U.S. Threatens to Halt International Travel at Major Airports in Sanctuary Cities Amid Funding Dispute
By David Shepardson and Ted Hesson
WASHINGTON, April 7 (Reuters) – The U.S. government is weighing a drastic step in its ongoing clash with so-called sanctuary cities: halting all customs processing for international arrivals at their major airports. Homeland Security Secretary Markwayne Mullin warned on Tuesday that this option is on the table for cities and states that refuse to cooperate with federal immigration enforcement, a move analysts say would deliver a severe blow to the nation's travel industry and global trade networks.
The potential policy shift, still in the discussion phase, would effectively ground international flights at critical hubs in Democratic-leaning states. The economic and logistical ramifications would be immense, potentially disrupting the upcoming FIFA World Cup, set to kick off in the U.S. in early June. Last year, over 50 million international travelers passed through the three major New York-area airports alone.
The standoff stems from a protracted partisan funding battle. Since mid-February, congressional Democrats have blocked additional funding for President Donald Trump's immigration crackdown, demanding reforms to what they call overly aggressive tactics. In response, Secretary Mullin cited the funding impasse for the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) and Customs and Border Protection (CBP) as justification for considering the withdrawal of customs personnel.
"If local jurisdictions actively obstruct federal law, it undermines the very system designed to secure our borders," Mullin told reporters during a stop in North Carolina. "Processing international travelers through ports in these cities becomes a counterproductive exercise. It's an option we are forced to consider." He emphasized no final decision had been made.
The DHS threat targets locations listed in an October 2025 Justice Department report, which included major gateway cities like New York, Los Angeles, Chicago, San Francisco, Seattle, Denver, Philadelphia, and Newark. Mullin argues that local policies limiting cooperation with Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) are illegal preemptions of federal authority.
Aviation and business groups have reacted with alarm, warning that such a action would strand passengers, snarl cargo operations, and cost the economy billions. The proposal highlights the escalating political warfare over immigration, where critical infrastructure is becoming a potential pawn.
Voices from the Public
"This isn't governance; it's hostage-taking. Holding global travel and a world-class event like the World Cup ransom to force compliance with controversial policies is reckless and will hurt ordinary Americans and our international reputation most of all." – Maya Chen, 38, small business owner in Seattle, WA.
"Finally, a tangible consequence for cities that flout the law. Sanctuary policies create dangerous loopholes. If cities won't help enforce the rules, why should federal resources be spent there to process arrivals? It's a logical leverage point." – David P. Miller, 52, retired law enforcement officer in Cincinnati, OH.
"The economic illiteracy is staggering. This would be an act of self-sabotage, disrupting supply chains and tourism revenue that benefit the entire country. It's a political stunt that treats vital airports as bargaining chips." – Dr. Arjun Patel, 44, economics professor at a Chicago university.
"It's pure intimidation. They're threatening to paralyze entire regions because local leaders are protecting their communities from overreach. This abuse of power shows why sanctuary policies are necessary in the first place." – Rebecca Ortiz, 29, immigration advocate in Los Angeles, CA.
(Reporting by David Shepardson and Ted Hesson; Editing by Nia Williams)