Mullin’s DHS Airport Plan Faces Backlash

Key Takeaways

• Secretary Mullin proposes reducing customs presence in sanctuary cities to punish non-cooperation with federal immigration laws.
• The plan faces strong opposition from the travel industry, which warns of devastating economic and logistical impacts.
• White House officials indicate the idea is Mullin’s personal pursuit, not yet an approved administration policy.
• Industry leaders argue the move would disrupt global trade, tourism, and international cargo flow significantly.
• Current status remains uncertain as no imminent plans exist, despite Mullin’s public emphasis on the concept.

The Turbulent Path of a Policy Idea

Department of Homeland Security Secretary Markwayne Mullin has proposed a punitive measure against jurisdictions that limit their cooperation with federal immigration enforcement. The core of this proposal involves reducing airport customs staffing at international airports located in these "sanctuary cities," potentially halting the processing of international travelers altogether. This ambitious strategy, if enacted, aims to force local governments to align with federal immigration goals by threatening the operational capacity of their primary transportation hubs. However, the plan is encountering significant resistance from multiple quarters, including the travel industry, local officials, and even within the administration itself.

The initiative has sent ripples through the travel sector, prompting sharp critiques from industry stakeholders who warn of catastrophic disruptions. Airlines for America and the U.S. Travel Association have publicly voiced concerns, describing the potential withdrawal of Customs and Border Protection (CBP) agents as having a "devastating effect" on carriers, travelers, and international cargo. Despite Mullin’s public articulation of the idea, White House sources indicate that it remains a personal ambition of the Secretary rather than an official policy decision endorsed by the President or the West Wing. This disconnect between Mullin’s public advocacy and the administration’s private stance has created a complex political landscape where the future of the policy remains unclear.

A Clash of Priorities

The roots of this controversy lie in the ongoing tension between federal immigration enforcement priorities and local sanctuary policies. Mullin, who replaced Kristi Noem as DHS Secretary in March, has been described by Trump officials as "obsessed" with this concept since his swearing-in. He has raised the issue unprompted during White House meetings and discussed it extensively in media interviews, including with Fox News. His rationale is straightforward: if states and cities do not allow federal authorities to enforce immigration laws, there is no logical reason to process international flights into those areas.

"They don’t want us to enforce immigration but they want us to process immigration at their facilities? Nothing about that makes sense to me," Mullin stated. This perspective frames the potential reduction of airport customs staffing not as an attack on travel, but as a necessary leverage point to compel cooperation. However, this view has been strongly contested by fellow Cabinet members. Transportation Secretary Sean Duffy publicly criticized the plan during a congressional hearing, arguing, "We shouldn’t shut down air travel in a state that doesn’t agree with our politics." This public dissent from within the Trump administration highlights the internal disagreements surrounding the feasibility and political cost of such a move.

The definition of "sanctuary city" remains a critical factor in the implementation of any such policy. The Department of Justice publishes a list of jurisdictions that limit cooperation with federal immigration enforcement, which has expanded in recent months. This list includes major metropolitan areas like New York City, Los Angeles, Seattle, and Philadelphia, as well as Virginia, where Governor Abigail Spanberger recently signed an executive order limiting state cooperation. Virginia’s inclusion is particularly relevant due to the presence of Dulles International Airport and Ronald Reagan Washington National Airport. The expansion of this list and the subsequent inclusion of key transportation hubs have raised concerns about the widespread impact of the proposed measures.

Industry and Logistical Concerns

The travel industry’s opposition is rooted in the practical realities of international aviation. Reducing CBP staffing at major airports would create immediate operational bottlenecks. Airlines for America, a trade association representing major carriers, emphasized that such a move would cause "significant operational disruption to carriers, travelers and the flow of international cargo." The complexity of air route networks means that rerouting flights to non-sanctuary jurisdictions is not a simple fix. Many busy airports lack the capacity to absorb additional traffic, and airline routes are planned far in advance, making rapid adjustments logistically difficult and economically damaging.

Furthermore, the impact extends beyond the sanctuary cities themselves. International travelers often use hub airports like JFK or SFO as points of entry, not necessarily as final destinations. Disrupting these hubs could affect the entire national travel infrastructure, including airports in red states that rely on global connectivity. The U.S. Travel Association noted that its representatives recently met with Mullin, who confirmed that the administration is "considering a withdrawal" of customs agents. This confirmation has heightened fears among tourism-dependent communities that such a move would have long-lasting negative effects on local economies reliant on international visitation.

Despite the intensity of the debate, the immediate future of the policy remains uncertain. Two Trump officials familiar with the matter told CNN that there are "not imminent plans" for such a move. While Mullin continues to advocate for the idea, White House officials clarify that any policy decisions ultimately rest with the President. The President has expressed appreciation for a team that generates new ideas, but this does not equate to approval. This ambiguity leaves the travel industry in a state of suspense, monitoring the situation closely as the political and logistical implications of Mullin’s proposal continue to unfold.

Mullin's Vision Faces Political Reality

Secretary Mullin’s proposal to leverage airport customs staffing as a tool for immigration enforcement has ignited a fierce debate over federal authority, local autonomy, and economic stability. While the idea reflects a hardline stance on immigration compliance, it clashes with the operational realities of global travel and the political dynamics within the administration. The strong opposition from industry groups and fellow officials suggests that any implementation would face significant hurdles. As the administration weighs the potential devastation to the travel and tourism sectors against the goal of pressuring sanctuary jurisdictions, the final decision will likely depend on a complex calculation of political capital and economic impact. The outcome of this controversy will set a precedent for federal-local relations in immigration policy and the resilience of the U.S. travel infrastructure in the face of political maneuvering.