Officials from both sides of the political aisle have long rejected the idea that Nevada is a “sanctuary state” — a term that refers to states that prohibit law enforcement and agencies from assisting with federal immigration enforcement but that lacks a clear legal definition.

But a recent executive order has placed additional pressure on officials to substantiate that claim.

On April 28, President Donald Trump called for the federal government to publish a list of sanctuary jurisdictions within the next 30 days and withhold funds if they are deemed to obstruct immigration enforcement activity. If the federal government declares any Nevada jurisdictions to be sanctuaries and follows through on revoking funds, it could have a wide-reaching effect in Nevada, where nearly 30 percent of state funding comes from federal sources. 

Trump has targeted Nevada for its immigration policies before. In 2017, Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) put Clark County at the top of a list of "non-cooperative jurisdictions” for failing to carry out immigration detainers, putting the county at risk of losing hundreds of thousands of dollars in federal grants, although the county ultimately kept them. 

The Trump administration’s move drew backlash from then-Sheriff Joe Lombardo, who said ICE had arbitrarily put Clark County on a list of sanctuary jurisdictions even though his department was part of a program that collaborated with ICE on immigration efforts. 

In 2017, ICE also listed Washoe County among jurisdictions that limited collaboration with the agency. 

“Nevada is not a sanctuary state or jurisdiction,” Gov. Joe Lombardo’s office told The Nevada Independent in a statement this month. “Nevada will continue to follow federal law under Governor Lombardo’s leadership.” 

Is Nevada a “sanctuary state”?

The term “sanctuary state” has no legal definition, and Trump’s order doesn’t spell out its criteria for calling a state that, other than saying it “obstruct[s] the enforcement of Federal immigration laws.”

Groups, such as the left-leaning American Immigration Council, have said that sanctuary policies generally include laws that block officials from asking about immigration status, restrict the presence of immigration detention centers, or curtail the ability of police to make arrests for federal civil immigration violations such as through 287(g) agreements that deputize local law enforcement officers.

Chicago, for example, which has long identified as a sanctuary city, has policies to not ask about immigration status or disclose that information to authorities.

Nevada currently has no such laws in place, despite multiple prior efforts to enact them. Even some of the most conservative immigration groups, such as the Center for Immigration Studies, have agreed that neither Nevada nor any of its jurisdictions qualify as having “sanctuary” policies.  

Jurisdictions across the state have reaffirmed this stance.

• Las Vegas: During a March press conference, Las Vegas Mayor Shelley Berkley said that “the City of Las Vegas is not a sanctuary city” and that the city “will do everything that we are supposed to under the law.”
  • Berkley said that she will support the position of Las Vegas Metropolitan Police Department, which has said that it will not enforce federal immigration laws outside of its jails, but will notify ICE about certain foreign-born individuals who are arrested and charged. 
• Reno: The City of Reno is not officially designated as a sanctuary jurisdiction, the city  said in a statement. 
• Henderson: The City of Henderson also told The Nevada Independent that it is not a sanctuary jurisdiction.
  • According to policy documents, the police department will alert federal authorities if an undocumented immigrant is booked into its jail “regardless of their charges,” but the department will not assist with deportations. The Henderson Detention Center is also an ICE holding facility. 
• North Las Vegas: The City of North Las Vegas also said it does not identify as a sanctuary jurisdiction.
• The Nevada Independent reached out to the City of Sparks, Washoe County and Clark County for comment on their stance on sanctuary policies, but did not hear back before this story was published. 

Will Trump’s executive action hurt Nevada? 

It’s not quite clear how Trump’s threat to withhold funding would play out in Nevada if it landed on a list of sanctuary jurisdictions, but it could jeopardize the billions the state receives each year toward Medicaid, infrastructure, workforce development and other programming. 

The executive order doesn’t provide many specifics on what funds would be targeted but said that grants and contracts are “appropriate" targets. It also would strengthen eligibility checks that prevent immigrants from receiving federal benefits, such as Medicaid or the Children’s Health Insurance Program. 

“They don't really define what sanctuary jurisdiction is in the executive order, so we're not quite sure what it extends to,” Sadmira Ramic, a senior staff attorney at the American Civil Liberties Union of Nevada, said in an interview. 

It’s not just the sanctuary jurisdiction order that could affect funding. On Wednesday, Democratic Attorney General Aaron Ford joined a lawsuit with 19 other states against the Trump administration for separate directives that would withhold federal funding for not carrying out immigration enforcement activities, arguing that the conditions are unconstitutional and could threaten the livelihood of Nevadans. 

Sixteen other jurisdictions have already secured an injunction against the administration's threat to withhold federal funding.

The sanctuary order could also curtail police funding even as Trump seeks to use local police to bolster deportation efforts. Federal contributions make up a significant source of police funding — even as the bulk comes from local and state dollars — helping fund everything from anti-drug trafficking efforts to positions for law enforcement officers. 

The cutoff in funding could have the most prominent effect on the Las Vegas Metropolitan Police Department, which has been awarded more than $50 million in federal grants and more than $500,000 in contracts over the past decade.

“There's lots of conversation around withholding grants across the spectrum of the federal government,” Metro Sheriff Kevin McMahill told the Las Vegas Review-Journal in an interview.

According to McMahill, who declined an interview with The Nevada Independent, Metro has about $30 million in funding for programs and personnel at risk if the department is deemed noncompliant. Metro doesn’t have enough resources to help with immigration tasks beyond the limited enforcement activities it’s already conducting in Clark County jails, he has said.

But McMahill said that if the federal government passes a law that requires them to, they would join a program, known as 287(g), that deputizes local law enforcement officers to do immigration enforcement work. 

Other jurisdictions in Nevada may be in similar positions as Metro.

Nye County said part of the reason it is pursuing a 287(g) agreement is that it could be listed as a “non-compliant” agency under the executive order. Douglas and Mineral counties have active 287(g) agreements, while Lyon County is in the process of finalizing such agreements.

“It is a coercive tactic being used by this administration to force local jurisdictions to do the job of the federal government,” Ramic said. 

Political lightning rod

In spite of Nevada officials’ denials that their jurisdictions have sanctuary policies, conservative groups, such as a Lombardo-affiliated PAC, have panned efforts to limit local law enforcement’s role in immigration enforcement as attempts to turn Nevada into a “sanctuary state.”

In 2017, then-state Senate Majority Leader Aaron Ford was one of several sponsors of a controversial bill that would have barred state and local police from devoting any resources — including time, money and personnel — to enforcing federal immigration laws. The bill ultimately died without ever receiving a hearing. 

Ford said that he was “disappointed” by lack of additional protections for the immigrant community but that moving forward without consensus on a policy in the state would be “unwise.” 

Since then, Ford has distanced himself from sanctuary state policies, especially with the release of his model immigration policies, which kicked off a online debate between Lombardo and Ford, who are both running for governor in 2026. Those policies — mandated by a 2021 state law and non-binding — are meant to provide a guide for public agencies asked to do voluntary immigration enforcement for the federal government.

Ford was quick to dismiss suggestions that he was attempting to turn Nevada into a sanctuary state. 

“But make no mistake about it: AG Ford and the Office of the Attorney General do not support sanctuary for any criminal — period,” Ford’s office told The Nevada Independent in a statement earlier this year.

Efforts to curb collaboration with ICE have also divided conservatives and progressives this legislative session. 

Assm. Cecelia Gonzalez (D-Las Vegas) introduced a bill (AB217), which is still moving forward in the legislative process, that would prohibit school districts and their employees from access to school grounds or student records for immigration enforcement purposes. 

Meanwhile, AJR9, which calls on Congress to limit immigration enforcement in sensitive locations, is also still moving forward in the session.

Republicans, on the other hand, introduced measures to beef up coordination between local law enforcement and federal immigration officials, but those bills died without ever getting a hearing in the Democrat-controlled Legislature.