Wu & Healey’s Lawless Alliance: Sanctuary Acts, Fiscal Abuse, and Treason Against the People
by Ronald P. Bouchard Jr.
Mayor Michelle Wu’s August 2025 letter defends Boston’s Trust Act as lawful, protective of “residents,” and a stand for freedom against federal overreach. It’s a lie. Her policies shielding illegal aliens, draining taxpayer funds, and defying federal law are tyranny, betraying the sovereign people.
At the heart of this republic is a principle older and higher than any politician’s will: the Rule of Law, that which is fixed, eternal, and superior to the desires of rulers, binding upon all persons and institutions alike. True law arises not from policy or preference but from self-evident truths, natural law, and constitutional maxims. As State v. Post (1845) confirms, courts may only declare what the law is, and whether it is consistent with the law of God and fundamental constitutional principles. Wu’s actions defy this standard, and substitute her will for law, precisely what our Founders warned against. As John Adams, the author of the Massachusetts Constitution declared, we are to be “a government of laws, and not of men.”
This article dismantles her claims and demands federal intervention under Article IV, Section 4 to stop the invasion, end this collusion, and restore a republican form of government grounded in the Rule of Law.
Section 1: Wu’s “Residents” Are Invaders, Not Americans
Wu claims Boston protects “our residents” and “Americans” by refusing ICE cooperation absent criminal warrants. She’s wrong. Illegal aliens aren’t residents or citizens they’re invaders, per Federalist No. 41 and No. 43 (Madison), which define invasion as any hostile act undermining sovereignty, like mass illegal entry (8 U.S.C. § 1325). The U.S. Constitution’s Naturalization Clause (Art. I, § 8, cl. 4) gives Congress sole power over immigration, not cities. Vattel (Law of Nations, Book I, § 100) says nations control entry; Wu’s Trust Act defies this, inviting lawbreakers.
She claims the federal government has “eliminated health care and food assistance for our families.” Her “our families” rhetoric is nothing but emotional manipulation. The truth is Massachusetts spent over $1 billion in FY25 on shelters, food, and healthcare for illegal foreign nationals, according to state audits, while veterans, citizens, and actual families lose out. This is precisely what Bastiat in The Law condemns as “legal plunder “taking from taxpayers to benefit non-citizens. It is also unlawful under the Massachusetts Constitution (Part I, Art. IV; Part II, Ch. II, Sec. I, Art. XI). Locke, in his Second Treatise (Ch. 9), defines tyranny as the exercise of power against the people’s own good. Wu’s policies favoring invaders over the sovereignty of the people of this Commonwealth fit that definition exactly.
Section 2: Wu’s “Safety” Claim Fuels Chaos
Wu boasts that Boston’s safety stems from the Trust Act, “community policing,” and strict gun laws. False. In 2025 alone, ICE arrested more than 1,500 illegal aliens in Massachusetts including murderers, rapists, and MS-13 members, many of whom had been released due to non-cooperation policies, according to @BostonSafety_X and multiple news reports. In Worcester, a Brazilian murder suspect was set free; in Boston, child predators evaded justice until federal raids intervened. The Trust Act does not “ensure” 911 calls it shields criminals, eroding safety and undermining federal law. Gun laws do not stop illegals, who are implicated in dozens of shootings every year. Instead, those laws strip lawful citizens of their rights, in direct violation of the Massachusetts Constitution (Part I, Arts. I, VI, XVII) and the U.S. Constitution (Second Amendment).
The Massachusetts Constitution, Part the First, Article VII, commands that government exist to protect the “safety, prosperity, and happiness of the people” meaning its citizens, not foreign invaders. Alabama’s Constitution (Art. I, § 35) affirms the same: government’s duty is to secure rights, not empower lawbreakers. Locke (Second Treatise, Ch. 9) is clear safety belongs to the people, not to those draining $830 million in taxpayer funds for shelters. Bastiat warns that favoring non-citizens at the expense of citizens is nothing but legal plunder. Wu’s policies invert these principles, breeding crime and poverty instead of safeguarding the Commonwealth.
Section 3: Wu’s “Rule of Law” Is Tyranny
Wu claims Boston follows all laws, citing the Tenth Amendment and resistance to federal “tyranny.” She’s twisting truth. The Supremacy Clause (Art. VI) makes federal immigration law (8 U.S.C. §§ 1325, 1373) supreme, per Arizona v. United States (567 U.S. 387, 2012). Congress, not cities, controls borders (Federalist No. 42). Massachusetts Constitution, Part the First, Article IV, reserves non-delegated powers to the people, not Wu’s whims. Her historical nod to Boston’s defiance of monarchs is absurd the Founders fought for lawful self-governance, not lawlessness.
The Constitution is the “sun” of our system, as declared in VANHORNE’S LESSEE v. DORRANCE, 2 U.S. 304 (1795). Any act repugnant to it is void. By that measure, Mayor Wu’s so-called Trust Act which obstructs and nullifies the enforcement of federal immigration law is a legal nullity from its inception.
Locke, in his Second Treatise (Ch. 17), defines tyranny as the exercise of “power beyond right,” when rulers act outside the boundaries of authority delegated by the people. Vattel, in The Law of Nations (Book I, § 54), confirms that governments are but trustees, bound to administer the powers entrusted to them for the benefit of the people, never to overthrow or replace their sovereignty.
Wu’s defiance is not a defense of liberty, but a direct betrayal of it. It subverts the Supremacy Clause of the United States Constitution (Art. VI, Cls. 2–3), which binds state and local officers to obey federal law and their oath to the Constitution. Her policies also violate the Guarantee Clause (Art. IV, § 4), which obligates the United States to protect every state against invasion and to secure to each a republican form of government. Instead of protecting citizens, she diverts their resources to foreign nationals, undermines public safety, and erodes the rule of law.
The Constitution demands fidelity, not defiance. Wu’s Trust Act cannot stand it is void, unlawful, and a manifest act of tyranny. The federal government not only has the authority, but the duty, to intervene: to restore order, to uphold the sovereignty of the people, and to secure the republican form of government guaranteed to every state.
Section 4: Wu’s Court Citations Are Null
Wu leans on United States v. California (921 F.3d 865, 2019) and United States v. State of Illinois (No. 25-cv-1285, N.D. Ill. 2025) to cloak her Trust Act in legality. But courts do not create law, they only declare it. As State v. Post (20 N.J.L. 368, 1845) and Maxim of Law 64 FF establish, the judiciary may say what the law is but never make it. When courts issue rulings contrary to fundamental law God’s law, natural law, or the Constitution those rulings are void.
VANHORNE’S LESSEE v. DORRANCE, 2 U.S. 304 (1795) demands that every act must orbit the Constitution, the “sun” of our system. Wu’s Trust Act does the opposite: it obstructs federal law, violating both the Supremacy Clause (Art. VI, Cls. 2–3) and the Naturalization Clause (Art. I, § 8, cl. 4). James Madison in Federalist No. 45 was explicit local power is confined to matters not delegated to the Union. Immigration is expressly federal, not municipal.
Thomas Paine, in Rights of Man, warned that when rulers exalt their will above law, the result is not republican governance but mob rule. Wu’s defiance proves his point. Her citations cannot legalize what the Constitution itself forbids.
Section 5: Massachusetts’ Collusion Is Treason
Governor Maura Healey, in open coordination with DHS Secretary Alejandro Mayorkas and 27 Massachusetts mayors including Taunton’s Shaunna O’Connell has fueled an unlawful invasion. Through the Southeastern Regional Planning and Economic Development District (SRPEDD), a state-authorized regional planning agency governing 27 cities and towns in Southeastern Massachusetts, these officials facilitated the entry, relocation, and placement of thousands of migrant families across the Commonwealth. SRPEDD’s Commission of local mayors and appointees directly participated in decisions on land use, emergency shelter strategy, and housing development. Under this framework, and with direct oversight from Secretary Mayorkas, Massachusetts received $9.1 million in FEMA’s Shelter and Services Program funds in 2023. These funds enabled hotels, shelters, and housing for non-citizens while state taxpayers shouldered over $1 billion in FY25 including HomeBASE subsidies of $30,000 per family.
This conduct is unlawful on multiple fronts. First, it violates 8 U.S.C. § 1621, which prohibits non-emergency public benefits for illegal aliens. Second, it contravenes the Massachusetts Constitution, Part II, Ch. II, Sec. I, Art. VII, which forbids issuing treasury funds except for the defense and support of the Commonwealth. Yet Healey unilaterally diverted nearly $97 million to HomeBASE for illegals without lawful resolve, breaking Art. XI’s requirement that no money leave the treasury but by warrant of the governor and in pursuance of a legislative act. Third, it breaches Part I, Art. VI, which bans “special privileges.” Citizens face skyrocketing taxes and housing insecurity, while foreign nationals receive hotels and state-funded benefits. As Bastiat warned in The Law, this is “legal plunder.” Locke, in Second Treatise (Ch. 17), defined such conduct as tyranny power exercised beyond right and against the people’s interest.
Governor Healey herself admitted the crisis. On August 8, 2023, she declared a “state of emergency,” confessing that 5,600 migrant families over 20,000 individuals occupied Massachusetts shelters. Instead of repelling this invasion as mandated by the Constitution (“by all fitting ways, enterprises and means whatsoever,” Part II, Ch. II, Sec. I, Art. VII), she demanded Congress rewrite “outdated and punitive immigration laws” to justify her collusion. This appeal to personal political preference over constitutional duty underscores her breach of oath under the Supremacy Clause (U.S. Const. Art. VI) and her dereliction under the Guarantee Clause (Art. IV, § 4), which binds both state and federal officials to protect against invasion and preserve a republican form of government.
Further, collusion with the legislature to fund these initiatives violates Part II, Ch. I, Sec. I, Art. IV, which prohibits grants of “private donations or gratuities” from public funds. The judiciary’s failure to act in impartial defense of the people breaches Article XXIX of the Massachusetts Declaration of Rights, leaving no remedy at the state level. Accordingly, lawful standing rests with the sovereign people, whose record of objection is already established through 37 affidavits and 3,202 unrebutted lawful notices. This invokes federal oversight and obligates intervention by the United States Attorney General under Title 18 U.S.C. §§ 241–242 to secure the constitutional guarantee of a republican form of government for Massachusetts.
Governor Healey’s actions are not policy, they are usurpation, plunder, and tyranny. They betray the Constitution, violate federal statute, and abandon her duty to the sovereign People of this Commonwealth.
Section 6: Federal Duty to Crush Tyranny and Invasion
The United States Constitution, Article IV, Section 4, commands that the federal government “shall protect each of them [the states] against invasion” and “shall guarantee to every state in this Union a republican form of government.” This guarantee means rule of law, not rule of men. James Madison in Federalist No. 43 made clear that “invasion” must be interpreted broadly it is not limited to foreign armies but includes any mass incursion that threatens sovereignty and security. Today, over one million illegal entries occur annually across the southern border, and in Massachusetts alone, ICE reported 1,500 criminal aliens arrested in 2025, including violent offenders. By any rational measure, this qualifies as invasion.
Instead of fulfilling their duty to resist, Governor Healey and Mayor Wu actively aid this invasion. Wu’s Trust Act obstructs federal enforcement and shields criminal aliens, while Healey diverts $1 billion in FY25 including $30,000 HomeBASE subsidies per migrant family away from citizens and veterans to house foreign nationals. Non-cooperation with ICE, combined with judicial obstruction in Lunn v. Commonwealth, leaves the Commonwealth in open rebellion against federal law. This collusion among the legislative, executive, and judicial branches of Massachusetts represents a systemic betrayal of sovereignty, replacing ordered liberty with chaos.
The courts have long recognized that unconstitutional acts are void. VANHORNE’S LESSEE v. DORRANCE, 2 U.S. 304 (1795) declared that every law must “orbit the Constitution, the sun of our system”; any act repugnant to it is null. Wu and Healey’s measures, obstructing federal supremacy and undermining the Naturalization Clause, fall into that category. Scripture affirms the same principle: Romans 13:1–4 demands that rulers are “not a terror to good works, but to the evil” and that authorities must bear the sword against lawbreakers, not shield them. Numbers 15:15–16 insists on “one law” for all, citizen and stranger alike not selective enforcement that privileges invaders over the sovereign people.
By every test constitutional, statutory, and natural law the Commonwealth’s leaders have abdicated their duty. Instead of defending Massachusetts from invasion, they enabled it. This violates both the Supremacy Clause (Art. VI, Cls. 2–3) and the Guarantee Clause (Art. IV, § 4). The federal government therefore has not only the authority but the obligation to intervene: to enforce immigration law, cut off funds that incentivize illegality, and restore to Massachusetts a true republican form of government.
Failure to act is not neutrality; it is complicity. To ignore the invasion is to betray the Constitution and abandon the people to lawlessness. Article IV, Section 4 leaves no discretion the federal government must act, or it stands guilty of breaking its own supreme law.
Conclusion
Wu’s letter is a lie, cloaking tyranny as freedom. The Trust Act and Healey’s spending violate the U.S. Constitution (Art. I, § 8; Art. VI), Massachusetts Constitution (Part I, Arts. IV, VI, VII; Part II, Art. VII), and natural law. Locke, Vattel, Bastiat, and Paine demand government serve the people, not invaders. The federal government, under Article IV, Section 4, has a non-negotiable duty to stop this invasion, nullify Wu’s void acts, and secure a republican form of government. The people are sovereign, not Wu, not Healey. Their collusion is treason against that sovereignty, and the feds must act now to restore justice.
About the Author:
Ron Bouchard is a Strategic Interventionist, Freedom Strategist, and leading expert in Constitutional and Fundamental Law. He is a dynamic speaker, trainer, and author, and co-founder of WeThePeople2.us, where he advances public education on history, common law, and the restoration of self-governance. Ron is known for his principled advocacy, deep historical insight, and unwavering commitment to natural rights and the sanctity of life. His work equips others with lawful and moral clarity in the face of modern overreach.