Another policy might cause more disruption to air travel this summer as officials ponder removing customs from “sanctuary cities”.

The new head of Homeland Security wants to make a statement

Markwayne Mullin is the current Secretary of Homeland Security, taking over for the fired Kristi Noem. As with many of President Trump’s appointees in his cabinet, emphasis appears to be less on qualifications and more on loyalty. That’s not something unique to his current term; his first term saw a similar makeup though to a lesser extent.

As head of Homeland Security, Mullin wants to make an impression on both his boss and the overall public. He is introducing the possibility of customs shutting down at certain airports across the country tied to “sanctuary city” status. Cities considered to be “sanctuary cities” would not be allowed to admit people into the country via the airport customs and immigration process.

The theory perhaps is that more people enter the country at “sanctuary cities” than through airports at other cities. This policy isn’t expected to take place until after the conclusion of the World Cup (ending July 19, 2026).

The absurdity of the situation

I will start by saying that I consider myself neither a Democrat nor a Republican. So, let’s address the problem from different angles.

First, if customs at “sanctuary cities” is as big of a problem as suggested, why would they need to wait for the World Cup to end? They should just implement the policy right away and resolve the problem if indeed that’s where it’s coming from. The mere fact that they’re not urgently resolving the problem they identified suggests it’s not as dire a situation as they imply. Perhaps they don’t want the global scrutiny that comes with an immediate policy change, but they get that anyways.

Second, while customs officers generally live or around the cities they work in, it’s the Department of Homeland Security that’s in charge of training. Any suggestion that customs officers are allowing incorrect people into the country is a suggestion that there’s a lack of training from that very same Department. It’s a DHS problem that they should be able to work out themselves, whether through retraining or replacement of officers.

Third, while people do enter the country through airports at these “sanctuary cities”, passengers are often connecting elsewhere. These passengers might be ending their journeys at Republican-run cities without those same policies in place. Why? Because of cost, schedule, availability, or other reasons. You know–the reason why anyone chooses any flight in the first place.

Fourth, what actually is a “sanctuary city”? Well, the Justice Department lists the cities. As you might expect, there are a lot of cities on here that the Trump Administration targets with other actions. However, it’s not exactly clean-cut on what cities are included. For example, while San Francisco City is listed as a “sanctuary city” but San Francisco Airport (SFO) is not within city limits. So does the rule apply here or not?

This punishes airlines more than anyone else

According to The Atlantic, Mullin had some discussion with airlines and other industry executives about the possible change. We’d have to imagine that airlines in particular wouldn’t appreciate the initiative if it proceeds as planned.

Airlines have built up their coastal hubs and focus cities to serve international flights understandably. The closest cities to Asia are those airports across California, Oregon, and Washington. And states like New York, New Jersey, Massachusetts, and Pennsylvania make sense for flights from Europe. Reducing or eliminating flights to these airports would cause major issues.

There would be several run-on effects from this:

• If international service to these airports stops, passengers would be routed through airports that are still open, causing massive backlogs at customs and immigration checkpoints.
• Airlines, including all international carriers, cannot simply move all their flights to airports with customs services that are open. Planes might not have the fuel capacity, runways might not be big enough, and gates are congested. There’s a reason why these coastal cities were servicing international passengers from the start.
• The Trump Administration might want airlines and the travel industry to apply pressure to local governments to promote a change in policy. But while some local residents might be impacted, many passengers who are impacted are connecting to other cities. Would local governments care so much about those passengers?

Airline passengers would again become another pawn in negotiations within the federal government. That has already recently been the case with the 2025 and 2026 shutdowns that caused massive disruption in air service. This change as contemplated would cause more issues during the height of summer travel.

Regardless of your affiliation, wouldn’t it be nice to travel and not have to worry about whether government policies impact your travel?

Investing in Global Entry might be a prudent move

Right now, there are multiple methods to entering the country at airports.

• The normal checkpoint line (separated into US citizens and non-US citizens)
• The MPC (Mobile Passport Control) approach
• Global Entry

Of the three options, Global Entry costs money and requires both a background check and an interview. Some might prefer the simplicity of MPC, which requires neither.

However, just having Global Entry gives you the flexibility of choosing the entry method that moves you along the quickest. In that sense, it’s pretty much similar to how we view CLEAR at airport security lines. You have it and then can decide not to use it if you don’t need it.

That’s about the only reasonable change you could make in preparation for this potential initiative. Of course, you could also consider landing in either Canada or Mexico and then drive across the border, but this is only a viable option if you live near those borders. It’s a bit of a journey to, say, land in Tijuana, Mexico and cross into the United States there by foot or car, followed by a flight home from San Diego.

It’s ridiculous to do this in an election year–when the party is already behind in the polls

Put everything aside for a moment. Look at this purely from a policy standpoint. This type of one-sided policy is what you might expect when the party in charge is leading significantly in the polls. When a party is ahead with a substantial lead, you might expect them to take risks with introducing new policies that benefit that party. Why? Because they’re in the lead and even if there is political fallout from it, the party has such a lead that they can recover easily.

The latest polls on the Trump Administration are hugely negative. In fact, they’re so negative that even Fox News has numbers that suggest people are not confident in leadership.

Simply put, the Trump Administration is in no position to actually implement this policy if they have any hopes of surviving the midterm elections. A deeply partisan initiative for a party that’s not in a favorable view with the public is only going to backfire when the public goes to the polls.

If they go forward with this policy, and forcefully close down certain ports of entry, it might end up being a huge gaffe for Republicans.

Are you ready for more potential travel disruptions this year?