Bored Fascism and Petty Theft – Should We Keep the TSA?

The Transportation Security Administration (TSA) has been a fixture of American air travel for over two decades, born from the ashes of the September 11th, 2001, terrorist attacks. Its mission is clear: "protect the nation's transportation systems to ensure freedom of movement for people and commerce." Yet, since its inception on November 19, 2001, the agency has been a perennial subject of debate, facing scrutiny over its effectiveness, cost, and impact on civil liberties. Calls to significantly defund, reform, or even disband the TSA surface regularly, prompting a critical examination of the arguments for and against its continued existence in its current form.  

The Case Against the Status Quo

Critics of the TSA often point to several key areas of concern:

Effectiveness and Threat Detection: Perhaps the most damaging critiques revolve around the TSA's actual ability to stop threats. Numerous undercover tests conducted by the Department of Homeland Security's Inspector General (DHS OIG) and the Government Accountability Office (GAO) have revealed alarmingly low success rates in detecting smuggled weapons, fake explosives, and other dangerous items. While specific percentages from classified reports are not always public, incidents like a 2015 OIG test reportedly showing screeners failing to detect mock threats 95% of the time, and a 2017 report identifying continued deficiencies, have fueled skepticism. While the GAO noted in a 2019 report (GAO-19-374) that TSA had improved its covert testing processes and developed new methods like "Index Testing" to better identify vulnerabilities, it also found that TSA needed a more risk-informed approach to testing and hadn't fully resolved previously identified vulnerabilities in a timely manner. Critics argue that if the agency consistently fails its own tests, its massive budget and passenger inconvenience are hard to justify.

High Cost: The TSA operates with a significant budget. For Fiscal Year 2025, the President's budget request for the TSA was approximately $11.8 billion, employing over 58,000 people. While a portion of this is offset by the September 11th Security Fee ($5.60 per one-way trip, capped at $11.20 per round trip, generating roughly $2.4 billion in 2020), the majority is taxpayer funded. Critics question the value proposition, arguing that these billions could be allocated more effectively to other security measures, such as intelligence gathering, port security, or infrastructure protection, which might offer a better return on investment in terms of actual risk reduction. The cost per passenger screened is substantial, leading to questions about resource allocation efficiency.

"Security Theater": This term is frequently used to describe TSA procedures that critics believe provide an illusion of security without substantially increasing it. Measures like the limitations on liquids and gels (introduced after a 2006 plot), mandatory shoe removal (following Richard Reid's 2001 attempt), and sometimes inconsistent pat-down procedures are often cited. Opponents argue these measures inconvenience millions of travelers daily, create bottlenecks, and may not effectively counter determined adversaries who adapt their methods. They contend that the focus should be on intelligence-driven, risk-based security rather than universal, sometimes cumbersome, screening protocols.

Civil Liberties and Privacy Concerns: TSA screening methods, particularly Advanced Imaging Technology (AIT) body scanners and physical pat-downs, have consistently raised privacy concerns. Advocacy groups like the ACLU have challenged TSA practices, arguing they constitute unreasonable searches under the Fourth Amendment. Concerns have also been raised about potential discrimination or profiling, with reports suggesting certain passengers (those with specific hairstyles, religious headwear, or medical devices for example) may be subjected to additional screening more frequently (GAO-23-105201). While the TSA maintains it has policies to prevent discrimination and offers mechanisms like the TSA Cares helpline and a civil rights complaint process, critics argue these are insufficient and that the potential for abuse and invasion of privacy remains inherent in the system.

Inconvenience and Economic Impact: Long security lines, confusing rules, and the stress associated with screening negatively impact the travel experience. These delays can lead to missed flights and connections, imposing real economic costs on individuals and businesses. While programs like TSA PreCheck (introduced in 2011) aim to expedite screening for trusted travelers, the base level of screening for the majority remains a source of friction.

The Case for the TSA

Defenders of the TSA argue that eliminating or drastically cutting the agency would be a dangerous mistake, emphasizing the following points:

Deterrence: The very presence of a visible, federalized security force at airports acts as a deterrent. Potential attackers know they will face screening, making aviation a harder target compared to softer targets with less security. While it is impossible to quantify precisely how many plots are never attempted due to the TSA's presence, proponents argue this deterrent effect is a crucial, albeit invisible, layer of security.

Layered Security: The TSA is just one component of a complex, multi-layered aviation security system. This system includes intelligence gathering, vetting programs like Secure Flight, Federal Air Marshals, hardened cockpit doors, vigilant flight crews, and passenger awareness. Removing the TSA checkpoint layer would create a significant vulnerability, weakening the entire system. Even if imperfect, the screening process provides a vital physical barrier.

Interception of Prohibited Items (Crime Prevention): This is where the TSA can point to concrete results. While the failure rates in covert tests are concerning, TSA officers do intercept thousands of dangerous items annually. Most notably, the agency discovers a significant number of firearms at checkpoints. In 2024, the TSA intercepted 6,678 firearms, slightly down from 6,737 in 2023. Crucially, approximately 94% of these firearms found in 2024 were loaded. Each interception represents the prevention of a potential crime – carrying a loaded firearm into a secure airport area or onto an aircraft – regardless of the traveler's intent. While these are rarely part of documented terrorist plots, they represent a direct prevention of prohibited dangerous items entering the sterile area. They also find realistic replica weapons, knives, explosives components (like blasting caps or gunpowder), and other hazardous materials that are prohibited. This function directly prevents specific violations and removes potentially dangerous items from a critical environment.

Adaptability: The TSA has demonstrated an ability to adapt its procedures in response to evolving threats. The liquid ban followed the 2006 transatlantic aircraft plot involving liquid explosives. Enhanced screening for footwear followed the shoe bomb attempt. Procedures evolve based on intelligence regarding new concealment methods or types of explosive devices (like the 2012 underwear bomb plot disrupted overseas). Critics may call this reactive, but proponents see it as necessary adaptation within the layered security framework. The deployment of new technologies like Computed Tomography (CT) scanners, offering better 3D imaging of carry-on bags, is another example of ongoing adaptation.

Standardization and Professionalization: Prior to the TSA, airport screening was handled by private contractors hired by airlines, leading to inconsistent standards, low wages, and high turnover, which were identified as security weaknesses. The TSA created a federalized workforce with standardized training and procedures across all US airports (though a Screening Partnership Program allows some airports to use TSA-approved private contractors following federal standards). While challenges with staffing and morale persist, proponents argue the federalized system provides a more consistent and professional baseline of security than the pre-9/11 model. Recent efforts, funded by Congress in late 2022, to align TSA employee pay with other federal counterparts aim to address attrition and improve workforce stability.

Public Confidence: Despite the frustrations, many travelers derive a sense of security from seeing TSA officers and processes in place. The visible nature of the screening reassures a segment of the public that measures are being taken to protect them, contributing to confidence in the safety of air travel.

The Data on "Crimes Prevented"

When discussing "crimes prevented" by the TSA, the most verifiable data relates to the interception of prohibited items, primarily firearms. As mentioned, the TSA found 6,678 firearms at checkpoints in 2024 and 6,737 in 2023. These numbers have generally trended upward over the past decade (interrupted briefly by the pandemic dip in travel). The agency emphasizes that the vast majority (around 93-94% in recent years) are loaded. While most travelers claim mistake or ignorance of the rules, each instance prevents the illegal carriage of a firearm into a secure area and onto a plane. Passengers caught face potential local law enforcement action and significant federal civil penalties (up to nearly $17,000 for loaded firearms or repeat offenses) and loss of PreCheck eligibility.

TSA reports regularly detail discoveries of knives, stun guns, realistic replicas, ammunition, and occasionally components that could be used in improvised explosive devices (IEDs), such as blasting caps or large amounts of gunpowder. While finding a fully assembled bomb intended for immediate use at a checkpoint is exceedingly rare (such plots are typically disrupted by intelligence far earlier), the interception of these components removes dangerous elements from the airport environment.

There is no reliable way to quantify the number of plots deterred or attacks prevented solely by the existence of TSA screening. This remains a qualitative argument based on the principle that hardening a target makes it less attractive to attackers.

A Complex Balancing Act

The debate over defunding or disbanding the TSA involves navigating a complex web of trade-offs between security effectiveness, cost, passenger convenience, and civil liberties. Critics present compelling evidence of high costs and documented failures in detecting threats during tests, arguing the agency functions more as "security theater" than an effective deterrent, while infringing on privacy. They suggest resources could be better spent elsewhere, potentially on intelligence or alternative security models like behavioral analysis (though that model also faces criticism).

Conversely, defenders highlight the critical role of deterrence, the necessity of a layered security approach, and the undeniable reality that TSA does stop thousands of firearms and other dangerous items from reaching aircraft cabins each year – a direct form of crime prevention. They point to the standardization it brought compared to the pre-9/11 system and its ongoing efforts to adapt to new threats with updated procedures and technology.

Ultimately, any decision regarding the TSA's future involves weighing potential risks. Drastically altering or removing the current checkpoint system could create perceived or actual vulnerabilities that adversaries might exploit. Maintaining the status quo means accepting the significant budget, ongoing effectiveness questions, and civil liberties concerns. Potential reforms, like shifting further towards risk-based screening, investing more heavily in advanced detection technology, or exploring refined versions of the private partnership model, all come with their own sets of potential benefits and drawbacks. The challenge lies in finding the optimal balance that ensures aviation security effectively and efficiently, while respecting the rights and realities of the traveling public. Whatever the future provides, can we at least make it so that I don’t have to take off my shoes?