Four major city mayors testified on Capitol Hill on March 5, defending their policies that protect illegal immigrants from federal immigration authorities, known as sanctuary policies.
Boston Mayor Michelle Wu, Chicago Mayor Brandon Johnson, Denver Mayor Mike Johnston, and New York Mayor Eric Adams each fielded questions on their state and local laws from members of the House Oversight and Government Reform Committee.
Their common claim: Their cities are safe, and their policies do not violate federal law.
While the Democratic mayors tiptoed around using the term “sanctuary city,” they pushed back on Republicans’ claim that their cities’ policies put criminal illegal immigrants before their constituents and the Constitution.
As Republican committee members questioned the cities’ cooperation with U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE), several Democrats sympathized with their dilemma of balancing public safety and the desire to provide a welcoming environment for illegal immigrants.
The hearing comes amid the Trump administration’s nationwide crackdown on illegal immigration, starting with those who have committed a crime. Several Democrat-run cities and states have made it known that they will not comply or cooperate with federal immigration officers conducting operations in their areas.
Republicans Say Sanctuary Cities Are Illegal
Rep. Paul Gosar (R-Ariz.) asked each of the mayors on the panel if they follow the U.S. Constitution’s Supremacy Clause, which states that the federal laws of the United States are “the supreme law of the land.”Adams said the question was “way over” his head, while Johnson said Chicago follows all local, state, and federal laws.
Wu, meanwhile, said she was unfamiliar with the Supremacy Clause and pledged to follow all local, state, and federal laws. That prompted Gosar to question which laws she would follow if her local laws conflicted with federal law.
“The Constitution, as I understand it, doesn’t require cities or police officers or anyone to follow ... federal laws in conflict with local laws or state laws,” the Boston mayor said.
Gosar disagreed.
“The Constitution is explicit that the federal government has jurisdiction and supremacy over all immigration laws,” he said.
Other Republican members raised the same point, saying that sanctuary city policies are in direct violation of federal law.
Rep. Andy Biggs (R-Ariz.) noted that U.S. immigration law forbids state or local governments from prohibiting or restricting any official’s communications with federal immigration authorities.
Biggs also pointed to statutes forbidding the shielding of illegal immigrants from detection and requiring the provision of “reasonable access” to evidence of an individual’s immigration status to immigration officers.
“You’re all in violation of all three of these statutes. You’ve got criminal culpability,” he stated, displaying the laws on posters that declared: “Sanctuary Cities Are Illegal.”
Rep. Gary Palmer (R-Ala.) agreed, charging the mayors with violating their oath of office.
“You’ve committed a crime,” Palmer said. “Mr. Chairman, I don’t understand why we haven’t been discussing obstruction of justice.”
Adams Says His Hands Are Tied
Adams said his city’s status as a sanctuary city was beyond his control.“Over the last three years, federal law did not allow me to stop buses from entering New York City,” the mayor said. “State law required me to provide all in our city with housing and meals and to educate children. City law makes it unlawful to collaborate with ICE for civil enforcement.”
Adams was an anomaly among Democrats as a vocal critic of the way that the Biden administration managed the southern border.
Nonetheless, he agreed with his counterparts that “comprehensive immigration reform is long overdue” and vowed to work with federal officials “to go after violent gangs and those who harm residents of our city.”
Mayors Hedge on Cooperating With ICE
Rep. James Comer (R-Ky.), the committee’s chairman, asked Wu and Johnson if they would turn over detained illegal immigrants to federal immigration officers.Comer noted that Boston law bars the use of city resources and personnel for enforcing civil immigration detainers, “meaning Boston police and other departments cannot cooperate with ICE when it comes to detaining on civil warrants.”
Wu said, “Whenever someone commits a crime, whenever there’s a criminal warrant, we hold them accountable.”
When pressed on whether that includes delivering those suspects into the hands of ICE, she did not provide a direct answer.
“We follow the laws and make sure that everyone,” she said before the congressman cut her off.
“I think that is a no,” Comer said, moving on to Johnson.
Citing the case of an illegal immigrant suspected of kidnapping and sexual assault, Comer asked the Windy City mayor if he would turn over that suspect—currently roaming free—to ICE.
Johnson said, “Our local law enforcement works hard every day to get criminals off the streets of Chicago.”
Denver Mayor Questioned Over ICE Officer’s Assault
Rep. Jim Jordan (R-Ohio) confronted Johnston about the decision of Denver authorities to release illegal immigrant Abraham Gonzalez, 23, “to the streets” on Feb. 28 instead of waiting for ICE to take him into custody.Gonzalez, a suspected member of the Venezuelan Tren de Aragua gang, assaulted ICE officers as they were arresting him in the county jail’s parking lot, according to the agency’s Denver Field Office. Jordan said the officers had to use a stun gun on Gonzalez.
The congressman criticized Denver police for giving ICE one hour’s notice of Gonzalez’s release, noting that they had held him for 345 days prior to his release.
Johnston said the official policy was to coordinate with ICE on a release time and date “so that ICE can come and pick them up from that location.”
Jordan said that instead of releasing illegal immigrants to ICE in public spaces such as parking lots, it would be safer for local authorities to turn them over to ICE while they are still detained. However, local authorities are prevented from doing this because of sanctuary policies.
Adams Reiterates ‘No Quid Pro Quo’
Rep. Julio Garcia (D-Calif.) asked Adams if the Trump administration had “coerced” him into striking a deal to avoid prosecution on federal charges of bribery, conspiracy, and campaign finance violations.“There’s no deal, no quid pro quo, and I did nothing wrong,” Adams said. “And anything dealing with this case had a deference to Judge [Dale] Ho, who’s now addressing it. I’m going to refer to his actions.”
It wasn’t the mayor’s first time addressing accusations of a deal, and it wouldn’t be the last. Moments later, he was asked the same question by Rep. Gerry Connolly (D-Va.), the committee’s top Democrat, and reiterated that no such deal was made.
The Justice Department announced the charges against Adams in September 2024, accusing him of taking bribes and accepting illegal campaign contributions and improper benefits from foreign nationals, businessmen, and others.
President Donald Trump has suggested that the New York City mayor may have been politically targeted by the Biden administration for speaking out about the impacts of illegal immigration on his city.
Last month, federal prosecutors asked Ho to dismiss the charges against Adams, sparking speculation of a potential quid-pro-quo arrangement between the mayor and the Trump administration.
The judge subsequently canceled the trial but has yet to rule on the requested dismissal.
Trump said in February that he was not involved in the push to dismiss Adams’s case. He suggested in December 2024 that after returning to the White House he might pardon Adams in the event of a conviction.
