The Newark Customs Threat: How a Detention Center Protest Became a Lever to Shut Down International Travel

Homeland Security Secretary Markwayne Mullin went on Fox News on May 28 and made his most explicit threat yet: pull Customs and Border Protection officers from Newark Liberty International Airport to redeploy them as security at a nearby ICE detention facility besieged by protesters [1]. "We will have to pull out our Customs and Border Patrol officers that process these flights and put them in these facilities to help protect our employees coming out to work," Mullin said [1].

The threat did not come in isolation. For weeks, Mullin has been building toward a broader plan to halt international flight processing at airports in jurisdictions the Justice Department has labeled "sanctuary cities" — a list that includes New York, Newark, Boston, Chicago, San Francisco, Los Angeles, Seattle, and Philadelphia [2]. The protests outside Delaney Hall, a privately operated ICE detention center in Newark now in their seventh day, gave him a more immediate justification [3].

The result is a policy proposal that has alarmed the airline industry, drawn public dissent from within the Trump administration itself, and raised constitutional questions with no clear modern precedent.

What Happened at Delaney Hall

The proximate trigger for Mullin's Newark-specific threat is the ongoing confrontation at Delaney Hall, a 1,000-bed privately owned detention facility that opened roughly a year ago and has become the largest ICE detention center in the New York metro area [3].

Over the Memorial Day weekend, hundreds of detainees launched a labor and hunger strike. The action was preceded by letters signed by approximately 300 detainees detailing allegations of overcrowded rooms where people sleep on the floor, cold showers, inadequate food, freezing cells without blankets, and lack of medical care [3]. Protesters gathered outside the facility, attempting to block vehicles from entering and exiting. ICE agents responded with pepper spray and batons [1].

New Jersey Governor Mikie Sherrill deployed state police to establish designated protest zones and vehicle checkpoints [4]. The confrontation has become a flashpoint in the national debate over immigration enforcement — and Mullin seized on it to justify his broader airport proposal.

The Sanctuary City Airport Plan

Mullin's threat against Newark is part of a wider strategy. He told Fox News he is "drawing up plans" to end international flight processing in sanctuary cities, framing it as retaliation: "In these sanctuary cities where the local radical left Democrats aren't allowing us to do our jobs and enforce federal laws, then we shouldn't be processing international flights into their cities either" [2].

The Justice Department's list of jurisdictions it considers non-cooperative with federal immigration enforcement covers airports that handle a substantial share of all U.S. international air traffic, including JFK, O'Hare, LAX, SFO, and Newark [5]. If enacted, the plan would not merely slow international arrivals — it would halt them entirely at those airports, since CBP processing is legally required before any international passenger can enter the United States [6].

No final decision has been made. Mullin has said the administration is still drafting plans [2]. But the repeated escalation of the threat — from a vague idea floated in April to specific operational language tied to a live crisis in May — has the travel industry treating it as a genuine possibility.

Inside the Administration: Duffy's Dissent

The proposal does not have unified support within the Trump administration. Transportation Secretary Sean Duffy publicly questioned the idea at a congressional hearing, telling lawmakers, "We shouldn't shut down air travel in a state that doesn't agree with our politics" [7].

Duffy's dissent is significant because the Department of Transportation regulates airline operations and airport infrastructure. His opposition suggests that any attempt to implement Mullin's plan would face friction not only from courts and industry but from within the executive branch itself [7].

President Trump has not publicly endorsed the specific airport plan, though he has previously threatened to withhold federal funding from sanctuary cities [6].

Newark: A Hub Too Big to Sideline

Newark Liberty International Airport is not an interchangeable node in the U.S. air network. It is the largest hub for United Airlines measured by available seat miles, with United serving roughly 63% of the airport's passengers [8]. The airline operates flights to 61 international destinations from Newark, and its widebody fleet serves more than 70 international points [8].

Source: Port Authority of NY & NJ / Wikipedia

Data as of Jan 1, 2026CSV

The airport reached a record 49.1 million passengers in 2023 and exceeded 50 million in 2024 [9]. It serves more than 45 carriers with nearly 1,200 daily arrivals and departures [9]. On the cargo side, more than 150 million kilograms of freight move through United Cargo's Newark operations each year — nearly 40% of United Cargo's total volume [8]. United opened a new 165,000-square-foot cargo facility at the airport to accommodate its growing widebody fleet [8].

Halting international processing at Newark would not simply redirect passengers to JFK or Philadelphia. As industry critics have pointed out, planes cannot be rerouted mid-air to other airports for customs processing — the flights would be canceled outright [5]. The disruption would cascade across United's entire network, since Newark serves as a connecting hub for domestic passengers continuing to international destinations.

Economic Exposure: $70 Billion and Counting

The financial stakes extend well beyond Newark. Major U.S. carriers — Delta, United, American, Southwest, JetBlue, and Alaska Airlines — have collectively warned that halting customs processing at sanctuary city airports could result in economic losses of up to $70 billion [10]. Airlines for America, the industry's primary trade group, stated that "reducing CBP staffing at major airports would have a devastating effect on the airline and tourism industries, causing a significant operational disruption to carriers, travelers and the flow of international cargo" [7].

The U.S. Travel Association estimated that $8 billion in annual international visitor spending is directly at risk from the proposal [11]. The group met with Mullin last week to express its concerns and issued a public statement warning that "such a move would have devastating consequences for the travel industry and communities that depend on international visitation" [11].

The cascading effects of customs bottlenecks are well documented: backed-up federal inspection stations delay arriving flights, block aircraft from gates, and cause missed connections throughout the domestic and international network [11].

How Do Newark's Wait Times Compare?

Current CBP data show that Newark actually processes international arrivals faster than most of its peer airports. Average customs wait times at Newark run approximately 18 minutes, compared to 24 minutes at JFK, 24 minutes at Miami, 22 minutes at LAX, and 20 minutes at Chicago O'Hare [12].

Source: CBP / Upgraded Points

Data as of May 1, 2026CSV

This data undermines the argument that Newark is overstaffed or inefficient in its customs operations. If anything, the relatively low wait times suggest that CBP staffing at Newark is well-calibrated to the airport's international volume. Removing officers would push a well-functioning system into dysfunction — not correct an existing imbalance.

Travelers using Global Entry can typically clear customs at Newark in 10 to 25 minutes; without it, processing times range from 30 to 90 minutes during normal operations, and can exceed two hours during peak congestion [13].

The Legal Question: Can Mullin Actually Do This?

The DHS Secretary has broad authority over the deployment of CBP personnel. As the head of the department that oversees CBP, Mullin can direct staffing changes without requiring congressional approval or a new executive order [14]. CBP officers serve at designated ports of entry at DHS's direction.

However, legal scholars have flagged a potential constitutional barrier. Article I, Section 9, Clause 6 of the U.S. Constitution — the Port Preference Clause — states: "No Preference shall be given by any Regulation of Commerce or Revenue to the Ports of one State over those of another" [15]. The clause was designed to prevent the federal government from favoring one state's commercial infrastructure over another's.

Whether the Port Preference Clause applies to airports is an open legal question. The term "ports" may be limited to its eighteenth-century maritime meaning and may not extend to air transportation hubs [15]. The clause has been rarely litigated and is "largely neglected in legal scholarship," according to Cornell's Legal Information Institute [15]. But any attempt to selectively strip customs capacity from airports in specific states while maintaining it in others would almost certainly trigger federal court challenges invoking this provision.

More broadly, constitutional principles of federalism protect the right of state and local governments to decline participation in federal immigration enforcement [14]. Using customs withdrawal as punishment for exercising that right could face challenges under the anti-commandeering doctrine established in cases like Printz v. United States.

There is no clear precedent for a politically motivated withdrawal of customs services from a functioning port of entry. CBP staffing changes have historically been driven by operational needs — budget constraints, personnel shortages, volume changes — not as retaliation against local governments [14].

The 2019 Shutdown: A Partial Preview

The closest historical analogy is the 35-day government shutdown from December 2018 to January 2019 during Trump's first term. During that shutdown, CBP and TSA officers were required to work without pay, and the effects on airport operations were immediate [16].

TSA reported that 10% of its officers called out for unscheduled absences on a single day. Miami International Airport had to temporarily close a terminal because agents were calling in sick at twice the normal rate [16]. Air traffic controllers in the busiest facilities worked up to 60 hours per week. Global Entry enrollment appointments were canceled indefinitely [16].

After the shutdown ended and officers received back pay, it took between two days and two weeks for security screening wait times to return to normal levels [17]. That shutdown affected all airports, not just those in specific jurisdictions — but it demonstrated how quickly customs and security operations degrade when staffing drops, and how slowly they recover.

Who Gets Hurt: Newark's Communities

Newark and the surrounding region are home to some of the most diverse immigrant communities in the United States. Approximately 29% of Newark's population is foreign-born, with large communities from Latin America, West Africa, the Caribbean, Portugal, and Brazil [18]. The city's Ironbound neighborhood is one of the largest Portuguese- and Brazilian-speaking communities in the country [9].

New Jersey's foreign-born population share stands at 25%, nearly double the national average of 14.8% [19]. Many of these residents depend on Newark as their primary international gateway for family travel, business, and commerce.

The impact of degrading Newark's customs capacity would fall disproportionately on these communities. Unlike business travelers who might absorb the cost of rerouting through airports in non-sanctuary jurisdictions, working-class immigrant families traveling to visit relatives abroad have fewer alternatives and less financial flexibility to adapt.

Newark's position as a hub also serves the broader New Jersey and New York metropolitan economy. International visitors to the region generate billions in annual spending at hotels, restaurants, and retail establishments [11]. Redirecting that traffic — or eliminating it — would hit service-sector workers hardest.

The Steelman Case for Reallocation

Mullin's defenders argue that the proposal is not arbitrary but reflects legitimate enforcement priorities. The DHS Secretary has framed the issue as a resource allocation question: if CBP officers are needed to secure detention facilities facing violent protests, pulling them from airport duty is an operational necessity, not a political punishment [1].

More broadly, advocates for stricter immigration enforcement argue that sanctuary city policies create genuine obstacles to federal law enforcement, and that the federal government is under no obligation to provide premium customs service to jurisdictions that actively impede its immigration mission [2].

There is also a resource scarcity argument. CBP has faced chronic staffing shortages across its portfolio of responsibilities, including the southern border, northern border, and seaports. If Newark is relatively well-staffed compared to higher-priority locations, redeployment could be justified on operational grounds — though CBP has not publicly released data supporting that specific claim.

However, critics note that the airports targeted for customs withdrawal were not selected based on staffing metrics or operational need but based on their cities' immigration policies [5]. That distinction is central to the legal and political debate.

What Comes Next

As of late May 2026, no CBP officers have been withdrawn from Newark or any other airport. Mullin has described the plans as still being drafted [2]. The protests at Delaney Hall continue, and the administration appears to be using the confrontation to build public support for the broader sanctuary city airport proposal.

Several factors could determine whether the threat becomes reality. Federal court challenges are likely if implementation begins, with the Port Preference Clause and anti-commandeering doctrine providing plausible legal grounds for injunctions. Congressional opposition — particularly from Republican members representing districts that depend on affected airports — could also constrain action. And the vocal opposition of Transportation Secretary Duffy suggests that the proposal would face internal resistance even if the president authorized it [7].

The airline industry, for its part, is not waiting to find out. Major carriers have begun publicly warning of "catastrophic disruption" if the plan proceeds, positioning themselves to pressure the administration through both lobbying and public opinion [10]. The U.S. Travel Association's meeting with Mullin last week was the opening move in what could become a sustained campaign [11].

For the 50 million passengers who pass through Newark each year — and the communities that depend on them — the question is whether a policy threat born from a detention center protest and a political feud over sanctuary cities will actually reshape the infrastructure of American international travel.