Senate Report Claims Biden Administration Directed Airports to Shelter Migrants, Raising Security Concerns

WASHINGTON — A newly released Senate investigative report has raised alarms over allegations that the Biden administration directed federal transportation agencies to transform airport facilities into temporary shelters for migrants, a move the report claims compromised aviation safety, strained resources, and blurred the boundaries between homeland security and humanitarian relief.

The 87-page report, titled “Flight Risk,” was published by the Senate Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation following a months-long review of internal communications among the Department of Transportation (DOT), Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration (FMCSA), and Federal Transit Administration (FTA). According to the findings, these agencies received guidance from the White House to identify available airport spaces suitable for migrant processing and short-term housing throughout late 2023 and 2024.

Federal Agencies Under Scrutiny

The report asserts that the Biden administration’s directives began circulating in October 2023, when FAA officials contacted airport authorities across the country to evaluate open facilities, such as unused terminals, hangars, or conference spaces that could accommodate arriving migrants.

One of the internal emails cited shows an FAA official writing to Massport, which manages Boston Logan International Airport, with a request to “expedite identification” of suitable areas within the airport complex. Another internal message revealed discomfort among DOT staff, with one employee allegedly responding, “Yikes, this is definitely Fox News fodder in the making.”

According to Senate investigators, similar outreach took place to local and regional authorities responsible for Chicago O’Hare International Airport, New York’s John F. Kennedy International Airport (JFK), and nine other facilities. The agencies were also instructed to evaluate potential funding streams, including federal transportation grants, to support sheltering logistics and transportation for migrants.

Airports Turned Shelters in Major Cities

Boston Logan emerged as one of the focal points in the report. The airport reportedly provided overnight shelter for as many as 352 migrants in one instance. Documents show Massport incurred $779,000 in costs—primarily for heightened security presence, sanitation, and emergency transport. Airport administrators raised early objections, noting that airport infrastructure was not designed to host migrants, citing safety concerns about proximity to secure zones and the difficulty of screening temporary residents.

In Chicago, O’Hare International Airport temporarily housed roughly 900 migrants within an unused shuttle terminal between April 2023 and February 2024. Police incident logs during this period recorded 329 service calls, 26 arrests, and one death investigation. Officials described these events as manageable but costly, citing increased pressure on airport law enforcement and cleaning crews. Critics of the policy argue that such incidents reflect deeper resource misallocation at a critical transportation hub.

At JFK Airport in New York, the report details a 2024 security breach involving a migrant from Ecuador who allegedly entered a restricted area wielding a box cutter and scissors. The individual was detained without harm to passengers, but the event underscored the difficulty of maintaining security standards amid overlapping humanitarian efforts.

Alleged Regulatory Bypasses

Senate investigators claim that FAA officials sidestepped federal grant-assurance regulations requiring prior approval before altering airport facility usage. Those regulations prohibit airports receiving federal funding from using infrastructure for non-aviation purposes without explicit consent from the FAA.

The report further implicates other DOT-affiliated agencies. The FMCSA allegedly developed a “Know Your Rights” pamphlet to distribute to bus passengers, coordinating with state and local transportation providers to facilitate interstate travel for migrants. Meanwhile, the FTA reportedly expedited approval for transit grants allowing municipal agencies to operate buses and shuttles dedicated to migrant transportation.

Altogether, these efforts represented a coordinated interagency push to relieve overcrowded border shelters by utilizing civilian transport infrastructure—a move Senate investigators deem to have blurred statutory boundaries between transportation safety and immigration enforcement.

Senate Leaders Voice Alarm

Committee chairman Senator Ted Cruz of Texas condemned the findings, framing the report as evidence of what he described as a “reckless and covert policy” executed at taxpayer expense. “This report exposes how the Biden Department of Transportation conspired with local leaders in New York, Boston, and Chicago to house migrants in airport facilities,” Cruz stated. “Their decisions—to transport illegal aliens through airports without identity checks, even those with felonies—show in new detail how Biden’s open border policy coopted government agencies to put American citizens at risk.”

While the report bears Cruz’s imprint and Republican support, Democratic members of the committee criticized it as politically opportunistic. They argued that the investigation lacked balance by omitting key logistical context, such as local government concurrence and humanitarian motives behind emergency shelter measures. Democratic aides reportedly described the airport shelter plans as “temporary stopgaps” amid unprecedented migration surges affecting cities nationwide.

Economic and Operational Impacts

The report notes that while the emergency use of airport space averted short-term humanitarian crises, it burdened airport operations and local budgets. Airports had to redirect cleaning staffs, boost police patrols, and install supplemental security barriers. Airlines reported minor disruptions due to limited access to maintenance hangars and minor delays caused by increased foot traffic in restricted zones.

Municipal officials in Chicago and Boston expressed frustration that federal reimbursement for these expenditures was slow or incomplete. In both cities, transportation managers testified that they received retroactive funding months after initial expenses were incurred, impacting fiscal planning for 2024.

From an economic standpoint, analysts caution that while total costs remain relatively small compared to annual airport budgets, the precedent poses long-term challenges. If airports are tasked with humanitarian duties again, it could complicate insurance regulations, federal funding compliance, and staff training programs rooted in aviation security rather than social services.

Historical Context and Policy Roots

Using civilian airports for nontraditional sheltering harkens back to previous national crises. During the 2010 Haiti earthquake, U.S. airfields temporarily stored and processed evacuees. In 2020, airports hosted emergency medical screenings during the height of the pandemic. However, these programs were carefully limited and received clear federal authorization. What makes the alleged 2023–2024 measures controversial, according to the Senate report, is their apparent informality—many local officials claim they learned of directives through informal channels rather than official memoranda.

Experts note that the practice also reflects the mounting strain of migration across U.S. borders. The number of encounters at the southern border reached unprecedented levels in 2023, prompting some state and federal agencies to explore unconventional ways to accommodate arrivals amid limited shelter capacity. Critics argue that this improvisation came at the expense of security discipline.

Regional Comparisons and Broader Reactions

Comparatively, airports in southern states such as Texas and Arizona have long managed federally coordinated migrant transportation through secure facilities separate from passenger terminals. Those operations are typically overseen by U.S. Customs and Border Protection, with defined screening procedures and no civilian overlap.

In contrast, the alleged northern airport conversions described in the Senate report lacked similar separation, creating tension between humanitarian staff and Transportation Security Administration (TSA) personnel responsible for maintaining federal security standards.

Public reactions among local residents have been mixed. Advocates for migrants stressed that sheltering initiatives prevented homelessness and maintained public order during crisis periods. Yet, airport employee unions and travel industry groups expressed concern that the policies jeopardized the perception of safety that underpins public confidence in air travel.

Statements from several major airport authorities indicated that local leaders sought immediate guidance from federal agencies about liability protections and reimbursement frameworks but often received delayed responses. The absence of clear instructions, according to the Senate findings, led to inconsistent implementation across facilities.

Administration Response and Ongoing Debate

The White House and DOT have not publicly issued detailed rebuttals to the report’s assertions, though administration officials have consistently defended interagency coordination as lawful and necessary during periods of humanitarian strain. According to an unnamed transportation official cited by multiple outlets, the temporary use of transportation infrastructure “ensured safety, dignity, and health standards for migrants while preserving travel continuity.”

Historically, temporary federal guidance for transportation facilities during crises falls within executive discretion under the Stafford Act and Homeland Security directives. However, critics of the alleged policy maintain that converting secure airport grounds into shelters overstepped those parameters and demanded explicit congressional oversight.

Legal analysts predict that the report may prompt inquiries by the Department of Homeland Security’s Inspector General into whether federal transportation grants were improperly used. Congressional hearings are likely to follow, with lawmakers expected to summon FAA and DOT officials for testimony before the winter recess.

Implications for Air Travel and Homeland Policy

If proven accurate, the report’s findings could have far-reaching implications for future crisis management strategies. Aviation experts caution that maintaining the stringent boundaries between civilian passenger environments and emergency humanitarian facilities is critical for public trust. The potential misuse of federal transport funds or repurposing of security-sensitive infrastructure may also invite broader accountability reviews by the Government Accountability Office.

Beyond the political disputes, the episode highlights the growing challenge of balancing emergency humanitarian obligations with the nation’s complex transportation and security frameworks. Airports, designed to facilitate global mobility, are increasingly being asked to shoulder functions far removed from their original purpose.

As Congress debates the findings of “Flight Risk,” the broader question remains: how should federal agencies adapt to the dual pressures of border management and domestic infrastructure safety without compromising either? For now, airport operators remain caught between two mandates—protecting the skies and providing shelter on the ground—underscoring how immigration and transportation policy have become deeply, perhaps permanently, intertwined.