Worcester City Council holds vote on resolution to declare city a sanctuary for transgender and gender diverse people

Dozens of residents, medical providers, educators and faith leaders urged the Worcester City Council to approve a resolution declaring the city a sanctuary for transgender and gender diverse people, but councilors voted to hold the item so staff and the city solicitor could prepare a legal and fiscal report.

Supporters packed the council chamber and told personal stories about why they said Worcester should adopt the resolution. "I would like to speak in support of item 7I, which is calling on Worcester to declare itself a sanctuary for trans and gender diverse people," said Aliza, a Worcester resident during the public comment period. Family physicians, nurse practitioners and teachers described patients and students who had moved to Worcester to access gender-affirming care and said a city designation would offer reassurance amid federal executive actions that speakers said had already cut programs and removed protections.

The petitioners framed the resolution as a preventive step. "A sanctuary city resolution is a measure that we hope the city never needs to act on," the lead petitioner wrote in remarks provided to the council, arguing the designation would signal the city would not use its time, resources or people to enforce federal or state actions perceived by supporters as hostile to transgender people.

Councilors thanked the speakers and debated the legal and financial risks. The city solicitor told the chamber the phrase "sanctuary city" historically stems from immigration practice and cautioned that, while past immigration sanctuary litigation did not lead to frozen federal funding, the council could not guarantee the same outcome for a resolution defined for transgender and gender diverse people. "The term sanctuary city ... comes from the immigration reform act," the city solicitor said, adding that a city could face legal or funding risks analogous to prior immigration disputes under a different federal administration.

Mayor Petty and several councilors expressed support for the substance of the resolution but agreed a short report on potential effects was appropriate. Councilor Calorio said he would move to hold the item so city staff could compile a legal and fiscal analysis; the motion to hold was then approved and the item was recorded as "held under privilege" to allow the manager and solicitor to return with a report.

Council discussion also included repeated requests from public commenters that the council simultaneously authorize an independent investigation and public apology related to recent council conduct toward a colleague; councilors said those matters would be handled separately from the petitioned resolution.

Ending: The council did not vote on the underlying resolution (item 7I) at the meeting. Instead it directed staff to prepare a detailed report on legal exposure and the potential impact on federal funding and bring that back for consideration; a date for that report was not specified at the meeting. The petition remains on the council docket as held under privilege.