After the 9/11 Attacks, the TSA Was Created: A Look at 25 Years of U.S. Airport Security

This week, the United States observes the 25th anniversary of the September 11 terror attacks, which forever changed the way we travel.

A little more than two months after the deadly attacks, on November 19, 2001, President George W. Bush signed the Aviation and Transportation Security Act into law, creating the sprawling bureaucracy known as the Transportation Security Administration (TSA), which took over airport security from the airlines and has been running it ever since.

Over the years, TSA, which is part of the U.S. Department of Homeland Security (DHS), and the tens of thousands of screeners who staff U.S. checkpoints have borne the brunt of much criticism and mockery; it’s been suggested that TSA really stands for “Throw Shoes Away,” or “Thousands Standing Around”—implying that their presence is just part of a feel-good security theater.

Despite this, there are signs that with some recent tweaks and innovations, such as dispensing with the hated shoe removal drill last year, the federally run security regime that began in the aftermath of 9/11 is now accepted, albeit begrudgingly, by the general public.

“The system has worked for a quarter of a century,” Chris McLaughlin, CEO of Dallas Fort Worth International Airport, said at a recent House committee hearing, citing innovations such as TSA PreCheck Touchless ID (arguably one of the fastest ways to get through airport security these days), as proof that advancements can improve the passenger experience without diminishing security.

It’s worth noting that there has not been another successful terror attack on aviation in the United States since 9/11.

And today most air travelers are likely thinking less about history and worrying more about how long it’ll take them to clear security—or whether they inadvertently left that bottle of water in their carry-on.

That doesn’t mean that there aren’t serious challenges facing the TSA. These include outdated screening technology and ongoing staffing issues that were made worse by two recent government shutdowns, which caused massive delays at airports and affected workers’ morale as TSA agents were forced to work with no or partial pay, resulting in many calling out sick or walking off the job completely. Legislation to guarantee workers’ pay during future shutdowns was introduced last year but despite bipartisan support, the effort has stalled in Congress.

Roughly 2 to 3 million passengers pass though the nation’s nearly 2,000 security checkpoint lanes at the more than 400 U.S. airports every day, a number that will only grow in the coming years, further straining resources. That’s revived a debate over whether the federal government should remain in charge.

So, in this milestone year, it’s worth asking: Will a government-run TSA even be around for the next big anniversary? And what will security look like in 10, 15, or 25 years from? Here are some factors that may affect the outcome.

Security versus efficiency

TSA early on realized that to avoid massive gridlock at airport terminals, it had to manage the dual mandates of maintaining tight security and keeping passengers moving and on their way. One way to do that is to separate “known” travelers who voluntarily submit to prescreening and background checks, from the larger mass of unknowns. Enter: TSA Precheck membership with access to an expedited security screening, along with the private sector equivalent Clear, which have helped advance this goal.

But practices like liquid limits continue to frustrate fliers, many of whom question whether they’re necessary; this 2006 rule was in response to a foiled terrorist plot to mix and detonate explosives in-flight, which some security experts say would be difficult to accomplish.

Last year, when then Secretary of Homeland Security Kristi Noem scrapped the shoes-off requirement, she hinted that the liquids rule was next in line for an overhaul. But that has yet to happen, and the “3-1-1” mantra still applies (referring to an allowance of 3.4 ounces to be carried by one passenger in one quart-size bag).

As recently as last month, however, new TSA administrator David Cummins suggested that with improved technology in the form of new CT (computed tomography) baggage scanners that can better detect dangerous substances, passengers may finally be able to carry on larger quantities of liquids and gels. At his Senate confirmation hearing in July, he pointed out that other countries have adopted this technology (TSA already does use CT scanners stateside at many airport locations), while in the USA, budgetary and federal procurement rules have bogged down the process.

Photo by Simone Hogan/Shutterstock

And as recently as this week, TSA has dropped hints that the liquid limit regulations might indeed finally be eased, at least for PreCheck passengers.

Cummins also suggested other improvements that fliers would undoubtedly welcome, including a more sophisticated way to estimate wait times at airports than TSA’s crowd-sourced app.

“The pain point isn’t the fact you have to wait in line at security; we all have to wait in line for various things, like at the grocery store,” he said. But for air travelers, he noted, “the pain is that you don’t know how long the wait’s going to be. So, we’d like to roll out technology that’ll be able to predict what wait times will be at the airport in two hours, and then push that information out to the customer.” He suggested this could be achieved “via your boarding pass, or a Google Maps, Apple Maps or Uber” app.

And he said that he would support more “remote terminal” security locations, such as one that recently opened near Boston’s Logan Airport.

Another development is in the realm of bioemetrics. Earlier this year, TSA said it would expand voluntary biometric ID verification at checkpoints, using facial recognition technology to confirm fliers’ identities. With Touchless ID that also avoids the need to show a physical ID. But it’s also led to criticism from some members of Congress and those concerned about privacy protections that it could be used to track people without their knowledge.

Public versus private screening

While the federal government’s Department of Homeland Security oversees management of TSA, the Trump administration this year called for increased privatization of airport screening beyond the limited program in place at 20 mostly smaller airports (but also San Francisco International Airport, one of the country’s busiest hubs) as a way to insulate checkpoint staff from future funding crises, among other benefits. Proponents argue that handing over some or most tasks to private companies could help cut red tape and expedite deployment of much-needed state-of the-art scanners, which should ease gridlock at checkpoints.

But that won’t be easy. Witness what happened recently when a new program called TSA Gold+, designed to make it easier for airports to work with private screening companies, quickly turned to, well, dross. After just three months, the plan was quietly scrapped in favor of a new “evolved” private partnership that’s part of a broader plan dubbed “Horizon 25” that got a brief mention from Cummins in one of his first statements following his confirmation in August.

The agency has provided few details on the new proposal thus far and TSA did not respond to a request for comment from Afar. The “Gold+” plan had drawn strong opposition from unions representing TSA employees and other aviation workers, and there were concerns from some larger airports, too—one of the three airports that initially signed up, Tampa International, later decided to stick with the government-run TSA.

Critics argue that airport security is too vital to hand over to for-profit companies. “Remember what happened the last time when airlines were in charge,” said William McGee, senior fellow for aviation and travel at the American Economic Liberties Project. The private sector will inevitably choose the lowest bidder, he said. “We don’t outsource the military, we don’t outsource the police,” he noted. “There are some functions that are best managed by the government.”

Many other observers doubt that TSA will ever be completely scrapped, even those who favor more private sector participation. “I do not see it as likely, the support just isn’t there,” said Robert Poole, director of transportation policy at the Reason Foundation, a Washington, D.C.–based think tank. But he said he backs a system similar to that used in Europe and Canada, whereby it’s the airport that takes charge, hires the contractor, and acquires the technology, which he said has worked well without becoming a political punching bag, as it has here.

A return to simpler times?

And for all its advancements, TSA is also going back to some older traditions. It recently took steps to revive a custom that seems so last century—the old send-off at the departure gate. Under a new plan called “Gateside by TSA Precheck,” members of the fast-track program can apply for a pass up to a day in advance to clear security if they want to access an airport terminal beyond security. Initially, it’ll be available at 13 airports, ranging from some of nation’s largest, such as Dallas–Fort Worth and Los Angeles International to smaller airfields like Mesa Gateway in Arizona.

So, what will airport security be like in the near—or far—future? That depends on a variety of factors that are difficult to predict: the security threat level, advances in technology, and whether intelligence networks can keep abreast of the changing geopolitical landscape.

The goals, however, have not changed much over the years. A passage in the White House Commission on Aviation Safety and Security’s Final Report in February 1997 noted, “Americans should not have to choose between enhanced security and efficient and affordable air travel.” This came in the wake of a federal commission on threats to aviation prompted by the crash of TWA Flight 800, which was initially thought to be the work of terrorists.

Nearly 30 years and one horrific attack later, that mandate still applies.