The Bay Area’s largest cities are accustomed to finding themselves in President Donald Trump’s crosshairs, but even some smaller suburbs here wound up last week on a list of places accused of shielding immigrants from federal authorities.
Days later, however, the Department of Homeland Security appears to have deleted the webpage that listed — with numerous reported misspellings — hundreds of “sanctuary jurisdictions.”
The sense of whiplash felt around the region is nothing new when it comes to Trump, whose first administration was blocked in 2017 from cutting funding for local and state governments that do not cooperate with immigration enforcement agencies. A similar effort began in March to freeze the president’s latest plans of attack.
Still, if the White House were to continue ramping up its aggressive crackdown efforts on local governments’ immigration policies, it is unclear how some of the Bay Area’s less populous cities would be able to handle the pressure.
“Court challenges take time and money and resources,” said Amada Armenta, a UCLA sociologist who researches immigration and criminal justice. “Some localities may comply because they are afraid.”
The Bay Area cities called out included Alameda, Belmont, Berkeley, Concord, El Cerrito, Emeryville, Fremont, Martinez, Menlo Park, Newark, Oakland, Pacifica, Pleasanton, Richmond, San Francisco, San Jose, San Leandro, San Pablo and Union City.
Related Articles
Bay Area immigrant blindsided by loss of Social Security benefits, reimbursement demand
Dozens of Bay Area cities land on list of ‘sanctuary jurisdictions’
Trump’s list of ‘sanctuary jurisdictions’ includes some that support his immigration policies
ICE agents stake out California courthouses to detain undocumented immigrants
DNA tests confirm human remains found on California beach were of 10-year-old girl on capsized panga
Alameda, San Francisco, San Mateo and Santa Clara counties also made the now-deleted list, which in total accused over 500 cities and counties across the country of being “sanctuary jurisdictions.” Locally, at least, the list’s accuracy is in question.
Belmont, a city of roughly 28,000 people with an estimated 87% citizenship rate, per the 2020 U.S. Census, does not appear to have any policies that mention immigration.
WASHINGTON, DC – MAY 16: (AFP-OUT) U.S. President Donald Trump speaks during a meeting with California leaders and public officials who oppose California’s sanctuary policies in the Cabinet Room of the White House May 16, 2018 in Washington, DC. (Photo by Olivier Douliery-Pool/Getty Images) Olivier Douliery/Getty Images
Meanwhile, officials in multiple Bay Area cities responded to the “sanctuary” accusation by insisting no such laws exist there. But the actual policies held by those governments tell a different story.
In Concord, which has a very large migrant community, Mayor Carlyn Obringer told this news organization, “we are not a sanctuary city.”
But the working-class suburb has a policy of “inclusion” that is nearly identical to existing sanctuary law, which broadly prohibits local law enforcement from communicating with federal immigration authorities unless compelled to do so.
The only difference in Concord’s laws is a caveat that allows some information to be shared if it is “in the best interest of public safety.”
Pleasanton has a slightly wider list of exceptions that OKs notifying immigration authorities only if an arrested person is not a citizen and would not be booked in an Alameda County jail.
Even with the narrow carve-out, Pleasanton still upholds most sanctuary-like policies, though officials there would only say they had “taken no formal action” to become one and directed any further media requests to the U.S. Department of Homeland Security.
“I can see them having the instinct to disavow having a sanctuary policy out of fear of retaliation,” said Catherine Seitz, a legal director at the Immigration Institute of the Bay Area, who described the word “sanctuary” as “often a loaded term.”
Generally, immigration issues in smaller cities are handled at the county level, through government coalitions such as Cal Cities or by the California Attorney General’s Office.
But the Trump administration’s newfound interest in cities that aren’t major metro centers may reflect the president’s broader escalation of his longstanding promise to go after immigrant-friendly governments.
A bicyclist rides past an upside down Mexican flag waving at the Monument Plaza shopping center on Monument Blvd. in Concord, Calif., on Monday, Feb. 3, 2025. Local businesses were closed during “A Day Without Immigrants” to show support for communities impacted by President Trump’s immigration policies. (Jose Carlos Fajardo/Bay Area News Group)
“I would expect to see more actions like this, with how aggressive the Trump administration has been this time around,” said John Gioia, a supervisor in Contra Costa County, which does not have sanctuary policies and did not appear on the since-removed list.
Santa Clara County, which has a robust sanctuary policy, joined San Francisco and other U.S. cities in March to petition a federal court to halt Trump’s latest plan to freeze funding for immigration “sanctuaries” — the latest face-off in a familiar legal fight.
Last week, multiple smaller Bay Area cities, such as Hayward and Mountain View, quickly put out statements affirming their commitment to sanctuary policies upon the release of the Department of Homeland Security’s list.
“Federal courts have ruled in favor of sanctuary cities — prohibiting the Trump administration from denying or conditioning the use of federal funds to ‘sanctuary’ jurisdictions — and the city of Hayward’s policies will not change,” Mayor Mark Salinas said in a statement.
But a president historically undeterred by court decisions may prove challenging to overcome for smaller targets that find themselves staring down a determined federal government.
“You think of the parallels of other institutions — like universities, or law firms — cooperating out of fear or pressure,” Armenta, the sociologist, said in an interview. “There’s no questions that the political tides are different.”
