Homeland Security Secretary Markwayne Mullin’s proposal could block hubs like Boston, New York and Los Angeles from accepting international flights

A proposal by Homeland Security Secretary Markwayne Mullin to restrict international flights at airports in sanctuary cities threatens to disrupt travel networks and incur significant economic costs, according to business groups. The measure, which could halt arrivals at major hubs including Boston Logan International Airport, New York’s John F. Kennedy International Airport, and Los Angeles International Airport, has drawn sharp warnings from industry stakeholders. Critics argue the policy would compel widespread flight rerouting, strain alternate airports, and undermine the competitiveness of key U.S. gateways.

Scope of the Proposed Restrictions

The plan, as outlined by Secretary Mullin, targets airports located in jurisdictions that limit cooperation with federal immigration enforcement. By blocking international flights from landing at these facilities, the Department of Homeland Security would effectively penalize cities that adopt sanctuary policies. The three airports named — Boston, New York, and Los Angeles — collectively handle millions of passengers annually on transoceanic routes, including transatlantic and transpacific services. Each facility serves as a primary entry point for travelers from Europe, Asia, and Latin America, and the proposal would require airlines to redirect those flights to airports in non-sanctuary jurisdictions.

Business Community Response

Trade associations representing airlines, airports, and travel operators have voiced strong opposition. In a joint statement, the U.S. Travel Association and Airlines for America warned that the move would create "travel chaos" for passengers and carriers alike. They noted that rerouting flights would place undue strain on secondary airports that lack the infrastructure, customs facilities, or runway capacity to absorb diverted traffic. The groups also cautioned that the policy could lead to longer flight times, increased fuel costs, and higher ticket prices for consumers. "This is not a targeted enforcement tool; it is a blanket disruption to the national air transportation system," the statement read.

Economic Consequences

Analysts project significant economic fallout if the proposal is enacted. The three affected airports are among the busiest in the United States, supporting tens of thousands of jobs in aviation, hospitality, and logistics. A study by the Airports Council International estimated that a prolonged restriction could reduce passenger throughput at Boston, New York, and Los Angeles by up to 30 percent, translating into billions of dollars in lost revenue. Local economies reliant on tourism and business travel would face immediate downturns, while airlines would absorb costs from rescheduling crew, rebooking passengers, and repositioning aircraft. The ripple effects could extend to cargo operations, as many international freighter flights also rely on the same hubs.

Implementation Challenges and Legal Questions

Legal experts have raised questions about the authority of the Department of Homeland Security to unilaterally impose such conditions on airport operations. The Federal Aviation Administration typically oversees airspace and flight safety, while customs and border protection handles passenger screening. Any attempt to block flights based on local immigration policies would likely face court challenges from affected cities and states. In addition, the proposal could conflict with existing bilateral aviation agreements between the United States and foreign nations, which guarantee landing rights at designated airports. International carriers may also contest the plan as a breach of treaty obligations.

Context

The proposal echoes previous federal efforts to leverage transportation policy for immigration enforcement. In 2017, the Trump administration threatened to withhold federal grants from sanctuary cities, a policy that was litigated in federal courts. More recently, in 2023, the Biden administration considered restrictions on commercial flights from countries with high rates of visa overstays, though that measure was never implemented. Unlike those earlier cases, Secretary Mullin’s plan directly targets airport operations, raising the stakes for the aviation industry and international travel networks.