AG Bondi  sent letters dated August 13, 2025, to officials in 35 jurisdictions identified by the Department of Justice as having “sanctuary” policies that limit cooperation with federal immigration enforcement authorities like ICE. These jurisdictions include 12 states 4 counties, and 18 cities.

Bondi letter of August 13, excerpt:

“Individuals operating under the color of law, using their official position to obstruct federal immigration enforcement efforts and facilitating or inducing illegal immigration may be subject to criminal charges. As such, I have instructed that all litigating components of the Department and each U.S. Attorney’s Office shall investigate incidents involving any such potential unlawful conduct and shall, where supported by the evidence, prosecute violations of federal laws.

Response from Oregon Governor Kotek August 19:

“The State of Oregon acknowledges your threat to pursue criminal charges against public officials “using their official position to obstruct federal immigration efforts and facilitating or inducing illegal immigration.” No Oregon public official or law enforcement officer is engaged in any activity to “obstruct” federal immigration efforts. Oregon’s enacted laws are consistent with the Tenth Amendment and anticommandeering rule. The state does not take on the additional expense or burden to perform federal immigration enforcement as it is the job of the federal government.”

.[Oregon law  (ORS 181A.820) prohibits state and local law enforcement from using resources to detect or apprehend individuals whose only violation is being present in the US without legal status. It limits cooperation with federal immigration enforcement unless there’s a judicial warrant or the person has been convicted of certain serious crimes. The law essentially prevents Oregon agencies from enforcing federal immigration law, though there are specific exceptions for serious criminal cases.]

Response from Washington Governor Ferguson August 19:

“….You threaten me, police, officers, state, troopers, sheriffs, judges, and other officials with prison time…..You seek to have Washington State Ben the need to a Trump administration that, day by day, drags us closer to authoritarianism…..I will not be intimidated by you or the president. I will defend or democracy, the rule of law, and the people of my state.

Federal law referred to by Bondi (a selection):

8 U.S.C. § 1373 prohibits state and local governments from restricting communication with federal immigration authorities about an individual’s citizenship or immigration status. Policies that bar local police from sharing such information with ICE may conflict directly with this statute.

18 U.S.C. § 1071 Prohibits knowingly harboring or concealing a person to prevent their discovery and arrest under federal law. Re: cases where jurisdictions decline to honor ICE detainers, release individuals ICE wants to arrest, or otherwise fail to share information. Framed as shielding a person from lawful federal arrest.

Mark Krikorian is executive director of The Center for Immigration Studies and a long-time advocate of restrictive immigration policy.  Here are excerpts from his August 5 interview with the American Conservative Magazine:

Border control and deportations

It’s only been six months, so in that context, [deportation] very successful. The border is dramatically better off than it was in the past. I don’t want to say it’s solved or it’s closed, because there’s always going to be people trying to come across the border. In fact, now they’re trying to come up the coast and then cut inland to avoid the Border Patrol. So they’re always going to be some cat and mouse. But the difference is night and day.

Trump is following through on a whole variety of policies. Not just restarting construction on the wall—which is important, but it’s just one piece of what you need to do. But they’ve come up with a policy that reclassifies all federal lands along the border as military installations.

Most importantly, they’re just not letting people go anymore. That’s the key thing. If you have a pretty good expectation of being released into the country, who cares what color piece of paper they give you?

There’s another challenge in the new illegal immigration area, and that is visa overstays….That’s going to take longer to deal with. They understand it’s a problem, they’re dealing with it, but I still give them a grade of “incomplete” on this, just because it’s a longer-term project.

I expect now you’re going to see way more people detained. If you arrest people, it doesn’t matter if you have nowhere to hold them, because you have to hold them to do the paperwork to deport them. Now they’re going to be able to arrest more people because they can hold more people and hopefully deport more people. So I think you’re going to see a significant increase in both arrests and deportations in the next six months.

So generally, on the illegal immigration thing, I’m pretty bullish. They’ve done a good job. I don’t really have anything I could point out to complain about, other than one little warning sign, which is the president’s talk about “well, maybe we’ll let some farm workers stay”—that kind of stuff. Self-deportation is a key part of what they want to achieve, because you can’t arrest all the illegal aliens. You want to arrest a lot of them and convince a whole lot of others to pack up and go home before they get arrested. So that is the one potential problem. But they haven’t really done anything in that regard yet, so I would probably make their grade an A instead of an A+ because of that.

Cutting back legal immigration

[Trump is] a transitional figure is that the whole next—well, I won’t say the whole, but much of the next cohort of Republican leaders—are real restrictionists. The vice president, DeSantis, Senator Hawley, Senator Cotton, Senator Schmitt, these people actually want legal immigration reduced, not just enforcing the border.

One thing that really encourages me about the new Republican take on immigration is that the vice president has been out front saying that the H-1B program is a total scam…. Congress is just not in a position to pass any immigration bill—but H-1Bs in particular are untouchable, because so many of the Democrats are also beholden to the tech donors.

My top priority is not zero legal immigration, but zero-based budgeting for immigration. A continental nation with a third of a billion people, one that invented modernity, doesn’t actually need any immigration, but there are going to be certain categories of people who have such a compelling case to be let in, that we should let them in anyway.

The deployment of the National Guard, U.S. Army, and other federal law enforcement entities into Washington, D.C., in August 2025 evokes historical instances of military and military-like interventions in urban areas. In this case, the deployment aims to arrest unauthorized persons and maintain a visible presence for tourists and media. The administration links mass deportation to restoring law and order, despite no evidence of deaths, injuries or property damage. I’ve included below snapshots of past deployments that addressed actual law and order breakdowns.

The D.C. deployment escalates the administration’s earlier intervention in Los Angeles, based on similar claims of a law-and-order breakdown. In both instances, arrests have been made without clear reasonable cause. Publicized displays of force, such as the operation in Los Angeles’ MacArthur Park on July 7, and the National Mall. appear to serve no practical legal purpose.

Fox News reported late August 22 that President Trump aims to broaden the DC operation to other states, and that 19 states will deploy their national guard.  In the Oval Office, Trump said, “I think Chicago will be our next. And then we’ll help with New York,” Trump said.

Timeline of current deployment (August 11–August 22, 2025)

August 11: President Trump announces at a White House press conference the federal takeover of the Metropolitan Police Department (MPD) under the District of Columbia Home Rule Act, placing it under Attorney General Pam Bondi’s oversight. He orders the deployment of approximately 800 D.C. National Guard troops to combat claimed “out-of-control” crime, including gangs and homelessness. Troops are placed on Title 32 orders, enabling law enforcement duties under presidential command. FBI agents and U.S. Army troops are also deployed.

August 12: D.C. National Guard troops begin deploying to the streets, with a visible presence near the Washington Monument. Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth confirms the mobilization, stating troops “will be strong and tough.”

August 14: Troops patrol tourist-frequented areas such as Union Station and the National Mall.

August 16–21: Six Republican-led states announce additional deployments at the Pentagon’s request, contributing to a total force of nearly 2,000. Defense Secretary Hegseth orders troops to begin carrying firearms.

August 21: U.S. Attorney General Pam Bondi announces that 630 people have been arrested in Washington, D.C., with just under half identified as undocumented immigrants, according to the White House (reported by ABC7). Videos show masked agents in bulletproof vests marked only with “police” on the back, detaining individuals without identifying themselves or explaining the reasons for stops, searches, or arrests. Detainees, many non-English speakers, are seen being pulled from cars, bicycles, or scooters and tackled to the ground.

August 22: National Guard troops are authorized to carry service-issue weapons starting this weekend, amid ongoing patrols. The visible presence of troops at landmarks like the National Mall continues to stir fear and confusion among residents.

Historical deployments related to law-and-order breakdowns

Great Chicago Fire (1871): The fire began on October 8, 1871, and raged until October 10, killing approximately 300 people and leaving about 100,000 residents homeless. Law and order were severely compromised due to widespread chaos, with looting and disorganization overwhelming the city’s police and fire departments. Mayor Roswell B. Mason declared martial law on October 9 and requested federal assistance. President Grant deployed several companies of U.S. Army infantry and artillery. Martial law was lifted after about two weeks.

Detroit Riot (1967): The riot began on July 23, 1967, after Detroit police raided an unlicensed after-hours bar, sparking five days of violence rooted in grievances over racism, unemployment, and police misconduct. The unrest involved 43 deaths and 1,189 injuries. Michigan Governor George Romney deployed 8,000 National Guard troops. President Johnson invoked the Insurrection Act on July 24, sending approximately 4,700 federal paratroopers from the 82nd and 101st Airborne Divisions.

Washington, D.C. Riot (1968): Following the assassination of Dr. Martin Luther King Jr. on April 4, 1968, riots erupted across over 100 U.S. cities, including Washington, D.C. Law and order collapsed amid looting, arson, and clashes, resulting in 12 deaths and 1,097 injuries. Local police were outnumbered, and the D.C. National Guard (approximately 1,750 troops) was insufficient. President Johnson invoked the Insurrection Act, deploying 13,600 federal troops, including Marines and Army units for a short while.

Los Angeles Riots (1992): The riots began on April 29, 1992, after the acquittal of four Los Angeles Police Department officers in the beating of Rodney King. 63 people were killed, 2,383 injured, and widespread looting, arson, and gunfire overwhelmed local police. California Governor Pete Wilson deployed 10,000 National Guard troops. President Bush invoked the Insurrection Act on May 1, federalizing the Guard and sending 4,000 federal troops (Army and Marines).

“I dropped by to visit Aunt June today. The caregiver did not come in today and the fridge was empty. I went to get some produce at the farmstand, but it was closed— in the middle of summer! So I swung by the cafe to get her dinner, but I had to wait for an hour because they only had one cook. How weird. Then on my way home I saw that the hedges along the street still haven’t been trimmed.  Have you noticed?”

“I have.”

“I wonder what’s going on.”

“It will come to you.”

Since the 1990s, ICE and Border Patrol officers were constrained by administrations from entering certain “safe zone” settings. The guidelines applied to healthcare settings, schools, places of worship and even public demonstrations. (The guidelines did not formally bar entrance.) On January 20, 2025, the Trump administration removed these constraints. What does the public think about this?

A survey conducted by Hart Research, conducted among 802 registered voters in early July and released August 7, finds that a modest majority of voting Americans disapprove of immigration enforcement in some of these settings.  The fact that a sizable minority supports the Administration is sobering. It suggests that public opinion will not, at least for now, be a deterrent to ICE entering safe zones (except for perhaps houses of worship). A well publicized arrest in one of these settings may set off a public outcry — or may not.

Regarding entering healthcare settings, 56% of voters oppose the Trump administration policy, 38% approve. Opposition is predictably strongest among Democrats (78% disapprove). But opposition is weaker among Hispanic (63% disapprove)

The respondents also disapprove of ICE action in schools (60% to 33%) and houses of worship (67% to 27%).  By comparison, a majority accepts enforcement in workplaces (51%) and in immigrants’ homes (60%).

Notably, Republicans support ICE access to safe zones. Republican voters back enforcement in healthcare facilities (67% v 26%).  Hart Research conducted the survey for the National Immigration Law Center, which did not disclose findings by  segments of voters (such as party affiliation) for non-healthcare settings.

Strikingly, the survey reported that 68% believe that undocumented immigrants should be allowed to stay if they meet certain requirements, Only 29% now say immigrants should not be allowed to remain. Hart Research says that support for undocumented persons has increased – which I discussed recently here regarding a Gallup poll done in June.