The US Airports That Could Lose All International Flights Over Immigration Politics

A political standoff between the Trump administration and major American cities has thrust some of the world's most important aviation hubs into an unprecedented state of uncertainty. Newly confirmed Department of Homeland Security (DHS) Secretary Markwayne Mullin has raised the explosive possibility of withdrawing U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP) officers from international airports located in so-called “sanctuary cities”, a move that, if executed, would effectively end international flight operations at up to 11 of the nation's busiest air gateways.

The Proposal That Is Shaking American Aviation

Department of Homeland Security Secretary Markwayne Mullin stated that the Trump administration is considering withdrawing U.S. Customs and Border Protection officers from international airports located in sanctuary cities. In an interview with Fox News, Mullin said he would "take a hard look" at this measure to punish cities that ban cooperation with federal immigration enforcement, arguing that such municipalities are not lawful and should not receive federal benefits like customs processing while refusing to enforce immigration laws. 

Speaking directly to Fox News anchor Bret Baier in his first major interview as DHS Secretary, Mullin asked: 

"If they're a sanctuary city, should they really be processing customs into their city? Seriously. If they're a sanctuary city and they're receiving international flights, and we're asking them to partner with us at the airport, but once they walk out of the airport, they're not going to enforce immigration policy, maybe we need to have a really hard look at that because we need to focus on cities that want to work with us." 

Mullin was unambiguous about the legal underpinning of his position. "I don't think sanctuary cities are legal," Mullin said. "We're a nation of laws and as Secretary of DHS, I don't get to pick and choose which laws I'm going to enforce." He added: "If cities are going to sit there and say that they're not going to enforce immigration policy, then I'll repeat myself and say that it doesn't make any sense for us to process international travelers through that city." 

The 11 Airports in the Crosshairs

The U.S. Department of Justice published a list of so-called sanctuary cities and states in October 2025 that included many cities with major international airports, such as Denver, Philadelphia, Chicago, Los Angeles, New York City, Newark, Seattle and San Francisco. Based on that list, and supplemented by airports identified across multiple credible sources, the following major international gateways are at risk:

1. New York JFK International Airport (JFK) — America's largest international gateway
2. Los Angeles International Airport (LAX) — Critical West Coast hub for transpacific routes
3. Chicago O'Hare International Airport (ORD) — Major hub for United and American Airlines
4. San Francisco International Airport (SFO) — Key transpacific gateway
5. Newark Liberty International Airport (EWR) — Serving the greater New York metro area
6. Philadelphia International Airport (PHL) — American Airlines' key hub
7. Seattle-Tacoma International Airport (SEA) — Important Pacific Northwest gateway
8. Boston Logan International Airport (BOS) — Primary New England hub
9. Denver International Airport (DEN) — One of the USA's busiest airports
10. Portland International Airport (PDX) — Gateway to the Pacific Northwest
11. New Orleans Louis Armstrong International Airport (MSY) — Key Gulf Coast hub

JFK owes over half of its traffic to international arrivals and departures, handling over 34 million international passengers in 2025. Removing CBP from that single airport alone would be a seismic event for transatlantic and global aviation.

What Losing CBP Actually Means

The practical consequences are stark and non-negotiable from an operational standpoint. Removing Customs and Border Protection officers would prevent any international flight from landing at these airports. Without CBP officers present to process arrivals, airports cannot legally function as international Ports of Entry. Airlines would have nowhere to divert inbound international passengers, and outbound long-haul departures would become economically unviable as one-way operations.

Without customs clearance, you can't accept international arrivals. What even happens to airline schedules? International arrivals have to be at an airport with a Federal Inspection Station. So flights bound for JFK, LAX, Chicago O'Hare, et al have to go where exactly? And without international connecting traffic, what do airlines do with connecting flights that are supported by those passengers? 

Major U.S. carriers face enormous exposure. Delta, United Airlines, and American Airlines are bracing for a potential disruption that could shake up the international travel landscape in 2026. This controversial move could lead to severe delays in immigration processing, directly impacting millions of travelers, particularly from top markets like Canada and the United Kingdom. 

The DHS Shutdown Context

Mullin's threat does not emerge in a vacuum. The threat comes as DHS remains shut down, thanks to a funding lapse that began on Feb. 14 when Democratic lawmakers demanded new restrictions on immigration enforcement in exchange for their votes to fund the department. That shutdown, now into its 54th day as of April 8, is the combustible backdrop against which Mullin is drawing these lines.

Mullin framed the move as a necessary response to the partial government shutdown and Democrat efforts to defund CBP while benefiting from their work at airports. "Right now, Democrats are wanting to defund Customs and Border Patrol," he said. "Well, who processes those individuals when they walk off the plane? I'm going to be forced to make tough decisions. Who's willing to work with us and partner with us?" 

However, Mullin also acknowledged the distinction between threat and policy. "We're going to start having those conversations. As I said, this is just something I'm thinking. This isn't something that I'm necessarily going to do," he said.

The Worst Possible Timing

The political brinkmanship is playing out with one of the largest sporting events in human history looming on the horizon. The move could effectively halt international air travel and commerce at major airports in Democratic states, and have major ramifications for the FIFA World Cup that is set to start in early June. More than 50 million international travelers arrived at the three major New York airports alone last year. 

A total of 12 states, 18 cities, 3 counties and the District of Columbia were recognized as sanctuary jurisdictions by the U.S. Government in August 2025. In June, some are expected to host tens of thousands of arrivals for the FIFA soccer World Cup. Disrupting customs at host cities weeks before the tournament would be an economic and diplomatic catastrophe, potentially embarrassing the United States on the world stage at precisely the moment it is meant to be showcasing itself as a welcoming destination for global visitors.

A Jurisdictional Paradox

Critics of the proposal have pointed out a fundamental logical flaw. The 'airports' frequently aren't even in the same jurisdiction as so-called sanctuary cities. San Francisco International Airport is actually in unincorporated San Mateo County, adjacent to Millbrae and San Bruno, not in the City and County of San Francisco.  Applying a city-level immigration policy designation to an airport that physically sits outside that city raises serious questions about the legal and administrative soundness of the proposal.

There are also broader connectivity arguments that undercut the political logic. Major airports like LAX and JFK serve broad areas far beyond the cities with which they're associated. Customs is not a 'service for the city'; these are U.S. borders. Inspection is not processing people into a city; it is processing entry into the United States regardless of final destination. These hub airports are convenient ways to get to Red States! 

Still a Warning, Not Yet a Directive

For now, no formal implementation order has been issued. As of April 7, 2026, officials had not announced a timeline for any change or identified a list of targeted airports beyond the sanctuary city jurisdictions Mullin cited. The administration has not released a detailed list of airports, provided a start date, or specified how many officers might be reassigned.

Yet the aviation and travel industry cannot afford to dismiss the signal. The move could effectively halt international air travel and commerce at major airports in Democratic states, and have major ramifications for the FIFA World Cup that is set to start in early June.

The CBP operates at over 300 ports of entry in the U.S., including more than 100 airports. Selectively withdrawing officers from politically targeted hubs would create a two-tier system of international access, one that would reshape global airline networks, devastate local tourism economies, and fundamentally alter how the United States connects with the rest of the world. Whether Mullin's warning becomes policy will be one of the defining aviation stories of 2026.