- New Hampshire becomes the first New England state to ban sanctuary cities, with Gov. Ayotte signing strict immigration enforcement laws.
- The laws require local police to cooperate with ICE, aligning with Trump’s crackdown on non-compliant jurisdictions.
- Ayotte framed the move as a public safety measure, ensuring New Hampshire remains the nation’s safest state.
- Republicans argue the laws empower police, while Democrats condemn them as anti-immigrant and federal overreach.
- The ban reflects a broader national GOP effort to counter sanctuary policies in liberal cities like New York and Denver.
New Hampshire has made history as the first state in New England to outlaw sanctuary cities, with Republican Gov. Kelly Ayotte signing two hardline immigration enforcement bills into law on Thursday. The move, which aligns with President Donald Trump’s crackdown on jurisdictions that defy federal immigration authorities, prohibits municipalities from restricting local law enforcement cooperation with ICE. Ayotte, who campaigned on a promise to prevent New Hampshire from becoming a haven for illegal immigration, framed the legislation as a critical public safety measure that will preserve the state’s ranking as the safest in the nation.
“There will be no sanctuary cities in New Hampshire, period, end of story,” Ayotte declared at a bill-signing ceremony in Concord. The new laws not only ban sanctuary policies but also mandate full cooperation between local police and federal immigration officials in a direct rebuke to progressive strongholds like neighboring Massachusetts, which Ayotte has repeatedly criticized for its “billion-dollar illegal immigration crisis.”
A victory for law enforcement and public safety
The legislation, which passed along party lines in New Hampshire’s Republican-controlled legislature, was championed by conservative lawmakers as a necessary step to empower police and deter criminal activity linked to illegal immigration. State Sen. Bill Gannon, the Senate’s chief sponsor, argued the bills would make New Hampshire “an even safer place to work, live, and raise a family.” State Rep. Joe Sweeney, who led the House effort, went further, stating the measures “take the handcuffs off our law enforcement officers” so they can work with ICE to “put the handcuffs on criminal illegal aliens.”
Ayotte, a former U.S. senator and state attorney general, has long positioned herself as a staunch defender of immigration enforcement. During her 2024 gubernatorial campaign, she warned against adopting Massachusetts-style policies under the slogan, “Don’t Mass up New Hampshire.” Now, with the signing of these bills, she has delivered on that promise, ensuring that no city or town in the Granite State can shield illegal immigrants from federal deportation efforts.
Unsurprisingly, the move drew fierce opposition from Democrats, who accused Republicans of scapegoating immigrants and enabling federal overreach. State Rep. David Meuse condemned the legislation as a “politically manufactured campaign of state terrorism” against immigrants, insisting that most come to America “not to victimize America, but because they love America and they believe America is good.”
Ayotte dismissed such criticisms, telling Fox News, “I don’t understand where the Democrats are on these policies.” She reaffirmed her commitment to enforcing immigration laws, emphasizing that the issue is not about hostility toward immigrants but about upholding the rule of law.
A broader national battle over sanctuary policies
New Hampshire’s ban is part of a larger national push by Republican-led states to resist the sanctuary city movement, which has gained traction in liberal urban centers like New York City and Denver. These jurisdictions, often governed by Democrats, have faced backlash for policies that limit cooperation with ICE—policies that critics argue endanger public safety by allowing criminal illegal aliens to evade deportation.
The Trump administration has been at the forefront of this fight, with the president signing an executive order last month threatening to strip federal funding from sanctuary cities. Ayotte’s move aligns with this agenda, reinforcing the principle that immigration enforcement is not optional; it is a matter of national security and community safety.
While the New Hampshire Municipal Association claims there are no official sanctuary cities in the state, Republican lawmakers have identified up to a dozen towns they believe have adopted de facto sanctuary policies under the guise of being “welcoming cities.” These designations, often framed as inclusivity measures, have become a flashpoint in the immigration debate, with conservatives arguing they undermine federal law.
New Hampshire’s ban on sanctuary cities is more than just a policy shift; it’s a statement. At a time when progressive leaders like New York City Mayor Eric Adams are funneling millions of taxpayer dollars into free debit cards for illegal immigrants while simultaneously warning of the chaos they bring, Ayotte’s decisive action stands in contrast. By prioritizing public safety and the rule of law, she has set a precedent that other states will hopefully follow.
Sources for this article include:
Please contact us for more information.