It is a move that echoes dark times: On May 30, 2025, the U.S. Department of Homeland Security (DHS), led by Kristi Noem, released a list of 500 cities, counties, and states – marked with the political stigma of “deliberately and disgracefully obstructing the enforcement of Trump’s deportation agenda.” Officially presented as an educational tool on so-called sanctuary cities, the list functions more like a deterrent pillory – a tool of intimidation and ideological discipline aimed at entire communities. In the language used by DHS, there is hardly any room left for nuance. “These politicians are endangering Americans and our law enforcement officers in order to protect violent criminal illegal aliens,” Kristi Noem declared. It is a language of escalation - and of dehumanization. Not only are cities collectively branded as accomplices to crime, but any form of protection, humanity, or municipal autonomy is placed under general suspicion.
But reality tells a different story: the list is a patchwork of contradictions, errors, and ideological arbitrariness. Jim Davel, the administrative chief of Shawano County in Wisconsin, responded with surprise: “We have no idea how we ended up on this list. Probably a bureaucratic mistake.” His community is considered deeply Republican - and yet it is now being slandered as a migrant haven. A similar picture in California: Huntington Beach, known for its lawsuits against state-level migrant protections, appears on the list - while the neighboring city of Santa Ana, which actively implements protections for its large immigrant community, is missing. There appears to be no system behind it. Rather, a political revenge algorithm.
Baltimore Mayor Brandon Scott stated clearly on X: “We are not a sanctuary city.” And yet he defended his city’s stance: “We are an open, welcoming city. We don’t apologize for that. We are better because of our immigrant neighbors – and we will not hand them over to this regime.” Las Vegas, also listed, reacted with similar puzzlement. The city has never referred to itself as a sanctuary city, according to its administration. “We hope to engage in dialogue with federal authorities to clarify this misunderstanding.”
While many local officials dismiss the mislabeling as an embarrassing bureaucratic error, immigration rights groups speak of deliberate stigmatization. “Calling sanctuary policies ‘lawless uprisings’ is not only dangerously inflammatory – it is legally baseless,” said Jessica Inez Martínez of the New Mexico Immigrant Law Center. “It is a deliberate distortion of the rule of law.” The release of this list is more than a bureaucratic act. It is part of a larger strategy: to pit communities against one another and turn local authorities into extensions of the deportation machinery. Whether a city actually qualifies as a sanctuary city is irrelevant – the only thing that matters is political loyalty. Anyone who doesn’t submit unconditionally lands on the list. Anyone who hesitates loses the system’s favor.
And that reveals the true goal of this measure: control. Not over immigration policy – but over political narratives, over language, over posture, over morality. Those who show solidarity are branded. Those who see immigration not as a threat but as a source of societal wealth are publicly discredited.
It is a list. But it carries the spirit of a decree. And the whiff of intimidation usually found only in authoritarian regimes.
English 
German 
