Sanctuary cities across the United States are standing firm in response to the Trump administration's intensified deportation plans, asserting their commitment to protecting undocumented immigrants within their jurisdictions. As federal policies grow increasingly stringent, local governments in more progressive regions are preparing to defend their communities and uphold the principles upon which sanctuary policies are built. Mike Johnston, the mayor of Denver, is among many local leaders who have voiced their intention to resist federal pressure by maintaining their cities' sanctuary policies. These policies generally limit cooperation with federal immigration authorities to help protect undocumented immigrants from deportation, fostering an environment where these individuals can live without fear of sudden displacement. Sanctuary cities, which include prominent urban centers like New York City, Los Angeles, and San Francisco, argue that their approach to immigration not only aligns with their values but also enhances public safety. By ensuring that undocumented immigrants can interact with local services—such as reporting crimes or accessing healthcare—without fear of deportation, these cities cultivate trust between immigrant communities and local authorities. However, the Trump administration has repeatedly criticized sanctuary cities, arguing that they obstruct federal immigration enforcement and pose a risk to national security. President Trump has even threatened to withhold federal funding from these municipalities unless they comply with federal immigration laws. This standoff has set the stage for a critical legal and political battle over states' rights and federal authority. Despite these challenges, leaders in sanctuary cities remain undeterred. For instance, in a recent statement, Denver's Mayor Mike Johnston has reaffirmed that his city will continue to protect its immigrant population. "We are preparing to defend our communities vigorously," Johnston said, echoing sentiments shared by leaders in similar cities nationwide. He and other officials argue that local ordinances protecting immigrants reflect the will of their constituents and are crucial for the social and economic well-being of the city. The concept of sanctuary cities dates back to the 1980s, originating as a grassroots movement to provide safe havens for immigrants amid surging deportation efforts. Over the years, these cities have developed a range of policies, from barring city employees from inquiring about a person's immigration status to restricting local law enforcement from cooperating with federal immigration authorities. As the debate over sanctuary cities continues, those defending these policies emphasize the need for comprehensive immigration reform at the federal level. Many argue that current immigration laws are outdated and do not adequately address the realities faced by millions of undocumented immigrants living in the United States. The tension between sanctuary cities and the Trump administration highlights a broader national divide on immigration issues—a divide that local leaders like Johnston are compelled to navigate at the intersection of policy, community values, and federal directives. With immigration remaining a contentious issue in American politics, the outcome of this standoff may well shape the future of immigration policy and the power dynamics between federal and local governments.