Homeland Security Warns San Francisco International Airport as Sanctuary Policies Persist

(SAN FRANCISCO, CALIFORNIA) — DHS Secretary Markwayne Mullin said on April 6, 2026, that the Trump administration is considering pulling U.S. Customs and Border Protection officers from airports in sanctuary cities, including San Francisco International Airport, in a move tied to those jurisdictions’ limited cooperation with federal immigration enforcement.

Mullin raised the possibility during his first interview as Homeland Security Secretary, telling Fox News host Bret Baier, “We’re going to take a hard look at this” and “We need to focus on cities that want to work with us.”

His comments put San Francisco International Airport at the center of a new clash between the administration and local governments that limit cooperation with federal immigration agents. They also pointed to a possible disruption in how international arrivals are processed at airports in cities the administration says are not cooperating.

Mullin named San Francisco, New York, Los Angeles, Chicago and Philadelphia as sanctuary cities. He described sanctuary policies as “not lawful” and argued those cities cannot limit cooperation with federal immigration agents on arrests and deportations of undocumented immigrants.

The administration framed the proposal as part of a broader fight over immigration enforcement and federal resources. Mullin tied the idea to staffing choices inside the Department of Homeland Security as the agency faces a funding lapse.

That lapse began February 14, 2026, after Democratic lawmakers conditioned funding on new restrictions to immigration enforcement. Mullin said the pressure on funding could force the department to decide where officers are deployed.

“Democrats are wanting to defund Customs and Border Patrol,” Mullin said. He added that without funding, “I’m going to have to be forced to make hard decisions” on processing international arrivals.

When Baier pressed him on whether he was serious, Mullin left little doubt about the administration’s posture. “We’re going to have to start prioritizing things at some point,” he said.

Those remarks, amplified in social media clips from the interview, marked the clearest signal yet that the administration is weighing airport staffing as leverage in its dispute with sanctuary cities. As of April 7, 2026, officials had not announced a timeline for any change or identified a list of targeted airports beyond the sanctuary city jurisdictions Mullin cited.

That leaves airlines, airports and travelers without a clear timetable. It also leaves open how far the administration might go if it decides to shift CBP personnel away from gateways that handle international traffic.

Mullin did not announce an order, and he did not identify which airports in the named cities would be affected if the idea moves forward. He instead cast the question as part of a broader review of where the department should place officers during a funding squeeze.

For San Francisco, the reference to San Francisco International Airport carried immediate weight because CBP officers are central to processing travelers arriving from overseas. Any pullback in staffing at an airport serving international passengers could affect how those arrivals are handled.

Mullin’s language also sharpened the administration’s legal and political argument against sanctuary cities. By calling the policies “not lawful,” he signaled that the dispute is not only about resources but also about whether cities and local governments can maintain limits on cooperation with federal immigration enforcement.

The cities he listed are among the country’s largest urban centers and include some of its busiest airport markets. New York, Los Angeles, Chicago, Philadelphia and San Francisco all featured in his comments as places the administration believes are failing to work with federal immigration agents in the way it wants.

Still, the secretary’s comments stopped short of laying out an operational plan. No formal implementation schedule had emerged by Tuesday, and no broader list of airports had been made public.

That uncertainty matters because the proposal, as Mullin described it, would tie together two separate pressures: the administration’s conflict with sanctuary cities and the department’s limited funding. Rather than treat airport staffing as fixed, he suggested the administration could make choices based on which cities “want to work with us.”

In practice, that would place CBP resources at the center of a political standoff. The officers who process international arrivals would become part of a larger argument over local resistance to federal immigration enforcement and congressional demands for new restrictions.

Mullin’s interview also gave the first extended look at how he intends to talk about those fights as Homeland Security Secretary. He used his debut television appearance in the role to cast the agency’s funding problems in blunt terms and to connect them directly to immigration enforcement priorities.

He argued that if Democrats continue to push funding conditions, DHS may have to redirect personnel to the tasks it sees as most necessary. Processing international arrivals, he said, may require hard trade-offs if the department does not get the support it wants.

That framing suggests the administration sees airport staffing not only as a logistical matter but also as a pressure point in its dispute with local governments. Sanctuary cities already sit at the center of that dispute, and Mullin’s remarks placed airports inside the same confrontation.

For travelers, the immediate picture remains unsettled. Mullin pointed to possible consequences for international arrivals processing, but he did not say when any shift could occur or how many officers might be moved.

For city officials in the jurisdictions he named, the comments amounted to a warning that limited cooperation with immigration agents could carry costs beyond court fights and political backlash. The administration is now openly discussing whether federal personnel at airports could become part of that response.

The remarks also put a spotlight on DHS’s budget standoff. Since the funding lapse began February 14, 2026, the department has faced the question of how to allocate personnel while Congress and the White House remain at odds over immigration enforcement restrictions.

Mullin linked those funding pressures directly to his warning about airports. He did not separate the issue of sanctuary cities from the issue of staffing shortages; instead, he treated them as connected parts of the same decision about where the department should focus.

His choice of words was pointed. “We need to focus on cities that want to work with us,” he said, drawing a line between jurisdictions the administration considers cooperative and those it does not.

That line could matter most at airports that serve large volumes of travelers from abroad. CBP officers play a direct role in processing those passengers, and Mullin suggested the department may decide that some locations deserve more attention than others.

No further steps had been announced by Tuesday. The administration had not released a list of airports, had not provided a start date, and had not detailed what any reduction in CBP staffing would look like on the ground.

For now, the proposal stands as a warning rather than a directive. But the message from DHS Secretary Markwayne Mullin was clear: amid a funding lapse and a fight over sanctuary cities, San Francisco International Airport and other airports in those jurisdictions are under review.