Sanctuary City Airport Threat Sparks Travel Backlash

The travel industry is on edge after Homeland Security Secretary Markwayne Mullin reiterated a proposal to withdraw U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP) officers from airports in so-called “sanctuary cities” — a move that could effectively halt international flights at some of the nation’s busiest airports. According to AP News, Mullin confirmed he is considering the plan during a meeting with airline and travel industry executives on May 13, triggering immediate pushback from industry groups and even a fellow Cabinet member.

What’s at Stake

Mullin, who was confirmed as DHS Secretary in March 2026 after replacing Kristi Noem, first floated the idea in an April interview with Fox News. He has since argued that sanctuary cities — jurisdictions that limit cooperation with federal immigration enforcement — should not benefit from federal customs services. “If they’re a sanctuary city, and they’re receiving international flights, and we’re asking them to partner with us at the airport but once [immigrants] walk out of the airport they’re not going to enforce immigration policy, maybe we need to have a really hard look at that,” Mullin told Fox News, as reported by the New York Post.

Without CBP officers to process international arrivals, airlines cannot legally land international flights at affected airports. The Department of Justice’s list of sanctuary jurisdictions, published in August 2025, includes major cities such as New York City, Chicago, Los Angeles, San Francisco, Seattle, Denver, Philadelphia, Boston, and Newark — all home to major international airports. New York City’s three main airports alone handled approximately 50 million international travelers in 2025.

Industry and Administration Pushback

The proposal has drawn sharp criticism from across the travel sector. The U.S. Travel Association said in a statement that “such a move would have devastating consequences for the travel industry and communities that depend on international visitation.” Airlines for America (A4A), the industry’s largest trade group, warned that “reducing CBP staffing at major airports would have a devastating effect on the airline and tourism industries, causing a significant operational disruption to carriers, travelers and the flow of international cargo.”

Notably, Transportation Secretary Sean Duffy publicly broke with the proposal during a House Budget Committee hearing. “We have people from around the world and around the country that need to be able to fly into all different kinds of places,” Duffy said. “We shouldn’t shut down air travel in a state that doesn’t agree with our politics.” Duffy also pointed out the political pendulum, noting that “at some point Democrats will be in charge.”

California Governor Gavin Newsom was characteristically blunt, calling the idea “stupid” on X. “If you thought the economy was bad with Trump’s war driving prices at the pump up … just wait until international travel is halted at some of the busiest airports in the world,” his press office posted.

National Security Arguments and Legal Questions

Mullin has framed the proposal as a national security measure, arguing that adversaries are exploiting sanctuary policies. “[Adversaries] feel like there is an open door invitation in these sanctuary cities,” Mullin said on Fox News’ “The Story” on May 13, as reported by Breitbart. “It’s not just China. This is North Korea, this is Russia, this is our adversaries all over the place.”

However, legal experts note that courts previously struck down Trump’s first-term effort to cut federal funding from sanctuary cities. While withdrawing CBP officers would be an executive action not requiring congressional approval — since CBP is a federal agency — legal challenges are widely expected. Critics also argue that weakening customs screening at major airports would itself pose a security risk.

Potential Economic Fallout

The economic implications are significant. Major carriers would lose access to their primary international hubs, forcing massive route restructuring. International cargo shipments would face disruption, potentially increasing costs and inflation. Newsweek noted that the airports most at risk are the nation’s largest international gateways — facilities that handle a disproportionate share of inbound global traffic.

Airlines would likely shift routes to non-sanctuary airports such as Miami, Dallas/Fort Worth, Houston, and Atlanta, creating bottlenecks at those facilities and increasing reliance on connecting flights. Industry analysts warn that most major coastal hubs would be affected, leaving limited alternatives.

What Happens Next

No final decision has been announced. Reports from The Atlantic, cited by multiple outlets, suggest that any implementation would likely occur after the FIFA World Cup concludes in July 2026 — a recognition of the global disruption such a move would cause during a major international event hosted by the United States.

The internal administration split between Mullin and Duffy raises questions about how much support the proposal truly has. President Trump has previously threatened to withhold funding from sanctuary cities, but the specific mechanism of withdrawing CBP officers from airports represents a significant escalation. With the travel industry united in opposition and legal hurdles looming, the proposal faces an uncertain path forward — but its mere consideration signals the administration’s willingness to use immigration enforcement as leverage against non-compliant jurisdictions.