Trump administration plans customs shutdown at sanctuary city airports
DHS Secretary Mullin is drawing up plans to halt international processing at LAX, JFK, and other major hubs as leverage against Democratic jurisdictions—a move that could disrupt 132 million annual passengers.
Homeland Security Secretary Markwayne Mullin confirmed on 26 May that his department is preparing plans to halt customs and immigration processing at major U.S. airports in sanctuary cities, escalating federal-local tensions over immigration enforcement into a direct threat to international travel infrastructure. The unprecedented proposal would target gateway airports in Democratic-led jurisdictions including Los Angeles, San Francisco, New York, Chicago, and Seattle—collectively processing approximately 132 million international passengers in 2024.
The Proposal
“We are currently – which we’re not initiating yet – but we’re currently drawing up plans,” Mullin told Fox News on 26 May. “We shouldn’t be processing international flights into their cities.” The statement marks the second public articulation of the policy since Mullin first floated the concept in April during a Department of Homeland Security funding dispute with Congressional Democrats.
According to Reuters, the policy would affect airports in Denver, Philadelphia, Chicago, Los Angeles, New York City, Newark, Seattle, and San Francisco. Mullin privately told travel industry executives that implementation could begin after the FIFA World Cup concludes in July, per The Washington Post.
The rationale centres on conditional federal cooperation. “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 going to enforce Immigration policy, maybe we need to have a really hard look at that,” Mullin said. LAX alone handled 73.7 million passengers in 2025, with international traffic accounting for 31.7% of volume. San Francisco International processed more than 7.5 million international arrivals from 61 cities outside the United States in the same period.
Constitutional Limits
The administration’s legal authority to implement such a policy remains contested. Federal statute 8 U.S.C. § 1373 prohibits state and local governments from restricting communication about immigration status with DHS, but does not require active participation in enforcement operations, according to the National Immigration Forum.
Under the anti-commandeering doctrine, established through multiple Supreme Court precedents, the federal government cannot compel state and local officials to enforce federal immigration law. Sanctuary policies that limit voluntary cooperation with ICE detainer requests fall within constitutionally protected state discretion. This doctrine prevents the federal government from “commandeering” state and local resources for federal priorities.
U.S. District Judge William Orrick in San Francisco already blocked one Trump Administration attempt to leverage federal funding against sanctuary jurisdictions in April, ruling that the threat to withhold funds “causes them irreparable injury in the form of budgetary uncertainty, deprivation of constitutional rights, and undermining trust between the Cities and Counties and the communities they serve,” per NPR. That injunction covered 16 jurisdictions including San Francisco, Portland, Seattle, Minneapolis, St. Paul, and New Haven.
The customs shutdown proposal operates in different legal territory—customs operations constitute federal infrastructure under direct DHS control, not grant programs subject to judicial review of funding conditions. However, using critical transportation infrastructure as political leverage against jurisdictions exercising constitutional discretion would invite immediate legal challenges on different grounds.
Industry Opposition
Travel industry representatives met with Mullin at DHS headquarters in May to express concerns, according to Reuters. Airlines for America, the industry’s primary 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.”
“It would be a bad idea to start restricting travel based on political views… We shouldn’t shut down air travel in a state that doesn’t agree with our politics.”
Sean Duffy, Transportation Secretary
Transportation Secretary Sean Duffy publicly broke with the proposal, telling the Philadelphia Inquirer that halting air travel based on political disagreements would set a dangerous precedent. The dissent from within the administration suggests interagency resistance to weaponizing transportation infrastructure for immigration enforcement leverage.
JFK processes roughly 3 million people through customs monthly. A processing halt would immediately strand international arrivals, disrupt cargo operations, and cascade through global airline scheduling systems. The economic impact would extend beyond affected cities—international carriers route connecting passengers through these hubs to reach secondary U.S. markets.
Political Calculation
Governor Gavin Newsom’s office responded to the April proposal by noting that “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,” according to Hoodline. The response illustrates the administration’s strategic bind—economic disruption at Democratic strongholds would also harm national commerce and trigger legal challenges on constitutional grounds.
The timing—after the FIFA World Cup concludes in July—suggests awareness of international scrutiny during major events. However, the administration lacks a clear definition of which jurisdictions qualify as “sanctuary cities,” a problem the Philadelphia Inquirer noted creates implementation uncertainty. No federal statute defines the term, and policies vary widely—from limiting ICE access to local jails to refusing to honour detainer requests without judicial warrants.
What to Watch
Implementation hinges on post-World Cup political calculations and legal viability. Affected cities will challenge any actual shutdown immediately, likely seeking emergency injunctions on constitutional grounds distinct from the funding withholding cases. The administration must also navigate interagency opposition from Transportation and potential resistance from Customs and Border Protection officers who would bear operational responsibility.
The proposal’s progression from April trial balloon to May operational planning suggests sustained White House interest despite practical obstacles. If DHS proceeds, even partial implementation at a single major airport would test whether federal control of customs infrastructure provides legal immunity from anti-commandeering doctrine—a question with implications extending far beyond immigration policy into federal-state power balance across multiple domains.
Travel industry lobbying intensity will indicate whether economic pressure can forestall implementation. Airlines for America and the U.S. Travel Association wield significant political capital, and disruption at major hubs would immediately affect corporate travel, tourism revenue, and cargo operations in ways that transcend partisan boundaries. The next 60 days will reveal whether political symbolism or operational reality prevails.