Recent State Actions Related to Immigrants’ Access to Services and Immigration Enforcement
State legislatures across the U.S. enacted or proposed a wide range of policies during the 2025 and 2026 sessions that fundamentally alter immigrant access to public services and dictate the level of state cooperation with federal immigration enforcement. As of June 2026, the KFF and National Conference of State Legislatures report a deepening divide: some states are scaling back health coverage and benefits due to budget pressures, while others are expanding protections and creating new pathways for immigrant integration and data privacy.
Shifting Access to Health and Public Services
Budget constraints and rising costs have led six states, including the District of Columbia, to eliminate or reduce state-funded health coverage for immigrants. Illinois, Minnesota, and the District of Columbia have moved to eliminate coverage for certain adult populations, while California, Colorado, and Washington have implemented enrollment caps or tightened eligibility criteria. According to the analysis, California officials have proposed additional cost-saving measures, including work requirements and increased premiums, to align with federal Medicaid shifts.
Conversely, New Mexico, New York, and Washington are actively filling coverage gaps created by the 2025 federal reconciliation law. New Mexico is utilizing state funds to cover DACA recipients and lawfully present immigrants who lost federal benefits, while New York continues to utilize its Essential Plan to maintain coverage for lawfully present residents. Washington has increased funding for its state-run food assistance program to mirror federal SNAP benefits for those now ineligible under federal law.
Colorado is scheduled to cap enrollment and restrict benefits for state-funded health coverage specifically for immigrant children and pregnant people starting in January 2027.
State-Level Immigration Enforcement and Data Sharing
A growing number of states have enacted laws to bolster federal immigration enforcement, often in response to executive orders from the Trump administration. Idaho and Tennessee have introduced criminal penalties for noncitizens who remain in the state after violating federal immigration laws. Furthermore, Missouri, Indiana, Louisiana, North Carolina, Tennessee, Wyoming, and Oklahoma have mandated that state agencies report the immigration status of public benefit recipients to federal authorities.
In contrast, states including California, Colorado, Maryland, New Jersey, New York, and Oregon have codified “sensitive location” protections. These laws limit civil immigration enforcement activity at schools, hospitals, libraries, and courthouses. Additionally, Illinois and Oregon have mandated that health care facilities treat immigration status as protected health information, restricting the ability of state agencies to share personal data with federal enforcement officers.
Samantha Carter notes that the current landscape is defined by a direct conflict between states exercising their authority to restrict benefits and those using state funds to buffer residents against federal eligibility changes. The ongoing legal uncertainty surrounding “sanctuary” policies creates a complex environment for local jurisdictions, which now face the risk of losing federal grants if they are identified as obstructing enforcement.
What Happens Next
As of June 2026, several state legislatures remain in session, meaning additional policy shifts are possible throughout the remainder of the year. Legal analysts expect continued litigation as states attempt to navigate federal requirements while maintaining local enforcement or protection policies. While federal challenges to sanctuary jurisdictions have largely failed to date, the Trump administration’s threat to withhold grants and contracts remains a significant factor that could influence how local governments manage their cooperation with federal agencies in the coming months.
Frequently Asked Questions
Which states have recently reduced state-funded health coverage for immigrants?
As of June 2026, Illinois, Minnesota, the District of Columbia, California, Colorado, and Washington have taken steps to eliminate, reduce, or cap enrollment for state-funded immigrant health programs.
How are some states responding to the 2025 federal reconciliation law?
New Mexico, New York, and Washington have implemented plans to use state funds to provide benefits—such as health coverage and food assistance—to lawfully present immigrants who lost eligibility for federal programs under the 2025 law.
What is the current status of “sanctuary” policies in the U.S.?
While the Trump administration has issued executive orders to penalize jurisdictions that limit cooperation with federal immigration enforcement, recent federal legal challenges to state and local sanctuary policies have largely been unsuccessful. However, the federal government’s stance may still limit the scope of future state and local actions.
How do these varying state policies influence your perspective on local access to public resources?