I’m willing to put him in jail," declared incoming Border Czar Tom Homan, as sanctuary city leaders vow to defy Trump’s immigration crackdown, setting up a fierce legal and political showdown.
The battle lines over immigration enforcement are hardening as leaders of so-called sanctuary cities openly defy the incoming Trump administration’s vow to crack down on illegal immigration. While these declarations may energize progressive bases, they could come at a steep personal and political cost.
On Monday, during an interview on Fox News Channel’s *Hannity,* incoming Border Czar Tom Homan took aim at Denver Mayor Mike Johnston, who recently announced his willingness to defy federal immigration enforcement efforts. Homan, a staunch advocate for strict immigration laws, delivered a sharp response: “He’s willing to go to jail, I’m willing to put him in jail.”
Host Sean Hannity pressed Homan on the legal ramifications for sanctuary jurisdictions, asking whether state and local governments were violating federal law by refusing to cooperate with immigration authorities.
“You’re absolutely breaking the law,” Homan asserted, citing *Arizona v. United States*, a landmark Supreme Court case affirming federal primacy in immigration enforcement. He pointed to Title 8 of the U.S. Code, Section 1324, which makes it a felony to harbor or conceal illegal immigrants or to obstruct federal law enforcement officers.
Homan emphasized that President Trump’s administration intends to focus on removing individuals who pose public safety and national security threats. “We’ve got to secure this country; we’ve got to save American lives,” he said. “I find it shocking that any mayor of a city would say they don’t want public safety threats removed from their neighborhoods.”
Denver Mayor Johnston, meanwhile, has framed his defiance as a moral stand, arguing that his city will not aid in what he described as divisive and harmful policies. Johnston’s bold rhetoric, including his expressed willingness to face jail time, has drawn both praise and criticism.
Critics argue that sanctuary policies undermine the rule of law and put communities at risk by shielding individuals who have violated immigration laws. Supporters, however, view these policies as essential protections for vulnerable immigrant populations and a rebuke of what they see as draconian federal enforcement measures.
The escalating clash underscores the deep divisions between the Trump administration and progressive city leaders. Whether these sanctuary cities will maintain their defiance in the face of potential legal consequences remains to be seen, but the conflict sets the stage for one of the most contentious issues of the incoming administration’s agenda.
As the debate continues, the stakes are clear: the rule of law, local autonomy, and public safety hang in the balance.
.png)