logo
Gov. JB Pritzker set to testify before congressional committee about sanctuary states amid immigration turmoil

Gov. JB Pritzker set to testify before congressional committee about sanctuary states amid immigration turmoil

WASHINGTON — Illinois Gov. JB Pritzker has said he plans to use a U.S. House committee hearing Thursday to educate Republican lawmakers on how the state's so-called sanctuary policies have helped create safer communities.
But spiraling events triggered by the Trump administration's recent forceful immigration enforcement tactics, including in Los Angeles and Chicago, could turn a politically contentious debate far more combative.
Beginning at 9 a.m. Chicago time Thursday, Pritzker will appear alongside fellow Democratic governors Kathy Hochul of New York and Tim Walz of Minnesota, who was last year's unsuccessful vice presidential nominee, in a long-planned hearing before the Republican-controlled House Committee on Oversight and Government Reform.
Underscoring a key Trump talking point, the GOP lawmakers repeatedly have tried to link immigration to violent crime and have faulted Democratic officials for limiting the ways state and local police can carry out immigration enforcement. The same Oversight Committee held a March hearing with big-city mayors, including Brandon Johnson of Chicago, to argue the same point.
But after much hype, the Republicans failed to make a splash with the mayors' hearing, as city officials largely avoided efforts to be drawn into partisan fights. The mayors insisted that sanctuary laws improved public safety, not jeopardized it.
Pritzker seems to be following the mayors' example in trying to sidestep major controversies while also blaming Congress for its inability over decades to pass an overhaul of the country's immigration laws that would allow longtime immigrants without documentation to gain legal status and to help businesses find workers they need.
'Certainly, I'm not there to lecture to (Republican lawmakers),' Pritzker told reporters last week. 'I'm there to take questions from them and respond to them.'
'There may be members on that committee who are simply there for a dog-and-pony show, who simply want to grandstand in front of the cameras. I hope not. That's inappropriate,' he said. 'I'm going there on a serious matter to give them my views about how we're managing through a problem that's been created for the states by the federal government.'
Pritzker's comments came before Trump ordered National Guard troops and Marines to Southern California in recent days — over the objection of Democratic Gov. Gavin Newsom of California, which has sued the Trump administration over the moves. The military forces are tasked with supporting federal agents in immigration enforcement.
Closer to home for Pritzker, immigrants and advocates have rallied against the Chicago Police Department, denouncing officers' alleged cooperation with federal agents who detained at least 20 immigrants last week on the Near South Side.
The governor said he thinks Chicago police 'followed the law.' But several Latino members of the Chicago City Council have called for an investigation. Sanctuary policies allow police to cooperate in criminal investigations of immigrants but not in immigration enforcement actions, which are civil violations.
'Thursday's hearing is a high-stakes moment to defend our values and push back on the Trump administration's war on immigrants,' U.S. Rep. Jesús 'Chuy' Garcia, a Chicago Democrat, said in an emailed statement. 'I trust Governor Pritzker will stand firm, asserting that sanctuary policies keep families safe, build trust, and reflect who we are.'
'With L.A. still reeling from military-style raids and subsequent military deployments, this hearing is a chance to show the country that Illinois won't be bullied into abandoning its immigrant communities,' Garcia added.
Anthony Michael Kreis, a law professor at Georgia State University who studies civil rights and constitutional law, said Trump's deployment of the National Guard in California and comments suggesting Newsom should be arrested likely means Pritzker and the other Democratic governors will face a far different dynamic on Capitol Hill than the big-city mayors did a few months ago.
'The sea change in the political dynamics over (the weekend) puts this on a very different footing,' he said. 'We're just in a wildly different place now, especially once the National Guard starts getting called and lawsuits begin, and arrests are made at a very wide scale.'
'The inclination to be more aggressive in that environment and to be a little more adamant in taking positions might be part of the political calculus for some of the governors in a way that it wasn't for the mayors,' Kreis added.
All the governors slated to appear Thursday face political pressure to stake out bold positions, he noted, as Pritzker publicly toys with the idea of a 2028 presidential run and Walz already has a national profile because of his vice presidential candidacy.
As Trump took control of National Guard troops against the wishes of Newsom, Pritzker and other Democratic governors blasted the move as an 'alarming abuse of power.'
Trump's National Guard order isn't limited to California, although that's the only place where it's been used so far. Newsom has said the guard isn't needed.
U.S. Sen. Dick Durbin, Illinois' senior senator, added his voice Monday to the growing chorus of outraged Democrats.
'What is clear is that President Trump manipulated these protests as an excuse to politicize the military and divert resources from pressing national security and disaster relief responsibilities,' Durbin said.
Durbin, the top Democrat on the Senate Judiciary Committee, questioned why the Trump administration responded so forcefully to protests in Southern California, just months after Trump pardoned nearly 1,500 people who took part in the deadly Jan. 6, 2021, riot at the U.S. Capitol that sought to overturn Trump's 2020 presidential election loss. Many of those protesters assaulted police officers.
'It appears FBI Director (Kash) Patel's comment (that) if you, 'hit a cop, you're going to jail,' only applies to people who President Trump doesn't agree with,' Durbin said in a speech on the Senate floor.
Pritzker arrived in Washington on Monday to prepare for his Oversight Committee testimony. It will be a constraining format for the billionaire governor because congressional hearings are designed to maximize attention for members of Congress, not their witnesses.
The Oversight Committee, in particular, is a contentious forum with partisan firebrands from both sides of the aisle competing for attention. There is no specific piece of legislation being considered by the lawmakers at the hearing.
Pritzker spokesman Matt Hill said in a statement that the two-term Democratic governor will 'discuss his track record on public safety and the implementation of bipartisan state laws.'
'Despite the rhetoric of Republicans in Congress, Gov. Pritzker will share facts about how this bipartisan public safety law is fully compliant with federal law and ensures law enforcement can focus on doing their jobs well,' Hill said.
One point Pritzker is expected to highlight to committee Republicans is that Illinois' Trust Act — which bans state law enforcement cooperation with federal immigration authorities who lack a judicially issued criminal warrant — was signed into law by a Republican, Pritzker's predecessor, Gov. Bruce Rauner.
Pritzker retained and is personally paying the Washington, D.C., law firm Covington & Burling to help prepare him for the hearing. It is one of the firms Trump has sought to sanction for its involvement in previous legal cases against him.
Dana Remus, who conducted the vetting of Pritzker as a potential vice presidential candidate to unsuccessful Democratic nominee Kamala Harris, is among the legal team assisting Pritzker, according to people close to Pritzker.
Republicans plan to paint the prominent governors as weak on public safety.
'The Trump administration is taking decisive action to deport criminal illegal aliens from our nation but reckless sanctuary states like Illinois, Minnesota and New York are actively seeking to obstruct federal immigration enforcement,' U.S. Rep. James Comer, a Kentucky Republican who chairs the House Oversight Committee, said in a statement last week.
'The governors of these states must explain why they are prioritizing the protection of criminal illegal aliens over the safety of U.S. citizens, and they must be held accountable,' he added.
Congressional Republicans have joined the Trump administration in trying to put pressure on sanctuary cities and states in recent months, often by withholding federal support for other services.
Last week, House Republicans passed a bill to remove Small Business Administration offices from sanctuary cities, including Chicago, Boston, Denver and New York. The proposal would support an initiative by SBA Administrator Kelly Loeffler in March to relocate the regional offices in six cities, including Chicago.
In April, Transportation Secretary Sean Duffy sent a memo implying grant money to Illinois and other sanctuary jurisdictions — or those that, like Illinois, allow unauthorized immigrants to drive legally — could be at risk.
Maria Castaneda, a spokesperson for the Illinois Department of Transportation, said the state wasn't changing its policies in response to the memo.
And in February, U.S. Attorney General Pam Bondi attempted to block federal law enforcement grants for Chicago and other sanctuary jurisdictions, although a federal judge in California ruled those actions unconstitutional in April.
'They are absolutely trying to bully (states and cities),' said Debu Gandhi, senior director of immigration policy for the Center for American Progress, a liberal think tank in Washington. 'This overreach will override local control. Withholding community funding from Americans is not an effective way to improve public safety.'
Laurence Benenson, vice president of policy and advocacy for the National Immigration Forum, said there are legal limits to the repercussions the federal government can impose on states for not falling into line with the administration's priorities. The Supreme Court, for example, has said financial penalties can't be so severe that they are akin to a 'gun to the head' of states for not complying, Benenson explained.
And it's Congress — not the executive branch — that has to set the priorities.
'If they're retroactively saying, 'We're adding all these conditions to this funding you're already receiving,' that's another thing they're going to be challenged on legally,' Benenson said.
Since returning to office, Trump has prioritized immigration enforcement with provocative actions, some of which judges have ruled illegal.
That includes deporting people to a prison in El Salvador without first holding legal hearings, detaining pro-Palestinian protesters and threatening to block all foreign students from Harvard University.
The administration has used plainclothes officers using unmarked vehicles and not wearing badges or agency identification to detain people suspected of immigration violations. Agents have taken people into custody after court hearings and at check-ins with caseworkers.
Gandhi said such actions undermine efforts to provide for public safety.
'What we've seen is recklessness and cruelty, not the promised actions that make Americans safer,' he said. 'Immigrants are being targeted for their speech. International students who have not violated the law are having their legal status placed in jeopardy. People are being deported to a notorious foreign prison in a third country with no due process.'
Kreis, the law professor from Georgia State, said the Trump administration's tactics have intensified the protests. But once federal agents are in danger, he said, local police are likely to move to protect them.
'As a liberal who is very much against a lot of what the Trump administration is doing with immigration policy, I can also see a very different scenario where the federal government was trying to enforce some civil rights policy that liberals would love,' he said.
Garcia, the Chicago congressman, said Thursday's hearing comes as a response to difficulties Trump has faced in pushing key parts of his agenda through Congress and the jolts he has caused in the economy through tariffs and trade policy.
'Trump desperately needs to distract us from his failures,' Garcia said in his statement. 'The economy is on the brink of a recession because the world is calling his bluff. We must stand strong against this cruel, authoritarian war that seeks to scapegoat immigrants to cover up the incompetence and corruption of the President and his administration.'
.

Orange background

Try Our AI Features

Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:

Comments

No comments yet...

Related Articles

Trump moves to merge wildland firefighting into single force, despite ex-officials warning of chaos
Trump moves to merge wildland firefighting into single force, despite ex-officials warning of chaos

Associated Press

time23 minutes ago

  • Associated Press

Trump moves to merge wildland firefighting into single force, despite ex-officials warning of chaos

BILLINGS, Mont. (AP) — President Donald Trump on Thursday ordered government agencies to consolidate their wildland firefighting into a single program, despite warnings from former federal officials that it could be costly and increase the risk of catastrophic blazes. The order aims to centralize firefighting efforts now split among five agencies and two Cabinet departments. Trump's proposed budget for next year calls for the creation of a new Federal Wildland Fire Service under the U.S. Interior Department. That would mean shifting thousands of personnel from the U.S. Department of Agriculture's Forest Service — where most federal firefighters now work — with fire season already underway. The administration has not disclosed how much the change could cost or save. Trump in his order cited the devastating Los Angeles wildfires in January as highlighting a need for a quicker response to wildfires. 'Wildfires threaten every region, yet many local government entities continue to disregard commonsense preventive measures,' the order said. The Trump administration in its first months temporarily cut off money for wildfire prevention work and reduced the ranks of federal government firefighters through layoffs and retirement. The order makes no mention of climate change, which Trump has downplayed even as warming temperatures help stoke bigger and more destructive wildfires that churn out massive amounts of harmful pollution. More than 65,000 wildfires across the U.S. burned almost 9 million acres (3.6 million hectares) last year. Organizations representing firefighters and former Forest Service officials say it would be costly to restructure firefighting efforts and cause major disruptions in the midst of fire season. A group that includes several former Forest Service chiefs said in a recent letter to lawmakers that consolidation of firefighting work could 'actually increase the likelihood of more large catastrophic fires, putting more communities, firefighters and resources at risk.' Another destructive fire season is expected this year, driven by above-normal temperatures for most of the country, according to federal officials. A prior proposal to merge the Forest Service and Interior to improve firefighting was found to have significant drawbacks by the Congressional Research Service in a 2008 report. But the idea more recently got bipartisan support, with California Democratic Sen. Alex Padilla and Montana Republican Sen. Tim Sheehy sponsoring legislation that is similar to Trump's plan. Before his election last year, Sheehy founded an aerial firefighting company that relies heavily on federal contracts. In a separate action aimed at wildfires, the Trump administration last month rolled back environmental safeguards around future logging projects on more than half U.S. national forests. The emergency designation covers 176,000 square miles (455,000 square kilometers) of terrain primarily in the West but also in the South, around the Great Lakes and in New England. Most of those forests are considered to have high wildfire risk, and many are in decline because of insects and disease.

An Israeli attack on Iran could send oil prices above $100 as tensions mount
An Israeli attack on Iran could send oil prices above $100 as tensions mount

CNBC

time28 minutes ago

  • CNBC

An Israeli attack on Iran could send oil prices above $100 as tensions mount

Beset by near-universal bearish outlooks just a month ago, oil prices could spike to more than $100 a barrel in the event of an Israeli attack on Iran, some analysts are warning. Crude prices spiked as much as 5% overnight — before paring gains — on fears of military escalation between Iran and Israel as President Donald Trump announced the withdrawal of some U.S. personnel from embassies and bases across the Middle East. The front-month August contract for global benchmark Brent crude was trading at $69 per barrel at 3:20 p.m. ET on Thursday, while the front-month July U.S. WTI contract was at $67.7 per barrel. "They [U.S. military personnel] are being moved out because it could be a dangerous place and we will see what happens... We have given notice to move out," Trump told reporters on Wednesday. The Pentagon has ordered the withdrawal of troops and non-essential staff from embassies in Baghdad, Kuwait and Bahrain. The jury is still out as to whether the moves are a pressure play ahead of upcoming U.S.-Iran nuclear talks, or whether the U.S., Israel and Iran are truly on the verge of conflict. The geopolitical risk premium is "already at least partially reflected in current oil prices," according to J.P. Morgan's global commodities research team, citing Brent crude trading at just under $70 a barrel, already above its model-derived fair value figure of $66 for June. "This suggests an elevated 7% probability of a worst-case scenario, where the price reaction is exponential rather than linear, with the impact on supply potentially extending beyond a 2.1 mbd (million barrels per day) reduction in Iranian oil exports," the bank's research team wrote in a note published Thursday. Iran is OPEC's third-largest crude producer. Israel appears ready to attack Iran, according to reports citing U.S. and European officials, and Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu has been pressing Trump to allow strikes. But the American president said in late May that he had warned Netanyahu against attacking Iran while negotiations with Washington were under way. U.S. Middle East envoy Steve Witkoff is currently set to meet with Iranian Foreign Minister Abbas Araghchi in Oman on Sunday for a sixth round of negotiations. Strait of Hormuz in focus Oil traders are focusing on the potential of a wider conflict shutting down the Strait of Hormuz, a critical chokepoint through which 20% of the volume of the world's total oil consumption passes daily. The British Navy on Wednesday issued a rare warning to ships in the region, saying it had "been made aware of increased tensions within the region which could lead to an escalation of military activity having a direct impact on mariners." It urged caution for vessels transiting "the Arabian Gulf, Gulf of Oman and Straits of Hormuz." Beyond that, J.P. Morgan warned, "a more general Middle East conflagration could ignite retaliatory responses from major oil producing countries in the region responsible for a third of global oil output." "Under this severe outcome," the bank's analysts wrote, "we estimate oil prices could surge to the $120-130/bbl range." Even before the latest uptick in tensions, some oil industry watchers were already making bullish calls despite a flood of announced OPEC+ supply coming onto the market, and lower global growth and demand forecasts due to trade and tariff tensions. Josh Young, founder and chief investment officer at Houston-based Bison Interests, told CNBC in late May that physical markets are more tightly supplied than previously thought, and with several oil rigs in the U.S. shale patch coming offline just as the U.S. summer driving season begins, markets should be preparing for Brent crude at $85 a barrel. "The pure inventory versus consumption would indicate $85 [per barrel], which is way higher than where we are right now. It's almost uncomfortable to say that, but that's the current price implied by inventories," Young told CNBC's Access Middle East. He cited his forecast figure as "fair value," arguing that "typically, you go from too cheap to too expensive. So I don't think we should be ruling out $100 oil this year. And I think if there is a geopolitical risk, it could get even higher." Without the geopolitical risk premium — namely, a conflict with Iran — Young still sees crude coming up to the $80 to $85 per barrel range, particularly in the event of trade deals being reached and Trump's tariffs being lowered. The outlook is boosted by this month's forecast from the U.S. Energy Information Administration, which sees a decline in U.S. oil production for the first time since the Covid-19 pandemic due to slower drilling activity and a declining rig count. Such bullish forecasts are certainly not the norm, however. Without a military attack on Iran, J.P. Morgan's base case for oil "remains in the low-to-mid $60s oil for the remainder of 2025, and $60 in 2026." Goldman Sachs also maintains an oil price forecast in the $50 to $60 per barrel range for this and next year, despite noting an improving demand picture, downside risks to U.S. supply and geopolitical tensions. The recent rise in inventories due to OPEC+ output increases, "supports our cautious oil price forecast, with Brent expected to average $60 for the rest of 2025 and $56 in 2026," the bank's commodities team wrote. "However, small misses in OPEC+ supply suggest that lower-than-anticipated spare capacity represents an upside risk to our price forecast."

Scoop: House Dem breaks with party on McIver and Padilla incidents
Scoop: House Dem breaks with party on McIver and Padilla incidents

Axios

time29 minutes ago

  • Axios

Scoop: House Dem breaks with party on McIver and Padilla incidents

Democrats in Congress have largely closed ranks around Rep. LaMonica McIver (D-N.J.) and Sen. Alex Padilla (D-Calif.) — but centrist Rep. Jared Golden (D-Maine) is panning what he calls their "politics as theater." Why it matters: Golden represents a district President Trump won last year and is always walking a careful line between supporting his party and maintaining his independence. On this, he is steering hard away from the party line. "I think that it's never good when a senator or member of Congress gets roughed up by law enforcement," he said in an interview with Axios at the Capitol. But, he added, "I don't think politics as theater is what our job is here." What happened: Padilla was forcibly removed by law enforcement as he tried to confront Secretary of Homeland Security Kristi Noem during a press conference at the Los Angeles FBI Headquarters on Thursday. Officers detained Padilla, held him on the ground and handcuffed him, though the senator was later allowed to meet with Noem. The incident came after McIver was indicted for allegedly assaulting law enforcement during a scuffle with DHS officers outside an ICE facility in her home state last month, which she denies. What he's saying: "Storming into the FBI headquarters and trying to break up a press conference and rushing on a [cabinet] secretary is not really the job of an elected official," Golden said. Of McIver he said: "Where I come from, if you shove a police officer, you're probably getting arrested." Still, he added: "I am not in any way saying that means law enforcement should be slamming people around." The other side: "Everyone is entitled to their respective opinions … For me, the video I saw was clear," Rep. Robert Garcia (D-Calif.), a member of Democratic leadership, told Axios when asked about Golden's comments. "He was at his place of work. He works in that building. He went to the press conference, ... he identified himself as a U.S. senator and then they manhandle him to the ground and arrest him," Garcia said. "I think it's crystal clear that that is unacceptable and an incredible overreach and quite dangerous ... and I think the American public is as outraged as the Congress." What to watch: Some Democrats are already talking about investigating the Padilla incident. "We only saw clips of it, so I'd like to find out everything that happened and how that occurred," said Rep. Stephen Lynch (D-Mass.), the acting ranking member of the House Oversight Committee. "He was very roughly handled, and it seemed like he was just trying to interject and attend the [press] conference. So, yeah, I think we need to take a good hard look at it."

DOWNLOAD THE APP

Get Started Now: Download the App

Ready to dive into the world of global news and events? Download our app today from your preferred app store and start exploring.
app-storeplay-store