We Want Answers: DC Residents Speak on Immigration Enforcement

(WASHINGTON, D.C.) Residents in Washington, D.C. pressed city leaders for clarity and restraint on federal immigration enforcement this week, accusing officials of allowing local police to be drawn into a sweeping federal crackdown that they say is sowing fear in immigrant neighborhoods. At a D.C. Council hearing on October 29, 2025, a resident told city officials,

“We want answers. We deserve to know what our police are doing and why,”

as questions mounted over how the Metropolitan Police Department (MPD) is coordinating with Immigration and Customs Enforcement under new executive orders and emergency powers.

Mayor Muriel Bowser has faced repeated calls to explain the city’s stance as Washington, D.C. becomes a focal point of a wider national push to expand immigration enforcement using state and local police. Dozens of residents at public meetings and council roundtables criticized her administration’s response to federal directives and asked whether MPD is now participating in immigration operations in ways that conflict with the city’s sanctuary policies. The debate has sharpened since a federal court ruling named D.C. Police Chief Pamela Smith but permitted the administration of President Trump to compel assistance from local officers during declared emergencies, narrowing local control while leaving Smith formally in charge of MPD command.

The legal fight intensified after D.C. Attorney General Brian Schwalb filed a lawsuit challenging federal orders that, he said, override the District’s autonomy and sanctuary protections. Schwalb called the federal order a “hostile takeover” and accused Attorney General Pam Bondi of rescinding D.C.’s sanctuary policies through emergency authority. A federal judge’s decision on August 15, 2025, allowed emergency powers to override local sanctuary rules for up to 30 days at a time, with directives sent through the mayor’s office. The ruling cemented a tense arrangement in which city leaders retain nominal control of MPD, while federal officials can direct local assistance for immigration enforcement during recurring emergency windows.

Councilmember Janeese Lewis George convened a roundtable that stretched beyond four hours as residents and advocacy groups described a surge in police presence in immigrant neighborhoods and alleged rights violations tied to joint operations.

“I’m afraid to call the police now. I worry they’ll ask about my immigration status instead of helping me,”

said Maria Gomez, one of many participants who warned that fear of encountering immigration enforcement is discouraging people from seeking help or reporting crime. Others described being stopped and questioned about immigration status without any criminal suspicion, fueling allegations of racial profiling.

Advocacy groups said the uptick in stops and joint patrols has led some residents to avoid public spaces and limit daily activities. “We’re seeing people afraid to leave their homes, afraid to go to work,” said Carlos Ramirez, a community organizer who argued that trust between police and immigrant communities is unraveling. One local restaurant worker, Luis Martinez, said the stepped-up patrols have changed daily life in visible ways.

“It feels like we’re being watched all the time,”

said Luis Martinez. The accounts echoed a broader message from nearly 40 organizations, including the Immigrant Legal Resource Center, which issued a joint statement condemning MPD’s cooperation with federal immigration agencies:

“DC Police’s collusion with federal immigration enforcement agencies violates DC’s Sanctuary Values Act and undermines trust in our communities.”

The Trump administration’s strategy relies on a major transfer of federal manpower to backstop immigration enforcement. According to administration figures shared by officials and referenced by advocates and city leaders in recent meetings, more than 28,000 federal law enforcement agents have been diverted from other assignments to assist ICE. That includes roughly one in five U.S. marshals and FBI agents, almost half of Drug Enforcement Administration agents, and more than two-thirds of Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives personnel. Thousands of state and local officers across the country have also been trained through the 287(g) program to perform certain immigration duties, and in the District, officials and residents say joint enforcement actions have climbed since August 2025.

These operational changes follow a shift in federal policy since the start of the year. On January 1, 2025, President Trump signed an executive order revoking prior civil immigration enforcement priorities and directing federal agencies to enforce the law “against all inadmissible and removable aliens,” while expanding collaboration with state and local law enforcement under section 287(g) of the Immigration and Nationality Act. The order, combined with emergency authorities invoked under the 1973 Home Rule Act, has allowed federal directives to supersede local policies during declared emergencies, an approach critics argue erodes the District’s home-rule protections and undermines Washington, D.C.’s longstanding sanctuary framework.

Residents who testified at the council sessions described a city “under siege,” with uniformed officers and unmarked vehicles appearing together in ways that suggest tighter coordination between MPD and federal agents. Several accounts centered on traffic stops that escalated into detention by immigration officers, including the case shared by Ana Rivera.

“My husband was stopped for a broken taillight and ended up in ICE custody. We haven’t seen him in two weeks,”

she said. The personal stories drew applause and calls for immediate oversight, especially from parents worried about how enforcement operations are reshaping children’s routines and sense of safety.

“My children are scared to go to school. They ask me every morning if I’ll be here when they get home,”

said Fatima Hassan, a mother of three.

City officials have not publicly detailed the exact extent of MPD’s cooperation with federal agencies, and spokespeople have said the department remains bound by D.C. law, including the Sanctuary Values Act. But the court’s emergency-powers decision, combined with the administration’s expanded use of 287(g) agreements in other jurisdictions, has left many in Washington, D.C. questioning whether sanctuary protections can withstand recurring 30-day federal orders. The ruling keeps Chief Pamela Smith formally in charge of the police force, but it also authorizes federal officials to require assistance from local officers for immigration enforcement during declared emergencies, creating a gray zone that residents and advocates say is being exploited.

Advocates also pointed to administrative shifts beyond policing that they argue compound harm to immigrant families. The Department of Housing and Urban Development announced on August 18, 2025, that it will only offer materials in English, a move that housing counselors say will make it harder for non-English-speaking residents to access services and comply with program requirements. Community groups warned that language barriers can have cascading effects, especially as immigration enforcement intensifies and families face mounting legal and financial pressures.

At the same time, immigration case backlogs continue to grow. Since January 1, 2025, U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services has received almost 270,000 petitions on Form I-130, the family-based sponsorship application, with more than 2.4 million cases pending overall. Under the new policy, green card applicants can be placed in removal proceedings even while their applications are pending, a shift that attorneys say is fueling fear and affecting decisions to file or pursue appeals. Families at the hearing described delaying appointments and avoiding government buildings, worried that any interaction could expose them to immigration enforcement. For many, the prospect that a pending case could still end in detention felt like confirmation that the rules had changed in ways they did not fully understand. Applicants and their sponsors seeking information about the process increasingly turn to official resources like Form I-130, but advocates said the threat of enforcement has overshadowed procedural guidance.

As pressure builds, organizers emphasized the role of local law and due process protections, arguing that Washington, D.C. must assert its legal rights even as federal authorities invoke emergency powers. The joint statement from nearly 40 organizations that condemned MPD’s cooperation framed the stakes as both legal and practical, warning that collaboration “undermines trust in our communities” and discourages crime reporting. That concern was echoed repeatedly at the roundtable convened by Councilmember Janeese Lewis George, where speakers warned of “indiscriminate stops” and a climate of fear that stretches from school drop-offs to late-night shifts at restaurants and warehouses.

The human impact dominated the discussion. Gomez spoke of neighbors who now avoid health clinics or food pantries, not because they lack need, but because they fear being questioned about immigration status. Ramirez described workers missing shifts and children skipping after-school programs, small decisions that, taken together, amount to an invisible tax on immigrant families’ stability. Martinez and others said they have adjusted their routines to minimize time outside, a change that they worry will outlast the current wave of enforcement and erode community life in Washington, D.C.

The legal complexity has not dampened calls for immediate steps by city leaders. Residents demanded a clear public accounting of MPD’s role in joint operations and the scope of information-sharing with federal agencies. Many urged Mayor Muriel Bowser to issue specific guidance limiting MPD’s participation in immigration enforcement beyond what is plainly required by court orders. Some called for an independent monitor to review stops and arrests linked to federal directives and to publish frequent, detailed reports. Others pushed for the D.C. Council to adopt emergency legislation to restate sanctuary protections and carve out additional limits on cooperation during federal emergency periods.

Behind the policy debate lies a tug-of-war over autonomy. The administration’s reliance on emergency powers under the Home Rule Act has exposed the District’s vulnerability to federal control in ways that may outlast the current immigration enforcement push. The August 15, 2025 ruling’s allowance for rolling 30-day overrides invites continual federal engagement, and residents fear that what was presented as temporary could become a semi-permanent framework for blending federal and local law enforcement on immigration matters. Schwalb’s lawsuit, by labeling the approach a “hostile takeover,” has galvanized activists who see the courtroom as one of the few venues where the District can assert its authority.

At the council hearing, the stories returned again and again to daily life. Rivera said her children have not slept through the night since their father’s detention. Hassan described a new ritual of rehearsing what to do if she is stopped while walking her kids to school. Gomez said she has memorized phone numbers for legal aid groups and keeps them written on index cards by the front door. Each detail underscored why activists argue that immigration enforcement cannot be treated as a distant federal matter in a city where local police now appear more entangled in operations.

Officials involved in the hearings said more meetings are planned and promised to release additional information on MPD’s policies. Residents and advocates, however, said transparency alone will not address their core concerns. They want commitments to limit cooperation, public trackers of all joint operations, and assurances that the Sanctuary Values Act will be defended even under pressure.

“DC Police’s collusion with federal immigration enforcement agencies violates DC’s Sanctuary Values Act and undermines trust in our communities,”

their joint statement read, framing the stakes as a test of whether the District can protect its most vulnerable residents while navigating an assertive federal agenda.

As Washington, D.C. waits for the next court filings and executive directives, the demands remain consistent: answers from Mayor Muriel Bowser, a clearer line between community policing and immigration enforcement, and a path that restores trust for families who say the past few months have upended their lives. In a city accustomed to the push and pull of federal power, residents say this moment feels different, more intimate, and more immediate. For those who filled the council chamber on October 29, 2025, the question is not only what the law permits, but what kind of community the District chooses to be while the emergency clock keeps resetting every 30 days.