The administration of Donald Trump is reportedly considering plans that could significantly disrupt international air travel to several major U.S. cities by limiting customs and immigration processing at airports located in so-called “sanctuary jurisdictions.”
According to reporting by DW and Reuters, the proposal under review would reduce or halt Customs and Border Protection (CBP) processing for international passengers and cargo arriving at airports in Democratic-led cities accused by the administration of refusing to cooperate with federal immigration enforcement efforts.
Among the cities reportedly under consideration are New York City, Chicago, Los Angeles, San Francisco, Seattle, Boston, Philadelphia, Denver, and Newark.
The reported plans have triggered immediate legal and constitutional debate over federal authority, interstate commerce, immigration enforcement powers, and whether transportation access can be conditioned on local political cooperation.
“We’re currently drawing up plans,” Homeland Security Secretary Markwayne Mullin said during an appearance on Fox News, while emphasizing that no final decision has been made.
Mullin argued that federal authorities “shouldn’t be processing international flights into sanctuary cities” because local governments are allegedly obstructing immigration enforcement efforts.
If implemented, the policy could force international travelers to reroute through alternative airports in jurisdictions more aligned with federal immigration policy, potentially creating major operational disruptions ahead of the FIFA World Cup, which is expected to bring millions of foreign visitors into the United States beginning in June.
Legal experts note that such a move would almost certainly face immediate court challenges from states, municipalities, airlines, tourism organizations, and business groups. Potential litigation could involve constitutional questions surrounding equal protection, federal administrative authority, interstate commerce, and whether the executive branch can selectively limit access to international travel infrastructure based on local political policies.
The proposal also raises questions regarding the federal government’s obligations under international aviation agreements and whether selectively reducing CBP staffing could unlawfully interfere with commerce and transportation systems.
Opposition to the idea has emerged from both political parties and within the administration itself. Sean Duffy reportedly warned lawmakers during congressional testimony that restricting travel access based on political disagreements would be “a bad idea.”
“We shouldn’t shut down air travel in a state that doesn’t agree with our politics,” Duffy said.
The travel industry has also sharply criticized the reported proposal. Airlines and tourism organizations warned that reducing CBP operations at major airports could severely affect tourism revenue, airline scheduling, cargo logistics, and international business travel.
The debate is unfolding amid broader national conflict over immigration enforcement, sanctuary city policies, and the expanding use of federal executive power in immigration-related disputes. Sanctuary jurisdictions generally limit cooperation with federal immigration detainers or enforcement actions, though no single legal definition of “sanctuary city” exists under federal law.
As of publication, the Department of Homeland Security has not released formal policy guidance or a finalized implementation timeline regarding the proposed airport restrictions.
