Boston Mayor Michelle Wu invoked Revolutionary War imagery as she rejected a federal ultimatum to dismantle Boston’s sanctuary city policies, setting up a constitutional clash with the Department of Justice.

At a Glance

• DOJ ultimatum gave Boston until August 19, 2025, to end sanctuary policies
• Mayor Wu refused, citing Boston’s Trust Act protections for immigrants
• Wu compared immigration enforcement to British tyranny in the Revolution
• Attorney General Pam Bondi threatened prosecution and loss of federal funding
• Boston joins 17 other jurisdictions resisting federal enforcement pressure

Wu’s Defiance

On August 19, 2025, Mayor Michelle Wu held a press conference formally rejecting the Department of Justice’s ultimatum to end sanctuary city policies. The ultimatum, issued by Attorney General Pam Bondi on August 13, warned that Boston could face criminal charges and significant loss of federal funding if it did not comply with immigration enforcement demands.

Watch now: Wu Defends Boston Sanctuary Policies · YouTube

Wu responded with sharp language, accusing the federal government of targeting cities to distract from policy failures. She declared that Boston would not abandon its Trust Act protections, which limit cooperation with Immigration and Customs Enforcement operations. The mayor emphasized that sanctuary policies reflect Boston’s identity and commitment to community safety.

Revolutionary References and Backlash

In defending her position, Wu drew comparisons between federal immigration enforcement and British colonial oppression during the American Revolution. By invoking Boston’s historical role in resisting tyranny, Wu sought to frame sanctuary policies as part of a broader struggle for liberty and justice.

Critics, however, accused Wu of misusing history to justify defying federal law. Constitutional law advocates argued the comparison distorted founding principles, noting that federal enforcement authority derives directly from constitutional powers. The clash highlights a deep divide over whether sanctuary policies uphold or undermine the rule of law.

Federal Authority Tested

The Justice Department’s threats mark an escalation in the long-running conflict between federal immigration priorities and local sanctuary policies. Boston is among 18 jurisdictions nationwide now facing similar legal ultimatums. DOJ officials argue that sanctuary policies obstruct the lawful removal of criminal aliens, threatening public safety and undermining immigration enforcement.

Wu counters that Boston’s policies enhance safety by encouraging trust between immigrant communities and local law enforcement. She cites statistics claiming Boston remains the safest major city in America, despite federal assertions that dangerous offenders exploit sanctuary protections to evade deportation.

National Stakes

The standoff between Boston and Washington could set important precedents for federalism and municipal authority. If federal officials pursue criminal charges against city leaders or cut funding, it may trigger a nationwide test of the limits of local resistance to federal law.

Supporters of Wu argue that sanctuary cities are essential to protecting vulnerable populations and upholding community values, while opponents contend they prioritize undocumented immigrants over compliance with national law. The outcome of this confrontation will shape immigration policy battles across the country, as other cities weigh the risks of defying federal enforcement.

Sources

Fox News
YouTube
Boston Globe
Associated Press
NBC News