By Saurabh Katiyar | Washington
Airlines fear massive chaos after administration targets sanctuary city airports
America’s travel industry is growing increasingly alarmed after the Trump administration renewed threats to target airports located in so-called sanctuary cities.
The controversy exploded after Homeland Security Secretary Markwayne Mullin reportedly discussed the possibility of removing US Customs and Border Protection (CBP) officers from airports in cities that limit cooperation with federal immigration enforcement.
Travel industry leaders warned the move could severely disrupt international flights, damage tourism and create major economic consequences across the country.
According to reports, Mullin repeated the idea during a meeting with representatives from the US Travel Association, where officials were already expressing concern about several proposed Trump administration policies affecting international travel.
The possibility of reducing or removing CBP staffing immediately triggered backlash from airlines, tourism groups and transportation officials.
The US Travel Association issued a sharp warning Friday, saying the proposal could create devastating consequences for airports and cities dependent on international visitors.
“US Travel believes such a move would have devastating consequences for the travel industry and communities that depend on international visitation,” the organization said in a statement.
Airlines Warn of Massive Travel Disruption
Major airline groups quickly criticized the proposal.
Airlines for America, which represents leading US carriers, warned that reducing CBP staffing at major airports would create severe operational problems.
The group said international passenger traffic, airline operations and cargo transportation could all face major delays and disruptions.
Industry leaders fear international travelers may avoid US airports entirely if customs processing becomes unstable or unpredictable.
The controversy also exposed divisions inside the Trump administration itself.
Transportation Secretary Sean Duffy publicly questioned the idea during a Congressional hearing this week.
Duffy said restricting travel access based on political disagreements would be dangerous and impractical.
“We shouldn’t shut down air travel in a state that doesn’t agree with our politics,” Duffy said during testimony.
He also warned that political control in Washington changes over time and future administrations could use similar tactics against opponents.
His comments suggested the airport proposal may not have full support inside the administration.
You can also read our coverage on Trump’s $2 Billion Quantum Bet Sparks Explosive Rally in Tech Stocks Powerful Winter Storm Triggers Emergency Declarations in 24 US States
Sanctuary City Battle Returns to Center Stage
The dispute centers around “sanctuary cities,” a term commonly used for states or cities that limit cooperation with federal Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) operations.
There is no single legal definition for sanctuary policies, but they generally involve restrictions on local participation in immigration enforcement.
President Donald Trump has repeatedly targeted sanctuary jurisdictions and previously threatened to cut federal funding to cities refusing full cooperation with immigration authorities.
However, courts blocked similar efforts during Trump’s first term in office.
In 2017, federal judges struck down attempts to remove funding from sanctuary cities, arguing the administration exceeded its legal authority.
It remains unclear which airports or cities could face action if the proposal moves forward.
Last year, the Justice Department released a list identifying dozens of states, counties and cities considered sanctuary jurisdictions.
Analysts warn that removing CBP officers from major airports could immediately create staffing shortages, longer customs lines and disruptions to international arrivals.
Travel industry experts also fear the proposal could damage America’s reputation as a global tourism destination at a time when international travel demand is recovering strongly.
Business groups argue that airports are critical economic centers supporting tourism, trade and international business connections.
Critics of the proposal say using airport operations as political leverage could create long-term harm for airlines, travelers and local economies.
For now, the administration has not announced any official policy changes, but the renewed threat has already increased uncertainty throughout the travel sector.
Industry leaders say they will continue lobbying against any effort that could reduce international travel access or weaken airport operations in major US cities.
