Mayors from ‘sanctuary cities’ grilled during House hearing
Al Drago/Bloomberg via Getty Images
(WASHINGTON) — The mayors of Boston, Chicago, Denver and New York City faced a fiery House Oversight Committee during a blockbuster hearing on sanctuary cities on Wednesday.
Boston Mayor Michelle Wu, Chicago Mayor Brandon Johnson, Denver Mayor Mike Johnston, and New York City Mayor Eric Adams all defended their actions on immigration enforcement in their respective cities as Republicans on the committee accused them of increasing crime and impeding on law enforcement actions.
“The mayors here today each lead so-called ‘sanctuary cities,’ and let’s be clear, these policies only create sanctuary for criminals,” Chairman James Comer, a Republican, said in his opening remarks.
“Today, mayors Wu, Johnson, Johnston and Adams will be publicly accountable for their failure to follow the law and protect the American people.”
Sanctuary cities still enforce U.S. federal immigration laws, but the term often refers to a limited collaboration with U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement while enacting policies that are more favorable to undocumented people.
Democrats immediately criticized the Trump administration, arguing the overreach of federal officials has led to unlawful detentions and created fear in communities.
“Republicans have hauled before us the mayors of four major American cities to frame them as lawless, because those cities have some limits on how intrusively and aggressively their own officials can conduct federal immigration operations and responsibilities,” Ranking Member Gerry Connolly said.
“Let’s be clear, the state and local laws that Republicans have issue with today are in full compliance with federal law. They do not obstruct ICE from carrying out its duties, and they are backed by evidence demonstrating that they keep people safe.”
Throughout the hearing, the mayors took turns defending their status, describing how they work with law enforcement on arrests while also creating policies that make their cities more safe.
“As mayor, I do not control who enters or remains in our country, but I do have to manage the population that is within our city,” said Adams, who said as New York City mayor he is working with the Trump administration on immigration aid. “In order to carry out this function without having long term negative ramification, I must create an atmosphere that allows every law abiding resident, documented or not to access vital services without fear of being turned over to federal authorities.”
Wu said that the Trump administration is making “hard-working, tax-paying, God-fearing residents afraid to live their lives.”
“A city that scared is not a city that’s safe. A land ruled by fear is not the land of the free,” Wu said.
Wednesday’s committee hearing comes as President Donald Trump’s administration officials have ramped up their immigration enforcement efforts with Attorney General Pam Bondi shutting down federal grants to sanctuary cities and multiple threats “border czar” Tom Homan has issued toward these mayors if they refuse to comply.
On Tuesday, Bondi said efforts to crack down on immigration enforcement would increase in Boston, citing a lack of effort from Wu to prosecute undocumented immigrants.
“As a result of the Mayor’s decision to side with public safety threats over law-abiding citizens, DOJ will have no choice but to increase efforts in the city of Boston. Criminals will be prosecuted, illegal aliens will be arrested, and justice will be served,” Bondi posted on X.
(WASHINGTON) — The U.S. military’s standards for investigating sexual assault claims will remain unchanged, a senior official told reporters on Thursday, as it launches a separate department-wide review into how discrimination claims are handled in general.
The promise also comes as the Defense Department faces a potential loss of personnel available to process sexual assault cases due to efforts by the Trump administration to trim staff across government.
“At the end of the day, the standard of proof remains the same with regard to any sexual harassment complaint,” said Dr. Nathan Galbreath, director of the Sexual Assault Prevention and Response Office.
“To that end, all complaints are reviewed, the evidence is analyzed, and a legal officer often opines on whether or not action can be taken,” Galbreath told reporters in a briefing call on tracking sexual assault cases in the military.
Last week, Secretary of Defense Pete Hegseth called on service secretaries to review equal opportunity programs to ensure discrimination complaints weren’t being “weaponized” by disgruntled employees. The military tracks sexual harassment complaints through its equal opportunity personnel.
In his April 23 directive, Hegseth specifically called on secretaries to ensure “complaints that are unsubstantiated by actionable, credible evidence are timely dismissed.” He called it the “no more walking on eggshells policy.”
“Too often, at the Defense Department, there are complaints made that for certain reasons that can’t be verified that end people’s careers,” Hegseth said in a video posted on X.
“Some individuals use these programs in bad faith to retaliate against superiors or peers. I hear that all the time,” he said of general discrimination complaints.
When it comes to sexual assault, unfounded claims are extraordinarily rare. According to the military, 1% of cases involve evidence that either exonerates the person accused or shows the crime did not occur.
When asked if Hegseth’s latest mandate will raise the standard of proof for sexual assault victims, Galbreath said “no.”
President Donald Trump also asked the Pentagon to review regulations that are potentially burdensome and streamline operations, an effort that resulted in offers to employees for early retirement as well as hiring freezes across the department.
Galbreath and other officials told reporters Thursday that they aren’t sure exactly how the military’s Sexual Assault Prevention and Response program will be affected just yet.
When a recent hiring freeze went into effect, there were about 300 sexual assault prevention jobs put on hold, said Dr. Andra Tharp, director of the Defense Department’s office of command climate and well-being integration.
“We’re really trying to get our arms around total impacts of that,” she said.
Tharp said she is encouraging the services to seek hiring exemptions for sexual assault response coordinators and victim advocates.
Galbreath said that 100% of victim services remain available now and that sexual assault response coordinators and victim advocates are stationed at every military installation around the world.
The number of sexual assaults reported across the military fell by nearly 4% last year, according to data released by the department.
The report is the first full-year account since the Pentagon put in place new prosecution procedures that empower independent lawyers, rather than military commanders. The changes were called for by lawmakers who said not enough was being done to encourage personnel to report assault.
“Even though we’d like to see the number of reports increase, I’m still very satisfied that our military members know that they can come forward,” and “get the help that they need to recover,” said Galbreath.
(WASHINGTON) — Amid mixed messaging from top White House officials, President Donald Trump was asked directly on Monday whether his sweeping tariffs are negotiable or here to stay.
“They can both be true,” Trump responded. “There can be permanent tariffs and there can also be negotiations because there are things that we need beyond tariffs.”
For days, from Trump on down, administration officials have offered conflicting statements on whether countries can do anything to save themselves from the tariffs, which include a universal 10% tariff implemented over the weekend and what they claimed were more targeted “reciprocal” tariffs to take effect on Wednesday.
On Monday alone, Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent shared he was tasked with negotiating with Japan while White House trade advisor Peter Navarro penned an editorial that the new policies are “not a negotiation.”
Bessent posted on social media that following a “very constructive phone discussion” with Japanese officials, Trump instructed him and U.S. Trade Representative Jamieson Greer to “open negotiations to implement the President’s vision for the new Golden Age of Global Trade.”
Navarro wrote in the Financial Times that Trump wouldn’t be backing down from his “reciprocal” tariffs on nations the administration’s deemed the worst offenders in trade relations.
“This is about fairness, and no one can argue with that. This is not a negotiation,” Navarro wrote. “For the US, it is a national emergency triggered by trade deficits caused by a rigged system. President Trump is always willing to listen. But to those world leaders who, after decades of cheating, are suddenly offering to lower tariffs — know this: that’s just the beginning.”
When Trump announced the sweeping tariffs in the White House Rose Garden, he justified them as a response to a “national emergency” caused by trade deficits and unfair practices with global partners.
Since then, markets at home and abroad slumped. Foreign leaders recoiled, with some — like China — taking retaliatory action against the United States. Economists increased their odds of a recession this year.
Officials were pressed to justify the action on Sunday morning news shows, where again the confused messaging was apparent. Trump spent the weekend golfing as fallout from his tariff policy continued.
Commerce Secretary Howard Lutnick, on the CBS News program “Face the Nation,” said tariffs were going to “stay in place for days and weeks” and that “this is the policy.”
Meanwhile, National Economic Council Director Kevin Hassett, on ABC News’ “This Week,” boasted that 50 countries had reached out to the White House to negotiate tariffs.
Trump on Monday said they’re open to “fair deals” with foreign leaders that put “America first” — but that tariffs would stay in place in the meantime.
“We’re going to get fair deals and good deals with every country. And if we don’t, we’re going to have nothing to do with them. They’re not going to be allowed to participate in the United States,” he said.
ABC News Chief White House Correspondent Mary Bruce asked Trump on Monday if he’d be open to a pause in tariffs to allow for negotiation.
“Well, we’re not looking at that,” Trump responded. “We have many, many, countries that are coming to negotiate deals with us, and they’re going to be fair deals. And in certain cases, they’re going to be paying substantial tariffs.”
A rumor of a possible 90-day tariff pause that circulated on Monday caused stocks to briefly spike into green territory before going back into the red when the White House denied the report.
Trump said in the Oval Office that he doesn’t “mind going through it,” seemingly a nod to the criticism and volatility of the market because he believes it’s worth it at the end of the day.
“So, it’s got to be very interesting,” he said. “It’s the only chance our country will have to reset the table because no other president would be willing to do what I’m doing or to even go through it. Now, I don’t mind going through it because I see a beautiful picture at the end.”
ABC News’ Michelle Stoddart contributed to this report.
(WASHINGTON) — The theme of President Donald Trump’s high-profile address to Congress and the nation on Tuesday night is “Renewal of the American Dream,” but he’s also expected to remark on what his second-term agenda may mean for the rest of the world.
According to a White House official, the president will lay out his vision for “peace around the globe.”
“He’s going to dive into foreign policy, talk about his intention to end the war in Ukraine, talk about his plan to bring all of the hostages out of Gaza home,” White House press secretary Karoline Leavitt said in an interview on Tuesday.
But the president’s speech comes at a particularly contentious time. The aftermath of his heated Oval Office meeting with Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskyy still hangs over Washington, and there are signs that both Israel and Hamas may be preparing to resume fighting as the future of the Gaza ceasefire deal appears to be in jeopardy.
And as the Trump administration levies new tariffs against adversaries and allies alike after turning U.S. foreign policy on its head during his first six weeks back in office, the international community will be listening closely as fellow work leaders try to divine what the next four years may have in store.
Here are some things to watch for:
Will Trump mend his rocky relationship with Ukraine?
After Trump expelled Zelenskyy from the White House and declared the Ukrainian leader was “not ready for peace,” his administration paused the pipeline of U.S. military assistance to the country — further ramping up pressure on Kyiv.
Zelenskyy initially declined to apologize to Trump, but in an address on Tuesday, he called the meeting “regrettable,” adding, “It is time to make things right.”
As part of that, he proposed a partial ceasefire with Russia that he said Ukraine would be willing to implement immediately.
“Then we want to move very fast through all next stages and to work with the U.S. to agree a strong final deal,” he declared.
But whether this is enough to get back in the president’s good graces remains to be seen.
State Department spokeswoman Tammy Bruce said later on Tuesday there is still “an open door” for Zelenskyy, while applauding Trump.
“This is the end result of what happens when you make it clear to someone that there is one way to move forward,” she said.
A positive sign for Zelenskyy emerged Tuesday afternoon, when two sources briefed on discussions inside the White House told ABC News that the U.S. and Ukraine could sign the mineral deal that was supposed to be inked on Friday as soon as Tuesday.
One source said Trump indicated he would like to sign the deal before the speech but cautioned nothing is final.
But if Zelenskyy’s comments aren’t ultimately enough for the president, it’s possible he could go even further — potentially by attempting to cut off Ukraine from shipments of new weapons from American arm suppliers that were already paid for with money given to Kyiv by the Biden administration or by halting intelligence-sharing with the country.
Others have said they feel like no matter what, the damage has already been done.
“By canceling military aid to Ukraine, Trump doesn’t make peace any closer. It’s not even a blackmailing but rather conscious pressure on Ukraine to capitulate to Russia’s demands, after which Trump can “declare peace,” said Mariia Zolkina, the head of regional security and conflict studies at Ukraine’s Democratic Initiatives Foundation think tank.
“[Trump] can’t make a good deal now and defines Ukraine as ‘guilty’ for this,” she added.
Can the fragile peace in the Middle East last?
After members of his incoming administration worked with members of the Biden administration to secure a ceasefire deal in Gaza, Trump was able to reenter the White House with a major diplomatic win already under his belt.
Now, 44 days after that agreement went into effect, it seems to be at greater risk of falling apart than ever.
Israel revealed on Sunday that the U.S. had offered up another proposal to extend the first phase of the ceasefire deal, which would significantly speed up the release of hostages.
After Hamas rejected the plan, Israel cut off the flow of humanitarian aid to Gaza, a move the Trump administration has backed but other key mediators, such as Egypt and Qatar, have decried as a violation of humanitarian law.
The State Department said on Monday that Steve Witkoff, Trump’s special envoy for the Middle East, is planning to travel to the Middle East this week and that he would seek either to “work out a way to extend phase I or advance to phase II” of the Gaza ceasefire deal.
Trump’s address on Tuesday may offer clarity on what the president would actually like to see happen next in the peace process — beyond his outlandish plan to build what has called the “Riviera of the Middle East” in Gaza.
If the Israel-Hamas war doesn’t get airtime during Trump’s speech, that, too, could be telling about the president’s focus. But on Tuesday, Trump’s top diplomat, Secretary of State Marco Rubio, spoke to Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu in order to “underscore that the United States’ steadfast support for Israel is a top priority for President Trump,” according to the State Department.
How will Trump handle the tariffs trouble?
On the day of Trump’s address, the president’s long-threatened 25% tariff on goods from Canada and Mexico went into effect, prompting both countries to vow to take retaliatory economic measures — and subsequently leading to the president promising to raise tariffs further.
At the same time, the U.S. introduced another 10% tariff on Chinese imports, and Beijing hit back with its own tariffs on U.S. agricultural products and other measures targeting American business interests.
The immediate impact of the multifront trade wars has been a blow to the U.S. stock market, which Trump often uses as a barometer of his own success.
Economists say U.S. consumers may feel the crunch from tariffs more acutely as time goes on, as retailers are expected to offset costs by raising prices.
Beyond inflating prices, Joshua P. Meltzer, a senior fellow in the Global Economy and Development program at the Brookings Institution, argued the tariffs will also run counter to the Trump administration’s other economic aims.
“These tariffs will also harm the Trump administration’s goal of developing more secure supply chains and competing with China,” he said. “The tariffs are directly at odds with deeper economic integration across North America. In fact, China will benefit from a trade war across North America as it undercuts efforts to reshore supply chains away from China.”
Meltzer also said the move will hurt American credibility.
“They signal to the world that any international agreement with the U.S. is not worth all that much, raising difficult questions for all U.S. allies and trading partners about the value of trade agreements with the U.S.,” he said.
Trump’s address will provide a high-stakes opportunity for the president either to alleviate or exacerbate those concerns among U.S. trading partners.
ABC News’ Katherine Faulders and Rachel Scott as contributors.
