| Part ofa series on the |
| Immigration policy of the second Trump administration |
|---|
Targeting of U.S. citizens |
Targeting of immigrants
|
|
Controversies |
TheBoston Trust Act is a city ordinance in Boston, adopted in 2014 and amended in 2019, which ordersBoston Police Department not to detainimmigrants for potentialdeportation unless a criminalarrest warrant had been issued for them. It has often been described as a "sanctuary city" ordinance.
TheSecond Trump Administration (which began in 2025) has taken direct issue with the Boston Trust Act. On September 4, 2025, a lawsuit claiming it was a violation of public law was filedUnited States Department of Justice under the direction of U.S. Attorney GeneralPam Bondi in theUnited States District Court for the District of Massachusetts. The suit is suing theCity of Boston, Boston MayorMichelle Wu, theBoston Police Department, and Boston Police CommissionerMichael Cox over the city and police department's continued adherence to the ordinace.
| ||
|---|---|---|
Massachusetts State Representative (1997–2013)
Mayor of Boston (2013–2021)
U.S. Secretary of Labor (2021–2023) Other | ||
The Boston Trust Act is a municipal ordinance which ordersBoston Police Department not to detainimmigrants for potentialdeportation unless a criminalarrest warrant had been issued for them. This marked a shift away from theSecure Communities program the city up until then been a party to since 2006, in which it had actively collaborate with federal immigration officials in detecting criminals illegally in the United States and deport them, and routinely share the department's arrest fingerprints database with immigration officials.[1] Proponents of the Boston Trust Act argued that it would improve relations between immigrant communities and the local police, making immigrant communities more likely to report local crimes to police and to cooperate with police efforts.[1][2]
The act was sponsored by City CouncilorJosh Zakim. It was passed unanimously by the Boston City Council and signed into law by MayorMarty Walsh in 2014.[3][4] Among the councilors in the unanimous vote to adopt the ordinance wasMichelle Wu,[5] who was later elected mayorin 2021.[6]
During thefirst Trump administration, Mayor Walsh affirmed his support for the policy.[7] The act was amended in 2019.[8] In December 2024, the Boston City Council adopted a resolution to reaffirm its support for the ordinance.[9]
| ||
|---|---|---|
Boston City Councilor Mayor of Boston
 | ||
Public dispute between the Trump presidential administration and the Boston mayoral administration ofMichelle Wu in regards to the Boston Trust Act. Wu emerged as a perceived political adversary of the Trump administration and alignedRepublican officials. TheSecond Trump administration have made so-called "sanctuary city" policies, such as the Boston Trust Act, a major target of its illegal immigration crackdown.[10]
Duringthe presidential transition that followed the2024 presidential election, Mayor Wu publicly noted that the city's existing 2014 law limited the circumstances in which its police officers could cooperate withU.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) agents. In response to this, Trump's designated border czarTom Homan publicly criticized Wu as "not very smart."[11] Wu responded to this,
People can say whatever they want about me. This isn’t about me. Our public safety record speaks for itself. We are the safest major city in America, here in Boston. And it’s because of the work that’s put in every day to build trust between our residents and law enforcement, and it’s because of our focus on making sure we are there when residents need us.[11]
Weeks into thesecond Trump administration, at the February 2025Conservative Political Action Conference, Homan responded to an earlier news interview by Boston Police Commissioner Cox regarding the city's policies by threatening that the federal government would be "bringing hell" to the city of Boston. Afterwards, Wu posted on social media to express her confidence in Commissioner Cox.[12]
_in_a_congressional_hearing_room_on_March_5%2c_2025_(2).jpeg)
In March 2025, Wu complied with a congressionalsubpoena and testified before theHouse Committee on Oversight and Government Reform in hearings about major "sanctuary city" policies and cooperation with federal immigration authorities. The hearings featured several other mayors of large American cities.[14] John L. Milcek ofMassLive described Wu's performance in the more than five hours of hearings as a "star turn" for her, writing, "theDemocratic mayor deftly parried jibes from Republicans who sounded like they’d never set foot in Boston".[15] Sri Taylor ofBloomberg News described the hearing as having carried "high stakes" for Wu, and credited her performance in the hearing with having garnering her a "newfound role as both a favoritefoil forRepublican critics in Washington and a capable messenger for Democrats," noting that while Republicans on the committee had hoped to hurt Wu's reputation in the hearings, "It was Wu who walked away with a series of sound bites defending Boston and Democrat priorities that made the rounds on social media and bolstered her national presence."[16] After the hearings, tension between the Trump presidential administration and Wu mayoral administration on this issue continued grow.[10]
.jpg)
New York Times andThe Boston Globe observed that the city of Boston, Mayor Wu, and the Boston Trust Act developed into significant targets of the Trump administration's ire.[17] On March 17, during her annual "State of the City" address, Wu countered Trump's rhetoric towards Boston and its immigration policies.[17] The speech was described as "politically defiant and nationally attention-grabbing",[18] and elicited the Trump White House's press office to publish an official response statement.[17] In late-March, she made an interview appearance on theThe Daily Show and remarked that Boston's strong safety record was due to Boston being made "safe for everyone", explaining,
In a community [like Boston] where over a quarter of your residents were born in another country, if people are afraid to drop their kids off at school or call 911 when they need help or share information when they actually have information to report about a crime that happened, that makes everyone less safe...So [Boston is] really focused on being that home for everyone.[18]
In June, U.S. Attorney GeneralPam Bondi sent Wu and mayors of 31 other cities letters demanding they end "sanctuary city" policies or face loss of federal funding and potential legal action. Wu responded with letter and press conference in which she defended the city's policies, crediting them with building trust between local law enforcement and communities that she asserted has been integral to partnerships that have made Boston "safe and welcoming".[10]
A poll conducted byEmerson College Polling September 2–3 (immediately before theUnited States v. Boston lawsuit was filed) of likelyBoston mayoral election voters found 67% approval and 23% disapproval for Wu's decision to refuse to abandon the city's sanctuary city policy. Approval for this decision was marginally higher than Wu's overall job performance approval (66% approval and 24% disapproval).[19] On September 9, 2025 (days after the filing of the lawsuit and amid the federal government's focus on her administration's enforcement of the ordinance), Wu secured a landslide vote share in the preliminary round ofBoston's mayoral election.[20]
| United States v. Boston | |
|---|---|
 | |
| Court | United States District Court for the District of Massachusetts |
| Full case name | The United States of America v. The City of Boston; Michelle Wu, Mayor of the City of Boston, in her Official Capacity; Boston Police Department; Michael A. Cox, Police Commissioner, in his Official Capacity |
On September 4, 2025, Attorney General Bondi filed a lawsuit in theUnited States District Court for the District of Massachusetts against the City of Boston and Boston Police Department (additionally naming Mayor Wu and the Boston Police Department and its commissioner,Michael Cox, as defendants) arguing that the city's continued adherence to the Boston Trust Act was a violation of federal law.[4][21][22] The lawsuit characterizes the policy as "obstructionist", and alleges it interferes with federal immigration enforcement.[2]
Mayor Wu reacted to the lawsuit by declaring that Boston, "will not back down" in the face of federal pressure by the Trump administration.[22] She further accused the Trump administration of attempting to impose an "authoritarian agenda",[2] accused Trump of "attacking cities to hide his administration's failures",[23] and defended Boston's law enforcement policies as making it the safest major city in the United States.[2]
Massachusetts Democrats by large criticized the lawsuit. U.S. Senator from MassachusettsElizabeth Warren (a former law professor) called the lawsuit an, "unconstitutional authoritarian power grab." Massachusetts Attorney GeneralAndrea Campbell called the suit "baseless" and argued it was an effort "to rope local governments" into participating in what she called a "cruel immigration crackdown" by the Trump administration.[24]
Massachusetts Republican Party Chair Amy Carnevale argued that the lawsuit held merit.[24]
Prominent attorney Nick Akerman opined that Boston had been acting within its legal rights, and predicted that the lawsuit would be dismissed just as an earlier lawsuit againstChicago's sanctuary city policy had also been dismissed.[24]Carol Rose, executive director of the Massachusetts chapter of theACLU, argued that the Boston government was acting within its rights by refusing to participate in the Trump administration's immigration actions, commenting,
[Local governments] can't interfere [with immigration enforcement], but they can't be commandeered by the federal government to do things that violate our local laws...That's what [the Trump administration are] trying to do, and that's not allowed under the Constitution — under the 10th Amendment of the Constitution.[24]
James Pindell ofThe Boston Globe opined that the government's case against the city seemed unlikely to prevail, and the suit seemed more likely intended to generate headlines against Wu.[25]Liberal writerCharles P. Pierce ofEsquire characterized the lawsuit as, "a ridiculous lawsuit targeting political officials that won't cooperate with a corrupt government."[26]
| |||||||||
| Life and politics |
| ||||||||
| Family |
| ||||||||
| Campaigns |
| ||||||||
| Legal affairs |
| ||||||||
| Related | |||||||||
.jpg)
_(a)_(adjusted).jpg)
