By Guy Page
An August 13 letter from U.S. Attorney General Pam Bondi to Gov. Phil Scott and copied to Attorney General Charity Clark threatens loss of federal funding and criminal charges against public officials unless Vermont commits to ending sanctuary state immigration policies.
VDC has contacted Scott adminstration press officials for comment, and will publish a response when received. In other press reports, Scott has repeated his contention – oft-published in VDC – that Vermont is not a sanctuary state and thus should not face retribution.
Bondi’s letter does not outline specific allegations of violations of federal law committed by the Scott administration, but she does require Scott to send a “letter that confirms your commitment to complying with federal law and identifies the immediate initiatives you are taking to eliminate laws, policies, and practices that impede federal immigration enforcement.”
A similar letter was sent to governors of California, Colorado, Connecticut, Delaware, Illinois, Minnesota, Nevada, New York, Oregon, Rhode Island, and Washington. Scott is the only Republican among the governors. The full text of Bondi’s letters is published below, with highlights added by the editor:
Dear Governor Scott,
“The United States has a long history of cooperation with state and local law enforcement‘agencies, including for immigration enforcement. Such cooperation is vital to enforce federal law and protect national security. Recognizing that need, Congress has codified the duty of states and local governments to cooperate in immigration enforcement efforts.
For too long, so-called sanctuary jurisdiction policies have undermined this necessary cooperation and obstructed federal immigration enforcement, giving aliens cover to perpetrate: crimes in our communities and evade the immigration consequences that federal law requires.
Under President Trump’s leadership, full cooperation by state and local governments in immigration enforcement efforts is a top priority. To ensure such cooperation, the President has directed the Attorney General of the United States, in coordination with the Secretary of Homeland Security, to identify sanctuary jurisdictions and notify them of their unlawful sanctuary status and potential violations of federal law. Additionally, the President directed federal agencies to identify and evaluate their statutory authority to issue grants, contracts, and. federal funds, to determine where immigration-related terms and conditions may be added to combat sanctuary policies that violate federal immigration law. See Executive Order 14,287, Protecting American Communities from Criminal Aliens, 90 Fed. Reg. 18761 (April 28, 2025). As contemplated by the Executive Order, designation as a sanctuary jurisdiction may result in additional consequences and further agency actions as permitted by law. See id.
As the chief law enforcement officer of the United States, I am commitied to identifying state and local laws, policies, and practices that facilitate violations of federal immigration laws or impede lawful federal immigration operations, and taking legal action to challenge such laws, policies, or practices. 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 cach 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 such as 8 U.S.C. § 1324, 18 U.S.C. § 371, 18 U.S.C. § 1071, and 18 US.C. § 1505. State and local entities, particularly those with policies in violation of 8 U.S.C. § 1373 and § 1644, may also be subject to civil liability.
Further, pursuant to President Trump’s directive in Executive Order 14,287, the Department has compiled a list of sanctuary jurisdictions. This list is based on a review of laws, policies, and practices of the identified jurisdictions.
You are hereby notified that your jurisdiction has been identified as one that engages in sanctuary policies and practices that thwart federal immigration enforcement to the detriment of the interests of the United States. This ends now. By Tuesday, August 19, 2025, please submit a response to this letter that confirms your commitment to complying with federal law and identifies the immediate initiatives you are taking to eliminate laws, policies, and practices that impede federal immigration enforcement. This leter does not constitute final agency action and nothing in this letter creates any right or benefit enforceable at law against the United States.
Sincerely,
Pamela Bondi
Attomney General
cc: Charity Clark
Vermont Attorney General
109 State Street
Montpelier, VT 05609
In an apparent pushback against the threat to limit federal funding, Clark announced Monday, August 18 she has joined with other attorneys general opposing the Trump administration attaching immigration requirements to $1 billion in funding for victims of crime:
“Attorney General Charity Clark today joined a coalition of 21 attorneys general in a lawsuit challenging the Trump Administration’s efforts to unlawfully impose immigration enforcement requirements on over $1 billion dollars in annual U.S. Department of Justice Victims of Crime Act (VOCA) grants. These grants are unrelated to federal civil immigration enforcement and are used by states to protect public safety and provide critical resources and services to victims and survivors of crime, including victims of domestic violence. In the lawsuit filed today, the coalition argues that imposing this new set of conditions across VOCA grant programs is arbitrary and capricious, exceeds U.S. DOJ’s legal authority, and violates the Spending Clause.”
What makes a state a sanctuary jurisdiction? The Department of Justice published the following list of sanctuary criteria, some of which seem to apply to Vermont:
- Public Declarations: Cities, states, or counties that publicly declare themselves a sanctuary jurisdiction or equivalent, with the intent to undermine federal immigration enforcement.
- Laws, Ordinances, Executive Directives: Cities, states, or counties that have laws, ordinances, regulations, resolutions, policies, or other formalized practices that obstruct or limit local law enforcement cooperation with U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE).
- Restrictions on Information Sharing: Cities, states, or counties that limit whether and how local agencies share information about immigration status of detainees with federal authorities.
- Funding Restrictions: Cities, states, or counties that prohibit local funds or resources from being used to support federal immigration enforcement efforts.
- Non-cooperation with Federal Immigration Enforcement: Cities, states, or counties that provide training to city employees and police on enforcing sanctuary policies and declining to respond to ICE requests for information.
- Limits on ICE Detainers: Cities, states, or counties that refuse to honor ICE detainer requests unless there is a warrant signed by a judge.
- Jail Access Restrictions: Cities, states, or counties that restrict ICE agents’ ability to interview detainees absent detainee consent.
- Immigrant Community Affairs Offices: Cities, states, or counties that create dedicated offices to engage and advise illegal alien communities on evading federal law enforcement officers.
- Federal Benefit Programs: Cities, states, or counties that circumvent federal laws prohibiting the provision of federal benefits to illegal aliens and provide them with access to benefits, including health care assistance, legal aid, food and housing assistance, and other subsidies. This includes cities, states, or counties that establish stand-alone benefit programs or equivalents.