By Doston Tukhliev, UWED undergraduate, IAIS intern
In early April 2026, the US domestic agenda once again centered on the immigration issue, which under the Donald Trump administration has definitively transformed from a standard public policy area into a key instrument of domestic political mobilization and administrative pressure on opposition-leaning jurisdictions. The trigger for the new wave of discussions was a statementby the US Department of Homeland Security regarding the possible suspension of international passenger processing at several airports located in so-called “sanctuary cities” if local authorities continue to refuse full cooperation with federal immigration agencies.
This measure goes far beyond the specialized immigration sphere, affecting trade, tourism, the investment climate, and the very architecture of relations between Washington and local governments.
It is worth noting that the current US Secretary of Homeland Security, Markwayne Mullin, who was appointed in March 2026, previously served as a Senator from Oklahoma and as a member of the US House of Representatives. He is considered one of the consistent proponents of the Trump administration’s hardline immigration stance and advocates for stronger federal control over border and homeland security.
As a reminder, the term “sanctuary cities” in the United States refers to cities and counties where local authorities, to varying degrees, restrict the sharing of migrant data with federal agencies, refuse to hold detainees solely on immigration detainers without a court order, or generally minimize local police involvement in enforcing federal immigration laws.
Essentially, the US administration is demonstrating its readiness to shift its confrontation with sanctuary cities from the political and legal realm to direct infrastructural pressure. While previously the main levers were lawsuits, threats of grant restrictions, and public political criticism, the possibility of using international airports as a tool of coercion is now under discussion. Given that such jurisdictions include the country’s largest urban centers, such as Los Angeles, New York, Chicago, and San Francisco, this step could not only complicate international travel but also deal a blow to the business activity of cities that traditionally serve as foundational hubs of the American economy.
Adding particular significance to these developments is the fact that the current escalation is unfolding parallel to the ongoing dispute over birthright citizenship. In early April, the US Supreme Court heard arguments in a case related to the Trump administration’s attempt to restrict the automatic granting of citizenship to children born on US soil to parents lacking legal permanent status. Even during the hearings, many justices displayed a skeptical attitude toward the White House’s position, representing a rare example of serious institutional resistance to the administration’s hardline immigration policy. Thus, the immigration agenda in the US is increasingly becoming an arena for a simultaneous clash among the executive branch, the judiciary, the states, and municipalities.
In other words, the current dispute over US immigration policy is developing along three interconnected lines. First, the White House seeks to maximize the federal center’s authority over immigration control and force local authorities to operate under strict administrative subordination. Second, the judicial system is attempting to determine whether such steps comply with the US Constitution and whether they exceed presidential authority. Third, sanctuary cities that limit cooperation with federal immigration agencies are resisting Washington’s attempts to subordinate local politics. As a result, the immigration issue in the US is turning into more than just a debate about borders and illegal immigration; it is becoming a broader conflict over the balance of power among the federal government, the courts, and local self-governance.
Against this backdrop, it should be noted that the conflict over sanctuary cities is deeply rooted not only in law but also in politics and ideology. For the Republican administration, such cities are a symbol of resistance to the federal agenda, an expression of a liberal governance model, and an example of local elites seeking to limit the central government’s authority in matters that Washington views as pertaining to sovereignty and national security. This is precisely why the immigration issue is being integrated into the White House’s broader strategy of strengthening the vertical executive power and demonstrating the center’s ability to enforce uniform federal standards – even on territories that possess significant political and economic resources.
Notably, this approach alters the very nature of American federalism. While previous disputes between the center and local governments over immigration were largely protracted legal battles revolving around competing jurisdictions, the executive branch is now increasingly and openly signaling its readiness to impose material costs on those who disagree. In this sense, immigration policy ceases to be solely a matter of border control and alien status, turning instead into an instrument of administrative pressure against political opponents. This course objectively increases the risk that the struggle over immigration will increasingly be accompanied by the paralysis of certain elements of transportation and administrative infrastructure.
Importantly, the White House’s hardline approach is largely driven by domestic political calculations. The immigration issue remains one of the most mobilizing topics for Donald Trump’s electoral base, meaning any tightening of policy can be used as clear proof that the administration is fulfilling its promises to “restore order”. At the same time, excessive pressure on major cities and transportation hubs carries obvious risks for the US itself, jeopardizing international ties, tourism flows, and the business reputation of American metropolises. As a result, the White House secures short-term political dividends while simultaneously laying the groundwork for growing domestic institutional turbulence.
In a broader sense, these developments indicate that current American immigration policy is becoming less about combating illegal immigration per se. Rather, it is an attempt to use the immigration issue to reshape the balance of power within the US political system itself, strengthening the federal center by weakening local autonomy. If this trajectory continues, the United States risks facing a further deepening of the conflict among the White House, the courts, and the country’s largest cities, with the immigration agenda definitively becoming one of the primary triggers of a domestic political crisis.
* The Institute for Advanced International Studies (IAIS) does not take institutional positions on any issues; the views represented herein are those of the author(s) and do not necessarily reflect the views of the IAIS.
