Homeland Security Secretary Markwayne Mullin is still weighing a proposal that would yank Customs and Border Protection officers out of airports in sanctuary-city jurisdictions, and several Republican senators say those cities deserve exactly what they'd get.
Mullin floated the idea as a direct response to local governments that limit or refuse cooperation with Immigration and Customs Enforcement. He was grilled about the proposal during a Senate hearing last week, where Democrats called it "outrageous" and "insane." But the DHS secretary says the idea remains on the table and is actively being considered.
The practical consequences would be severe. Without CBP officers on the ground, international passengers and cargo cannot clear customs. Pulling those agents from major airports in sanctuary jurisdictions would effectively halt inbound international travel at those locations, a move that would hit hardest during the upcoming summer months, when the United States is preparing to host millions of visitors for the World Cup.
Sen. Lindsey Graham, R-S.C., offered the most full-throated endorsement. He told Fox News Digital:
"I think there should be consequences to cities and states that undercut federal law. I think they should pay a price for what they do. I agree with what he's doing."
Graham's position is straightforward: if a city refuses to cooperate with federal immigration enforcement, the federal government has no obligation to keep staffing that city's airport with federal officers. The logic tracks with a broader conservative argument that has been building for years, sanctuary policies don't just undermine immigration law, they actively obstruct federal agents trying to do their jobs.
Sen. Deb Fischer, R-Neb., framed the issue as a matter of choices and consequences. Fischer told Fox News Digital:
"I think it's a choice that those cities make and they'd have to weigh the consequences of it. If they want to be a sanctuary city, they've made that choice and they're getting a response now from Homeland Security."
When asked whether the proposal, if carried out, might change how sanctuary cities communicate and cooperate with ICE, Fischer was blunt about where she stood, even if she couldn't predict how local officials would react.
"I have no idea what the cities would do. I would hope that their law enforcement would cooperate with ICE. ICE is federal law enforcement. They're doing their job. They're following the law."
That last line cuts to the heart of the matter. ICE agents enforcing federal immigration law are not freelancing. They are following statutes passed by Congress. Sanctuary cities that refuse to cooperate with those agents are, in effect, choosing which federal laws they feel like honoring, a posture that has drawn increasing pushback from the administration and its allies on Capitol Hill.
The proposal hasn't produced a unified GOP chorus. Several Republican senators told Fox News Digital they hadn't reviewed the details and weren't prepared to weigh in.
Sen. Josh Hawley, R-Mo., was candid about his unfamiliarity with the plan:
"I don't know about this. Somebody else asked me about that, and I hadn't seen that from him yet. So I don't know. I don't know what to make of that."
Sen. Ashley Moody, R-Fla., said simply, "I need to learn more about it." Sen. Lisa Murkowski, R-Alaska, offered a similar response: "I'm gonna find out what's going on."
Caution from within the Republican conference isn't surprising. The proposal carries real operational weight. Shutting down customs processing at a major airport doesn't just punish a sanctuary city's political leadership, it disrupts commerce, strands returning American travelers, and creates logistical headaches that ripple far beyond city limits. Those downstream effects are exactly what Democrats seized on during the Senate hearing.
Mullin isn't the only cabinet member with a stake in this fight. Transportation Secretary Sean Duffy has expressed opposition to the idea, emphasizing the need for open travel. That internal tension suggests the proposal hasn't been green-lit as formal policy, but Mullin's insistence that it remains "actively being considered" signals that DHS is not backing down.
The timing adds another layer. With the World Cup approaching and projected travel volumes expected to be among the highest in years, pulling CBP officers from airports in major cities would create immediate, visible disruption. Democrats have warned that the move would devastate the economy during the summer travel season.
But the political calculus cuts both ways. If sanctuary cities face a credible threat of losing federal airport staffing, local officials may face pressure from their own business communities, airlines, and constituents to reconsider their refusal to cooperate with ICE. That's the leverage Mullin appears to be building, and it's the same logic Graham and Fischer endorsed.
The broader pattern is familiar. Republican lawmakers have been rallying behind the administration's enforcement posture on immigration for months, and the sanctuary-city airport proposal fits neatly into that campaign. The question is whether DHS will actually pull the trigger or whether the threat alone is meant to force compliance.
Sanctuary policies vary by jurisdiction, but the common thread is a refusal to honor ICE detainer requests or share information about illegal immigrants in local custody. Proponents of these policies argue they build trust between immigrant communities and local police. Critics, including most of the Republican senators quoted here, argue they shield illegal immigrants from lawful deportation and put communities at risk.
Fischer's point about ICE being "federal law enforcement" doing "their job" and "following the law" is the kind of plain-language argument that resonates with voters outside the Beltway. For most Americans, the idea that a city government can simply opt out of cooperating with federal law enforcement is difficult to square with basic civic order.
The legal authority DHS would invoke to pull CBP officers from specific airports remains unclear. The proposal's critics will almost certainly challenge it in court if it moves forward. But the political message is already landing: if you refuse to cooperate with federal immigration enforcement, don't expect the federal government to keep doing you favors.
That message arrives at a moment when conservative legal victories have been stacking up across multiple fronts, giving the administration and its congressional allies confidence to press harder on enforcement questions that previous administrations left unresolved.
Democrats who called the proposal "outrageous" and "insane" during the Senate hearing may have overplayed their hand. Hysterical language doesn't answer the underlying question: why should federal taxpayers fund CBP officers at airports in cities that actively obstruct federal immigration law?
It's a question sanctuary-city mayors have never had to answer in concrete terms. They've enjoyed the political benefits of defying federal immigration enforcement, winning applause from progressive activists, without facing any material consequence. Mullin's proposal, whether it ultimately goes forward or not, forces that reckoning.
The dynamic mirrors other recent episodes in which even some Democrats have found themselves moving toward Republican positions when the political cost of resistance gets high enough. Whether sanctuary-city leaders will follow that pattern remains to be seen.
For now, the proposal sits in a familiar Washington holding pattern: floated, debated, not yet implemented. Mullin says it's still on the table. Some Republican senators are ready to back it. Others want more details. Democrats are furious. And the cities in question haven't changed a thing.
That last part is the tell. Sanctuary cities have operated for years on the assumption that defying federal law carries no real cost. The current political and legal environment is testing that assumption in ways it hasn't been tested before.
If a city wants to refuse cooperation with federal immigration enforcement, that's a choice. But choices have consequences, and the people who made the choice shouldn't get to complain when the bill arrives.
