2 months ago
37
Updated
The Democratic mayors of New York, Denver, Boston and Chicago are expected to face withering scrutiny on Wednesday from House Republicans, who will accuse them of thwarting President Trump’s deportation efforts and putting their residents in harm’s way.
Mr. Trump has threatened to withhold federal money from jurisdictions he deems uncooperative with his deportation plans, and he recently filed a lawsuit accusing leaders in Chicago of thwarting his immigration policies. The mayors will be forced to walk a fine line, defending their cities’ sanctuary policies while trying to avoid viral moments that could be used to attack them and other Democrats in future campaigns.
Here’s what we’re covering:
The committee: Republicans on the House Committee on Oversight and Government Reform are expected to echo Mr. Trump’s attacks during the hearing. The committee, which is led by James Comer and stocked with Republican firebrands including Jim Jordan, Lauren Boebert and Marjorie Taylor Greene, promoted the mayors’ appearance with a sizzle reel set to dramatic music and video clips of tent cities, criminals with guns and the Declaration of Independence up in flames.
What’s at stake: Republicans have been critical of any community deemed a “sanctuary city,” a catchall phrase to describe jurisdictions that limit cooperation between local law enforcement and federal immigration authorities. Democrats have long championed these restrictions as a way to create safe and welcoming communities for immigrants. But such policies have come under increasing scrutiny in recent years as migrants arrive in those cities in greater numbers, straining resources.
Difficult task: The hearing could be a minefield for the four mayors. They will need to defend themselves and their policies, while also stating that they follow all federal laws. The leaders will try to sidestep the kind of stumbles that derailed the presidents of Harvard, Columbia and the University of Pennsylvania, who lost their jobs after testifying before Congress about campus antisemitism.
Special challenges: Both parties are expected to scrutinize Mayor Eric Adams of New York, a former police officer who has echoed Republican criticism of sanctuary policies. The Trump administration has moved to drop federal corruption charges against Mr. Adams, and the prosecutor previously overseeing the case suggested that the mayor had offered to help with the administration’s immigration efforts in exchange for leniency, a charge his lawyers deny.
Image
The four mayors testifying at a House hearing on Wednesday are confronting similar issues as they navigate their policies toward immigrants. But for Mayor Eric Adams of New York City, his challenge stands apart.
Mr. Adams, a Democrat who was indicted on federal corruption charges, has pledged to work with the Trump administration in its immigration enforcement efforts. The prosecutor overseeing his case, who resigned rather than drop the charges under pressure from the Trump administration, made a startling accusation: In exchange for leniency in his case, the mayor agreed to do President Trump’s bidding on immigration.
Mr. Adams has denied the allegations, arguing that he genuinely agrees with Mr. Trump on parts of his immigration agenda, such as deporting immigrants who are accused of violent crimes.
The mayor faces a balancing act at the hearing. He must appear relatively independent to Democrats back home who say he is beholden to Mr. Trump and also not anger Trump officials whom he has agreed to work with.
Mr. Adams recently appeared with Thomas Homan, the president’s “border czar,” in an interview on Fox News, to highlight their collaboration on immigration enforcement. Mr. Homan said he expected the mayor’s assistance or he would be “up his butt, saying, ‘Where the hell is the agreement we came to?’”
At the same time, Democrats who lead the New York City Council have made clear they will not work with Mr. Adams to weaken the city’s sanctuary laws, and many New Yorkers are worried about the prospect of mass deportations.
Mr. Adams is running for re-election in a crowded Democratic primary in June and has record-low approval ratings. Former Gov. Andrew M. Cuomo entered the race over the weekend and leads in polls, presenting a major challenge for the mayor.
Mr. Adams is still waiting for a judge to decide whether to drop the federal charges against him. After the Justice Department demanded that they be dropped, the federal prosecutor who resigned accused the mayor of a quid pro quo.
Two Democrats on the House Judiciary Committee began an investigation this week into the push to drop the charges against Mr. Adams and requested communications between the mayor’s lawyers and the Justice Department.
Mr. Adams understands the importance of the hearing. He has held a series of meetings with members of his legal team to prepare. The mayor said at a news conference on Monday that he would be “candid and honest” in his testimony and he appreciated the contributions of immigrants, but would not tolerate violent crime.
“It’s a privilege to be in this great country,” he said. “If you come here to violate our laws and abuse people, after you serve your time, you should not be in this country.”
Image
It would be fair to say that Michelle Wu, the mayor of Boston, and the Trump administration do not get along.
Tom Homan, the Trump administration’s border czar, has threatened the city with increased immigration enforcement and suggested that the police chief should resign. “I’m coming to Boston, and I’m bringing hell with me,” he said last month.
Ms. Wu, a first-term Democrat, called the comments “clueless.”
A Harvard-educated progressive who speaks fluent Spanish, Ms. Wu, 40, has done little to retreat. She has instead spent time assuring immigrants that the city remains a safe and welcoming place.
A flashpoint in tensions between the Trump administration and the city is a local law known as the Trust Act. It prohibits Boston police officers from participating in most federal immigration enforcement actions, though they can assist in some cases when crimes have been committed.
Earlier this year, federal officials accused the Boston police of ignoring dozens of federal requests to detain undocumented immigrants. Police officials said that they had never received most of the requests because Immigration and Customs Enforcement had disregarded the department’s request in 2023 to submit its requests by email instead of fax.
Mayor Wu has defended the city’s approach as the best way to preserve trust between immigrant communities and law enforcement. And she promotes Boston’s public safety record: In 2024, there were 24 homicides, the lowest number since at least 1957.
Gov. Maura Healey has taken the brunt of the criticism, especially for the state’s failure to conduct criminal background checks on shelter residents. And Massachusetts had difficulty handling the 2023 surge in migrants.
Many of them arrived from Haiti, drawn to a long-established Haitian American community in Boston and the state’s longstanding right-to-shelter law. Contracts with motels and hotels cost Massachusetts hundreds of millions of dollars.
For her part, Mayor Wu, who is up for re-election this year, seems ready to spar during the hearing.
“I’m there, no matter how challenging the circumstances, to stand up for Boston, and also to stand up for the truth, the facts, of who we are,” Ms. Wu, a daughter of immigrants from Taiwan, told reporters when asked about the hearing.
“Some people are trying to paint a story of cities where immigrants live as dangerous places,” she said, “when in fact we are proof of the opposite.”
I’m watching for how Mayor Mike Johnston of Denver tries to rebut the accusation that his city isn’t cooperating with immigration enforcement. In late January, he told CBS Colorado that Denver had yet to hear from immigration officials, and the city says the pace of immigration enforcement has not changed noticeably under President Trump.
Image
Mayor Brandon Johnson has plenty of problems at home in Chicago. Municipal finances are tight. Voters rejected his plan to use new tax revenue to address the growing homeless population. Contract negotiations with the teachers’ union, Mr. Johnson’s longtime employer, have exposed divisions on the City Council.
But those debates have been primarily with his fellow Democrats. As Mr. Johnson heads to Washington, he will engage with Republicans on an issue that may pose a larger political threat to himself and the government he leads.
For years, Republicans have singled out Chicago, the nation’s third most populous city, as an avatar for all that ails urban America. Chief among their grievances is a city ordinance that blocks cooperation on immigration enforcement.
Shortly after Mr. Trump took office, the Justice Department sued Mr. Johnson over Chicago’s immigration policies and also said it could prosecute local officials who prosecutors believed were impeding the work of immigration officers.
During Mr. Johnson’s nearly two-year tenure, Chicago has struggled to manage the influx of migrants, many of whom camped outside police stations or slept on airport floors after being bused north by Texas conservatives. Though the flow of new arrivals has slowed considerably, the local politics may have shifted. Some Chicagoans protested plans to open new shelters in their neighborhoods, and a handful of City Council members tried, but failed, to roll back the ordinance limiting cooperation with immigration officials.
Through it all, Mr. Johnson has defended Chicago’s status as a “welcoming city” for undocumented immigrants.
The hearing on Wednesday will be a major test for Mr. Johnson, who until his election in 2023 held a relatively low-profile seat as a county commissioner. His time as mayor has had bright spots, including reductions in the homicide rate. But he has not fully sold residents or City Council members on his vision for Chicago, and he has often struggled to turn his priorities into policy.
On immigration, though, he has not wavered.
“Our song of unity won’t change because who’s in the White House,” Mr. Johnson said last week.
