As the incoming Trump administration prepares for its second term, the nation finds itself at a crossroads. The peaceful transfer of power, a hallmark of American democracy, feels anything but peaceful this time around. Tensions are high, rhetoric is sharp, and Baltimore, like many urban centers across the country, sits squarely in the crosshairs of a political showdown. At the heart of this conflict lies the issue of immigration enforcement, and how cities like Baltimore choose to navigate federal mandates could have lasting consequences — not just politically, but for the safety and well-being of our residents.

President-elect Donald Trump’s advisers have made their intentions clear that cities and states that refuse to assist in mass deportation efforts risk losing federal funding. Tom Homan, Trump’s pick for “border czar,” recently said on Fox News that jurisdictions refusing to comply with federal immigration enforcement could see significant financial repercussions. Baltimore, under the leadership of Mayor Brandon Scott and Police Commissioner Richard Worley, has taken a defiant stance, vowing not to allow city law enforcement resources to be diverted toward immigration enforcement. Similarly, Howard County Executive Calvin Ball has echoed this sentiment, citing the county’s 2020 Liberty Act, which prohibits local law enforcement from honoring Immigration and Customs Enforcement detainers, regardless of the severity of the crime committed.

At first glance, these positions may seem principled — an effort to ensure that Baltimore and neighboring counties remain welcoming, inclusive spaces for all. But beneath the surface lies a troubling reality. Prioritizing ideological defiance over pragmatic cooperation with federal authorities could inadvertently endanger the very communities these leaders are sworn to protect.

Crime in Baltimore remains an ever-present crisis. Our city consistently ranks among the most violent in the nation, and residents are desperate for meaningful change. It’s undeniable that immigration enforcement is a deeply polarizing issue, but the potential loss of federal funding — resources that support vital public safety initiatives, housing programs and social services — would deal a significant blow to Baltimore’s already strained infrastructure. More importantly, a refusal to coordinate with federal authorities may create unintended vulnerabilities. Law enforcement agencies depend on cooperation at all levels to address organized crime, drug trafficking and human trafficking, all of which are often tied to cross-border operations. By drawing hard ideological lines, we risk leaving gaps in our enforcement strategies that criminals are more than capable of exploiting.

Claud Anderson of the Harvest Institute has long argued that immigration policies disproportionately impact Black Americans. According to Anderson, failing to consider the socioeconomic consequences of mass immigration on historically marginalized communities is both immoral and unconstitutional. Black Americans, who remain the nation’s most vulnerable demographic, continue to face systemic barriers to economic mobility. Ignoring these realities, he warns, only exacerbates inequality and creates fertile ground for increased crime and social unrest. The concerns raised by Anderson aren’t rooted in xenophobia or anti-immigrant sentiment — they stem from a recognition of historical injustices and a demand for accountability in policymaking. Baltimore’s leadership must not dismiss these perspectives as mere talking points; they deserve thoughtful consideration as we chart a path forward.

No leader wants to appear aligned with a presidential administration whose policies they fundamentally oppose. Mayor Scott and County Executive Ball are in challenging positions, tasked with balancing their personal convictions with their duty to protect their constituents. But true leadership often requires uncomfortable decisions and a willingness to put the safety and stability of the community above political optics. Cooperating with federal authorities on immigration enforcement doesn’t mean abandoning Baltimore’s values. It doesn’t mean turning our backs on vulnerable immigrant families or embracing draconian policies. What it does mean is finding a middle ground — a pragmatic approach that prioritizes public safety while advocating for humane and just enforcement practices.

The stakes are too high for Baltimore to become a political battleground in a larger national conflict. Federal funding supports essential programs that our residents rely on daily. Cooperation with federal agencies enhances our ability to combat crime at its roots. And above all, leadership requires the courage to rise above partisan divides and make decisions rooted in the best interests of the people. Mayor Scott, Commissioner Worley, and Executive Ball have a responsibility to ensure that Baltimore does not become collateral damage in a fight over immigration policy. Now is not the time for grandstanding or political defiance — it is a time for leadership, collaboration and an unwavering commitment to the safety and security of every resident in our city. Baltimore deserves better. Let’s not let politics stand in the way of progress.

Christopher Anderson is a third-generation Baltimorean, a U.S. Coast Guard veteran and a community advocate. He is chairman of the Maryland Black Republican Council and a member of the Baltimore City Republican Central Committee. He has run for Congress and the Baltimore City Council.