Denver Mayor Mike Johnston has boldly declared his willingness to defy federal law, and even face jail time, in his fight to shield illegal immigrants—including those with criminal records—from deportation under President-elect Trump’s forthcoming immigration policies. Johnston, a vocal advocate of sanctuary city protections, has framed his defiance as a moral imperative and has encouraged residents to join him in acts of civil disobedience.
In a recent interview with *Denverite*, Johnston outlined a dramatic strategy to turn Denver into a “fortress of resistance” against federal immigration enforcement. This includes mobilizing police officers and thousands of Denver residents to form human barricades aimed at obstructing deportation operations. Johnston compared this resistance to a “Tiananmen Square moment,” a reference to the infamous and violent 1989 crackdown by China’s communist regime.
Unsurprisingly, Johnston’s remarks have sparked controversy. Critics have lambasted the Tiananmen Square comparison as inflammatory and inappropriate, while others see his comments as dangerously provocative. The mayor has since walked back his use of the analogy during a 9NEWS interview, admitting, “I wouldn’t have used that image if given another chance.” However, he stood firm on his broader message of resistance, stating, “If I believe that our residents are having their rights violated… I would certainly protest it.”
Johnston’s comments have drawn attention from Trump’s incoming administration. Tom Homan, Trump’s pick for border czar, has made it clear that local leaders who obstruct federal immigration policies could face legal consequences. Homan has publicly stated he would pursue the arrest of officials who actively impede deportations.
When pressed by 9NEWS about whether he would accept jail time for his actions, Johnston said he’s “not afraid” of that possibility. “We want to negotiate with reasonable people on how to solve hard problems,” he said, emphasizing that he seeks dialogue, not confrontation. Johnston pointed to bipartisan efforts in the past, such as President Reagan’s immigration reforms, as examples of pragmatic solutions.
The stakes are high as Johnston doubles down on Denver’s sanctuary city status. His defiance sets up a potential showdown with the Trump administration, which has vowed to crack down on cities that obstruct federal immigration law. For now, Johnston’s plans make Denver a flashpoint in the broader national debate over immigration, states’ rights, and federal enforcement. Whether this resistance will lead to resolution or conflict remains to be seen.