Sanctuary governors Walz, Pritzker, Hochul called to testify before Congress
Minnesota Gov. Tim Walz, Illinois Gov. JB Pritzker, and New York Gov. Kathy Hochul were called to testify at a May 15 hearing before the committee to discuss the controversial sanctuary laws that are designed to protect illegal immigrants.
"The Committee on Oversight and Government Reform is continuing to investigate sanctuary jurisdictions across the United States and their impact on public safety and the effectiveness of federal efforts to enforce the immigration laws of the United States," Comer told Fox News Digital. "Sanctuary jurisdictions and their obstructionist policies hinder the ability of federal law enforcement officers to effectuate safe arrests and remove dangerous criminals from American communities. This threatens Americans' safety."
In addition to calling the Democratic governors before Congress, the committee is requesting:
"All documents and communications among or between any official, employee, contractor, or agent of the State of [Illinois, Minnesota, New York] related to the State of [Illinois, Minnesota, New York] sanctuary status;
"All documents and communications among or between any official, employee, contractor, or agent of the State of [Illinois, Minnesota, New York] and any official, employee, contractor, or agent of the federal government related to the State of [Illinois, Minnesota, New York] sanctuary status."
President Donald Trump posted to Truth Social post Thursday morning, continuing his push to eliminate sanctuary cities: "No more Sanctuary Cities! They protect the Criminals, not the Victims. They are disgracing our Country, and are being mocked all over the World. Working on papers to withhold all Federal Funding for any City or State that allows these Death Traps to exist!!!"
In March, Boston Mayor Michelle Wu, Chicago Mayor Brandon Johnson, Denver Mayor Mike Johnston, and New York City Mayor Eric Adams testified in a similar hearing before the House Oversight Committee, where members of Congress confronted the Democratic mayors on whether sanctuary status deter immigration agents and law enforcement officials from successfully enforcing federal laws.
According to the Congressional Budget Office, roughly 2.4 million immigrants per year entered the U.S. between 2021 and 2024 under the Biden Administration.
While the exact number of illegal migrants currently living in sanctuary cities is uncertain, there is a clear concentration of migrants in metro areas operating under sanctuary laws, creating barriers for ICE and immigration law enforcement officials to enforce laws.
"In addition to the efforts of the Trump Administration to ensure federal immigration enforcement can proceed unimpeded, Congress must determine whether further legislation is necessary to enhance border security and public safety," Comer told Fox News Digital. "It is imperative that federal immigration law is enforced and that criminal aliens are swiftly removed from our communities."
According to a New York Post report last week, a Department of Homeland Security official said the administration has made around 113,000 arrests and deported north of 100,000 illegal migrants.
Preston Mizell is a writer with Fox News Digital covering breaking news. Story tips can be sent to Preston.Mizell@fox.com and on X @MizellPreston
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
The Hill
5 minutes ago
- The Hill
Pirro: Trump National Guard deployment in DC 'just the beginning'
U.S. Attorney for the District of Columbia Jeanine Pirro warned Monday night that President Trump's deployment of the National Guard in the Washington was 'just the beginning,' characterizing the crime rates in the nation's capital as 'horrific.' 'President Trump has rightfully declared an emergency crisis of crime and deployed the National Guard, the ATF, the DEA, the FBI, so that criminals know now that we see them," she said during an apperance on Fox News with host Sean Hannity. "We are watching them and we are gonna make them accountable. But make no mistake, Sean, this is just beginning." Trump announced earlier Monday that the Justice Department (DOJ) would be taking control of D.C.'s Metropolitan Police Department (MPD) and that around 800 National Guard troops would be involved in the federal government's effort to lower crime rates. 'I'm deploying the National Guard to help reestablish law, order, and public safety in Washington, D.C., and they're going to be allowed to do their job properly,' the president said Monday during a press conference from the White House. Data shows that, so far, violent crime is down 26 percent compared to 2024 in the nation's capital, and that homicides last year dropped by 32 percent compared to 2023. But, the number of homicides last year, 187, was still higher than in the years in the lead-up to the COVID-19 pandemic. A Metropolitan Police Department police commander, Michael Pulliam, was placed on paid leave in May and is under investigation for allegedly altering crime numbers in his district, NBC4 reported last month. 'Today was, as the president called it, 'Liberation Day.' But we are now in the process of bringing to the attention of law-abiding citizens, not just in D.C., but throughout the country, that we're not gonna tolerate crime that is out of control in the nation's capital,' Pirro told host Sean Hannity. 'This is the shining city on the hill that our forefathers talked about," she added. D.C. Mayor Muriel Bowser, along with a host of other Democratic mayors, pushed back on Trump administration's moves, calling it "unsettling and unprecedented." But, she added that it was not surprising. The president's effort is being carried out through provisions under the city's Home Rule Act. Congress passed the law in the 1970s to give the nation's capital autonomy over its local affairs. Trump also appointed Drug Enforcement Administration chief Terry Cole to lead the federal takeover of MPD.
The Hill
5 minutes ago
- The Hill
Hey, Democrats — want to keep losing? Then keep sidelining Jasmine Crockett.
If Democrats want to keep losing elections by chasing elusive, outdated ideals of 'moderate' legislation, then they should continue sidelining rising stars like Rep. Jasmine Crockett (D-Texas). Crockett is a fresh voice representing millions of Americans who demand something new from their elected leaders. A recent Atlantic article revealed that some party elders view Crockett as 'undisciplined.' On the surface, it sounds like standard political advice. But in context, it exposes the respectability politics at play and evinces a deep disconnect from the cultural, media, and generational shifts that have defined the last decade. President Trump has understood these shifts and weaponized them to great success. We in the Biden administration seemed not to understand them — or worse, we just resented them. The Democratic Party needs a change of mindset. Its legacy leaders must either evolve or step aside. The youth aren't with them. Black men are moving to conservative parties. Our cities are slipping away, and the old coalition is breaking. So why is there so much pressure on Crockett to be polished? Mark Zuckerberg is in his 40s, rebranding himself with boxy T-shirts, jiu-jitsu medals, and hip-hop styled gold chains. Sam Altman, just 39, is leading the AI revolution and reshaping global power structures. Across industries, young leaders are not just present—they're shaping the future. Crockett, age 44 and a civil rights attorney, is sharp, media-savvy, and unafraid to speak plainly. She represents the cultural zeitgeist just as much as these men. Yet she is marginalized in her own party, passed over for leadership roles, and left vulnerable to attacks from opponents without the full-throated support of her colleagues. It's telling — especially in a party where the average age of leadership continues to climb into the 80s. Multiple members, including Crockett's predecessor Rep. Eddie Bernice Johnson (D-Texas), have died in office without effectively grooming successors. Why would Democrats sideline Crockett, clinging to appeals to 'moderates,' while the opposition isn't concerned with moderation at all? Republicans aren't running on moderation, they're running on winning majorities. These questions desperately need answers. Democrats must also grapple with their brand of respectability politics — where they speak truth to power in public, but reserve criticism for people in their own circles whom they deem unfit or unworthy behind closed doors. These whispers happen in places like Martha's Vineyard and elite social gatherings. Beaches and luxuries their constituents will probably never see or ever care enough to go to. It's happening to Crockett now. For those raised in the Black church, this is familiar: pastors refusing to step down, never mentoring the next generation, and leaving pulpits and communities in disarray. Crockett's situation is not unique, but it is urgent. She doesn't need to be controlled — she needs to be counseled, empowered, and amplified. Because Crockett is not an outlier or an agitator. She is the base. She is the moment. She speaks for working-class women juggling child care, school pickup, and $16-an-hour jobs with no benefits, driving uber on the weekend. She speaks for young Black men launching LLCs, tired of performative progressivism and poverty politics. She understands the frustration of a generation that grew up quoting Jay-Z and saw Trump glamorized in hip-hop lyrics long before he entered politics. She screams for them so they can keep going to work and getting their checks with some measure of hope and pride, knowing someone is fighting for them and isn't afraid. Whether you like her delivery or not, she's speaking a language people understand — and that's exactly what the party needs. Look at Bishop T.D. Jakes. Last month, he shocked many by announcing his retirement and installing his daughter, Pastor Sarah Jakes Roberts, as his successor. Sarah — a one-time teen mom whose sermons now go viral weekly — has become a spiritual voice for a new generation. By passing the torch while still alive, Bishop Jakes showed a rare understanding: Leadership is legacy, not ego. The Democratic Party should take note. Crockett doesn't need to be molded into an old-school moderate. She needs mentorship, media support, and the mic. If the party doesn't embrace her — and the millions like her — they'll keep losing. Not just elections, but the future.
The Hill
5 minutes ago
- The Hill
Social Security at 90: Where the program stands and how to fix it
Social Security is a vital source of income for millions of Americans, but after 90 years, the program faces significant financial challenges that could reshape it for future generations. If Congress fails to act, retirees could see their monthly checks cut by 23 percent in less than a decade — slashing thousands of dollars from the average person's annual benefits. Lawmakers are unlikely to let that happen, but so far, they've opted to kick the can down the road, avoiding politically unpopular solutions and complicating eventual fixes. President Franklin D. Roosevelt (D) signed Social Security into law on Aug. 14, 1935, as a way to give 'some measure of protection to the average citizen and to his family against the loss of a job and against poverty-ridden old age.' Here's what to know about the state of the program 90 years later: How many people receive Social Security? Nearly 70 million people received Social Security benefits in July, with the average check totaling $1,863. Retired workers made up the largest share — roughly three-quarters, or about 53 million. The program also supports other groups: Nearly six million people received survivor benefits last month, while more than eight million collected disability insurance. Most people aged 65 and older receive the majority of their income from Social Security, making it a vital lifeline for millions of adults — and children — who would otherwise fall below the poverty line. Without Social Security benefits, 37 percent of older adults would have had incomes below the official poverty line in 2023 — instead, only 10 percent did, according to the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities. More Americans now expect to rely on Social Security than in the past. In a recent Gallup poll, 37 percent of non-retirees said it will be a 'major source' of income in retirement — up from 28 percent two decades ago. When Social Security benefits could be cut Social Security isn't going away, but in less than a decade, millions of Americans could see their monthly retirement checks shrink if Congress doesn't intervene. The program's retirement trust fund is expected to run out by 2033, at which point Social Security would only be able to pay 77% of promised benefits. For today's average retired worker, that would mean a cut of about $460 a month — more than $5,500 a year. That said, experts caution against claiming Social Security benefits early out of fear that the program may not be around in the future, as doing so results in permanently lower monthly checks. Federal lawmakers are expected to act before the cuts take effect, but the main concern is that the longer they wait, the more complicated the fix will become. Social Security is so widely supported that, until now, politicians have largely avoided moves that could prove unpopular with voters. The last major overhaul came roughly 40 years ago when the federal government gradually raised the full retirement age from 65 to 67. When that happened in 1983, Social Security insolvency was just months away. Why Social Security is facing a financial shortfall The program's financial shortfall largely stems from the nation's changing demographics, which have resulted in fewer workers supporting more retirees. In 2010, there were 43 million people age 65 and older, and by 2024, that number had grown to 59 million, according to the Peter G. Peterson Foundation. At the same time, the number of workers contributing to the program has fallen — from 2.9 covered workers per beneficiary in 2010 to 2.7 in 2024 — a ratio projected to decline further to 2.3 by 2044, the foundation said. That imbalance is a concern because Social Security is primarily funded through a payroll tax, which accounts for about 90 percent of the trust fund's income. Fewer workers mean less payroll tax revenue. The good news is that the demographic shift isn't a surprise, giving policymakers time to prepare. The bad news is that it's not easily reversed, and major policy changes may be needed to shore up the program for generations to come. Something else to keep in mind: Despite raising the income cap over time, a smaller share of wages is now subject to the payroll tax compared to the '80s and '90s. The portion of wages and salaries covered by the payroll tax has fallen to about 82 percent, down from 90 percent in 1983, according to the Tax Foundation. Part of that is due to a rise in employer-provided benefits, like health insurance, which is tax-deductible, and thus faces neither the income nor payroll tax, the Tax Foundation said. What can be done to fix Social Security? Lawmakers have a few options: increase Social Security revenue, reduce costs or, most likely, some combination of both. Democrats want to raise more money by making high earners pay Social Security taxes on income above the current cap. For 2025, the tax only applies to the first $176,100, so any earnings above that aren't taxed. Gradually increasing the payroll tax rate is another way to raise revenue. Right now, the Social Security tax rate is 12.4 percent total — split evenly between employees and employers at 6.2 percent each. The combined rate has been steady since 1990. While raising taxes is rarely popular, polling suggests boosting revenue is generally more acceptable to the public than cutting benefits. A 2024 Pew Research survey found that wide majorities of both Republicans (77%) and Democrats (83%) do not support Social Security benefit reductions. President Trump has repeatedly promised not to cut Social Security benefits and even suggested eliminating federal income taxes on retirement checks — though that move would worsen the program's financial shortfall. Like his predecessors before him, Trump has offered little concrete policy direction for fixing Social Security. Tech billionaire Elon Musk's efforts to root out widespread waste, fraud and abuse fell short of expectations and sparked significant confusion. Earlier this year, Brookings released a bipartisan blueprint for fixing Social Security. The proposal included tax-based revenue boosts like increasing the maximum taxable ceiling and raising the payroll tax from 12.4 percent to 12.6 percent. It also suggested benefit reductions, like increasing the retirement age for high earners, among other changes.
