they observe specific indicators.

After court intervention:
– Federal agencies told judges they would retrain agents on constitutional standards and improve recordkeeping.
– Advocates counter that the problem is tactics—wide-net stops that conflict with Fourth Amendment protections.

Legal developments to watch:
– Preliminary injunctions require agents to document each stop in detail.
– If court-ordered logs show many long-time residents with no criminal history, litigation could expand beyond Fourth Amendment claims to include equal protection and due process issues.

Impact on employers and the broader economy

Workplaces report notable disruptions:
– Crews arriving late or failing to show after sweep days (agriculture, construction, hospitality).
– Potential gaps in seasonal staffing heading into fall and winter.
– Tech firms concerned about DACA and TPS holders being detained despite documented work authorization.

Economic risks highlighted:
– Possible labor shortages during harvest and building projects,
– Reduced tax revenue if workers exit the formal labor market,
– Difficulty planning growth amid uncertainty.

Racial and civil-rights concerns

Civil rights groups argue sweeps disproportionately affect Latino communities because many operations focus on outdoor work sites and parking lots near discount stores and home-improvement retailers.

Legal claims and injunctions emphasize:
– Stops based on race or ethnicity are unconstitutional.
– Documentation requirements aim to reveal whether stops were based on behavior or on appearance/location.
– If logs show patterns tied to race, courts may impose tighter restraints or extend bans on warrantless sweeps.

Practical guidance: what people should do now

For families and workers in Sacramento and across California, legal advocates recommend simple, practical steps:

Immediate actions if approached by agents:
1. Say: “I’m choosing to remain silent. I’d like to speak to a lawyer.”
2. Ask: “Am I free to leave?” If the answer is yes, you may walk away calmly.
3. Say: “I do not consent to a search,” if agents request to search a bag, home, or car.
4. Do not open the door to agents who do not have a judicial warrant with a judge’s signature and correct address.
5. Do not sign any document without reviewing it with a lawyer.

Additional preparedness:
– Carry a simple card with your rights and a lawyer’s phone number.
– Set up a family plan so someone can pick up children if a caregiver is detained.
– Gather key documents if you have prior orders of removal or pending cases.

Legal help:
– Immediate contact with an immigration attorney is the best way to protect rights.
– The state increased funding for public defense programs for immigrants, but slots fill fast—call multiple organizations if necessary.

Community and employer steps:
– Employers can share neutral notices about rights without asking about anyone’s status.
– Schools, clinics, and places of worship can clarify who may enter sites and under what conditions.
– Community centers can host plain-language workshops on what to do if agents approach.

Ongoing legal battle and what’s next

Even as litigation continues, federal teams show no sign of backing away from interior operations. Bovino’s vow—“We’re here to stay. We’re not going anywhere.”—has become a guiding statement for Border Patrol units rotating through Sacramento and beyond.

What to expect:
– More court rulings later this year that could set clearer limits on roving patrols and who can be stopped near worksites and stores.
– Potential adjustments in federal tactics depending on judicial outcomes: more targeted arrests or closer coordination with federal prosecutors if restraints harden, or broader sweeps if restraints are lifted.
– Continued tension between federal enforcement aims (aided by H.R.1’s $170 billion) and California’s sanctuary laws and court-ordered protections.

Where to find resources

For plain-language guidance and official updates, the California Attorney General’s Office maintains know-your-rights materials, legal contacts, and community resources here: California Attorney General’s immigration resources.

State officials say they will update these pages as court rulings and federal directives evolve. Community groups encourage sharing printed materials with family members who may lack steady internet access.

Summary of the situation

• Federal interior operations under Gregory Bovino’s El Centro sector have expanded into Sacramento and other interior parts of California, backed by new federal funding and White House enforcement priorities.
• Courts have issued injunctions limiting warrantless roving sweeps and requiring detailed documentation, but legal battles are ongoing across federal districts.
• The enforcement surge has produced significant human and economic impacts—disrupting families, workplaces, and community trust—while legal advocates press claims of constitutional and civil-rights violations.
• The months ahead will likely determine how broadly federal agents may operate in sanctuary states and how courts will enforce constitutional safeguards in the field.