Ever since returning to the White House in January, President Donald Trump’s immigration agenda has stirred outrage and controversy amongst progressive Americans, escalating to a series of conflicts in federal courts. Nearly three months later, the controversy is unabated and may actually be escalating. Here are three updates on how the president’s immigration and deportation plans are progressing — or being impeded.

‘Sanctuary City’ Controversy

Orlando, Florida Mayor Buddy Dyer (D) recently told news outlets that he intends to flout federal and state immigration law and refuse to cooperate with U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) in a bid to shield illegal immigrants. “If somebody is subject to a traffic stop or calls the police to report a crime, the police will not ask what their status is and will not be subject to any proactive activities of that sort,” Dyer affirmed to local media.

Florida Attorney General James Uthmeier (R) was quick to respond, threatening prosecution if Dyer failed to uphold federal and state law. He explained in a letter to Dyer Monday that Orlando’s “sanctuary city” policies are “unlawful” and “void,” since Florida law “prohibits law enforcement and local government entities from adopting or having in effect any sanctuary policy.” Uthmeier wrote, “By prohibiting law enforcement officers from inquiring about a person’s immigration status, the City of Orlando is unlawfully implementing a sanctuary policy and blatantly violating the law.” He warned Dyer, “Sanctuary policies are not tolerated or lawful in Florida. Failure to abide by state law may result in the enforcement of applicable penalties, including but not limited to being held in contempt, declaratory or injunctive relief, and removal from office by the Governor…”

Dyer was just as quick to reply, assuring Uthmeier that he did not intend to violate federal or state law and even boasting of Orlando’s cooperation with ICE. “Neither I nor the Orlando Police Department have any intention of violating federal or state law,” the mayor wrote. He added that he and other Orlando officials had signed an agreement with ICE and that Orlando Police “officers are in the process of being trained by ICE to provide assistance at its discretion.” Dyer continued, “We assure you we will continue to use our best efforts to support the enforcement of federal immigration law, as well as state law.”

Another well-known “sanctuary city” is attempting to bar ICE from arresting illegal immigrants, despite the best efforts of the mayor. New York City Mayor Eric Adams (D) and his administration announced last week that ICE agents would be invited to the prison on Rikers Island, managed by the New York City Department of Corrections, to arrest and, eventually, deport illegal immigrants incarcerated there. ICE had been blocked from operating on the island in 2014, after New York City formalized its “sanctuary city” policy.

The New York City Council, which was recently thwarted by the state supreme court in its effort to extend voting rights to noncitizens, sued Adams and his administration, asking a judge to issue a temporary restraining order (TRO) barring ICE from setting up an office on Rikers Island. The lawsuit says that cooperation with ICE threatens “the safety and well-being of immigrant communities and all New Yorkers whose rights are protected by our city’s prized sanctuary laws.” Democratic New York City Councilmember Adrienne Adams (no relation to the mayor) said in a statement, “New York cannot afford its mayor colluding with the Trump administration to violate the law, and this lawsuit looks to the court to uphold the basic standard of democracy, even if our mayor won’t.”

Yet another “sanctuary” locale, Prince George’s County in Maryland, has drawn the ire of ICE after ignoring a detainer request and releasing an illegal immigrant charged with murder onto the street. Prince George’s County police arrested Guatemalan Rene Pop-Chub, who had been deported twice before and entered the U.S. illegally at least three separate times, last summer on charges of murder, assault, and reckless endangerment. ICE promptly filed a detainer request, but local authorities released Pop-Chub earlier this month, reportedly without responding to ICE.

ICE subsequently found and arrested Pop-Chub but directed criticism at Prince George’s County officials and their “sanctuary policies,” which were enacted in 2019. ICE Baltimore Acting Field Office Director Nikita Baker said, “When jurisdictions refuse to honor our immigration detainers, they put their own communities at risk — as was the case here, where a dangerous illegal alien charged with murder and assault was released back onto the streets.” Even the White House got involved, issuing a press statement saying that “sanctuary” policies like Prince George’s County’s “endanger the lives of the Americans who live there.”

Dems Rally Behind Deported ‘Maryland Man’ Identified as MS-13 Member

Senator Chris Van Hollen (D-Md.) announced on Tuesday that he intends to visit a notorious El Salvador prison and attempt to negotiate the release of Kilmar Abrego Garcia, a man who was deported by the Trump administration after being identified as a member of Mara Salvatrucha (MS-13), an international criminal gang officially designated as a foreign terrorist organization. “It should be a priority of the U.S. government to secure his safe release,” Van Hollen said in announcing his trip. He continued, “My hope is to visit Kilmar and check on his wellbeing and to hold constructive conversations with government officials around his release. We must urgently continue working to return Kilmar safely home to Maryland.”

However, the White House has contradicted the claims of Democrats, explaining that Garcia had previously been given “final deportation orders” that were only put on hold by a withholding order. That withholding order, White House Deputy Chief of Staff Stephen Miller said, has since been invalidated on two counts: first, the withholding order was only issued because Garcia feared violent reprisal in his home country of El Salvador from a rival gang, which is no longer active in the country; and second, law enforcement officials have identified Garcia as a member of MS-13, and members of foreign terrorist organizations cannot be issued withholding orders.

Garcia’s case has been contentious, even making its way to the U.S. Supreme Court. Although Chief Justice John Roberts previously put a hold on an inferior judge’s order demanding that Garcia be returned to the U.S., the Supreme Court later determined that the Trump administration must “facilitate” the deportee’s return but is not required to “effectuate” it. However, during a recent visit to the White House, El Salvador’s President Nayib Bukele bluntly stated that his government is unwilling to return Garcia, having confirmed that he is an MS-13 member and subsequently imprisoned him. “I’m not going to do it,” Bukele said. He quipped, “I mean, the question is preposterous. How can I smuggle a terrorist into the United States? I don’t have the power to return him to the United States.”

Boasberg Threatens Trump Administration with Contempt

In another deportation-related court case, Judge James Boasberg of the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia has claimed that he has probable cause for holding Trump administration officials in criminal contempt. In a Tuesday memo, Boasberg said that the Trump administration “demonstrate[d] a willful disregard” for Boasberg’s TRO barring the administration from deporting illegal immigrants and members of the Tren de Aragua (TdA) foreign terrorist organization under the authority of the Alien Enemies Act (AEA) of 1798. Boasberg concluded “that probable cause exists to find the Government in criminal contempt.”

Boasberg’s original TRO demanded that the planes deporting TdA members be turned around mid-flight and returned to the U.S. However, the Supreme Court subsequently vacated the judge’s order, declaring that the Administrative Procedure Act (APA) complaint which Boasberg has been adjudicating should have been filed as a habeas corpus claim in a different federal court. Responding to this fact, Boasberg claimed in his memo that the Supreme Court’s “later determination that the TRO suffered from a legal defect … does not excuse the Government’s violation” of Boasberg’s TRO “no matter how ‘erroneous’ it” may be.