Key Points
- Homeland Security Secretary Markwayne Mullin is considering removing U.S. Customs and Border Protection agents from airports in sanctuary cities, according to multiple reports.
- Critics say the move could cause major travel disruptions, including flight cancellations, delays, and cargo problems.
- Airlines for America said reducing CBP staffing at major airports would have a “devastating effect” on travel and tourism.
- Former DHS official Juliette Kayyem warned the proposal would be a “catastrophe” and said it would hurt travelers in both blue and red states.
- Immigration policy expert Aaron Reichlin-Melnick said the plan could snarl air traffic nationwide because international and domestic flight networks are closely connected.
- Mullin has said DHS is still in the planning phase and has not yet taken action.
Chicago (King County Insider) June 3, 2026. Homeland Security Secretary Markwayne Mullin is facing growing backlash after saying the administration is “drawing up plans” to halt international flight processing at airports in sanctuary cities, a move critics say could disrupt travel, commerce, and airport operations across the United States.
What did Mullin say about sanctuary city airports?
As reported by David Shepardson of Reuters, Mullin said the administration was considering ending immigration and customs processing at airports in cities that do not cooperate with federal immigration enforcement. Reuters reported that Mullin’s comments followed ongoing disputes over immigration enforcement and protests at a detention facility in New Jersey, where he linked the airport proposal to local resistance to federal action. In related coverage, CBS Chicago reported that the idea would affect airports in places such as Chicago if CBP agents were removed from international terminals.
The Hill reported that Mullin said the administration was “drawing up plans” to stop processing international flights in left-leaning cities, arguing that sanctuary cities should not receive federal airport processing if they restrict immigration enforcement cooperation. That report said Mullin also suggested CBP officers could be reassigned to help Immigration and Customs Enforcement agents instead. Reuters likewise said Mullin told travel industry leaders that the department may stop customs and immigration processing at airports in cities including Chicago, New York, Los Angeles, Newark, Seattle, San Francisco, Philadelphia, Boston, and Denver.
Why are airlines pushing back?
According to The Hill, Airlines for America said the proposal would have a “devastating effect” on the airline and tourism industries because CBP staffing is essential to international airport operations. Reuters reported that industry groups warned the plan could create severe disruptions to international travel, commerce, and airline operations. Forbes reported that the U.S. Travel Association estimated removing CBP officers from Newark Airport alone could cost $8 billion in international visitor spending.
The central concern, experts say, is that international flight processing is not something airports can easily replace or work around. As Aaron Reichlin-Melnick told The Hill, the U.S. air network is tightly interconnected, so canceling international arrivals at one airport can ripple into domestic routes, connecting flights, and return travel for passengers already abroad. Reuters also noted that the practical effect could be to halt international travel and cargo processing at major airports rather than simply shifting operations elsewhere.
How could travelers be affected?
As reported by The Hill, Juliette Kayyem said the proposal would be a “catastrophe” because major airports already operate near capacity and cannot simply absorb sudden changes in CBP staffing without major disruption. She argued that the plan would not only affect travelers in Democratic-led cities but also Americans from across the country, including those who connect through those airports. Kayyem also said aviation is too complex and sensitive to be used as a political tool without risking broad harm.
CBS Chicago reported that if federal agents are not available at international terminals like O’Hare Airport, those flights would need to go elsewhere, though the reporting indicated that such rerouting would not be simple in practice. Reuters said the affected airports could include several of the country’s biggest international hubs, meaning the consequences could extend well beyond the cities targeted by the administration. In practical terms, travelers could face cancellations, longer delays, missed connections, and uncertainty about whether international flights would operate normally.
What is the administration’s current position?
Reuters reported that the administration is still in the planning stage and has not yet implemented the proposal. The Hill similarly said DHS had not yet taken action to carry out an end to CBP processing at major international airports. Forbes also reported that DHS said it was “currently developing plans,” but no final move had been announced.
This means the proposal remains a threat or policy option rather than an executed change. Still, the reporting shows that the idea has already triggered strong opposition from airlines, travel groups, and immigration experts who say the operational consequences would be immediate and severe.
Background of this development
The dispute grew out of broader clashes between the Trump administration and sanctuary cities over immigration enforcement, according to Reuters and The Hill. Reuters reported that Mullin first raised the possibility during an April funding dispute and then repeated it in later remarks as protests continued outside a New Jersey detention facility. The issue also comes during a period when international travel and airport operations remain politically sensitive because of their economic impact and their role in business, tourism, and cargo movement.
Reuters said the targeted airports would include major hubs such as Chicago, New York, Los Angeles, Newark, Seattle, and San Francisco, which are important points of entry for both passengers and goods. That is why critics argue the policy would not simply pressure local governments, but would affect national transportation systems.
Prediction: what could happen next for travelers and airports?
For travelers, the most likely short-term effect is uncertainty until DHS decides whether to move beyond the planning stage. If the administration advances the proposal, airlines could face schedule changes, reduced international capacity, and ripple effects on domestic connections at major hubs. For passengers traveling through cities like Chicago, the impact could include delays, cancellations, and more complicated itineraries even if they are not flying to a sanctuary city as their final destination.
For airports and the travel industry, the next phase will likely center on legal, operational, and political pushback. Industry groups and experts have already warned that the disruption could be broad enough to affect tourism, cargo flow, and business travel, so any implementation would likely face immediate scrutiny and possible court challenges. In the near term, the proposal may continue to function more as a pressure tactic than as an active airport policy, but the reporting suggests the risk of disruption is being taken seriously by the aviation sector.
