The leader of the Department of Homeland Security stepped before the Senate Appropriations Homeland Security subcommittee to defend his recent remarks about potentially disrupting international arrivals to certain U.S. cities. Secretary Markwayne Mullin answered intense questioning from Democrats and Republicans about immigration tactics, adherence to judicial orders and the real-world effects of visa policy changes.
During the session Mullin framed his remarks as enforcing federal law where local jurisdictions refuse to cooperate, while senators raised concerns about legality, safety and economic fallout. He also discussed administrative limits when asked about visa programs affecting rural healthcare and seasonal employers.
Questions about obeying court orders and constitutional limits
Democratic members pressed whether the Department of Homeland Security would follow rulings issued by federal judges. Senator Chris Murphy, the subcommittee’s senior Democrat, asked directly whether DHS would implement court orders issued by federal courts. Mullin did not provide a categorical yes or no, instead asserting he would “never break the Constitution.”
When Murphy pushed further, Mullin characterized some judicial actions as politically motivated, saying certain judges make a “political opinion from the bench.” He framed DHS actions as executing the duties Congress assigned to the department and rejected assertions that his prior public comments were unlawful.
Legal and operational tensions
Senators warned that unilateral reductions in customs staffing could produce dangerous outcomes. Murphy argued that suspending international arrivals to selected cities would be both illegal and chaotic for the national airspace. Senator Patty Murray described such an approach as not only dangerous but an economic disaster for states across the political spectrum.
Threat to pull customs officers from airports
Mullin’s remarks in televised interviews became a central focus of the hearing. He told Fox News’ Sean Hannity on May 26 that airports in jurisdictions that refuse to assist federal immigration enforcement should not be permitted to receive international flights processed by U.S. Customs and Border Protection. He also repeated that sentiment in other media appearances, prompting bipartisan alarm about the consequences for customs processing.
Critics said the plan would hobble border screening, strain aviation operations and risk economic disruption. Mullin defended the idea as an enforcement lever against so-called “sanctuary” jurisdictions, arguing that if local leaders prevent federal law enforcement from doing its work, related federal services should be reconsidered.
Practical implications for airports and travelers
Removing customs staff could slow or halt processing of arriving international passengers, affecting airlines, tourism and cross-border commerce. Senators emphasized that such moves would ripple beyond political precincts, hitting businesses, universities and healthcare systems that rely on international travel.
High-profile deportation case and visa pressures
Senator Chris Van Hollen raised the case of Kilmar Abrego Garcia, the Salvadoran national whose prior wrongful deportation and subsequent legal fight attracted national attention. Van Hollen noted that Abrego Garcia reportedly agreed to removal to Costa Rica and asked whether Mullin was aware of that development; Mullin said he was not.
The Abrego Garcia matter has been central to debates about aggressive removal tactics; courts found his prior deportation illegal and the supreme court ordered his return to the United States while stopping short of requiring it. The Justice Department later pursued criminal charges that a Tennessee judge dismissed as vindictive; the administration has sought alternative removal destinations including several African countries.
Visa programs affecting hospitals, seasonal employers and colleges
Republicans on the panel pressed Mullin about challenges created by recent visa fee and cap changes. Senator Susan Collins raised concerns that a newly imposed fee for highly skilled workers — cited as a $100,000 charge by the administration — is creating staffing difficulties in rural hospitals in Maine, and asked whether DHS could carve out health care professionals from that fee. Mullin said DHS has reviewed the idea but described statutory and procedural constraints that limit his authority.
Collins also asked whether the department could revert to a policy that exempted returning seasonal workers from the annual H-2B cap. Mullin said such changes would likely require congressional action or a higher numerical ceiling. Senator Jeanne Shaheen expressed urgency over F-1 student visa processing, warning that delays could cost New England College and others thousands of graduate students without approvals ahead of institutional deadlines. Mullin said he had raised the issue with U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services and described DHS as “working on it.”
What the hearing means going forward
The session highlighted the friction between federal enforcement goals and local or judicial constraints. Senators signaled continued oversight on both the legal boundaries of DHS action and the practical fallout of immigration enforcement choices, while secretary-level testimony underscored the limited tools available to the department without legislative changes.
As lawmakers evaluate funding and oversight, the exchange made clear that contentious public statements about operational shifts — such as pulling customs officers from airports — will remain scrutinized for legality, safety and economic consequence.
