Local governments across the United States are signaling their refusal to participate in what the Trump administration describes as the largest migrant deportation effort in U.S. history. The recent move by the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) to expand immigration enforcement has prompted officials from multiple cities and states to publicly oppose federal immigration crackdown measures, citing concerns about safety and community trust.
"The Omaha police department has no plans to participate in any raids," stated Chief Todd Schmaderer of the Omaha, Nebraska police department, during a public video announcement. He emphasized, “Local officers do not and will not stop people to check their legal status.” Omaha's Republican Mayor Jean Stothert echoed these sentiments, affirming, “Enforcing immigration law is the responsibility of federal law enforcement agencies, not the Omaha police department.”
Omaha is far from alone; similar declarations have emerged from city leaders across the nation. Chicago, Denver, New York City, Los Angeles, and Minneapolis have also built walls against federal immigration enforcement. Minneapolis Police Chief Brian O'Hara highlighted the dire consequences of these immigration policies, stating, “It would have a very chilling effect on our ability to provide public safety in the city if people were afraid to call the Minneapolis police because they think we're going to call Immigration on them.”
During a formal event last week, Grand Prairie, Texas Police Chief Daniel Scesney remarked, “My officers would not be using their time efficiently if they were driving around trying to find people who might have been born in another place.” These sentiments resonate across the country, as municipalities take various approaches to mitigating the feared impacts of federal immigration enforcement tactics.
Among them, the city government of Denver has gone so far as to publish an editorial denouncing the Trump administration's crackdown as “a calamity.” Mayor Mike Johnson noted intentions to possibly join lawsuits aimed at protecting the rights of migrants. Meanwhile, other localities, such as Bridgeport, Connecticut, have also safeguarded their schools by restricting U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) access, with their interim Superintendent Royce Avery affirming, “Every student…regardless of their immigration status has the right to feel secure and supported.”
Further south, Los Angeles has enacted ordinances prohibiting the utilization of city resources for immigration enforcement, showcasing its commitment to privacy and protection for undocumented residents. New York City Mayor Eric Adams emphasized his administration’s resolve to support all residents, stating, “We’re here to make sure you get the services you deserve.”
The city's refusal to participate underlines widespread, long-standing practices before Trump's presidency, where numerous jurisdictions passed measures to limit cooperation with federal agencies. The Center for Immigration Studies has noted at least 13 states and more than 200 cities and counties have adopted “sanctuary” laws, intended to protect migrants from deportation.
Despite this growing resistance, the Trump administration appears resolute. An internal memo from the DHS recently emerged, granting ICE officials enhanced capabilities to expedite the deportation of migrants who had entered the U.S. temporarily via Biden-era programs. The memo reportedly empowers these officials to target over one million individuals who may have believed they were legally permitted to stay.
This memorandum has raised substantial concerns among immigrant advocates and those affected, particularly individuals fleeing dangerous conditions. The memo seems to extend the scope of deportations, moving beyond those who have entered illegally to include migrants who availed themselves of lawful pathways to gain entry.
With ancestry tracing back to Biden’s former initiatives, including programs allowing migrants from countries like Cuba, Nicaragua, Venezuela, and Haiti entry, the memo signals Trump's aggressive stance on immigration enforcement. Its potential to apply to Afghan and Ukrainian immigrants introduced under separate humanitarian programs adds another layer of anxiety for those who might have believed their status was secure.
These developments reflect Trump's intent to root out what he characterizes as abuses of the U.S. immigration system, regardless of legal status. Cities facing increased federal pressure have begun to prepare for legal battles, with warnings from the Justice Department threatening prosecution for those who refuse compliance with federal requests. According to the memorandum, "Federal law prohibits state and local actors from resisting, obstructing, and otherwise failing to comply with lawful immigration-related commands or requests." This raises serious ramifications for local jurisdictions supporting undocumented immigrants.
The clash between federal authorities and local municipalities creates stark challenges moving forward. While local leaders commit to upholding community safety and rights, the Trump administration's immigration agenda continues to tighten the grip on immigrant populations across the nation.
Resistance among local governments showcases the complexity of immigration at the community level, drawing strong lines of support and opposition within the same political framework. Without guidance on how to navigate this increasingly fraught relationship, cities will likely confront growing pressures from both their communities and the federal government.