What to know about what the government defines as a sanctuary state. Since the Trump administration unveiled a new rule threatening to withhold federal funds to so-called “sanctuary cities” last week, Americans have been watching and waiting to see what happens. And the responses are pouring in. Here’s what you need to know about President Trump’s proposal. How did the ‘sanctuary’ label get such negative connotations? The term “sanctuary” itself didn’t become political until the 1980s, when it was used to describe an area of churches, synagogues and other houses of worship that were offering safe shelter for gay men and women who faced persecution for their sexual orientation. And that usage persisted until 2003, when President George W. Bush coined it to describe non-citizen immigrants who were living in the country illegally. After the Sept. 11 terrorist attacks, people thought about sanctuary cities in a different way. Sanctuary cities become a rallying point for the hardline anti-immigrant movement because, in many places, immigrants who are in the country illegally have the right to a defense and to remain in the country while waiting for their case to be heard. What’s the big deal about sanctuary cities? In a city with sanctuary policies, undocumented immigrants who have committed crimes can be shielded from deportation. And so far, this is the policy adopted by about 600 jurisdictions in the country. This is different from sanctuary cities, which don’t explicitly make an exemption for people who are in the country illegally but make it clear they’re not going to assist in deportations in any way. How would President Trump’s executive order change sanctuary cities? Through its new rule, the Trump administration is threatening to strip federal funding from sanctuary cities. It proposes to deny funding to any jurisdiction that does not honor an existing immigration detainer request from U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement. And it also proposes to remove funding for jurisdictions that don’t honor detainer requests from other federal authorities, like the U.S. Marshals Service, U.S. Border Patrol, the FBI or the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives. Trump: San Francisco, Oakland shouldn't be 'sanctuaries' for illegal immigrants Are there any notable instances of cities changing their policies? Several cities have decided to either completely eliminate their sanctuary city status or make some sort of modification to their policies. San Francisco Mayor London Breed said that while it “may not be our legal role to shelter people from deportation," she believes in standing for values that make San Francisco a welcoming place. On Monday, the Los Angeles County Board of Supervisors approved a resolution directing the Board of Supervisors to direct its attorneys to stop defending a federal lawsuit brought by the Justice Department against the county. What does the ruling say? A five-member panel of the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals ruled 2-1 that judges must block the Trump administration’s attempt to punish California and four other states that don’t share information with immigration enforcement officials. Who's protesting against the ruling? Conservatives and the Trump administration are condemning the decision. And why is that? The decision, they say, makes the whole nation less safe. Republicans have long complained that, at the behest of Democrats, California and other “sanctuary” jurisdictions have enacted policies that do not share information with Immigration and Customs Enforcement when immigrant offenders are arrested, leading to a rise in deportations for people who otherwise would have been released because of minor or minor offenses. How could a decision about a lawsuit brought by the Justice Department be used to punish a state for making a law? A federal law passed in 1996 gives the Trump administration the ability to file lawsuits against any state that does not comply with what it considers to be its priorities when it comes to immigration laws. So it’s possible that if the Justice Department wins, judges could order states to change their policies or face fines, the loss of certain federal funds or even worse penalties. What do lawmakers from both parties in California say about the issue? Lawmakers in the state are fighting back, and they say the Trump administration’s argument is false. Democratic Sen. Kamala Harris, who is running for president in 2020, said in a tweet that the Justice Department is “trying to coerce (California) into violating our laws.” But some prominent politicians in California are not supporting the Justice Department’s effort either. Republican Sen. John Cornyn of Texas and Arizona Sen. Martha McSally, a Republican who is running for Senate, suggested lawmakers should punish sanctuary cities by withholding funds from their jurisdictions. The Trump administration’s new rule is only the latest move by the president to crack down on those opposed to policies that shelter undocumented immigrants. Editor's note: Donald Trump is a multimedia reporter for USA TODAY Network and speaks on a range of issues facing California at 12:45 p.m. Friday at Sacramento City College's Laird Auditorium. What else has the Trump administration done? Last year, California lawmakers agreed to a $1.7 billion cap on the state’s emergency funds to ensure a buffer for funding basic services, as the federal government threatened to withhold aid, or at least some of it, to the state because of immigration. At the time, Attorney General Jeff Sessions said the bill could “undermine the Trump administration’s attempts to improve relations between local law enforcement agencies and the federal government.” This year, California again made news for a different reason. After Attorney General Jeff Sessions said that he wanted to get involved in states with restrictive immigration policies, California Gov. Jerry Brown said his state “won’t sit on the sidelines” and will continue to fight the Trump administration on policies on immigration.