Department of Homeland Security Secretary Markwayne Mullin is openly questioning whether sanctuary cities deserve the privilege of processing international customs at their airports, signaling that cities refusing to cooperate with federal immigration enforcement may soon face consequences where it hurts most: their busiest travel hubs.
During an appearance on Fox News' "Special Report" on Monday, Mullin told anchor Bret Baier that DHS will take a closer look at customs enforcement operations at major international airports located in sanctuary jurisdictions.
The airports in question include some of the busiest in the country, including Los Angeles International Airport and John F. Kennedy International Airport in New York.
Mullin framed the issue with a question that sanctuary city leaders will struggle to answer:
"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."
Roughly three million people pass through customs each month at JFK alone, according to the Port Authority. That is an enormous volume of international arrivals flowing into a jurisdiction that has made it official policy to obstruct federal immigration law.
The contradiction Mullin identified is not subtle. Sanctuary cities want federal customs officers staffing their airports, processing travelers, and facilitating the international commerce that fills city coffers. They want the benefits of federal cooperation. They just don't want to reciprocate.
That's not a partnership. It's a subsidy for defiance.
Mullin put it plainly: "If they're a sanctuary city, should they really be processing customs into their city?"
The question answers itself. A city that declares it will not assist federal immigration authorities has no moral or practical claim to demand those same authorities maintain full operations within its borders. Mullin also stated his belief that sanctuary city policies are not lawful, telling Baier he intends to "take a hard look" at the issue.
This is the kind of leverage the federal government has always possessed but rarely wielded. Customs processing is not a constitutional right of municipal governments. It is a federal function, administered at federal discretion. If a city wants to opt out of federal immigration enforcement, DHS can explore whether that city should continue enjoying the full suite of federal services it currently takes for granted.
Mullin was sworn in at a White House ceremony on March 24 after President Trump fired his predecessor, Kristi Noem, on March 5. Noem had carried out Trump's mass deportation agenda for more than a year before her departure, which followed reports that Trump was furious after Noem stated during a Senate hearing that the president knew about a taxpayer-funded ad contract. The White House told Fox News Digital that Trump did not know about the contract.
Mullin inherits a department operating under extraordinary pressure. An ongoing partial government shutdown continues as Congress fails to agree on a funding plan for DHS. Global Entry and Mobile Passport Control services are currently shut down. Lines at airports like Newark International have ballooned. And through all of it, sanctuary jurisdictions continue to actively hinder the department's core mission.
Mullin acknowledged the difficulty ahead but signaled he has no intention of flinching: "I'm going to have to be forced to make hard decisions."
He also stressed that he is working within existing congressional authority, not expanding it. His position is that sanctuary cities are the ones operating outside the law, not DHS. "I am not going outside the policies that Congress passed for me, and we're not trying to push those, but we're saying you've got to partner with us."
Mullin raised a point during his interview that deserves more attention than it will get from the mainstream press. He noted that DHS has become, in his words, a "political hotbed," and asked a question that should embarrass every elected official who has turned immigration enforcement into a culture war trophy:
"All they're doing is trying to keep our streets safe, trying to keep our nation secure, trying to keep bad actors from having terrorist attacks on the homeland. It should be something we all get behind."
He's right. The core functions of DHS, keeping dangerous people out of the country and enforcing the immigration laws that Congress passed, are not conservative positions. They are basic governance. The fact that they have become partisan reflects a failure of the political left, not a radicalization of the right.
Mullin described the media scrutiny his department faces as itself a threat to operations, saying DHS currently receives more correspondence from the media than the White House does. He warned bluntly that the politicization of the department "is putting our mission at risk."
He set a goal: within six months, he hopes DHS will no longer dominate the daily headlines. Not because the department will stop enforcing the law, but because enforcement will become so routine that it ceases to be controversial.
Mullin has not yet announced specific policy changes regarding sanctuary city airports. What he has done is put the marker down. Cities like New York and Los Angeles now know that their refusal to cooperate with federal immigration law may carry a cost they hadn't anticipated.
The playbook for sanctuary cities has always assumed that defiance was free. Refuse to honor detainers. Release illegal immigrants back onto the streets. Publicly denounce ICE. And through it all, enjoy every federal service, every federal dollar, every federal officer stationed at your airport as though nothing changed.
Mullin is suggesting that calculus is about to shift. He closed his interview with a challenge directed as much at congressional Democrats as at sanctuary mayors:
"How we get past this is that we've got to put the partisan bickering aside and say, 'What's best for America? What's best for moving forward?'"
The answer, for anyone willing to hear it, is cooperation. The alternative is discovering just how much sanctuary cities depend on the very federal authority they claim to reject.