A revived Homeland Security proposal to choke off international flights into “sanctuary cities” is testing how far the federal government can go to force blue strongholds to finally cooperate on immigration enforcement. Story Snapshot DHS Secretary Markwayne Mullin has publicly floated cutting customs staffing at airports in sanctuary jurisdictions, which could effectively halt many international arrivals.[1][2][3] The move is framed as leverage on cities that refuse to cooperate with federal immigration authorities once travelers leave the airport.[1][2][3] Airline and tourism leaders warn the policy could cause chaos and “devastating” economic losses at major hubs like New York and Los Angeles.[3][5] DHS says the idea is under active consideration, but no final decision or public legal memo has been released yet.[1][2] DHS Floats Using Airports as Leverage on Sanctuary Cities Homeland Security Secretary Markwayne Mullin has confirmed that his department is weighing whether to scale back or even halt customs processing at airports located in jurisdictions that advertise themselves as sanctuary cities.[1][2][3] In a televised interview, he questioned why cities that refuse to cooperate with federal immigration enforcement should continue to enjoy full international customs processing into their jurisdictions.[2][3] He argued that when local leaders decline to help enforce the law after passengers leave the terminal, it undermines the purpose of federal screening at the border in the first place.[1][2][3] According to reporting that summarizes internal discussions, one option under consideration is to “stop processing international travelers at major airports located in so‑called sanctuary cities,” a move that would immediately disrupt travel, trade, and immigration processing at some of the country’s busiest hubs.[1] News coverage and legal commentary identify New York, Los Angeles, Chicago, San Francisco and Portland as examples of affected locations, since their airports depend on federal customs officers to admit arriving foreign travelers.[1][3] Without those officers, international passenger service would quickly become impossible at those facilities.[3] How the Plan Would Work and Why It Is Being Considered Federal customs and border processing at airports is handled by the national government, not local city hall, giving Washington a powerful choke point that cannot be easily blocked by state or municipal officials.[1][3] Mullin and his allies have framed the idea as a way to prioritize limited Homeland Security manpower toward jurisdictions that will actually cooperate with Immigration and Customs Enforcement, instead of those that release illegal entrants back into the interior immediately after arrival.[1][2][3] Supportive analysis notes that the department has previously used operational tools, such as targeted deployments of border personnel, to pressure non‑cooperative cities and is now looking at air travel as the next enforcement lever.[3] In one interview clip, Mullin laid out the core rationale in blunt terms, asking whether sanctuary cities that refuse to enforce immigration policy “once they walk out of the airport” should really be processing international customs into their cities at all.[2][3] Commentators describing the plan say the department has met with airline and travel executives to emphasize that it is “serious” about the option and discussed a limited rollout focused on a handful of major airports after a high‑profile global event.[3] However, legal analysts point out that public reporting has not yet produced a formal memorandum, directive, or statutory citation clearly laying out the legal authority DHS would invoke to suspend or sharply reduce customs operations at specific airports as a pressure tactic.[1] Economic Backlash and Fears of Travel Chaos Major airlines, tourism groups, and travel executives are already sounding alarms about what even a partial customs pullback would mean for the broader economy.[3][5] Industry representatives have warned Mullin that the economic fallout could be “enormous,” creating severe delays, diversions, and confusion as international flights are forced to reroute away from key hubs.[3][5] A leading airline trade group told one outlet that cutting customs staffing at major airports “would have a devastating effect on the airline and tourism industries,” given how much international traffic flows through these cities before connecting elsewhere in the country.[5] Sen. Markwayne Mullin says DHS is drawing up plans that could cut off customs processing for international flights into sanctuary-city airports if those cities refuse to cooperate with federal immigration enforcement. Photo via Reuters pic.twitter.com/11XhVMUyJp — TalkRadio 77 WABC (@77WABCradio) May 27, 2026 Critics of the concept argue that targeting large international gateways in sanctuary jurisdictions would inevitably punish ordinary travelers having nothing to do with local immigration politics, including Americans returning home and foreign visitors bound for other states.[3] Analysts also note that many international passengers pass through cities like New York or Chicago on their way to business or family visits in non‑sanctuary regions, so the economic costs could be widely dispersed.[3] Local officials in some affected areas say they have not been formally consulted, fueling claims that the threat may be more political signaling than a fully developed operational plan.[3] Unanswered Questions on Authority, Next Steps, and Limits Despite the intense reaction, Homeland Security has not announced any final policy change, and legal experts caution that, for now, international travel continues as usual at sanctuary‑city airports.[1] Jeelani Law’s analysis emphasizes that DHS itself describes the measure as “still under discussion” and that no binding decision has been made on implementation, timing, or the exact list of targeted airports.[1] There is also no publicly available briefing paper or legal opinion spelling out which immigration or customs statutes DHS would rely on to justify using airport staffing as leverage against non‑cooperative cities.[1] Conservative policy researchers argue that the episode highlights a bigger issue: for years, sanctuary politicians have faced few real consequences for refusing to help enforce national immigration laws, even as border communities and taxpayers shoulder the burden.[3][4] A Republican policy memo on related proposals urges Congress to go further by explicitly empowering federal agencies to cut off certain airport grants when authorities obstruct federal immigration enforcement.[4] For now, Mullin’s floated plan signals that under the current administration, federal tools tied to international travel are firmly on the table in the long‑running confrontation over sanctuary policies, even as the legal and practical boundaries of that strategy remain unsettled.[1][3][4] Sources: [1] Web – DHS floats plan to block international flights into sanctuary cities [2] Web – Could International Travel Be Halted in Sanctuary Cities? [3] YouTube – DHS secretary threatens to pull customs officials from ‘sanctuary city … [4] Web – DHS Chief Floats Idea of Closing Air ‘Ports of Entry’ in Sanctuaries [5] Web – DHS threat to cut airport staffing in sanctuary cities alarms travel …