In a wide-ranging discussion on Chicago’s Morning Answer, host Dan Proft spoke with Gene Hamilton, co-founder and president of America First Legal and former White House deputy counsel, about what he called Chicago’s “legal and moral meltdown” over immigration enforcement and law and order.
The conversation came after Mayor Brandon Johnson signed an executive order declaring “ICE-free zones” throughout Chicago and Governor J.B. Pritzker publicly condemned federal immigration officers as “thugs.” The rhetoric came amid violent clashes outside the ICE facility in Broadview, where protesters attacked federal agents and damaged government vehicles.
Hamilton didn’t mince words about the legality of the mayor’s move. “There is no such thing as an ICE-free zone,” he said. “It’s unconstitutional for a city to declare itself above federal law. The supremacy clause of the Constitution settled that question a long time ago.”
He accused city and state leaders of prioritizing “political theater” over public safety. “Mayor Johnson knows this is illegal,” Hamilton said. “He’s doing it to score points with radical activists while the people of Chicago suffer the consequences.”
Proft pressed Hamilton on whether the mayor’s actions could amount to obstruction of justice. Hamilton said it was possible, depending on the facts. “Any elected official who actively interferes with federal law enforcement could face legal exposure,” he explained. “These city officials need to decide whether the short-term political gain is worth the risk of facing jail time.”
The conversation also touched on a reported “stand-down order” that allegedly prevented Chicago police from assisting ICE officers under attack. Superintendent Larry Snelling later clarified that CPD would not interfere with federal agents performing their duties. Hamilton commended Snelling for providing “a rare moment of legal clarity” in a city often dominated by political posturing.
Proft suggested that the breakdown in cooperation between federal and local law enforcement strengthens the case for President Trump’s decision to deploy the National Guard to restore order. Hamilton agreed, noting that the federal government has “numerous sources of authority to defend its people and property.” He called the notion that federal agents are “invading Chicago” absurd, arguing that Trump is “doing what any responsible leader would do to protect the country.”
The conversation shifted to new revelations that special prosecutor Jack Smith had subpoenaed phone records of several Republican senators during his investigation into President Trump. Hamilton called it another example of “political weaponization” and said there must be “real accountability” for prosecutors who abuse their authority.
“Subpoenaing the communications of sitting senators over a false narrative of insurrection is an outrageous overreach,” Hamilton said. “If the courts approved it based on misleading information, that’s a serious breach of trust and due process.”
Proft and Hamilton agreed that the pattern — from Chicago’s sanctuary policies to the politicization of law enforcement — reflects a growing disregard for constitutional limits. “This is what happens,” Proft concluded, “when the people in charge think they’re above the law and beneath accountability.”
Hamilton’s organization, America First Legal, continues to challenge what it describes as “unconstitutional abuses of power” by state and federal officials nationwide.