Boston City Councilors defend pro-immigrant Trust Act as President Trump threatens funding cuts
Councilor Julia Mejia, another co-sponsor, praised Mayor Michelle Wu for 'standing up for immigrants,' and said she's heard from constituents who are essentially living in hiding due to fear of US
Immigration and Customs Enforcement crackdowns.
'They're not accessing healthcare. They're not sending their children to school. They're not going to work,' Mejia said.
Advertisement
The hearing came as President Donald Trump's administration has
Trump's border czar Tom Homan promised to
Following Wu's testimony, Republicans on the House Oversight Committee released a
Council President Ruthzee Louijeune said the Trust Act benefits public safety by increasing trust between Boston police and immigrant communities.
'It doesn't prohibit the federal government from doing their job,' she said. 'It just focuses on what our job is.'
And Councilor Ed Flynn described Boston as a 'city of immigrants,' while expressing hope that city police could maintain a good relationship with federal authorities to investigate major crimes.
Advertisement
'We don't want to harm neighbors who have been here for generations as part of our community,' Flynn said. 'At the same time, it is also important that we ensure the safety of our city and our residents when it comes to serious and violent crimes
.
'
Amy Grunder, director of state government affairs with the Boston-based Massachusetts Immigrant and Refugee Advocacy Coalition, credited the Trust Act with improving relations between immigrants and city government.
'It has done so much to build the confidence of Boston's immigrant communities in all of Boston's public institutions, not just law enforcement,' Grunder said.
Trump administration officials have called on cities such as Boston to do more to assist their efforts for mass deportations, under the threat of federal funding cuts and even criminal and civil charges for public officials who interfere with those efforts. On his first day as president, Trump
In 2017, the Massachusetts' Supreme Judicial Court issued a ruling that barred all local law enforcement from holding people based solely on civil detainer requests, which are communications from ICE asking a police department, court, or sheriff's office to continue to hold someone who they would otherwise release.
Boston's Trust Act directly bars Boston Police from working on federal immigration enforcement, though police can work with ICE if criminal acts are involved. It also extends beyond the SJC ruling, prohibiting police from asking people about their immigration status or sharing an arrestee's release time with civil immigration authorities.
Advertisement
The City Council initially passed the Trust Act ordinance in 2014, strengthened the law in 2019 and reaffirmed it in a vote in December.
But Trump did have some success blocking law enforcement and public safety grants — funding areas which could significantly affect Boston's violence reduction efforts.
While federal grants are a small percentage of the Boston Police Department's $474 million budget, those funds pay for programs that Cox describes as vital: DNA testing to solve cold murder and rape cases, anti-gang and anti-terrorism intelligence and hardening against nuclear threats, among others.
Last year, the Department of Homeland Security awarded nearly $12 million in Urban Area Security Initiative funds to promote security in Greater Boston, according to the state Office of Grants and Research. About $1 million of that money went to the Boston Police Department and another $1.9 million went to the Boston Regional Intelligence Center, which supports local anti-gang and counterterrorism operations.
Dan Glaun can be reached at
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Politico
7 minutes ago
- Politico
Trump judge picks advance
Senate Republicans are facing major new issues with their domestic policy megabill after the chamber's parliamentarian advised senators that several provisions they are counting on to reap hundreds of billions of dollars in budget savings won't be able to pass along party lines. Those include major pieces of Medicaid policy, including a politically explosive plan to hold down Medicaid costs by cracking down on a state provider tax — a provision that is expected to have a nine-figure impact on the bill. Republicans now will have to try to rewrite major sections of their Finance bill or potentially leave out key policies. The decisions were detailed in a Thursday morning memo from Democrats on the Senate Budget Committee. Other provisions now at risk include several GOP proposals to exclude undocumented residents from Medicaid, including by withholding federal funds from states that make them eligible for benefits. The rulings come at a critical time for Senate Majority Leader John Thune and other GOP leaders, who are already facing a revolt inside their conference from members wary of the practical and political impacts of the Medicaid changes. Some GOP members have proposed reverting to a less drastic House plan, which would merely freeze the existing provider taxes, though it's unclear if that provision could also pass muster under Senate rules. Even though the ruling is a setback for Republicans — and to their timeline for taking an initial vote on Friday — they were aware based on private conversations with parliamentarian Elizabeth MacDonough that parts of their initial plan were at risk of running aground of the chamber's rules. Republicans view the hurdle right now as 'technical' and are optimistic they will be able to get modified language into the bill. The revised language will still have to be blessed by the parliamentarian as complying with the chamber's rules. 'We knew that it was going to be an interesting conversation and we didn't know for sure how she was going to come down on it. But there are things that we can do, there are other ways of getting to that same outcome,' Thune said on Thursday morning, adding that Republicans might not ultimately get 'everything that we want' on the provider tax but will hopefully be able to salvage 'most of the reforms.' Some House Republicans are calling for Senate leadership to overrule the parliamentarian, an unprecedented step. 'The Senate Parliamentarian is not elected. She is not accountable to the American people,' Rep. Greg Steube (R-Fla.) posted on X. 'Yet she holds veto power over legislation supported by millions of voters.' Senate GOP leadership has repeatedly shot down that idea and Thune reiterated on Thursday morning that they wouldn't overrule the parliamentarian. Democrats took a victory lap after the ruling, noting the rulings blew a $250 billion hole in the megabill's savings. 'Democrats fought and won, striking healthcare cuts from this bill that would hurt Americans walking on an economic tightrope,' said Senate Finance Committee Ranking Member Ron Wyden (D-Ore.) in a statement. The parliamentarian also ruled early Thursday against a Republican proposal to prohibit plans from not getting certain Obamacare payments if they cover abortion. There are 12 states that currently require such coverage and insurers have worried they don't have enough time to implement the payment change before the start of open enrollment. There remain some outstanding policies, such as Republicans' effort to defund Planned Parenthood and removal of a nursing home staffing rule. Republicans still aren't closing the door to taking a first vote on Friday. One person granted anonymity to discuss the schedule insisted that the parliamentarian's decision is 'not as fatal as Dems are portraying it to be' and that 'Friday still not off the table.
Axios
7 minutes ago
- Axios
Supreme Court ruling on patients rights' could devastate Planned Parenthood
Medicaid patients don't have a right to freely choose their medical provider, the Supreme Court ruled 6-3 on Thursday, in a case that carries major implications for Planned Parenthood. Why it matters: The first abortion-related case of President Trump 's second term could result in the defunding of Planned Parenthood, which derives a significant chunk of its funding from the safety net program and is the nation's biggest provider of abortion services. Driving the news: The case, Medina v. Planned Parenthood, stemmed from South Carolina's move to block Medicaid recipients from getting care at Planned Parenthood clinics in the state. The Trump administration backed South Carolina's position. The decision in favor of South Carolina, authored by Justice Neil Gorsuch and joined by the court's other conservative justices, may embolden more states to remove Planned Parenthood from their Medicaid programs. Texas, Arkansas and Missouri have already done so. It comes amid Trump administration efforts to withhold Title X family planning funds from Planned Parenthood affiliates. The sweeping GOP budget bill now being debated in Congress would also cut off Medicaid funding to the reproductive health group. Nearly half of patients who use Planned Parenthood health services have Medicaid coverage, according to the Planned Parenthood Action Fund. Shutting the provider out of Medicaid networks could effectively defund it — a longtime priority of conservative politicians and an explicit goal of Project 2025. Federal Medicaid funding is not used to pay for abortions with few exceptions. Less than half of states use their own dollars to cover abortion care under Medicaid. But defunding Planned Parenthood would not only further curtail abortion access. It would also diminish the availability of primary care services provided by the clinics, including STI and cancer screening, birth control prescriptions, vaccines and mental health help. What they're saying:"As far as Planned Parenthood and comparable providers are concerned, this case could be part of a one-two punch if Trump's Big Beautiful Bill passes," Mary Ziegler, a professor of law at University of California, Davis, wrote on X. "At a time when health care is already costly and difficult to access, stripping patients of their right to high-quality, affordable health care at the provider of their choosing is a dangerous violation of bodily autonomy and reproductive freedom," said Destiny Lopez, co-president and CEO of the pro-abortion rights Guttmacher Institute.
The Hill
7 minutes ago
- The Hill
Qatar expects Iran-Israel ceasefire to hold
Qatar expects that the Israel-Iran ceasefire announced earlier this week will hold, government spokesperson Majed al-Ansari told NewsNation's Brian Entin on Thursday. 'Any ceasefire anywhere in the world is fragile. But we have great confidence in President Trump's push for this to happen. We have seen on the ground what the resolve of President Trump did,' al-Ansari said. 'And we do believe through his leadership and the work Qatar has been doing to mediate through both parties we will maintain this ceasefire and push to make it more sustainable,' he added. The full interview with al-Ansari will air later Thursday on Chris Cuomo's show. Entin and al-Ansari discussed the ceasefire, Trump's brokering role, Qatari intelligence on Iran's nuclear sites and if Americans should be fearful of Iran. Qatar reportedly helped broker the ceasefire by mediating with the Iranian government, while the U.S. worked to bring Israel to the table. It has also played a key role in mediating between Israel and Hamas over the course of the war in Gaza. The Gulf nation is a strategic U.S. ally and home to an Air Force base that Iran attempted to attack earlier this week. Qatari air defenses intercepted the attack. On Thursday, in his first public comments since the ceasefire, Iranian Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei claimed victory over Israel and the U.S., downplaying the extent of the damage from airstrikes from the two countries.
