You can't want immigration enforcement withheld while demanding travelers be processed
Mullin has repeatedly proposed reducing CBP personnel at major airports serving sanctuary jurisdictions, framing it as enforcement leverage against non-compliant cities. Transportation Secretary Duffy publicly opposed the plan; internal sources indicate it remains Mullin's personal initiative without West Wing backing or implementation timeline.
- Markwayne Mullin, DHS Secretary since March 2025, has proposed cutting CBP staff at airports in sanctuary cities
- Transportation Secretary Sean Duffy publicly opposed the plan during congressional testimony
- Two Trump administration officials told CNN there are no imminent plans to implement the measure
- Sanctuary jurisdictions on the DHS list include New York City, Los Angeles, Seattle, Philadelphia, and Virginia
DHS Secretary Mullin proposes cutting customs staff at airports in sanctuary cities as punishment for non-cooperation on immigration enforcement, but faces criticism from cabinet colleagues, the travel industry, and lacks White House approval.
Markwayne Mullin, the Department of Homeland Security secretary, has become fixated on a particular form of punishment for cities and states that resist federal immigration enforcement: starving their airports of customs officers, potentially grinding international passenger processing to a halt. It's a blunt instrument, and it's already running into trouble.
The idea has rattled the travel industry and local officials alike, drawn public criticism from another cabinet secretary, and so far has not cleared the White House. Speaking to Fox News earlier this week, Mullin framed the logic in stark terms: if left-leaning Democrats won't let federal authorities enforce immigration law in their communities, why should the government process international flights to those cities at all? The math, as he saw it, was simple. You can't want immigration enforcement withheld while simultaneously demanding that travelers be processed through your airports. It doesn't add up.
But it does add up differently to others in power. Sean Duffy, the Transportation Secretary, broke ranks during a recent congressional hearing. "We shouldn't shut down air travel in a state because it disagrees with our political ideology," he said. Inside the White House, two Trump administration officials told CNN there are no imminent plans to implement such a measure. What Mullin has been doing, they suggested, is pursuing a personal obsession—one he's raised repeatedly in media appearances and unprompted during West Wing meetings since taking over the DHS job in March, replacing Kristi Noem. A White House official acknowledged that the president values a team that constantly generates new ideas, but noted that policy decisions ultimately rest with him.
Mullin has otherwise been regarded as a stabilizing force at the helm of DHS following a chaotic year under Noem's leadership, and he has accumulated goodwill with the president. Yet this airport plan carries the potential for significant, far-reaching consequences. Some Trump administration officials have privately acknowledged the chaos it could unleash on international travel. The industry has said so publicly and with alarm.
Airlines for America, the trade association representing major U.S. carriers, warned that cutting Customs and Border Protection staff at major airports would have a devastating effect on air travel and tourism, causing substantial operational disruption for airlines, passengers, and international cargo flow. The U.S. Travel Association, which advocates for all aspects of the country's tourism industry, recently met with Mullin and reported that he confirmed the government is considering withdrawing customs agents from some of the nation's largest international airports. Such a move would have catastrophic consequences for tourism and the communities dependent on it, the association stated.
The practical complications run deeper than the politics. International travelers arriving through airports like JFK or SFO don't necessarily stay in New York or San Francisco—they're connecting to destinations across the country. Airlines schedule routes far in advance, and simply rerouting them to non-sanctuary jurisdictions would be difficult, if not impossible, given that many busy airports lack spare capacity. The disruption would ripple across Republican and Democratic states alike.
The list of what counts as a sanctuary jurisdiction has been expanding. The DHS published a list last year, and it has grown since the start of 2025. Mullin has frequently criticized Virginia Governor Abigail Spanberger, who signed an executive order earlier this month limiting state officials' cooperation with federal immigration agents. Two of the three major airports serving Washington—Dulles International and Ronald Reagan National—sit in Virginia. New York City, Los Angeles, Seattle, and Philadelphia are also on the Justice Department's list. Pennsylvania Governor Josh Shapiro said his state would "respond" if the federal government acted in a manner that was "reckless, chaotic, and cruel."
For now, Mullin keeps talking about the idea. The White House, for now, is not moving on it.
Citas Notables
We shouldn't shut down air travel in a state because it disagrees with our political ideology— Transportation Secretary Sean Duffy, during congressional hearing
Reducing CBP staff at major airports would have a devastating effect on air travel and tourism, causing substantial operational disruption— Airlines for America trade association
La Conversación del Hearth Otra perspectiva de la historia
Why would Mullin think starving an airport of customs staff would actually work as leverage?
He's operating from a theory that sanctuary cities want it both ways—they want to refuse immigration cooperation but still benefit from federal processing. He sees it as a logical consequence. But he's not accounting for how interconnected air travel actually is.
So the disruption wouldn't be contained to those cities?
Not at all. A passenger flying into JFK might be heading to Denver or Miami. You can't just reroute major international hubs without breaking the whole system. The airports don't have the capacity to absorb those flights elsewhere.
Why is Duffy opposing this so publicly?
He's thinking about the actual machinery of commerce and travel. His job is transportation. Mullin's framing this as immigration enforcement, but Duffy sees it as economic sabotage dressed up as policy.
Does the White House actually support Mullin on this?
Not officially. The officials I've seen quoted suggest this is Mullin's personal crusade. He brings it up unprompted in meetings. The president likes having people who generate ideas, but that doesn't mean he's going to act on all of them.
What happens if he keeps pushing?
He keeps talking about it in interviews, and the travel industry keeps warning about the damage. It's a standoff right now. But Mullin has the president's ear and goodwill. If he decides to make this a priority, the White House might have to take a real position instead of staying quiet.