The Department of Justice is offering $3 billion in grants to cities willing to cooperate with federal immigration enforcement, and 181 municipalities have already lined up to apply.
The program carries a pointed name: Bridging Immigration-related Deficits Experienced Nationwide, or BIDEN. It channels federal dollars to local governments struggling under the costs of illegal immigration, but only if they agree to join ICE's 287(g) partnership, which links local law enforcement directly to federal immigration agents. Associate Attorney General Stanley Woodward framed the initiative as a corrective to the previous administration's border record.
The grant program, established under the president's "One Big Beautiful Budget Bill," represents one of the largest DOJ grant offerings in the department's history, Breitbart reported. Funding runs through September 2028, and cities that receive money can spend it broadly, hiring police officers, upgrading technology, or building temporary detention facilities for illegal immigrants, so long as they meet the core 287(g) requirement.
The DOJ's grant description spells out the enforcement priority plainly: funds are designated for "locating and apprehending aliens who have committed a crime under federal, state, or local law, in addition to being unlawfully present in the United States."
Woodward did not hold back about the program's purpose. In an official statement, he tied the funding directly to the damage he said the previous administration inflicted on communities across the country.
"This Department of Justice is committed to ensuring Biden-era border disasters never happen again. We are proud to once again champion law and order."
Patrick Royal, a spokesman for the National Sheriffs' Association, endorsed the program in equally direct terms. He called it a clear opportunity for cash-strapped local agencies.
"I can't see why people wouldn't take advantage of this opportunity to get more funding."
The 181 cities that have already applied suggest Royal's assessment is widely shared, though none of the applicant cities were named publicly. The program's structure gives municipalities broad discretion over how they spend the money, with one significant catch: some funds may need to be returned to the federal government as reimbursement for "the costs associated with federal law enforcement intervention" if federal resources are deployed "to reduce crime or public disorder" tied to immigration enforcement actions.
The BIDEN grants land in the middle of a broader federal campaign to squeeze sanctuary jurisdictions into compliance. Attorney General Pam Bondi ordered an immediate 60-day pause on DOJ fund distribution to sanctuary cities that refuse to cooperate with federal immigration authorities, threatening billions in federal aid to places like New York, Chicago, and Washington, D.C. House Speaker Mike Johnson captured the administration's view bluntly: "The idea that you would maintain a sanctuary city status and then cry out to the federal government for assistance in what you've done is, to me, unconscionable."
The courts have increasingly backed the administration's leverage. The Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals, long considered the most liberal federal appellate bench in the country, ruled 2-1 that the DOJ could deny Community Oriented Policing Services grants to sanctuary cities. Los Angeles had sued after losing a $3 million federal grant over its sanctuary policies. Judge Sandra Ikuta, writing for the majority, rejected the city's argument that the DOJ's conditions violated the Constitution's Spending Clause.
That ruling reversed a lower California court decision and gave the administration a significant precedent for using federal funding as a compliance tool. The legal momentum has not gone entirely one direction, however. A pattern of Biden-appointed judges resisting the administration's immigration enforcement has produced mixed results in lower courts.
The DOJ has also gone on offense with direct litigation. The administration filed a lawsuit against Illinois, Chicago, and Cook County, challenging local sanctuary laws that limit cooperation with federal immigration authorities. Legal experts told the Washington Examiner that sanctuary cities face an uphill battle, citing the Constitution's supremacy clause and the 2012 Supreme Court ruling in Arizona v. United States, a case that gives the federal government broad authority over immigration enforcement.
"The sanctuary cities are in a bad position and have little leverage here," said Neama Rahmani, a former federal prosecutor.
In New Jersey, a Biden-appointed federal judge dismissed the DOJ's lawsuit against four sanctuary cities, Newark, Hoboken, Jersey City, and Paterson, ruling the government lacked standing. Judge Evelyn Padin found that New Jersey's statewide Immigrant Trust Directive independently imposed the same restrictions the cities had adopted, meaning striking down local policies would not actually fix the federal government's problem.
Fox News reported that the case was dismissed without prejudice, leaving the door open for the administration to refile. The ruling illustrated a recurring obstacle: even when the legal theory is sound, procedural hurdles can slow enforcement. Biden-era judicial appointments have created friction points across multiple immigration cases, including instances where lower-court judges have defied higher-court rulings to shield noncitizens from removal.
But the BIDEN grant program sidesteps the courtroom entirely. Instead of suing cities into compliance, the DOJ is offering them a financial incentive to cooperate voluntarily. Three billion dollars in available funding makes the carrot substantial, and the 287(g) requirement makes the policy strings explicit.
The approach fits a broader pattern. A Biden White House memo that sought to shield millions of noncitizens from deportation has been exposed and reversed. Appellate courts have overturned Biden-appointee blocks on expedited removal policies. And the consequences of sanctuary policies have drawn renewed public scrutiny as specific cases, including violent crimes linked to released illegal immigrants, have put the human cost of non-cooperation on display.
The speed of the response tells its own story. With 181 cities already in the application pipeline and funding available through September 2028, the BIDEN grant program is testing a simple proposition: when the federal government offers real money with clear conditions, how many local governments will choose ideology over resources?
The grant documents make clear that the money is not a blank check. Municipalities must "fully participate" in the 287(g) partnership, which means embedding their officers in federal immigration enforcement operations. The program targets illegal immigrants who have committed crimes, a population that even many sanctuary city residents would prefer to see removed.
The program's name is no accident. Naming a $3 billion enforcement initiative after the man whose policies created the costs it aims to cover is the kind of bureaucratic move that doubles as a political statement. Every city that files an application is, in effect, acknowledging that the previous administration's border policies left local taxpayers holding the bill.
For years, cities absorbed the financial burden of illegal immigration while their leaders insisted sanctuary policies were a moral imperative. Now the DOJ is offering those same cities a way to recover the money, if they are willing to help enforce the law. One hundred eighty-one of them have already decided that cooperation beats principle when the bills come due.