Homeland Security Secretary Markwayne Mullin told Fox News on Tuesday that the Trump administration is actively drawing up plans to pull Customs and Border Protection officers from major international airports in sanctuary cities, a move that could shut down overseas arrivals at some of the busiest air hubs in the country.
No final decision has been made. But the threat is no longer hypothetical. Mullin said he has met with White House officials about the proposal and framed it as a direct response to Democratic-led cities that refuse to cooperate with federal immigration enforcement.
The affected cities read like a roster of America's most heavily trafficked airports: Boston, Denver, Philadelphia, Chicago, Los Angeles, New York City, Newark, Seattle, and San Francisco. All appear on a U.S. Justice Department list of sanctuary jurisdictions. And all would face a sudden halt in the processing of international travelers and cargo if the administration follows through.
In an interview with Sean Hannity, Mullin made clear the administration views the plan as leverage, and as a matter of principle. His language was blunt.
"We are currently, which we're not initiating yet, but we're currently drawing up plans to say, 'Listen, in these sanctuary cities where the local radical left Democrats aren't allowing us to do our job and enforce federal laws, then we shouldn't be processing international flights into their cities either.'"
The logic is straightforward: if a city blocks federal immigration agents from doing their work inside its borders, why should the federal government station customs officers at that city's airport to facilitate international commerce? Mullin has been building toward this confrontation for weeks.
He first publicly raised the possibility in April during a dispute over funding for his department. Then, last week, Reuters and other outlets reported that Mullin had privately told U.S. travel industry executives that DHS could opt to stop customs and immigration processing of international travelers at sanctuary city airports.
On Friday, the U.S. Travel Association, which represents major airlines, hotels, car rental firms, and other travel companies, confirmed to Reuters that its representatives had met with Mullin. The group warned of significant consequences for the travel industry and communities dependent on international visitors.
The numbers tell the story. More than 50 million international travelers arrived at the three major New York-area airports alone last year. The New York Post reported that 15 million of those entered through Newark alone. Multiply that across nine cities, and the economic fallout from even a partial shutdown of customs processing would be enormous.
Airlines for America, the trade group representing major passenger and cargo carriers, issued its own warning last week.
"Reducing customs staffing at major airports would significantly disrupt operations for carriers, travelers and the flow of international cargo."
The timing adds another layer. The FIFA World Cup begins next month, with millions of foreign tourists expected to arrive at U.S. airports. A withdrawal of CBP officers from sanctuary city airports during that window would create chaos, and that may be part of the point.
Mullin's message to sanctuary city leaders is not subtle: cooperate with federal immigration enforcement, or bear the consequences when the federal government stops providing the customs infrastructure your airports depend on.
The sanctuary city standoff did not start this week. It has been escalating for months. The trigger, as Mullin and other administration officials have framed it, was the killing of two U.S. citizens in Minneapolis in January. Democrats responded by calling for reforms to Immigration and Customs Enforcement and Customs and Border Protection, reforms the administration views as efforts to weaken enforcement rather than fix it.
Since Mullin took over at DHS, the tension between the federal government and sanctuary jurisdictions has only sharpened. The department has faced active resistance on the ground. Breitbart reported that Mullin cited a specific incident in Newark where local police allegedly refused to respond when DHS called for assistance at a facility where access was being blocked.
"Not one time did the police respond, not a single time did the local P.D. or state police [respond] to our call for assistance."
Anti-ICE protesters have also been blockading the Delaney Hall detention center in Newark for several days, according to the New York Post. The pattern is consistent: local officials and activists in sanctuary jurisdictions are not merely declining to assist federal enforcement, they are actively obstructing it.
The proposal has drawn pushback from at least one cabinet member. Transportation Secretary Sean Duffy offered a notably different view.
"We shouldn't shut down air travel in a state that doesn't agree with our politics."
Duffy's objection reflects a real tension within the administration. The airport plan would punish not just sanctuary city governments but millions of ordinary travelers, businesses, and workers who depend on international air service. Cargo shipments, including time-sensitive goods, would also grind to a halt.
That collateral damage is the strongest argument against the proposal. It is also, arguably, the source of its leverage. Sanctuary city leaders have been able to defy federal immigration law at relatively low cost to their own constituents. An airport shutdown would change that calculus overnight.
The question is whether the administration is prepared to absorb the political and economic blowback. The recent resolution of a 76-day partial DHS shutdown over funding suggests the White House is willing to endure extended standoffs when it believes the principle is worth the fight.
The AP reported that travel industry groups are increasingly alarmed, and Just the News noted the plan could effectively shut down major airports and inflict considerable economic pain on the targeted cities. That is, of course, the design.
The administration's position rests on a simple proposition: the federal government has no obligation to provide services to jurisdictions that actively undermine federal law. Customs processing is a federal function, staffed by federal employees, funded by federal dollars. If a city tells ICE agents to get lost, why should CBP officers keep showing up to stamp passports?
Critics will argue, and some already have, that this amounts to using federal infrastructure as a political weapon. But the administration's counter is that sanctuary policies themselves are the provocation. When a city orders its police force not to cooperate with lawful federal warrants, it is making a choice. Choices have consequences.
The trend is already visible elsewhere. Houston's city council reversed its sanctuary-style policy after the governor threatened $110 million in funding. Financial pressure works. The airport gambit is the same principle, applied with a heavier hand.
Mullin has been careful to note that no final decision has been made. The plans are being drawn up, not executed. That distinction matters, it leaves room for sanctuary cities to come to the table before the hammer falls.
But the window may be short. With the World Cup approaching and travel industry executives already sounding alarms, the administration has a natural deadline that concentrates minds on all sides. If sanctuary cities don't budge, the White House will face a choice: follow through and absorb the disruption, or back down and lose credibility on the issue that has defined this presidency more than any other.
Several questions remain unanswered. What specific reforms are Democrats proposing for ICE and CBP? How would the logistics of a CBP withdrawal actually work at airports that handle tens of millions of passengers? And would the administration exempt certain flights or cargo categories, or would the shutdown be total?
None of those details have been made public. What is public is the trajectory: a federal government that has spent months watching sanctuary cities obstruct its agents, ignore its warrants, and shield illegal immigrants from deportation is now preparing to hit back where it hurts most, the bottom line.
Sanctuary city leaders wanted a fight with the federal government over immigration enforcement. They may be about to find out what that fight actually costs.
