In his first major sit-down since taking the reins at the Department of Homeland Security, Markwayne Mullin didn’t mince words: sanctuary cities, he argued, are not just misguided—they may be fundamentally at odds with federal law.
Speaking with Bret Baier on Special Report with Bret Baier, Mullin laid out what could become one of the most aggressive policy shifts yet in the Trump administration’s immigration crackdown. His message was clear: if cities refuse to cooperate with federal immigration enforcement, they shouldn’t expect to benefit from federal resources either.
“I believe sanctuary cities are not lawful,” Mullin said plainly. “We’re going to take a hard look at this.”
At the center of the discussion was a provocative idea—one that’s already generating buzz in Washington and beyond. Mullin suggested that the federal government could reconsider providing Customs and Border Protection (CBP) services at international airports located in sanctuary jurisdictions.
In practical terms, that could mean major cities that refuse to enforce immigration law might lose access to federal customs processing, potentially disrupting international travel and commerce.
“If they’re sanctuary cities and they’re receiving international flights, and we’re asking them to partner with us at the airport—but once people walk out, they’re not going to enforce immigration policy—maybe we need to take a really hard look at that,” Mullin explained.
The logic, according to the DHS chief, is simple: federal resources should be directed toward communities that are willing to uphold federal law—not undermine it.
The issue has taken on renewed urgency following reports out of Minnesota, where sanctuary-style policies have been blamed for the release of hundreds of illegal immigrants, including individuals with violent criminal records. For many conservatives, cases like these underscore the real-world consequences of what they see as ideological policymaking.
Mullin also took aim at Democrats who have pushed to reduce funding for immigration enforcement agencies, including CBP. He questioned the contradiction of cities benefiting from federally funded airport operations while simultaneously refusing to cooperate with the very laws those agencies are tasked with enforcing.
“Who processes those individuals getting off the plane?” Mullin asked. “At some point, we’re going to have to prioritize. Who’s willing to work with us and partner with us?”
While he stopped short of announcing a formal policy change, Mullin made it clear that tough decisions are on the table—and that cooperation will be a key factor moving forward.
The remarks quickly sparked reaction online, with many conservatives applauding the idea as long overdue. For them, it represents a shift toward accountability—ensuring that local governments cannot selectively ignore federal law without consequences.
Critics, of course, argue that such measures could escalate tensions between federal and local authorities. But for supporters of stronger immigration enforcement, Mullin’s proposal signals a willingness to confront what they see as a broken system head-on.
As the administration continues to reshape immigration policy, one thing is certain: the era of looking the other way on sanctuary jurisdictions may be coming to an end.
