Recent reporting confirms that U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) personnel have been deployed to a number of major U.S. airports across the United States. While the government has not issued a single definitive list, multiple reputable sources consistently identify approximately 14 airports where ICE officers are currently present.
Reported airports include:
- Atlanta (ATL)
- Chicago O’Hare (ORD)
- Cleveland (CLE)
- Houston Hobby (HOU)
- Houston Bush Intercontinental (IAH)
- Fort Myers (RSW)
- New Orleans (MSY)
- New York JFK (JFK)
- LaGuardia (LGA)
- Newark (EWR)
- Philadelphia (PHL)
- Phoenix (PHX)
- Pittsburgh (PIT)
- San Juan (SJU)
This list is based on aggregated reporting from these outlets as of March 2026 and may evolve as additional locations are confirmed.
What Is ICE Doing at Airports
Based on current reporting, ICE officers are primarily supporting airport operations in non-screening roles, such as monitoring exit lanes, assisting with passenger flow and providing general operational support. TSA continues to conduct all primary screening functions, and there is no reliable reporting that ICE officers are operating screening equipment or conducting routine immigration status checks at TSA checkpoints as part of this deployment.
However, it is important to note that immigration enforcement is not necessarily limited to the TSA checkpoint itself. Interactions with law enforcement may occur in other areas of the airport, including before or after security, at gates or in public areas of the terminal. As a result, even domestic travel should no longer be viewed as entirely separate from potential immigration enforcement exposure.
Why This Matters: Emerging Concerns
Even if the stated role of ICE is limited, the presence of immigration enforcement personnel in airport environments introduces uncertainty for many travelers. The key concern is not a confirmed policy of routine screening at checkpoints, but rather the potential for unexpected or situational encounters that may arise during the course of travel.
This is particularly relevant given broader concerns about interagency coordination and isolated reports of enforcement activity in airport settings. For employers and employees alike, the result is a more enforcement-sensitive travel environment.
Employer Guidance: What to Communicate to Employees
Employers should provide clear, practical guidance that reflects both current reporting and real-world travel scenarios. Employees traveling domestically in valid nonimmigrant status (such as H-1B, L-1, E, TN, O-1, etc.) should be advised to carry comprehensive documentation, not just standard identification.
At a minimum, employees should travel with:
- A valid passport
- Their most recent I-94 record
- Their I-797 approval notice, where applicable
- A REAL ID-compliant driver’s license or other acceptable TSA identification
It is also important to understand that TSA accepts several forms of identification beyond a REAL ID or U.S. passport. Acceptable identification can include a foreign passport, permanent resident card, employment authorization document (EAD) and certain trusted traveler or federal identification cards.
However, TSA’s identity verification requirements are distinct from immigration status requirements. A document may be sufficient to pass through TSA screening, but not sufficient to demonstrate lawful immigration status if questions arise. For this reason, foreign national employees should not rely solely on a TSA-acceptable ID and should carry documentation confirming their lawful status in the U.S.
Employees should also be advised to allow additional time at the airport, remain calm during any interactions and avoid volunteering unnecessary information beyond what is required.
Who Should Avoid Air Travel at This Time
Given the current enforcement climate, certain individuals should not travel by air without first consulting with immigration counsel. This includes individuals without lawful status, those with prior removal orders or those with unresolved immigration matters.
In addition, we strongly recommend that the following individuals seek individualized legal advice before traveling, even domestically:
- Individuals with pending asylum applications
- Individuals in Temporary Protected Status (TPS)
- Lawful permanent residents with any criminal history, including older or minor convictions
While travel may be legally permissible in some of these cases, the current environment introduces additional uncertainty and potential risk that should be evaluated on a case-by-case basis.
Individuals in transitional or “in-between” immigration situations should also exercise heightened caution and consult with counsel prior to travel. This may include individuals with pending adjustment of status (AOS) applications, those traveling on Advance Parole and individuals who have recently changed status or are awaiting approval. Even where travel is technically permitted, these situations can be more difficult to explain in a time-sensitive airport interaction.
Additional Caution for Employees with Complex Documentation Situations
Employees who are working pursuant to extensions or who have documentation that may appear inconsistent should take additional care before traveling. This includes individuals relying on the 240-day rule while an extension is pending, or those whose visa stamp has expired but whose status remains valid in the United States. While these are legally valid scenarios, they may not be immediately understood in the context of an airport encounter and can lead to delays or additional questioning.
If an Employee Is Stopped or Delayed
Employers should anticipate the possibility that an employee could be stopped, questioned or delayed during travel, even if ultimately no enforcement action is taken. It is advisable for employers to establish a simple internal protocol so employees know what to do in that situation.
Employees should be instructed to:
- Remain calm and comply with lawful instructions
- Ask whether they are free to leave if questioned outside of standard screening
- Contact immigration counsel as soon as possible if concerns arise
Employers may also wish to designate a point of contact within HR or legal to assist in coordinating next steps if an issue occurs during travel.
Travel Expectations and Employer Flexibility
This development also raises practical workplace considerations. Employers should be mindful that some employees may be uncomfortable traveling under current conditions, particularly those in more complex immigration situations.
Where possible, employers may wish to:
- Evaluate whether travel is truly necessary for a given role or assignment
- Consider alternatives such as remote participation
- Take a case-by-case approach to travel expectations rather than applying uniform requirements
Employers should avoid requesting unnecessary disclosure of immigration status but can encourage employees to seek legal guidance if they have concerns about travel.
Bottom Line for Employers
The reported deployment of ICE to approximately 14 major U.S. airports is real and should be taken seriously, even though ICE’s role appears limited to operational support. The more significant impact is the shift in the overall travel environment, where immigration enforcement may intersect with routine domestic travel in less predictable ways.
Employers should take a proactive, risk-based approach by communicating clearly, supporting employees in understanding their individual risk and building flexibility into travel expectations where appropriate.
We will continue to monitor developments and provide updates as more information becomes available.
