Homeland Security Secretary Markwayne Mullin is considering withdrawing US customs agents from international airports located in sanctuary cities. He raised the idea during an interview, citing legal and policy concerns over sanctuary city rules. “I believe sanctuary cities are not lawful,” Mullin said. “I don’t think they’re able to do that.” Sanctuary policies usually limit local police cooperation with federal immigration authorities. These rules have been in place for decades and have survived multiple legal challenges. “One area we may take a hard look at is some of these cities have international airports,” Mullin explained. “If they’re sanctuary cities, should they really be processing customs into their cities? Seriously. If they’re receiving international flights but won’t enforce immigration once people leave the airport, that’s a problem.” Mullin emphasized that immigration enforcement is a federal responsibility, not a local one. Customs and Border Protection (CBP) agents process travelers at airports to enforce federal immigration laws. “Right now, Democrats are seeking to defund Customs and Border Patrol,” Mullin added. “Well, who processes these individuals when they step off the plane? I may have to make hard decisions about who is willing to work with us and partner with us.” The proposed idea could affect major airports in the US, including Denver International Airport, JFK in New York City, and Los Angeles International Airport. These airports handle millions of travelers each year and play a central role in international travel and trade. Customs and Border Protection operates with a regular annual budget of around $20 billion. Last year, the agency also received an additional $65 billion under former President Trump’s emergency spending plan. Mullin’s suggestion would require federal agencies to reconsider resource allocation and airport partnerships in sanctuary cities. Legal experts note that while sanctuary policies have faced challenges in court, they remain largely in effect. Cities with sanctuary status argue that limiting local cooperation with federal immigration authorities helps protect community trust and public safety. Mullin’s proposal highlights ongoing tensions between federal authorities and local governments over immigration enforcement. Supporters of the plan argue it ensures compliance with federal law and strengthens border security at key entry points. Critics say it could disrupt travel, create confusion for passengers, and politicize routine airport operations. Several sanctuary cities have expressed concerns over federal interventions at airports. Officials argue that international arrivals are already processed by federal agents and that local policies should not affect travelers once they leave federal checkpoints. The debate also raises questions about the role of funding and federal resources in cities that resist certain federal policies. If implemented, Mullin’s plan could force a re-evaluation of airport operations and federal-local partnerships, potentially setting a precedent for future interactions between federal authorities and sanctuary jurisdictions. With international travel rebounding after the pandemic, any policy changes at major airports could have wide-reaching effects on travelers, airlines, and local economies. Observers expect heated discussions in the coming months as federal officials and local leaders weigh the legal, practical, and political implications of such a move.