The Trump administration is considering a move that could disrupt international air traffic in the U.S.
The Trump administration is considering a plan under which the processing of international passengers and cargo could be halted or seriously restricted at airports in cities with the status of so-called sanctuaries. It is a measure that U.S. Secretary of Homeland Security Markwayne Mullin has publicly linked to the dispute between federal authorities and local jurisdictions that limit cooperation with federal immigration services. According to reports by U.S. media and the Associated Press, the proposal would include the withdrawal or reduction of the presence of U.S. Customs and Border Protection officers, namely CBP, from certain large airports. Such a move, if implemented, would not be merely a matter of immigration policy, but would directly affect international flights, tourism, business travel, air cargo traffic and supply chains. According to available information, as of June 1, 2026, no official implementation order has been published, nor has a final list of airports that could be covered.
The plan was presented as pressure on jurisdictions that limit cooperation with ICE
According to U.S. reports, Mullin said that the Department of Homeland Security is preparing plans to suspend the processing of international flights in cities that, from the administration’s point of view, hinder the enforcement of federal immigration regulations. The statements came during a period of heightened tensions over immigration detentions, especially after clashes and protests connected with the Delaney Hall detention center in Newark. The administration claims that local authorities in such environments prevent or restrict the work of federal officers, while cities and states that have sanctuary policies generally emphasize that their measures regulate the role of local police, detention procedures and data sharing with federal agencies.
The term "sanctuary city" in the U.S. context has no single legal definition that would apply to all jurisdictions. It most often refers to local or state policies that limit the participation of local bodies in federal immigration enforcement, for example when detaining individuals on the basis of requests from immigration services without a court order. In 2025, the U.S. Department of Justice published a list of jurisdictions that, according to the federal government’s assessment, have policies that obstruct the enforcement of federal immigration laws. That list includes, among others, New York City, Los Angeles, Chicago, Denver, Boston, Seattle, Philadelphia, Newark and San Francisco, but mere inclusion on the list does not mean that a decision has already been made to withdraw CBP from any specific airport.
Why CBP is crucial for international flights
CBP has a central role in processing international arrivals in the United States. Officers of that agency carry out border, customs and immigration processing of passengers entering the country, and part of their responsibilities also concerns goods, customs procedures and the protection of the U.S. market from illegal imports. In its official explanations, the Department of Homeland Security states that international airports receive large volumes of passengers and commercial goods and are one of the key entry points into the U.S. For that reason, reducing or withdrawing CBP’s operational presence at major air hubs could have an effect that goes beyond local political disputes.
International passenger flights generally depend on the availability of federal processing upon arrival. If an airport were left without a sufficient number of officers carrying out border and customs procedures, carriers would have to reroute flights, change flight schedules or restrict arrivals. Passengers would face longer waits, connections through other U.S. or foreign airports and a higher risk of delays. An even more complex consequence could arise in cargo traffic, because international shipments depend on customs processing, documentation, inspection procedures and coordination among carriers, freight forwarders, airports and federal services.
The aviation and tourism industries warn of an operational shock
Tourism and aviation associations have warned that withdrawing CBP officers from major airports could cause a serious operational disruption. According to the Associated Press report, the U.S. Travel Association assessed that such a move would have devastating consequences for the travel industry and for communities that depend on international visitors. Airlines for America, an association representing major U.S. airlines, warned that reducing CBP’s presence at large airports would affect carriers, passengers and the flow of international cargo. Similar concern was expressed by organizations that monitor inbound tourism, emphasizing that passenger confidence is especially important in a season of major international events.
In practice, the consequences could be very concrete. Airlines allocate aircraft, crews, slots and connected domestic connections according to international arrivals planned in advance. If processing at an airport were suddenly reduced or halted, the disruption would not stop at one route. One canceled or rerouted transoceanic flight can disrupt crew schedules, aircraft availability for subsequent rotations, passenger connections to domestic destinations and logistical flows of goods. For cargo shipments, the problem is even more sensitive when it involves goods with shorter shelf lives, medical products, parts for industrial production and e-commerce.
The 2026 World Cup raises the stakes
A possible clash between federal immigration policy and international air traffic comes immediately before the 2026 FIFA World Cup, which is being held from June 11 to July 19 in the U.S., Canada and Mexico. According to FIFA’s official schedule, the tournament will have 48 national teams, 104 matches and 16 host cities. In the United States, matches are played in several major metropolitan areas, including New York/New Jersey, Los Angeles, the San Francisco Bay Area, Seattle, Boston and Philadelphia. It is precisely some of these areas that are located in or near jurisdictions that are often associated with sanctuary policies in U.S. political debates.
In the New York/New Jersey region, the issue of international arrivals is particularly sensitive because the final stage of the tournament will be played at New York New Jersey Stadium, namely MetLife Stadium in East Rutherford, where FIFA’s schedule has set the final for July 19, 2026. The region relies on several large international airports, including Newark Liberty, John F. Kennedy and LaGuardia, although each of them has a different structure of international and domestic flights. If the stability of international passenger processing were called into question before or during the tournament, the consequences could be felt in the arrivals of fans, official delegations, media, sponsors, teams and suppliers. In its own information on general aviation for the 2026 World Cup, CBP emphasized that it is working with other agencies on the safety and success of the tournament, which further shows how important federal passenger processing is for such an event.
Cargo traffic would not be collateral damage, but one of the main risks
Although the public most often talks about passengers, an equally important part of the discussion concerns international cargo traffic. Large airports are not only terminals for tourists and business travelers, but also hubs for high-value goods, urgent deliveries and industrial supply chains. According to official information from the Department of Homeland Security, international airports represent an entry point for large volumes of commercial goods. If customs processing were reduced, slowed or rerouted, the cost would not be borne only by air carriers, but also by manufacturers, retailers, logistics companies and end consumers.
The effects could differ from city to city. Airports with a larger share of international cargo would have to look for alternative routes, and freight forwarders would face additional costs and longer delivery times. For some goods, rerouting to another airport may be feasible, but it requires additional road transport, new customs arrangements and coordination of storage capacities. For goods that must quickly reach their destination and for supply chains that depend on precise deadlines, even short-term delays can cause significantly greater business consequences. That is why industry associations do not view this proposal only as a political threat to cities, but as a potential blow to national transport infrastructure.
Legal experts expect court disputes if the plan moves into implementation
The legal part of the story could be just as important as the operational one. U.S. courts have already considered in earlier disputes the limits of federal pressure on jurisdictions with sanctuary policies, especially when it comes to withholding funds or attempts to force local authorities to participate in federal immigration enforcement. According to reports by U.S. media, legal experts believe that the complete or partial withdrawal of federal border processing from airports could raise questions of legality, proportionality and constitutional limits. If the measure were aimed at cities because of their local policies, lawsuits would likely follow from cities, states, airports or business entities affected by the decision.
The administration, on the other hand, could claim that it has broad powers in organizing the work of federal services and deploying officers. But airports, carriers and local authorities could argue that international passenger and cargo processing cannot be used as a means of political punishment, especially if the consequences would affect passengers, companies and trade that have no role in the adoption of local immigration rules. At present, the key point is that publicly available data do not show that DHS has published a detailed legal framework, criteria, deadlines or procedure for implementing such a measure. Without those details, it remains unclear whether this is an operationally prepared plan or political pressure directed at local authorities.
The measure could raise the question of U.S. competitiveness
Critics of the proposal argue that a policy presented within the framework of a tougher immigration approach could in practice weaken U.S. competitiveness. In 2026, the United States is entering a period of increased international interest because of the World Cup, business travel, major conferences, cultural events and the recovery of certain segments of inbound tourism. Any message that international flights to major U.S. cities could become politically unstable may influence the decisions of travelers, event organizers and business partners. Tourism organizations especially warn that when planning international trips, travelers take into account the predictability of entering the country, the security of connections and the possibility of a timely return.
Supporters of a stricter approach argue that cities that do not want to cooperate with federal immigration services should not simultaneously expect all the benefits of federal infrastructure. But opponents of such an argument point out that international air traffic does not operate only for the benefit of local political authorities, but for the benefit of the broader economy, passengers, trade and international relations. Particularly problematic is the fact that the consequences could also affect passengers who have no connection whatsoever with the debate on immigration policy, including U.S. citizens, foreign tourists, students, business travelers and families. For that reason, the proposal is already being interpreted as a test of the limits of the "America First" policy when it comes into direct contact with global traffic and economic logistics.
For now, more of a threat than an implemented policy
The most important fact for passengers and carriers is that, according to available information as of June 1, 2026, there is no confirmation that the processing of international passengers or cargo has been halted at any major U.S. airport on the basis of this plan. Nor is there a publicly announced list of airports that would be targeted, or an official timetable for possible implementation. That does not mean, however, that the discussion has no consequences. The mere possibility of withdrawing CBP processing from major airports is enough for airlines, logistics companies, the tourism sector and host cities of major events to seek clear guarantees about the stability of international flights.
In the coming weeks, three questions will be crucial: whether DHS will publish a formal proposal or order, whether the White House will give political support to such a measure, and whether the affected jurisdictions will initiate legal steps in advance. If the plan remains at the level of a threat, its main function will be pressure on cities and states in the dispute over immigration policy. If it moves into implementation, the consequences could grow into one of the largest transport and legal conflicts ahead of the 2026 World Cup. In both cases, the discussion shows how closely immigration policy, air traffic, tourism and trade are interconnected in a system in which one federal decision can change the routes of millions of passengers and the flows of goods worth billions of dollars.
Sources:
- Associated Press – report on the reactions of the tourism and aviation industries to the proposal to withdraw CBP from airports in sanctuary jurisdictions (link)
- The Guardian – report on Mark Mullin’s statements and the political context of the plan to suspend the processing of international flights (link)
- U.S. Department of Homeland Security – official data on the confirmation and mandate of Markwayne Mullin at the head of DHS (link)
- U.S. Department of Justice – official list of jurisdictions that the federal government designates as sanctuary jurisdictions (link)
- U.S. Department of Homeland Security – official explanation of the role of international airports in receiving passengers and commercial goods (link)
- U.S. Customs and Border Protection – information on aircraft processing and CBP preparations for the FIFA World Cup 2026 (link)
- FIFA – official schedule, host cities and structure of the 2026 World Cup (link)