Homeland Security Secretary Markwayne Mullin privately told travel industry executives last week that the Department of Homeland Security could stop processing international travelers and cargo at major airports in sanctuary cities, a warning he first made publicly in April and now appears ready to escalate, sources told Reuters.
The airports in question serve eight of the country's largest metro areas: Denver, Philadelphia, Chicago, Los Angeles, New York City, Newark, Seattle, and San Francisco. Every one of those cities has adopted sanctuary policies that limit local cooperation with federal immigration enforcement.
If DHS follows through, the move would mark one of the most aggressive steps the Trump administration has taken to force sanctuary jurisdictions into compliance, and would deliver real consequences to cities that have spent years insulating illegal immigrants from Immigration and Customs Enforcement.
Mullin first raised the possibility publicly in April, during a dispute over DHS funding. At the time, the threat drew attention but no immediate action. Now, by reiterating it privately to travel executives, the secretary appears to be signaling that the administration is serious about using its operational authority over customs and border processing as leverage.
The Atlantic earlier reported on Mullin's comments to the executives. Reuters subsequently confirmed the private warning through its own sources. Neither report identified which executives or companies were present for the discussions.
No formal DHS order, memo, or policy document authorizing such a suspension has surfaced. And no international traveler or cargo processing has actually been halted, yet. But the repeated warnings, delivered both publicly and behind closed doors, suggest this is more than rhetorical posturing.
Sanctuary jurisdictions, cities and counties that limit cooperation with federal immigration enforcement, typically refuse to honor ICE detainer requests unless a judge signs a warrant. They also restrict how much local law enforcement assists in identifying or transferring illegal immigrants to federal custody.
For years, the Trump administration has treated these policies as obstruction. Officials have repeatedly threatened to withhold federal funding or pursue legal action against jurisdictions that refuse to cooperate more fully with immigration enforcement. The Supreme Court faces several consequential Trump-era cases in the coming weeks, and the broader legal battle between federal authority and local resistance on immigration remains far from settled.
But cutting off international travel processing goes well beyond pulling grant money. It would hit airports that handle millions of passengers and billions of dollars in cargo annually. It would force airlines, freight operators, and travelers to reroute through other facilities, creating delays, costs, and disruptions that sanctuary city leaders could not easily dismiss.
The eight cities named in the warning read like a roster of progressive governance. Chicago, Los Angeles, San Francisco, Seattle, New York City, these are not places that stumbled into sanctuary status by accident. Their leaders chose it as a matter of ideology, often over the objections of their own law enforcement agencies and in open defiance of federal requests.
Denver has become a flashpoint in the immigration debate, with the city spending heavily on migrant services while resisting ICE cooperation. Philadelphia and Newark round out a list heavy on Democratic strongholds where local officials have made sanctuary policies a badge of honor.
The question those leaders now face is whether that badge is worth the economic pain of losing international flight processing at their airports. The ongoing leadership overhaul at DHS suggests the department is being reshaped specifically to carry out this kind of aggressive enforcement posture.
Critics will frame this as federal overreach, punishing entire metropolitan economies to coerce local officials on immigration. That argument has a surface appeal. Travelers and businesses at these airports have nothing to do with sanctuary policy.
But that objection cuts both ways. Sanctuary policies themselves impose costs on federal operations, forcing ICE to track and apprehend individuals that local jails could simply hold for pickup. When a city refuses to cooperate with lawful federal enforcement, the federal government is under no obligation to keep staffing that city's airport customs desks as though nothing has changed.
The Trump administration has shown a willingness to use every available lever, from major infrastructure commitments to funding disputes, to reward cooperation and penalize defiance. Suspending international processing at sanctuary airports would be the sharpest version of that approach yet.
Several important questions remain unanswered. What legal authority, specifically, would DHS cite for halting processing? Would the suspension cover all international flights or only certain categories of travelers? How quickly could it take effect? And would affected airlines and cargo operators have any recourse?
None of those details have been made public. The warning, so far, remains a warning.
This is not the first time the administration has used dramatic threats to pressure sanctuary jurisdictions, and the pattern is worth noting. Officials float a possibility. Critics call it a bluff. Then the administration acts, sometimes in modified form, sometimes exactly as promised.
The broader context matters, too. The administration has been moving aggressively across multiple federal agencies, launching new initiatives and accepting personnel departures that signal a willingness to prioritize enforcement over institutional comfort. A DHS secretary who repeats a threat privately to industry leaders after making it publicly is not someone testing the waters. He is preparing the ground.
For sanctuary city mayors and governors, the calculus is about to get uncomfortable. Refusing to cooperate with ICE has been politically cost-free in deep-blue jurisdictions. Their voters reward it. Their media celebrates it. But if the price of that posture becomes grounded international flights and rerouted cargo, the politics change fast.
The travelers stuck in longer lines, the businesses paying for rerouted shipments, the workers affected by disrupted supply chains, those are the people who always pay when elected officials choose ideology over cooperation. They are the ones who deserve a say in whether their city's sanctuary status is worth the cost.
Mullin has now delivered the same message twice, once for the cameras and once behind closed doors. The travel industry has been put on notice. The sanctuary cities have been warned. Whether DHS follows through will depend on whether those cities blink first.
If they don't, the administration will have to decide whether it is willing to absorb the political fallout of disrupting air travel at some of the nation's busiest airports. That is a real risk. But it is also a risk that sanctuary city leaders created by choosing to obstruct federal law in the first place.
Sooner or later, defying the federal government stops being free. Mullin seems intent on making sure it's sooner.