Denver Mayor Mike Johnston has drawn national attention with his bold pledge to obstruct federal immigration enforcement efforts, vowing to protect illegal immigrants, including those with potential gang affiliations, from deportation. Johnston, a Democrat, has openly declared that he will mobilize local police and citizens to resist federal operations, framing his stance as a defense of Denver’s core values.
Speaking to Denverite in a recent interview, Johnston asserted that his city would remain a stronghold for migrants, regardless of federal directives. “We’re not going to sell out those values to anyone. We’re not going to be bullied into changing them,” he said, emphasizing Denver’s identity as a “welcoming, open, big-hearted city.”
Johnston’s plan goes beyond policy rhetoric. He envisions deploying Denver police and rallying tens of thousands of residents to physically obstruct federal deportation operations. Invoking the image of Tiananmen Square protests, Johnston suggested that citizens would form human barriers to block federal officers.
“More than us having [Denver Police] stationed at the county line to keep them out, you would have 50,000 Denverites there,” he said. “It’s like the Tiananmen Square moment with the rose and the gun, right? You’d have every one of those Highland moms who came out for the migrants. And you do not want to mess with them.”
Johnston further claimed that enforcing immigration laws in Denver would require an extreme federal response, such as deploying out-of-state National Guard units. “I do not believe that our governor is going to let them use our [Colorado] National Guard at the state level,” he stated. “Unless they were planning on bringing National Guards mobilized from Texas or Alabama to come invade Colorado, I don’t know where they would find the forces to begin to do that.”
Johnston’s defiance could have serious legal consequences. Mike Davis, president of the Article III Project (A3P), warned that the mayor’s actions could constitute multiple federal crimes, including conspiracy, obstruction of justice, and assault on federal officers.
Davis highlighted the potential legal ramifications on social media, saying, “Conspiracy. Obstruction. Assault on federal officers. So many more very serious federal felonies.”
President-elect Donald Trump’s administration appears prepared to meet such challenges head-on. Tom Homan, Trump’s nominee for “border czar” and former acting director of Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE), dismissed threats from Democratic leaders, including Illinois Governor JB Pritzker, who recently reaffirmed Illinois’ sanctuary status for illegal immigrants.
“If you come for my people, you come through me,” Pritzker declared.
Homan responded simply, “Game on. We’ve got no problem going through him.”
Homan underscored the administration’s commitment to enforcing immigration laws, saying, “Congress has enacted a law that protects this country. People need to understand… entering this country illegally is a crime. Every illegal alien in this country committed a crime to get here. So they’re all criminals.”
Johnston’s stance places Denver squarely in the middle of a larger battle between federal immigration policy and local governments. Under the Trump administration, immigration enforcement is expected to ramp up significantly, with a focus on cracking down on sanctuary cities.
The mayor’s remarks have sparked fierce debate. Supporters argue that his actions reflect moral courage and a commitment to protecting vulnerable populations, while critics contend that his approach undermines the rule of law and could place citizens in harm’s way.
Johnston’s rhetoric has drawn comparisons to other sanctuary city leaders who have resisted federal immigration policies. However, his suggestion of using physical resistance by police and civilians marks a significant escalation.
If Johnston follows through on his promises, Denver could become a flashpoint in the ongoing immigration debate. Federal authorities may face unprecedented resistance, raising questions about the limits of local authority in opposing federal law.
Johnston’s approach also risks alienating some residents who may view his defiance as prioritizing illegal immigrants over the city’s broader interests. Critics argue that involving police and citizens in direct confrontation with federal agents could lead to dangerous consequences, including potential violence.
For now, Johnston shows no signs of backing down, positioning Denver as a symbol of resistance against what he calls federal overreach. However, the legal and practical implications of his actions remain uncertain.
The clash between Denver’s mayor and federal authorities underscores the growing divide over immigration enforcement in the United States. With Mayor Johnston standing firm on his commitment to protect illegal immigrants, Denver could become ground zero for a broader conflict over the balance of power between local and federal governments.
As Trump’s administration prepares to ramp up enforcement, the question remains: will Johnston’s strategy of resistance galvanize support for sanctuary policies, or will it provoke a legal and political backlash that reshapes the immigration debate nationwide? The answer could define Denver’s role in this contentious chapter of American politics.
