The US administration is considering an option that could become one of the most sensitive risks for international travel this summer: reducing or withdrawing Customs and Border Protection officers from airports in jurisdictions that the federal government calls "sanctuary cities." As of May 31, 2026, no final decision has been made, but the emergence of such a scenario is already significant for tourists, airlines, and cities preparing to welcome foreign guests before the FIFA World Cup 2026.
The core of the problem is not the schedule of one specific flight or a local delay in a particular terminal. CBP is responsible for passport and customs control of international arrivals to the USA. If an airport lacks such officers or they cannot process international passengers, an international flight effectively loses the ability to normally accept arrivals from abroad. This could affect not only passengers flying specifically to New York, Los Angeles, Chicago, or San Francisco, but also those using these hubs for connections within the USA.
According to a Reuters report from May 26, US Secretary of Homeland Security Markwayne Mullen stated that the administration is "developing plans" to stop processing international passengers and cargo at large airports in cities that do not cooperate with federal immigration policy in the format desired by Washington. At the same time, he emphasized that such a step has not yet been launched. Travel Weekly also reported on May 27 that Mullen repeated this threat on Fox News and that the proposal caused a sharp reaction from the U.S. Travel Association and Airlines for America.
What Exactly is DHS Considering
We are talking about the possible withdrawal or redeployment of CBP officers from international airports in cities and states that the federal government considers "sanctuary" policy jurisdictions. In a practical sense, this could mean not the complete closure of the airport, but the loss or sharp reduction of the ability to accept international arrivals, as without border and customs processing, passengers cannot simply leave the plane and continue their journey.
Reuters mentioned among the potentially cited destinations Boston, Denver, Philadelphia, Chicago, Los Angeles, New York, Newark, Seattle, and San Francisco. Scripps News separately noted that the list of jurisdictions previously published by the US Department of Justice includes cities with some of the busiest international airports in the country. For travelers, this is important because such hubs often appear on tickets as the first point of entry into the USA, even if the final destination of the route is completely different.
For now, this is a scenario, not a current rule. There is no official schedule of restrictions, list of canceled flights, or order to stop international processing at a specific airport. That is why tourists should not panic and change all their plans. But ignoring the risk is also wrong: the discussion is taking place a few weeks before the peak summer season and against the backdrop of the US preparing for a major sporting tournament that is expected to bring millions of foreign fans.
Why This May Affect More Than Just "Problematic" Cities
International aviation works as a network. If one large hub receives restrictions on international arrivals, the consequences quickly extend beyond the specific city. Airlines may be forced to change routes, move passengers to other flights, use alternative entry airports or allow more time for connections. For a tourist, this means an increased risk of delays, longer layovers, changes to the first point of entry into the USA, and more complex baggage logistics.
Particularly vulnerable are routes where the first landing in the USA occurs at a large coastal or transit hub, and the passenger then flies a domestic flight. For example, a traveler from Europe may arrive in New York, pass passport control, collect baggage, check it in again and fly further to Florida, Texas, or California. If border processing at the first point of entry becomes unstable, the entire second part of the route is at risk.
A separate risk concerns group trips, sports fan tours, cruise connections and business trips with fixed dates. In such scenarios, even a one-day delay can disrupt hotel bookings, tours, matches, conferences, or cruise embarkation. This is why the industry reacted strongly: according to the U.S. Travel Association, using international airports as leverage in an immigration dispute can cause serious economic damage, and Airlines for America warned of significant operational disruptions for carriers, passengers, and cargo flows.
Which Airports Should Be Kept in View
The most attention is currently being paid to international hubs mentioned in media reports and associated with jurisdictions of disputed status. Among them are New York and Newark, Los Angeles, Chicago, San Francisco, Seattle, Denver, and Philadelphia. On our site, travelers can check basic information about New York JFK Airport, Newark EWR Airport, Los Angeles LAX Airport, Chicago O’Hare ORD Airport, San Francisco SFO Airport, Seattle–Tacoma SEA Airport, Denver DEN Airport and Philadelphia PHL Airport.
These links do not mean that all listed airports already have restrictions. On the contrary: as of the date of preparation of the material, flights continue to operate through the usual channels of airlines and airports. But these hubs should be checked more carefully if the route involves an international arrival to the USA or a short layover after passing immigration control.
Why the Moment is Especially Sensitive Before World Cup 2026
The FIFA World Cup 2026 is set to take place in the USA, Canada, and Mexico, and American cities expect a large flow of foreign fans. For the US tourism market, this is not just a sporting event, but an opportunity to partially compensate for weaker entry demand and show the country as a convenient destination for international guests. Any uncertainty regarding entry, passport control, or the first airport of arrival can work against this goal.
In a statement quoted by Scripps News, the U.S. Travel Association emphasized that international visitors, Americans returning home, and the success of a major global event should not become tools of pressure in political disputes. This argument is important not only for the USA. Tourists from Europe, Latin America, and Asia are already planning routes, buying tickets, and booking accommodation and coordinating trips between several North American countries. Uncertainty in the main airports can force some guests to choose other points of entry or allow additional days for travel.
What Travelers Should Do Now
The first practical conclusion: do not cancel your trip just because of a political statement if your flight is confirmed and the airline has not notified you of changes. But if you are just planning a route to the USA for the summer of 2026, it is better to avoid overly short layovers after the first international arrival. For the USA, this rule has always been useful, because a passenger usually passes passport control, collects baggage and checks it in again. In the current situation, a time buffer becomes even more important.
The second conclusion: it is worth buying tickets with clear change conditions. If the price difference between the cheapest non-changeable fare and a more flexible option is small, flexibility may be justified. This especially applies to routes with a layover via JFK, EWR, LAX, ORD, SFO, SEA, DEN, or PHL, as well as trips tied to a match, cruise, wedding, conference, or paid tour.
The third conclusion: check not only the flight status, but also official notifications from the airline and airport. If the DHS decision ever moves from the political plane to the operational one, the first practical signals for the passenger will be changes in the schedule, carrier notifications, changes to the point of entry, or recommendations to arrive earlier. Social media news may precede official explanations, but the airline is responsible for your specific ticket.
What This Means for the Tourism Market
For the travel industry, this story is dangerous not only because of possible cancellations. An even greater risk is the loss of trust. A tourist chooses a destination not only by the price of the air ticket, but also by predictability: whether the entry rules are clear, whether airports operate stably, and whether the route will not change due to a political decision at the last moment. If the USA wants to strengthen its position before the World Cup 2026, the country needs not only stadiums and promotional campaigns, but also a sense of normal, reliable logistics.
In this sense, the DHS statement became a signal for the entire market: air travel is increasingly dependent not only on demand, fuel prices or airport capacity, but also on political decisions surrounding borders. For passengers, the best strategy now is not panic, but careful planning: longer layovers, checking fare conditions, current airline notifications, and readiness to quickly rebuild the route if official restrictions do eventually appear.
For now, international flights to large US airports are operating, and the DHS proposal remains a subject of discussion. But because of the scale of the potential impact — from tourists and airlines to cities that depend on foreign visitors — this is one of those stories that travelers should follow until the start of the summer season and the World Cup 2026.