Homeland Security Secretary Markwayne Mullin said Monday his department is considering pulling Customs and Border Protection officers from major airports in sanctuary cities, a move that would effectively halt international travel through those facilities as part of the Trump administration's pressure campaign on jurisdictions that limit cooperation with federal immigration authorities.
In his first interview since confirmation, Mullin told Fox News that sanctuary city policies are "not lawful" and said the administration is examining whether international airports in those jurisdictions should continue processing Customs. "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 they walk out of the airport they're not gonna enforce immigration policy, maybe we need to have a really hard look at that because we need to focus on cities that want to work with us," Mullin said.
What the Left Is Saying
Democratic lawmakers and immigration advocates argue that sanctuary city policies are legal and protect public safety by building trust between local law enforcement and immigrant communities. They say the administration's proposed action would harm U.S. citizens and legitimate travelers while doing little to address actual immigration enforcement.
Congressional Progressive Caucus co-chair Pramila Jayapal called the proposal "another attempt to punish cities that prioritize community safety over discriminatory enforcement." She argued that pulling Customs officers would "hurt American travelers, businesses, and the economy" while doing nothing to address the underlying immigration system.
Democrats have also pushed back on the characterization that sanctuary cities are unlawful. A coalition of state attorneys general has argued in court filings that local jurisdictions have broad authority under the 10th Amendment to set their own law enforcement priorities. Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer has said Democrats will continue to "fight for sensible immigration policies that keep communities safe while respecting constitutional limits on federal power."
What the Right Is Saying
Conservative supporters say sanctuary cities are obstructing federal immigration law and that the administration is right to use every legal tool available. They argue that cities receiving federal benefits like international airports should not be able to simultaneously refuse to cooperate with federal authorities.
Senator Tom Cotton of Arkansas called sanctuary cities "a scandal" and said cities that refuse to work with ICE should not receive "one penny of federal money." He praised Mullin's approach as "using the leverage the federal government already has to enforce our laws."
The White House has defended its aggressive enforcement posture. Press Secretary Karoline Leavitt said last month that "cities that refuse to cooperate with federal immigration enforcement are putting radical ideology above the safety of American citizens." The administration has also pointed to operations in cities like Chicago, where ICE officers have been deployed in large numbers to circumvent local cooperation restrictions.
What the Numbers Show
The debate over sanctuary cities comes amid ongoing political battles over federal immigration funding. The Department of Homeland Security budget has been a point of contention, with Democrats pushing for reforms to ICE detention policies as part of continuing resolution negotiations. A partial government shutdown briefly occurred earlier this year over these disagreements.
Major sanctuary cities with international airports include New York City (JFK, LaGuardia), Los Angeles (LAX), Chicago (ORD), San Francisco (SFO), and Boston. These airports handle millions of international passengers annually — JFK alone processed more than 60 million passengers in 2024, with roughly 12% international.
Customs and Border Protection processes approximately 1 million travelers at U.S. airports daily during peak travel periods. The agency has faced staffing challenges, with the Border Patrol union publicly supporting measures to prioritize resources at cooperating jurisdictions.
The Bottom Line
The proposal remains under consideration and no formal policy has been announced. If implemented, it would represent a significant escalation in the administration's pressure campaign against sanctuary cities, potentially disrupting millions of travelers and dealing a major economic blow to affected municipalities.
Legal experts are divided on whether such a move would survive court challenges. Constitutional scholars note that while the federal government has broad authority over border enforcement, pulling services from existing ports of entry to punish local policies raises novel legal questions. Immigration advocacy groups have already threatened litigation, and several Democratic attorneys general have said they would challenge any such order in court.
What to watch: Whether the administration formally proposes the policy, how airports in affected cities respond, and whether Congress includes any restrictions on such actions in upcoming funding legislation.