Trump Border Czar Says ICE Will Maintain Indefinite Presence at US Airports

On March 23, 2026, Immigration and Customs Enforcement agents fanned out across 14 major US airports. The stated reason: help overwhelmed TSA workers move security lines that had ballooned to four hours or more during a partial Department of Homeland Security shutdown [1]. One week later, with President Trump having ordered TSA pay restored, border czar Tom Homan made clear the agents were not leaving. "We'll see," he told CNN when asked about a withdrawal timeline. On CBS, he was more explicit: ICE would stay "until the airports feel like they are 100%, in a posture where they can do normal operations" [2].

That open-ended standard — no metric, no deadline, no independent review — has transformed what the administration framed as emergency logistics support into what critics describe as a permanent interior immigration enforcement footprint at the country's busiest transit hubs.

The Shutdown That Opened the Door

DHS funding lapsed on February 14, 2026, after Congress failed to pass an appropriations bill [3]. TSA, which depends on annual appropriations, immediately began operating without pay. ICE, by contrast, had received a separate $75 billion funding allocation and continued normal operations [4].

The consequences for air travel were swift and severe. TSA's pre-shutdown call-out rate of roughly 4% climbed to 11% nationally, with individual airports exceeding 40% and 50% [5]. Houston Hobby recorded a single-day call-out rate of 55% on March 14 [6]. By late March, more than 500 TSA officers had quit outright, and roughly 61,000 workers had missed two full paychecks and a partial one [2][7].

Source: NPR, CNN, Axios compilations

Data as of Mar 29, 2026CSV

Spring break travel compounded the crisis. Wait times at some checkpoints exceeded four hours, with lines snaking out of terminal buildings [6]. On March 22, Homan confirmed ICE officers would deploy to airports the following day [8].

Scale and Scope of the Deployment

ICE initially sent agents to 14 airports, expanding to at least 16 within days [9]. Confirmed locations include Hartsfield-Jackson Atlanta, Chicago O'Hare, JFK and LaGuardia in New York, Newark Liberty, George Bush Intercontinental and Hobby in Houston, Philadelphia International, Phoenix Sky Harbor, Pittsburgh International, Cleveland Hopkins, New Orleans Armstrong, Southwest Florida International (Fort Myers), Baltimore-Washington International, and Luis Muñoz Marín International in San Juan, Puerto Rico [9][10].

Source: NBC News, Al Jazeera, Newsweek compilations

Data as of Mar 26, 2026CSV

At O'Hare alone, approximately 75 ICE officers were expected across multiple shifts [11]. The administration has not disclosed the total number of agents deployed nationwide.

DHS described their duties as "guarding entrances and exits, assisting with logistics, doing crowd control, and verifying identification using TSA equipment" [4]. Under TSA protocols, ICE agents were helping operate credential authentication machines at document-checking stations [12]. But Homan simultaneously signaled a broader mandate, stating agents would "arrest criminals going through the airport" and "look for human trafficking, sex trafficking, money smuggling" [4].

The Legal Framework — and Its Gaps

ICE's authority to operate at airports rests on several legal foundations. The Immigration and Nationality Act, codified at 8 U.S.C. § 1357, grants immigration officers the power to interrogate, arrest, and search without warrant any person they have "reasonable belief" is present in the US in violation of immigration law [13]. Most major US airports sit within the 100-mile "border zone" — defined by regulation at 8 CFR § 287.1 — where immigration agents enjoy expanded authority to conduct warrantless searches of vehicles, vessels, and aircraft [14].

International terminals at airports function as functional equivalents of the border, where the "border search exception" to the Fourth Amendment permits searches without probable cause or warrants [14]. Domestic terminals, however, occupy more contested legal ground. While ICE agents retain their statutory authority anywhere in the US interior, they must still meet probable cause or reasonable suspicion standards before detaining individuals — the same constraints that apply on any street corner [15].

Federal courts have imposed some limits. A 2019 permanent injunction blocked ICE from issuing arrest requests based solely on electronic database matches, requiring a neutral decision-maker to review detentions [16]. In February 2026, U.S. District Judge Joseph Goodwin ruled that ICE's practice of using masked, unidentifiable agents for arrests violated the Fourth Amendment's prohibition on unreasonable seizures [17]. But no federal court has directly addressed the question of whether maintaining a standing immigration enforcement presence inside domestic airport terminals crosses a constitutional line.

Jonathan Blazer of the ACLU told KQED that travelers' rights at airports are the same as anywhere else — "Nothing changes just because you're in an airport" — but acknowledged that the practical pressure of expensive flights and crowded terminals makes exercising those rights harder [15].

Data Sharing: TSA as an Immigration Dragnet?

One of the most consequential dimensions of the deployment is the data pipeline between TSA and ICE. TSA has been sending ICE lists of passengers flying through US airports several times per week, including names, photos, and other identifying details, which ICE cross-references against its own enforcement databases [18].

The arrest of Angelina Lopez-Jimenez and her 9-year-old daughter at San Francisco International Airport on March 23 crystallized these concerns. The Guatemalan mother and child were reportedly flagged by TSA when they appeared on a passenger list; plainclothes ICE agents detained them in Terminal 3 before their flight to Miami. Both were subsequently deported [19][20].

The incident drew scrutiny from Bay Area officials and lawmakers. Some alleged that San Francisco police officers assisted in the arrest, potentially violating California's sanctuary law [20]. Senator Cory Booker said ICE agents at airports were "striking fear" in travelers and reported that multiple airlines had told him they wanted agents removed [12].

Lawmakers and privacy advocates argue this kind of TSA-ICE coordination blurs boundaries that were previously well-defined. Under prior administrations, TSA and ICE databases were largely separate, and TSA's screening function was not treated as an immigration enforcement tool [19]. A TSA official told FedScoop the agency was "clarifying" its data-sharing protocols, but the administration has not released formal guidance on the scope or limits of this information exchange [21].

Who Gets Stopped — and What Protections Apply

The administration has not released a breakdown of travelers detained, questioned, or turned away by ICE at airports, making independent assessment difficult.

US citizens encountering ICE must answer questions establishing identity and citizenship. They cannot be denied entry to a domestic flight or held without individualized reasonable suspicion of a crime [15]. Lawful permanent residents are required by federal law to carry proof of status and answer questions about identity and residency. Only an immigration judge — not an ICE officer in an airport terminal — can revoke green card status [15].

Visa holders and undocumented individuals face the highest risk. Under existing law, ICE may detain individuals at ports of entry for up to 72 hours. Those with outstanding deportation orders, like Lopez-Jimenez, can be arrested on the spot [15][22].

The broader ICE enforcement picture provides context. The number of people in ICE detention rose nearly 75% during 2025, climbing from roughly 40,000 in January to 66,000 by December — the highest level ever recorded [23]. Arrests of individuals with no criminal record surged by 2,450% in the first year of the Trump administration's second term, driven by tactics including roving patrols, worksite raids, and courthouse arrests. The share of ICE detainees with no criminal record rose from 6% in January 2025 to 41% by December [23].

Source: TRAC Immigration Reports, American Immigration Council

Data as of Jan 31, 2026CSV

Does the Deployment Actually Work?

The evidence on whether ICE agents reduced airport wait times is mixed.

Homan has claimed success. "Every place we send ICE officers, the lines have decreased," he told reporters, citing a roughly 50% reduction in Houston wait times [2]. He pointed to similar improvements at Baltimore-Washington International [2].

But other data tells a different story. White House Press Secretary Karoline Leavitt acknowledged on March 25 that wait times had not decreased "as much as we like" [24]. The Washington Post reported that at multiple airports, ICE's presence had not reduced queues, with some travelers still facing four-hour waits [25]. The American Federation of Government Employees, the union representing TSA workers, issued a blunt assessment: "Putting untrained personnel at security checkpoints does not fill a gap. It creates one" [12].

Some TSA agents told Time that ICE officers at their airports were "getting paid to do nothing" — a grievance sharpened by the fact that TSA workers were not being paid at all [7]. ICE agents retained full compensation throughout the shutdown because of their separate appropriation.

The Steelman Case for ICE at Airports

Supporters of the deployment argue that airports represent a genuine gap in immigration enforcement. Homan has framed the airport presence as part of an "increased threat posture" that demands enhanced security beyond what TSA alone provides [2]. The argument rests on several claims:

First, airports are transit nodes where individuals with deportation orders, criminal warrants, or smuggling operations can be identified through document checks — a law enforcement function distinct from TSA's screening mission, which focuses on weapons and prohibited items [4].

Second, proponents note that CBP already maintains enforcement authority at international arrival terminals; extending ICE presence to domestic terminals fills what they describe as a blind spot where individuals who cleared customs at one airport can travel freely through the domestic system [4].

Third, ICE's $75 billion appropriation means the agents are already funded, making the marginal cost of redeploying them to airports low compared to hiring new TSA personnel [4].

These arguments have limits. The administration has not cited specific threat intelligence or incident data justifying the deployment beyond the general assertion of an "increased threat posture." No publicly available statistics show airports as an underenforced vulnerability relative to other interior enforcement targets. And the dual-purpose framing — simultaneously TSA support and immigration enforcement — has made it difficult to evaluate the deployment against either objective alone.

International Comparisons

Peer democracies handle immigration enforcement at airports differently, and none maintains a standing interior-enforcement presence comparable to what ICE has established.

The UK's Border Force, a law enforcement command within the Home Office, operates at 140 air, sea, and rail ports, but its authority is limited to entry points — it does not patrol domestic terminals [26]. Australia's Border Force uses automated Smartgates with facial recognition at international arrivals, minimizing direct officer contact for most travelers [27]. Canada relies on its CBSA (Canada Border Services Agency) exclusively at ports of entry, supplemented by US Customs and Border Protection preclearance operations at 15 international locations in six countries [28].

Within the EU's Schengen zone, border checks occur at the external perimeter. Interior Schengen flights are treated as domestic, with no routine immigration screening [26].

All of these systems share a common feature: immigration enforcement is concentrated at the international arrival boundary, not dispersed throughout domestic terminals. The US approach under the current deployment is, by comparison, an outlier.

What Does "Secure" Mean?

The most consequential unanswered question is what conditions would end the deployment. Homan's standard — airports that "feel like they are 100%" — is subjective. He has tied it loosely to TSA staffing levels, saying ICE presence depends on "how many TSA agents come back to work" and "how many TSA agents have actually quit" [2].

But even that framing shifted in the same weekend of interviews. Asked directly whether ICE would leave once TSA workers get paid, Homan said: "We'll see" [24]. He separately invoked the "increased threat posture" rationale, suggesting a security justification independent of TSA staffing [2].

The administration has not defined any measurable exit criteria — no staffing threshold, no wait-time benchmark, no date certain, no independent evaluation mechanism. No congressional committee has been granted oversight authority over the deployment's scope or duration. The DHS Inspector General has not announced any review.

On March 27, the House rejected a Senate DHS funding bill, extending the shutdown to its 42nd day and leaving the underlying funding dispute unresolved [29]. Even if a deal restores TSA paychecks, Homan's statements suggest the airport ICE presence has acquired a rationale — immigration enforcement and security — that outlasts the staffing crisis that prompted it.

For the millions of Americans passing through airport security each week, the presence of immigration enforcement officers operating alongside — and sometimes instead of — TSA screeners represents a shift in what it means to board a domestic flight. Whether that shift is temporary or permanent depends on an exit condition that, as of now, does not exist.