Congress

‘Sanctuary city’ mayors hope to avoid an embarrassing spectacle in Congress

Published

1 year ago

March 2, 2025

Democratic mayors of four cities with sanctuary policies to protect migrants are consulting with advisers, hiring lawyers and preparing to redact documents ahead of a grilling by House Republicans — hoping to avoid the kind of Capitol Hill spectacle that embarrassed three Ivy League presidents a little over a year ago.

These mayors are also furiously conferring with anyone they know who can offer insight and counsel about how to handle the kind of scrutiny that resulted in the ouster of University of Pennsylvania President Liz Magill following the late 2023 congressional hearing on antisemitism at elite colleges.

Just as Republicans hammered Magill and others for what they saw as condoning alleged threats to Jewish students and faculty, Republican members of Congress will on Wednesday ask the mayors of New York, Chicago, Boston and Denver to defend their more permissive immigration policies against high-profile, if isolated, episodes of violent crime by undocumented immigrants.

“I just want to make sure that people understand that [this is] a city that has been established by immigrants and migrants who were formerly enslaved,” Chicago Mayor Brandon Johnson told reporters about the message he hopes to relay to Congress. “It’s the global capital of the world, and we’re going to continue to show up at our very best.”

Republicans on the House Oversight and Government Reform Committee are getting ready for this moment, too, especially Chair James Comer, who sat on the Education and Workforce panel that questioned Magill and other university presidents. He said in an interview he was impressed by how Rep. Elise Stefanik, the former education committee chair who President Donald Trump nominated to be U.N. ambassador, ran those proceedings.

In a sign of how seriously the Kentucky Republican is taking his own preparations to produce a similar, politically explosive event, he and his members last week sat down to discuss immigration policy with Stephen Miller, the White House deputy chief of staff and the architect of some of Trump’s most aggressive efforts to curb illegal immigration, according to a person granted anonymity to describe a private meeting.

“We expect accountability — we expect the mandate that President Trump was given on the border to be implemented, and hopefully there won’t be any obstruction or opposition to the law,” Comer, who may run for governor in 2027, said in an interview. “If the mayors are protecting people who are here illegally, then they are breaking the law.”

The ramp-up on all sides speaks to the high political stakes of the upcoming hearing, both for the policies at the center of the debate and the political futures of the committee chair and the four mayors: Johnson, Eric Adams of New York, Michelle Wu of Boston and Mike Johnston of Denver. All four cities have struggled to shelter and support the influx of migrants from the Southern border.

Adams likely has the most at stake: The Trump Department of Justice recently called for the mayor’s criminal bribery and fraud case to be dismissed, citing his cooperation on immigration enforcement. (Adams continues to deny the charges.) Shortly thereafter, Adams met with border czar Tom Homan and announced he’s drafting an executive order allowing ICE agents back into the city’s Rikers Island jail complex.

Adams has rejected criticism he’s beholden to the Trump administration and says he has his constituents’ best interests at heart. Still, observers expect Adams — a former New York Police Department captain — will be treated differently than the other mayors, with Comer contending the New Yorker’s perspective is unique given his cooperation with the administration.

White House Counsel Dana Remus listens during a confirmation hearing for Supreme Court nominee Ketanji Brown Jackson before the Senate Judiciary Committee on Capitol Hill on March 22, 2022.

“He was one of the first blue city mayors that was representing a sanctuary city that said, ‘wait, we cannot handle anymore. This is a drain on our resources,’” Comer said of Adams. “I think that that’s what makes him a good witness.”

Adams will seek to strike a balance before the committee, according to his spokesperson Kayla Mamelak Altus. While the mayor believes in the spirit of sanctuary laws, he also thinks those laws currently go too far. He is expected to testify that immigrants are crucial to his city’s success — but also that the “long-broken immigration system” should be fixed, law-abiding New Yorkers should be protected and violent criminals should be targeted.

The mayor has been meeting daily with his legal, intergovernmental and communications teams in preparation for Wednesday’s hearing, Mamelak Altus said. And his deputy mayor for intergovernmental affairs, Tiffany Raspberry, is the liaison to both the Oversight Committee members and the other mayors’ teams.

At the same time, the contrast between Adams and the other Democratic mayors could pose a political risk for the three more progressive city leaders — including Johnston of Denver, who said in November he was willing to go to jail over his opposition to Trump’s mass deportation plans.

In preparation for the hearing, Johnston has conferred with Sen. Michael Bennet and Rep. Diana DeGette — both Colorado Democrats — for pointers on appearing before Congress. He also has contracted the Washington-based attorney Dana Remus, a former White House counsel for President Joe Biden.

The city of Denver is preparing to gather documents requested by federal officials, and it is expected to redact information so the hundreds of city employees who have been involved in the sanctuary city work are not unnecessarily targeted for doing their jobs.

Meanwhile, an attorney close to the Chicago mayor’s office hopes to see Johnson stick to his talking points as Republicans may try to pit Adams as “the good compliant mayor and Johnson as the deviant.” The attorney was granted anonymity to discuss internal planning.

Johnson has connected with former Chicago Mayor Lori Lightfoot, a former federal prosecutor who has experience working with GOP elected officials — including representing congressional Republicans in two high-profile redistricting cases. He is also working with the city’s corporate counsel, Mary Richardson-Lowry, on how to respond to legally sensitive questions, and the city has contracted with outside counsel.

Wu, the Boston mayor, has received guidance in advance of the hearing from Rep. Stephen Lynch, a fellow Massachusetts Democrat who sits on the Oversight Committee. He called after Comer first extended the invitation for Wu and others to testify, Lynch said in an interview with a local station.

The story Wu is likely to tell is that of her city’s plummeting murder rate. Boston earned national attention for the drop in homicides last year, and the number of shooting victims and instances of gunfire have also ticked down of late. That has prompted Wu to regularly tout Boston as “the safest major city in the country.”

Wednesday will reveal whether the mayors’ preparations are a match for Comer, whose team has been building anticipation for the big event. Last week, Oversight Committee Republicans released a dramatized video, akin to a movie trailer, previewing the hearing, depicting a Constitution burning to reveal the faces of the four Democratic mayors. Ominous music plays, and Comer vows to cut federal funding for those who fail to cooperate with U.S. law.

But in a recent interview, Comer maintained that creating a made-for-TV moment was not his goal. He was there when Stefanik asked those university presidents whether calling for the genocide of Jews violated their codes of conduct — a “substantive question,” Comer recalled, adding that rarely do substantive questions go viral.

“First of all, our goal is to get the truth, we believe in transparency,” Comer said. “My job isn’t entertainment. My job is to get the truth to the American people.”

Congress

Turek leads Hinson in Iowa Senate poll of likely general election voters

Published

55 minutes ago

June 22, 2026

Blue Light Newsroom

Iowa Democratic Senate nominee Josh Turek has a narrow lead over GOP rival Ashley Hinson in a new internal poll of likely general-election voters.

Turek leads Hinson 47 percent to 45 percent in the poll, conducted by Global Strategy Group from June 8-11 among 1,000 likely general election voters. The poll shows that Republicans have a 10-point edge in voter registration (42 percent to 32 percent) and an electorate that voted for Trump by 9 points (50 percent for Trump to 41 percent for Kamala Harris).

But the polling also shows President Donald Trump’s favorabilities underwater across the electorate, with 45 percent favorable and 52 percent unfavorable. Among registered independents, Trump is upside down 28 points.

Turek is “significantly outperforming the state’s underlying partisan dynamics,” Global Strategy Group’s Matt Canter & Ramzi Ebbini write in a memo first obtained by Blue Light News. “Republicans maintain substantial advantages in voter registration and party identification, yet Turek enters the general election ahead of Republican Ashley Hinson, with stronger personal favorability ratings, overperforming a generic Democrat, and with clear opportunities to expand his coalition as more voters become familiar with him.”

Some Republicans have acknowledged a concern about Iowa.

“There are some issues there that we got to deal with — the biggest one is trade — trade and tariffs,” said a Republican close to the White House, granted anonymity to speak candidly about the obstacles.

In his early general election messaging, Turek has leaned into farmers’ frustrations.

“Josh Turek is winning this race because Iowans are sick and tired of multi-millionaire politicians like Ashley Hinson who sell out working families while they get rich,” Turek for Iowa campaign manager Brendan Koch said in a statement first shared with Blue Light News. “We will spend the next 134 days connecting with Iowans in every corner of the state and across the political spectrum to send a fighter for the working class to the U.S. Senate.”

Congress

Capitol agenda: House GOP races to make Recon 3.0 real

Published

2 hours ago

June 22, 2026

Blue Light Newsroom

House Republicans have eight days to prove Reconciliation 3.0 might actually happen.

The House returns Tuesday with only eight legislative days before they break again for the July 4 holiday. If members want a realistic chance at fulfilling their self-imposed timeline for advancing the legislation before the end of July — when they pause work again for another five weeks — they need to move fast.

That means assembling, and then adopting, a budget resolution — the first step in unlocking the filibuster skirting power of the reconciliation process. It took Republicans months to advance such a blueprint during their two earlier reconciliation efforts this Congress.

House GOP leaders are tentatively planning another senior-level reconciliation meeting for Wednesday, according to three people involved in the talks granted anonymity to discuss private plans.

Still, the House is coming back with several other moving items to deal with this week, including promised briefings on the president’s Iran deal and a major housing affordability package GOP leadership wants to clear as soon as Wednesday.

Reconciliation talks also come as President Donald Trump is expected to join the Senate’s GOP lunch Wednesday, where he’ll likely continue pushing the chamber to pass his SAVE America Act or attach pieces of the GOP elections bill to the party-line legislation (an idea one of the bill’s biggest backers, Sen. Mike Lee, spiked Sunday).

Republicans involved with Reconciliation 3.0 discussions also warn they need to reach a final agreement on how to pay for the bill as well as what policy items will be included before GOP leaders can try to advance any budget resolution.

At this point, however, many fiscal hawks and at-risk incumbents are largely unhappy about how the discussions are coming along.

“It’s fake pay-fors for defense spending no one has fully agreed to and no meaningful reforms,” said one House Republican granted anonymity to discuss private talks.

Back on the other side of the Capitol, GOP senators have been in no rush to start working on a third party-line bill, especially as they are consumed with other political fires — like trying to confirm Jay Clayton as director of national intelligence to speed up a FISA reauthorization (more on that below).

Rep. Morgan Griffith said he was confident if the right policies are included in the House plan the Senate would then take it up — although he, too, acknowledged the challenges of a short timeline.

“If we do it right, yeah,” Griffith said. “There’s some interesting things out there that are being discussed that could make it a real possibility.”

What else we’re watching:

— OBAMA’S FEROCIOUS IRAN CRITIC SOFTER ON TRUMP DEAL: Tom Cotton, the No. 3 Senate Republican and chair of the chamber’s Intelligence panel, is not alone among GOP defense hawks in finding himself in an awkward position trying to defend Trump’s Iran deal after lambasting President Barack Obama’s a decade before. But the combination of his prior ferocity toward the Iranian regime and his current leadership responsibilities have put him into an especially tight spot.

— FIRST IN IC: DEMS WANT MORE OF JACK SMITH’S REPORT: Senate Judiciary Democrats are asking a federal court to unseal part of former special counsel Jack Smith’s report about his investigation into Trump’s alleged mishandling of classified documents after his first term. The request from the Senators comes as the Judiciary Committee is poised to call Smith to testify about his Biden-era cases before the end of this Congress. Republicans in the House and Senate have been investigating Smith’s work, alleging it amounted to a weaponization of the federal government against the then ex-president.

Jordain Carney and Hailey Fuchs contributed to this report.

Congress

A rising populist tide is threatening New York’s powerful incumbents

Published

4 hours ago

June 22, 2026

Blue Light Newsroom

NEW YORK — Incumbents beware: The public is angry.

As voters across the country express frustration with the political establishment, congressional hopefuls are seeing a prime opportunity to tap into a movement with the potential to manifest a handful of upsets in New York’s primary elections.

The dynamic is playing out in intraparty electoral brawls across the state, where the outcomes will shape the political future for Democrats and Republicans alike.

In upper Manhattan and the Bronx, Democratic Rep. Adriano Espaillat is trying to fend off a stiff challenge from community organizer Darializa Avila Chevalier, who’s running with the backing of New York City Mayor Zohran Mamdani — a democratic socialist who channeled populist fervor in his successful bid last year.

Brooklyn Borough President Antonio Reynoso, Rep. Nydia Velazquez’s preferred successor, is squaring off against first-term Assemblymember Claire Valdez, another hopeful backed by Mamdani. Like the mayor, both Valdez and Avila Chevalier are members of the Democratic Socialists of America.

And in the upstate New York fight to replace GOP Rep. Elise Stefanik, Republican Assemblymember Robert Smullen — running with the backing of the state party — is locked in a caustic battle with Anthony Constantino, President Donald Trump’s endorsed candidate.

Candidates with scant political experience are channeling the public’s exasperated mood with the expectation that restive voters will reward them. Populist anger over rising prices and Washington leadership have provided an opening to outsiders promising a new path. And this combination has created one of the most perilous political environments for incumbents since Trump’s first presidential victory a decade ago stoked an anti-establishment fire that’s burning brighter than ever.

“If you’re perceived as being part of the status quo, then you’ve got a problem,” said Republican pollster John McLaughlin. “Regardless of which party, if you’re perceived as bringing about change you’ll win. If you’re inside the beltway you’re not talking to normal people.”

New York’s closed party primary battles are a window into the broader challenges facing incumbents across the country at a time of sustained grievance over affordability and hardening partisanship. At the same time, voters are increasingly willing to be unfazed by a candidate’s baggage — be it Graham Platner in Maine or Avila Chevalier’s tweets criticizing Joe Biden and Kamala Harris. It paints a picture of an electorate that’s willing to embrace flawed candidates, reject a political establishment they believe has failed to deliver on their promises and eager to send a message to their perceived enemies.

“We’re in a negative partisan environment and one of the most negative partisan environments we’ve ever witnessed,” Democratic former Rep. Steve Israel said. “People will overlook blemishes in their party in order to meet the existential goal of beating the other party. That creates openings for outsiders to come in with tattoos and old social media posts.”

The mood is reflected in the polling. A statewide Siena University survey released last month found a plurality of voters, 48 percent, believe New York is heading in the wrong direction. A sizable majority — 65 percent — said the country is on the wrong track.

Cost-of-living concerns, which enabled Trump’s White House return two years ago, continue to be a major factor in global elections. In the UK, affordability woes over housing and utility rates have put the ruling Labour Party on its backfoot and threaten to short-circuit Prime Minister Keir Starmer’s tenure.

Rising gas prices in the U.S. following Trump’s decision to launch a war against Iran have kept inflation stubbornly high, teeing up what’s expected to be a difficult GOP midterm. And while Democrats are feeling bullish about their prospects this November, they’re still dealing with their own, often vast, intraparty differences of opinion.

That’s especially apparent in New York, where both the leaders of the House and Senate could be situated if the Democrats have blowout wins this year. But Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer and House Minority Leader Hakeem Jeffries — both from Brooklyn — are not necessarily being welcomed with open arms. Some leading congressional candidates have declined to commit to supporting Jeffries as speaker if Democrats take back the House, yet another sign of hopefuls attempting to ride an anti-incumbent — and anti-establishment — sentiment.

At a debate earlier this month, the question of backing Jeffries as speaker revealed a stark contrast between Valdez and Reynoso: the former said she’s not committed to voting yes or no, while Reynoso said he would because if one doesn’t, you “become a pariah in Congress” and “won’t get any resources” into the district.

Schumer is on even shakier ground. In debates over recent weeks, when asked if they’re in favor of the 75-year-old running for reelection in 2028, many candidates in competitive races said outright that they’re not, or dodge the question. The Siena University poll released in May found Schumer’s favorable rating with New York voters statewide at only 33 percent. A majority of voters, 52 percent, hold an unfavorable view of the longtime senator — including 40 percent of Democrats.

Former city Comptroller Brad Lander, who’s waging a formidable challenge against Democratic Rep. Dan Goldman, often argues that his campaign is to enact “bold new leadership” (despite a long career in city politics). In response to a question about Schumer running for reelection, he said, “It’s time for a new leadership in the Democratic Party.” Goldman, for his part, said: “We’ll deal with that when the time comes.”

Gustavo Gordillo, co-chair of the city chapter of the DSA, said that “a key factor is seeing the failures of the Democratic Party to stop Donald Trump two elections now.” In previous cycles, he added, it felt like “a lot of people were not in the fight.”

“The national political situation has changed that for so many people, and that’s what created this hunger,” Gordillo said.

Voters’ willingness to buck incumbents has been long-simmering — and reached a boiling point in last year’s mayoral election after Mamdani, then a member of the Assembly, ran as an outsider to topple both embattled then-Mayor Eric Adams and former Gov. Andrew Cuomo.

“Coming off of a year when so many Democratic voters felt so cynical and disaffected by the Democratic Party, there were glimmers of hope in New York when someone like Zohran was elevated, to show, ‘Okay, we can transform this party by transforming leadership,’” said Usamah Andrabi, communications director for Justice Democrats, the progressive group that helped boost the Squad. “Our job is to take that momentum from Zohran’s victory and show voters you don’t have to stop here.”

The group is backing Valdez and recruited Avila Chevalier, who seemed like a gamble just weeks ago as the race was still flying under the radar. And while that campaign is still expected to be a tough battle, the suddenly high-profile nature of the race — sparked by Mamdani’s endorsement of Avila Chevalier and millions of dollars in spending from pro-Espaillat entities — is evidence that it was at least worth a shot for Justice Democrats, which had a brutal 2024 cycle when Reps. Jamaal Bowman of New York and Cori Bush of Missouri were both defeated in primaries.

The power of incumbency has for years made knocking out officeholders an uphill battle. And for retiring incumbents, that power would almost guarantee their hand-picked successor would follow them. But even that’s not enough this cycle, as evidenced in the crowded primary for outgoing Democratic Rep. Jerry Nadler’s seat, which has been anything but a glide path for his heir apparent, state Assemblymember Micah Lasher. His opponents have sought to frame themselves as “outsiders” — even if many of them do have political ties — from fellow Assemblymember Alex Bores’ assertion that he’s a victim of Big Tech’s ire to Kennedy scion Jack Schlossberg’s argument that he’s not beholden to any super PACs.

Still, some contend that experience is needed in this political climate. A super PAC backing Reynoso recently put out advertisements positioning him as someone “ready to fight back” — compared to Valdez, who has “barely a year in office.” Goldman has repeatedly made the argument that his seniority in Congress is too much to give up, arguing that Lander would be a “rookie” on Blue Light News, where legislating is more difficult given the partisan divides. And in a recent debate, Espaillat charged that Avila Chevalier “doesn’t know legislation.”

”This is a critical time in America,” Espaillat said. ”We need a fighter, somebody that really knows government.”

In New York and across the country, the playing field has been leveled significantly between incumbents and political newcomers — thanks in large part to social media turbocharging fundraising and widespread voter dissatisfaction.

Further complicating matters is partisan redistricting creating fewer swing seats, but increasingly deep blue or ruby red districts where the more competitive race is often the primary.

“You just have to care about not pissing off Trump if you’re a Republican,” former GOP Rep. John Katko said. “If you’re a Democrat you have to worry about not upsetting the far left. The cards are so stacked because of gerrymandering.”