March 5, 2025 - Today, the mayors of four prominent U.S. sanctuary cities—New York, Boston, Chicago, and Denver—faced intense scrutiny as they testified before the House Committee on Oversight and Government Reform. The hearing, held on Capitol Hill, spotlighted the contentious issue of sanctuary city policies amid the Trump administration’s aggressive push for immigration enforcement. With the current date being March 5, 2025, the event marked a significant moment in the ongoing national debate over immigration, public safety, and federal authority.
The Democratic mayors—Eric Adams of New York City, Michelle Wu of Boston, Brandon Johnson of Chicago, and Mike Johnston of Denver—defended their cities’ policies, which limit local cooperation with federal immigration authorities. The hearing, chaired by Rep. James Comer (R-Ky.), was framed by Republicans as an effort to hold these leaders accountable for what they describe as "reckless" and "misguided" policies that jeopardize public safety. Democrats, however, countered that these policies foster trust within immigrant communities, enhancing overall security.
Highlights from the Hearing
The six-hour session was marked by fiery exchanges, impassioned defenses, and stark political divides. Republicans accused the mayors of shielding criminals and obstructing President Donald Trump’s mass deportation agenda, while the mayors emphasized compliance with federal law and the practical benefits of their approaches.
New York City Mayor Eric Adams, a former police officer, walked a delicate line, balancing his city’s sanctuary status with a call for deporting violent criminals. “To be clear, the sanctuary city classification does not mean our city will ever be a safe haven for violent criminals,” Adams asserted in his opening remarks. He highlighted declining crime rates in New York and noted the economic contributions of law-abiding immigrants, stating, “New York City will always comply with city, state, and federal laws as it does now.” Adams received rare praise from Chairman Comer for his cooperation with Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE), though some Democrats questioned whether this stemmed from a deal to evade federal corruption charges—a claim Adams denies.
Boston Mayor Michelle Wu delivered a spirited defense, at times translating her remarks into Spanish and other languages to underscore inclusivity. Responding to criticism from Trump’s border czar Tom Homan, Wu declared, “Shame on him for lying about my city, for having the nerve to insult our police commissioner who has overseen the safest Boston’s been in anyone’s lifetime. Bring him here under oath, and let’s ask him some questions.” She argued, “A city that’s scared is not a city that’s safe. A land ruled by fear is not the land of the free,” emphasizing Boston’s plummeting murder rate as evidence of effective governance.
Chicago Mayor Brandon Johnson focused on public safety, asserting that sanctuary policies encourage undocumented immigrants to report crimes without fear. “We know there are myths about these laws. But we must not let mischaracterizations and fearmongering obscure the reality that Chicago’s crime rates are trending down,” he told the committee. Johnson highlighted the city’s lowest homicide rate in five years, dismissing Republican attacks as “sensationalizing tragedy in the name of political expediency.”
Denver Mayor Mike Johnston recounted his city’s response to an influx of 42,000 migrants over 18 months, the largest per capita of any U.S. city. “The question Denver faced was what will you do with a mom and two kids dropped on the streets of our city with no warm clothes, no food, and no place to stay,” he said. Johnston refuted claims of noncompliance, noting Denver honored over 1,200 ICE criminal arrest warrants in recent years, and stressed his duty to protect all residents.
Republican Pushback and Threats
Republicans, led by Comer, hammered the mayors for allegedly undermining federal authority. Comer opened the hearing by stating, “These policies only create sanctuary for criminals,” and suggested Congress should withhold federal funding from such jurisdictions. Rep. Jim Jordan (R-Ohio) clashed with Johnston over a case involving a Venezuelan gang member, arguing sanctuary policies endangered ICE agents. Rep. Nancy Mace (R-S.C.) went further, accusing the mayors of having “blood on your hands” for crimes committed by undocumented immigrants, while Rep. Anna Paulina Luna (R-Fla.) announced plans to send criminal referrals to the Justice Department.
Democratic Counterarguments
Ranking Member Gerry Connolly (D-Va.) defended the mayors, asserting, “Sanctuary city laws are in full compliance with federal law. They do not obstruct ICE from carrying out its duties.” Democrats argued that local police, not federal agents, are best positioned to ensure public safety, and pointed to court precedents upholding sanctuary policies.
Broader Context
The hearing comes as the Trump administration ramps up its immigration crackdown, including a lawsuit against Chicago and threats to cut federal funding to sanctuary jurisdictions. The mayors’ testimony follows meticulous preparation, with legal teams and advisers helping them avoid the pitfalls that ensnared university presidents in a 2023 congressional hearing on antisemitism. As the debate unfolds, cities are bracing for potential legal battles over funding and enforcement, with analysts noting the Supreme Court’s conservative majority could complicate outcomes.
Looking Ahead
The Capitol Hill showdown signals the start of a broader struggle over immigration policy in Trump’s second term. While the mayors stood firm, the hearing laid bare the deep partisan rift, with no immediate resolution in sight. As Wu put it, “A land ruled by fear is not the land of the free”—a sentiment that encapsulates the stakes for sanctuary cities nationwide.
This article reflects updates as of 4:12 PM EST on March 5, 2025.
Comments