The travel industry is on edge after Homeland Security Secretary Markwayne Mullin reiterated what the administration has described as a threat to withhold U.S. Customs and Border Protection officers from airports in “sanctuary cities,” a move critics say could disrupt international flights. The dispute centers on how federal immigration enforcement should operate in jurisdictions that limit cooperation with Immigration and Customs Enforcement, and it is raising new concerns for airlines and tourism operators that depend on international passenger traffic.
U.S. Travel Association officials said Mullin confirmed he was considering withdrawing CBP officers at a meeting where the trade group pressed its concerns about other proposals under consideration by the Trump administration that could hamper travel. The association and major airline and travel groups quickly condemned the idea, warning that reducing Customs staffing at major airports would undermine operations tied to arrivals from abroad.
U.S. Travel said in a statement that it believes such a move would have “devastating consequences for the travel industry and communities that depend on international visitation.” The travel association said the concern is not abstract, pointing to the role CBP staffing plays at airport entry points for travelers and international cargo flows.
The threat also drew criticism from Transportation Secretary Sean Duffy. At a congressional hearing earlier this week, Duffy said he was not familiar with Mullin’s remarks but added that he would like more information about the context so he could ask follow-up questions. Duffy nonetheless said it would be a bad idea to start restricting travel based on political views, warning that “you will all switch spots at one point — hopefully not too soon Mr. Chairman.”
In the same remarks, Duffy told the hearing audience that “We have people from around the world and around the country that need to be able to fly into all different kinds of places,” and he said “We shouldn’t shut down air travel in a state that doesn’t agree with our politics.” The comments underscored a concern that airport enforcement decisions could spill into commercial travel access decisions.
It is not clear how much support the proposal has inside the administration, and President Donald Trump has previously threatened to withhold funding from sanctuary cities. The underlying definition of sanctuary policies varies, but the terms generally refer to limited cooperation with Immigration and Customs Enforcement, leaving the status of any related airport enforcement actions as an active point of political and legal contention.
The Justice Department last year published a list describing dozens of states, cities and counties it considers to be sanctuary jurisdictions. While it remains unclear which specific cities and airports Mullin might target if he pursues the plan, the existence of a formal list suggests the administration is mapping potential enforcement leverage against a defined set of jurisdictions.
Courts have previously rejected efforts to apply funding cuts as leverage against sanctuary jurisdictions. In Trump’s first term, in 2017, courts struck down the administration’s effort to cut funding to sanctuary cities, according to the account of the dispute.
Industry groups warned that the proposal could create operational problems at airports. The Airlines for America trade group said “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.” The trade group’s warning tied the proposed staffing change directly to both passenger travel and international shipping.
The proposal’s details have continued to develop since initial reporting, including a report by The Atlantic about the meeting where the concerns were raised. MSI previously reported on the travel industry’s condemnation of Mullin’s plan to pull customs officers from sanctuary airports in a related story.