Department of Homeland Security Secretary Markwayne Mullin said Tuesday that his agency is drawing up plans to stop processing international flights at airports in sanctuary cities, a move that could shut down customs operations at some of the busiest hubs in the country and deal a serious economic blow to jurisdictions that refuse to cooperate with federal immigration enforcement.
Mullin made the announcement on Fox News Channel's "Hannity," framing the proposal as a direct response to what he described as local law enforcement's refusal to assist federal agents at a detention facility in Newark and the broader pattern of sanctuary jurisdictions obstructing immigration operations.
The plan has not been implemented. But if carried out, it would mark one of the most aggressive federal pressure campaigns against sanctuary cities in modern memory, and it would hit the wallets of cities that have built their identities around sheltering illegal immigrants from the consequences of federal law.
The DHS secretary described a confrontation at a Newark facility where protesters allegedly barricaded roads and tried to breach the gates. He said DHS called for police assistance. Nobody came.
As Mullin told Hannity on the broadcast:
"[W]e called for assistance, for the police, because they were barricading the roads and they were trying to get through the gates. Not one time did the police respond, not a single time did the local P.D. or state police [respond] to our call for assistance."
That alone would be a serious breakdown in basic public safety coordination. But Mullin went further, connecting the Newark incident to a broader pattern of local Democratic officials blocking federal enforcement while still expecting federal agencies to process international arrivals at their airports.
He said he raised the contradiction directly at the White House earlier that day:
"[Y]ou just can't make sense out of this, especially the fact that local law enforcement wouldn't respond. And so, I visited with the White House today, Sean. And I said, if they're going to not allow us to go out and arrest the worst of the worst and then when we call for assistance at the facilities that the street, it belonged to the city, if it belonged to us, we would take care of it, but it belongs to the city and they're barricading our employees from coming in and out of the facility, then why are we processing international flights into the airport there?"
The logic is blunt. If a city won't let DHS enforce immigration law on its streets, why should DHS continue running the customs and border operations that keep that city's airport open to the world?
Mullin made clear the plans are still being developed. He has not pulled the trigger. But the scope of what he described is enormous.
"[W]e are currently, which we're not initiat[ing] yet, but we're currently drawing up plans to say listen, in these sanctuary cities, where the local, radical left Democrats aren't allowing us to do our job and enforce federal laws, then we shouldn't be processing international flights into their cities either. Because 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."
The New York Post reported that the proposal could affect tens of millions of travelers. New York-area airports, JFK, LaGuardia, and Newark, handle up to 50 million international passengers annually. Newark alone processes roughly 15 million. Halting customs operations at those airports would not merely inconvenience travelers. It would reroute global commerce.
The airline industry has already pushed back. Airlines for America and the U.S. Travel Association have voiced opposition to the plan, and Transportation Secretary Sean Duffy offered a notable dissent from within the administration itself: "We shouldn't shut down air travel in a state that doesn't agree with our politics."
That tension within the administration is worth watching. The proposal pits DHS enforcement priorities against the economic interests of the travel and aviation sectors, and against at least one Cabinet-level colleague who sees the move as overreach.
Newsmax reported that Mullin privately warned travel executives the department could stop processing international travelers and cargo at eight major airport hubs: Denver, Philadelphia, Chicago, Los Angeles, New York City, Newark, Seattle, and San Francisco. Mullin had previously floated the threat publicly in April during a separate DHS funding dispute.
That list reads like a roster of the American left's urban strongholds. Every one of those cities has adopted sanctuary policies of one kind or another. Every one depends heavily on international air traffic for tourism, trade, and business travel. And every one would face immediate, measurable economic consequences if DHS followed through.
The ongoing fight over DHS funding in the Senate adds another layer. Democrats have repeatedly blocked appropriations for the department, creating a political environment in which the administration has fewer conventional tools and more incentive to use unconventional ones.
The fundamental question Mullin is raising is not new, but his proposed answer is. For years, sanctuary jurisdictions have refused to honor ICE detainers, blocked local police from sharing information with federal agents, and in some cases actively interfered with enforcement operations. The federal government has responded with lawsuits, executive orders, and funding threats, none of which have broken the impasse.
What Mullin is proposing goes further. It targets the economic infrastructure that sanctuary cities depend on, leveraging DHS's exclusive authority over customs and border processing to create consequences that local politicians cannot ignore.
Just The News reported that pausing international flight processing could effectively shut down major airports and inflict considerable economic pain on sanctuary municipalities. Mullin cited protests at immigration centers as partial justification for the planned action.
The political incentives are clear. Sanctuary city leaders have calculated, correctly, so far, that resisting federal immigration enforcement carries no real cost. Their voters reward it. Their media allies celebrate it. Federal lawsuits move slowly. And funding threats have been diluted by courts and congressional gridlock.
Pulling customs processing out of their airports changes that calculus overnight. Business leaders, airlines, hotel chains, and airport workers would all feel the impact immediately. The political pressure on local officials would come not from Washington but from their own constituents and donors.
Mullin's frustration did not materialize from a single incident. The Newark confrontation fits a broader pattern of local resistance to federal immigration enforcement that has accelerated in recent months.
Progressive Democrats have gone beyond non-cooperation. Some have called for reparations for illegal immigrants and the prosecution of enforcement officials, a position that treats lawful federal agents as criminals and illegal immigrants as victims of the government tasked with enforcing the law.
That kind of rhetoric has consequences on the ground. When local police refuse to respond to a federal agency's call for help at a facility under siege, the message to protesters is that obstruction carries no risk. When state officials look the other way, the message to DHS employees is that they are on their own.
Mullin's description of the Newark incident, roads barricaded, gates under assault, not a single police response, paints a picture of a city government that has chosen sides. And it has not chosen the side of federal law.
The broader clash between the administration and Senate Democrats over DHS operations has only sharpened the divide. Mullin has not been shy about naming the obstruction he sees, and the flight-processing proposal is the most concrete escalation yet.
For all the political force behind the proposal, significant questions remain unanswered. No executive order or formal policy document has been issued. The legal basis for halting customs processing at specific airports has not been publicly detailed. And the timeline for moving from "drawing up plans" to implementation is unclear.
It is also unclear who at the White House Mullin met with, or whether the proposal has received formal presidential backing beyond whatever conversation took place Tuesday.
The DHS funding standoff complicates the picture further. An agency operating under political and budgetary strain may find it difficult to execute a move this large without inviting immediate legal challenges from affected cities, airlines, and travelers.
Courts have historically been skeptical of federal actions that appear to punish jurisdictions for policy disagreements. Sanctuary city advocates will frame this as exactly that. The administration will need to build a record showing that the flight restrictions serve a legitimate enforcement purpose, not merely a punitive one.
Strip away the politics and the proposal rests on a simple observation: sanctuary cities want the federal government to run their airports but not enforce their immigration laws. They want DHS employees processing passports at the customs desk but not arresting criminal aliens on the streets outside.
That is not a policy. It is a menu. And Mullin is saying the federal government is done letting local politicians order à la carte.
Whether the plan survives legal scrutiny, internal administration debate, and industry opposition remains to be seen. But the underlying question is one that sanctuary city leaders have avoided for years: if you refuse to cooperate with federal law enforcement, why should federal law enforcement cooperate with you?
Sooner or later, someone was going to ask. Now someone has, and he's the man who runs the department.
