Republican senators are showing support for a controversial Homeland Security proposal that could pull Customs and Border Protection officers from airports in sanctuary jurisdictions, a move critics warn could disrupt international travel, cargo and local economies.
The proposal, floated by Homeland Security Secretary Markwayne Mullin, would target cities and states that limit cooperation with federal immigration authorities. Under the idea, airports in those jurisdictions could lose CBP staffing needed to process international arrivals.
Without CBP officers, international passengers and cargo cannot move normally through U.S. airports. That means the proposal could effectively halt or severely disrupt international travel into major airports located in sanctuary cities.
Sen. Lindsey Graham, R-S.C., backed the concept, saying cities and states that “undercut federal law” should face consequences. Graham told Fox News Digital that sanctuary jurisdictions should “pay a price” for refusing to cooperate with immigration enforcement.
TRENDING TODAY
Sen. Deb Fischer, R-Neb., also defended the idea, saying cities make their own choices when they adopt sanctuary policies and should be prepared for a federal response. Other Republican senators were more cautious, saying they needed more information before weighing in.
Mullin has argued that sanctuary policies make federal immigration enforcement harder by limiting cooperation between local law enforcement and Immigration and Customs Enforcement. Supporters of his proposal say the federal government should not continue providing normal operational support to jurisdictions that actively resist federal immigration priorities.
Democrats have reacted sharply. During a Senate hearing, Democratic lawmakers criticized the plan as dangerous and economically reckless. AP reported that Sen. Patty Murray called the idea “insane,” warning that removing CBP officers from major airports could create serious travel and economic disruption.
Transportation Secretary Sean Duffy has also expressed opposition to the idea, emphasizing the importance of keeping travel open. That split shows the proposal is controversial even inside the broader administration, where immigration enforcement goals may collide with travel, tourism and commerce concerns.
The timing is especially sensitive because the United States is preparing for the FIFA World Cup, which is expected to bring millions of international visitors. Reuters reported that the administration was drawing up plans to halt or reduce immigration and customs processing at airports in sanctuary cities, a move that could affect major travel hubs as the country prepares for a surge in visitors.
The travel industry has also expressed concern. Airlines, airport officials and business groups rely on predictable customs processing to move passengers and cargo. If international flights are delayed, diverted or canceled, the economic impact could extend beyond sanctuary cities to airlines, hotels, restaurants, tourism operators and supply chains.
Supporters of the proposal argue that sanctuary cities should not be able to block cooperation with ICE while still expecting full federal support at airports. They see the plan as a pressure tactic to force local governments to reconsider policies that limit immigration enforcement cooperation.
Opponents argue that the plan would punish travelers, businesses and local residents for political disagreements between federal and local officials. They also warn that using CBP staffing as leverage could create chaos at airports and damage confidence in U.S. travel infrastructure.
The legal questions could also be significant. Immigration enforcement and customs processing are federal responsibilities, but using airport staffing decisions to pressure local governments could invite lawsuits from cities, states, airlines or business groups. Courts may be asked to determine whether DHS has the authority to pull officers for political leverage or whether such a move would be arbitrary and damaging.
The debate reflects a broader clash over sanctuary policies. Many Democratic-led cities limit cooperation with ICE because they argue that immigration enforcement can discourage immigrant communities from reporting crimes or cooperating with local police. Republicans counter that those policies protect people who should be removed from the country and make communities less safe.
Mullin’s proposal takes that long-running debate into a new arena: international travel. Instead of only threatening funding or legal action, DHS would be using control over airport operations as leverage.
For now, no final decision has been announced. Mullin has said the idea remains under consideration, while some Republican senators are rallying behind the principle of consequences for sanctuary jurisdictions.
If the administration moves forward, the fight could quickly become one of the biggest immigration-policy battles of the year — especially if it affects major airports in cities such as New York, Los Angeles, Chicago, San Francisco, Seattle or other Democratic-led jurisdictions.
The question is whether the political pressure created by airport disruption would force sanctuary cities to cooperate with ICE, or whether it would backfire by angering travelers, businesses and local officials ahead of major international events.
Why It Matters
The proposal matters because it would move the sanctuary-city fight from local policing into airport operations and international travel. Pulling CBP officers from major airports could affect passengers, cargo, tourism and business activity far beyond the immigration debate.
It also matters because the U.S. is preparing for the World Cup, when international travel volumes are expected to rise. Any disruption at major airports could create political and economic consequences for both the administration and affected cities.
What Comes Next
DHS has not announced whether it will implement the proposal. Republican senators are pushing for consequences against sanctuary jurisdictions, while Democrats and travel-sector critics are warning of major disruption.
If the administration moves forward, expect legal challenges, pressure from airlines and airport authorities, and a broader fight over whether federal agencies can use customs staffing as leverage against local immigration policies.
DHS Secretary Markwayne Mullin claims Mamdani is “absolutely destroying a great city” pic.twitter.com/msn3Bx4uEA
— Aaron Rupar (@atrupar) June 9, 2026
