Is DC Backing Away From Being a ‘Sanctuary City’?
“It’s misleading to suggest to anyone that if you’re violating immigration laws, that this is a place where you can violate immigration laws. You are vulnerable to federal immigration enforcement.”
Like many other deep blue cities, Washington, DC has proudly boasted for years that they were a “sanctuary city” for illegal immigrants.
After Donald Trump was elected in 2016, the city’s mayor, Muriel Bowser (D), repeatedly talked about how her city would remain a sanctuary for illegals:
"I will not let the residents of DC live in fear. The District is and will continue to be a sanctuary city." https://t.co/L1IHuWhfE6
— Mayor Muriel Bowser (@MayorBowser) November 17, 2016
We've reaffirmed DC's status as a sanctuary city and will continue to send this message because residents should feel safe. https://t.co/HCP3jS9DYV
— Mayor Muriel Bowser (@MayorBowser) November 17, 2016
In January 2017, just a couple of weeks before Trump was inaugurated, a defiant Bowser said she was “doubling down” on her commitment to DC’s sanctuary city status in an effort to spite Trump, who had made a campaign promise to crack down on illegal immigration:
The $500,000 fund will also help illegal immigrants in the District apply for asylum and will provide representation for those residing in the city legally with green cards to obtain permanent U.S. citizenship.
In a statement, Bowser said the District is “doubling down” on its status as a sanctuary city, where D.C. police have already been instructed to not cooperate with federal authorities working to deport residents.
“We must ensure that all District residents can take advantage of their federal and constitutional rights,” Bowser said. “If immigration enforcement changes and problems arise, DC’s immigrant population will have our support and the support of DC’s legal community.”
Throughout Trump’s first term in office, Bowser would reiterate her support for DC being a sanctuary city. And even in 2022 when Joe Biden was president, after Texas Gov. Greg Abbott (R) began his illegal border crossers relocation program and had thousands bussed to DC, Bowser was still welcoming to illegals, although she was quick to point out that DC didn’t have the “infrastructure” Texas had to handle illegals because DC was “not a border town”:
Democrat Washington, D.C. Mayor Muriel Bowser: "We're not a border town. We don't have an infrastructure to handle this type of and level of immigration to our city … We're not Texas." pic.twitter.com/yqiZZbQAp0
— RNC Research (@RNCResearch) September 16, 2022
After Trump was sworn in for his second term, Bowser began to shift gears and changed her tone:
- Bowser no longer uses the phrase “sanctuary city,” she said last month, “because I think it is misleading.”
- “It’s misleading to suggest to anyone that if you’re violating immigration laws, that this is a place where you can violate immigration laws,” she said. “You are vulnerable to federal immigration enforcement.”
And this week, where four sanctuary city mayors appeared before the House Oversight Committee, DC appears to have removed all references to it being a sanctuary city from their website:
The District government recently removed a webpage that championed D.C. as a “sanctuary city.”
Why it matters: Mayor Muriel Bowser is retreating from public stands against President Trump.
The big picture: Bowser wasn’t one of the Democratic mayors called to testify in Congress this week over their sanctuary city policies.
State of play: An FAQ page devoted to questions about immigration rights, discrimination and school access has disappeared from the D.C. government.
I found two pages with the words “sanctuary city” that were no longer on the DC government website. The archived links are included below:
Mayor Bowser Announces Immigrant Justice Legal Services Grant Program – this is the one the Washington Post referenced in their January 2017 write-up and which Axios highlighted in their piece.
Statement from Mayor Bowser on President Trump’s Threat to Arrest and Remove Immigrant Residents – from June 2019.
Some have speculated that recent moves by Bowser, including her announcement that the infamous Black Lives Matter street mural would be painted over, have been done to appease Trump and GOP members of Congress after funding threats were made:
District of Columbia Mayor Muriel Bowser is trying to keep the Trump administration at bay while refusing to budge on one issue: home rule and statehood for Washington, D.C.
Since President Donald Trump took office in January, he and the mayor have enjoyed a mostly friendly relationship as the pair discuss the future of Washington. While they have sparred in the past, Bowser has shown an increasing willingness to negotiate several policies affecting Washington with the GOP and Trump, who has threatened a federal takeover of her “horribly run” district.
Mayor Bowser released the following statement on the evolution of Black Lives Matter Plaza: pic.twitter.com/6dk8Jbc5ir
— Mayor Muriel Bowser (@MayorBowser) March 4, 2025
” The media and our friends in the Democrat Party kept saying we needed new legislation, we must have legislation to secure the border,” Trump said at his joint Congressional address Tuesday. “But it turned out that all we really needed was a new president.”
He was sure right about that, wasn’t he? In more ways than one, as Bowser’s actions since November 2024 would suggest.
-Stacey Matthews has also written under the pseudonym “Sister Toldjah” and can be reached via Twitter/X.-
DONATE
Donations tax deductible
to the full extent allowed by law.
Comments
She’s had this particular stake rammed so far up her backside by now that her only remaining recourse is to smile and pretend that imitating a fudgesicle was her idea all along.
“Don’t tase me, boss.”
On another blog yesterday I read a story about how NYC is trying to keep their infamous subway Bic Flicker out of the hands of ICE. Homan was quoted as saying something to the effect of “We don’t care. We have a man on that jail 24/7 until he walks out that door, and then we’re going to nab him.” I suspect Muriel doesn’t want nay part of that kind of action.
When Trump says he will do something it’s for either or both of two reasons: Build a fire under someone he wants to move and/or actually do what he says. Bowser got the message when he said the Federal government is prepared to take over DC.
.
No statehood for DC – ever!
All the residential parts of DC should be given back to Maryland. DC should be shrunk to the area immediately around the Mall, White House, and Capitol Hill, with as few residents as possible. And the legislation to do so should also specify that the remaining district shall not exercise its 23rd amendment right to appoint three electors.
Milhouse, usually you’re a regular soup Nazi when it comes to infringing on amendments.
No infringement for you!
I’m not a lawyer, but doesn’t a constitutional amendment trump any act of a legislature?
Although I would agree in principle that no entity just the size of a City deserves the same representation as an actual State could have. Otherwise the Dems would be pushing for the top (say) 100 cities to also get 3 electoral votes each in the hope that there’d never be another electoral college race in question again – (D) victory baked in!
DC was and should have remained a special case, no one is forced to live in the Federal District that is DC – so bitching about “no taxation without representation” whilst getting free Fed money to subsidize your city budget that no other city gets seems….. problematic.
There’s no infringement. No state is required to appoint the electors to which it’s entitled. If a state chooses not to appoint any that’s its business. As for DC, the 23rd amendment specifically says that it shall appoint its three electors “in such manner as the Congress may direct”. So if Congress says it shall not appoint them at all, that’s what the amendment requires.
As for abolishing the district altogether, that’s also possible, since the constitution doesn’t actually require such a district to exist, it merely allows for it. “Such district (not exceeding ten miles square) as may, by cession of particular states, and the acceptance of Congress, become the seat of government of the united states”. But it’s cleaner to keep the district but restrict it to the actual area the government uses, with as few residents as possible. Congress can do that by legislation, just as it legislated to create the original 100-sq-mile district in the first place, and as it then legislated to give the Virginian part back to Virginia.
The original purpose of a federal district was so that Congress would control the police force that would protect it, and not have to depend on a city police force commanded by a city administration that might refuse that protection, as happened in Philadelphia. Nowadays it has the Capitol Police at its command, and doesn’t rely on the MPD, so there’s no reason for it to have any control over the MPD or the territory that it protects.
How’s about eliminating the district ,declaring the federal building land a national park and giving the rest to Maryland.
DC has always been a financial sink hole, federal funds go in and return to money spent doesn’t go out. More than once I believe the Feds have had to take direct control of finances when the local elected govt got caught many too many times with their hands in the till.
Ex-mayor Marian Barry being the prime example, at one time it came out that his then current wife, his current wife, and his current mistress all were being paid for no-show fake jobs at the same time. Say what you want about the crack-addict mayor, he had balls. Which I guess is why the local voters kept re-electing him, and elected him to the city council even after he served his prison time for being a thief.
DC is completely dependent on Federal money, and the resident voter base repeatedly reflects that, it’s not their money that gets stolen or misspent so they don’t care. It’s a sham “independent” actual city, and if the (D)s ever have their way it’ll be a sham tiny “independent” state.
Ex-wife, he at least divorced W#1 before marrying W#2.
But still, quite the trifecta of corruption.
Sure is fun watching their house of cards come tumbling down.
The big difference between then and now is that for most of Trump’s first term, federal employees were largely still working in their offices. The Covid work-from-home hurt DC’s economy, downtown in particular, and Bowser has been beating the drum for the past couple years about needing federal employees back in their offices so the restaurants, delis, coffee shops, bars, and retail that have been lost in the last 5 years will come back.
Muriel is backing away from being a sanctuary city because she is:
a. out of cigars
b. short of money
c. aware of which way the wind is blowing
d. __________________________________________
She also heard Trump say that DC should be run by Congress, not a city government. That is a wake up call for her.
Run by Congress?? Haha! What was he smoking that day.
That’s one of Trump’s tactics. “You do what we are suggesting you do, or we will force you to do something totally unpalatable.”
For those of you who may have missed it, that’s literally what the constitution says.
What were the founders smoking that day then. Of course they probably couldn’t conceive of our congress. You will never find a more wretched hive of scum and villainy.
This actually makes sense, even if she isn’t changing her policy at all. All she seems to be saying is that people misunderstand the term “sanctuary” to mean that you’re somehow immune from ICE, when that has never been the case. In no sanctuary city or state has anyone ever been immune from federal law enforcement; all it has ever meant was that the city or state won’t betray you to ICE, or help ICE arrest you, but you’re still just as vulnerable if they come for you. So she seems just to be saying that the name has proved to be misleading, so they’ll change it and call it something less catchy.
On the other hand, Washington is in a very different position from cities in states that support their sanctuary status, let alone in California where the state itself is a sanctuary. Washington always has to worry that Congress may take government back into its hands. It probably won’t, because the Dems would filibuster it; but she can’t be sure of that, so it behooves her to try to play nice.