New DHS Secretary Mullin Suggests Customs and Border Protection Should Be Yanked From Major Airports in ‘Sanctuary Cities’

Key Takeaways

• Mullin proposes removing CBP from sanctuary city airports
• Affects 132 million international passengers in 2024
• Could ground flights at JFK, LAX, O’Hare, others
• World Cup travel may be disrupted in June
• No legal definition of “sanctuary city” complicates policy

Pulse Analysis

Markwayne Mullin’s recent comments signal a potential shift in how the Department of Homeland Security handles immigration enforcement at the nation’s busiest airports. By targeting so‑called sanctuary cities—jurisdictions that limit cooperation with ICE—Mullin is leveraging airport security as a bargaining chip in the broader culture‑war debate. The lack of a statutory definition for "sanctuary city" means the administration could craft ad‑hoc criteria, raising concerns among city leaders about federal overreach and the precedent such a move would set.

Operationally, pulling Customs and Border Protection officers from hubs like JFK, LAX, O’Hare, Denver International and Seattle‑Tacoma would affect roughly 132 million international travelers recorded in 2024. Those airports account for a sizable share of U.S. inbound tourism and business travel, and the timing coincides with the FIFA World Cup, which expects tens of thousands of international fans to pass through these terminals in June. Disruptions could translate into lost revenue for airlines, reduced airport concession sales, and broader economic ripples in cities that rely heavily on tourism dollars.

The proposal also revives a contentious policy arena that saw former DHS head Kristi Noem temporarily suspend TSA PreCheck and Global Entry during a government shutdown. Legal scholars note that without clear congressional guidance, any unilateral removal of CBP resources could face lawsuits alleging violations of the Administrative Procedure Act or the Constitution’s Commerce Clause. Industry groups are likely to lobby for a compromise that preserves security while respecting local immigration policies, making this a pivotal moment for the intersection of transportation, immigration law, and federal‑state relations.