When I served as chief of staff at Immigration and Customs Enforcement, and before that as a senior official at Customs and Border Protection, one principle guided operational decision-making: Critical national infrastructure should never be collateral damage in political disputes.
That is why recent threats by DHS Secretary Markwayne Mullin to halt or limit federal processing operations at airports in so-called “sanctuary cities” should concern all Americans regardless of their views on immigration.
Airports are not political bargaining chips. They are among the country’s most vital security and economic assets, connecting businesses to global markets and supporting national security.
CBP officers are not simply checking passports. They are protecting the economic arteries of the United States.
If the goal is immigration enforcement, disruptions to airport processing are an extraordinarily indirect tool. Local sanctuary policies generally affect cooperation between local law enforcement and federal immigration authorities. They do not prevent federal officers from enforcing immigration law at ports of entry.
More importantly, they do not change the mission of CBP, which is far larger than border security and immigration inspections. Every day, CBP facilitates billions of dollars in legitimate trade activity, processes hundreds of thousands of travelers, protects supply chains, interdicts narcotics, seizes counterfeit goods, disrupts transnational criminal organizations and identifies threats before they reach American communities.
CBP officers are not simply checking passports. They are protecting the economic arteries of the United States.
Every inspection booth, customs screening area, cargo facility and international terminal exists to accomplish two missions simultaneously: facilitate lawful travel and commerce while stopping illicit activity. The U.S. cannot afford to neglect either mission.
If DHS disrupted airport operations, the consequences would extend well beyond immigration. Delays would ripple through supply chains, affecting everyday Americans, and international travelers would face uncertainty, as would businesses that depend on smooth trade.
At a time when transnational criminal organizations continue to exploit global transportation networks to move narcotics, counterfeit products, illicit financial flows and other contraband, weakening or politicizing our port-of-entry operations should give every American pause.
In government, we often discuss the difference between operational outcomes and political signaling. Effective enforcement produces measurable results. Political signaling produces headlines.
This proposal risks falling into the second category. Airports are places through which people, commerce and ideas move. They are not tools for political leverage or disputes.
Threatening airport operations is not immigration reform. It is governance by ultimatum.
America’s aviation system works because federal, state, local and private-sector partners understand their respective roles. CBP officers process travelers and cargo. TSA screens passengers. Airports manage infrastructure. Airlines move people and goods. Local law enforcement provides public safety. When Washington begins using one piece of that system to pressure jurisdictions over unrelated policy disputes, the result is rarely improved security.
And once critical transportation infrastructure becomes a tool for political leverage, future administrations of either party will be tempted to use it to advance unrelated policy goals. That is a dangerous precedent for a nation whose economy depends on the free and secure movement of people and goods.
A useful test for any proposed policy is whether you would support it if your political opponents controlled the government. Today, we have seen liberals express outrage at Mullin’s attempts to pressure local officials over immigration policy. Would conservatives support a future Democratic president slowing federal airport operations in Texas or Florida to pressure governors over climate, abortion or gun policies? Of course not.
The U.S. is facing real immigration challenges. Congress has failed for decades to modernize the system. Border security, asylum reform, interior enforcement, visa overstays, labor needs and humanitarian protections all deserve serious debate.
But threatening airport operations is not immigration reform. It is governance by ultimatum.
These actions have generated enormous public attention, but they have done little to resolve the underlying structural challenges.
Over the past 17 months, the administration’s approach to interior immigration enforcement has prioritized visibility, deterrence messaging, and public demonstrations of federal authority. It has embraced large-scale operational announcements, highly publicized enforcement actions, courthouse arrests, deployments designed to generate media attention, threats directed at local jurisdictions, and increasingly confrontational rhetoric toward state and local officials.
These actions have generated enormous public attention, but they have done little to resolve the underlying structural challenges facing the immigration system, including asylum backlogs, immigration court delays, labor market realities, visa overstays and the absence of a durable legislative framework from Congress.
Now, Mullin is threatening to apply the same playbook to America’s transportation infrastructure. Threatening airport operations creates a headline. It generates conflict. It places local officials on the defensive. But it does not increase immigration court capacity. It does not modernize asylum processing. It does not strengthen legal pathways. And it does not address the long-term workforce, technology and policy challenges that have frustrated administrations of both parties for decades.
The federal government should enforce the law, secure the border, facilitate lawful trade, protect our communities and migrants, facilitate safe and secure travel and protect the integrity of our transportation network. Those are difficult enough tasks on their own. We should not make them harder by turning airports into the latest front in America’s immigration wars.
Jason Houser
Jason Houser served as the chief of staff for Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) from 2021 to 2023. He previously served as a counterterrorism official for Customs & Border Protection (CBP)
