TSA Teases End Of Limits On Liquids In Carry-On Luggage
Another major change may be coming to TSA airport security protocols as it considers ending another of its long-standing policies.
Recently, the Department of Homeland Security teased the end of the limits on liquids coming through airport security, with Secretary Kristi Noem saying that she is 'questioning' the current limits on liquids and that a change 'may be the next big announcement' concerning the department's review of TSA policies.
The statement comes on the heels of several other recent changes to TSA policies. For example, the department recently ended the requirement for travelers to remove their shoes, enhanced perks for military members, and created a dedicated family lane at security in select airports.
No indication has been given as to what new rules might replace the current rules that are in place. Currently, the TSA limits the amount of liquid that can be brought through security in hand luggage to 3.4 ounces, and Noem did not specify how things would change.
Would ending the policy mean that any amount of liquids would be acceptable? Or, would it mean an increase in the limited amount?
The answer is unclear at the moment, as no further details have been provided beyond the tease. It's also possible that the rules go unchanged after further review. Noem wants new technology to fuel changes.
Noem said that new advances in technology will hopefully change the way we view airport security in general, by allowing the TSA to maintain a high level of safety with less detailed rules and a more streamlined process overall.
'Hopefully the future of an airport, where I'm looking to go, is that you walk in the door with your carry-on suitcase, you walk through a scanner and go right to your flight,' Noem said. 'It takes you one minute.'
The TSA's 3-1-1 liquids rule was originally introduced in 2006 (check out the full timeline here). The rule was introduced in response to an unsuccessful attempt by a passenger to detonate liquid explosives on a transatlantic flight.
If a change does end up coming for the liquid limits, it will cement 2025 as a new era of TSA airport security, with two of its most long-standing measures —taking off shoes and taking out liquids—going by the wayside. For now, we wait and see.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Yahoo
23 minutes ago
- Yahoo
TACO not on the menu: Howard Lutnick says tariffs start August 1 with no extensions
Tariffs are coming on August 1 and there will be no more extensions, Commerce Secretary Howard Lutnick said. President Donald Trump imposed his 'Liberation Day' tariffs in April, causing a rollercoaster stock market. A week later, he announced a 90-day pause, which has now expired, with many set to take effect Friday. Although the world may have gotten used to Trump announcing sweeping levies before backing out of them shortly thereafter, this time, there's no risk of TACO — the shorthand for "Trump Always Chickens Out" — the commerce secretary suggested. "No extensions. No more grace periods. August 1, the tariffs are set. They'll go into place," Lutnick said on "Fox News Sunday.' World leaders are still more than willing to talk to Trump after the August 1 deadline. 'Between now and then, I think the president's going to talk to a lot of people. Whether they can make him happy is another question, but the president is definitely willing to negotiate and talk to the big economies,' Lutnick continued. Lutnick's announcement of the hard deadline contrasts with the message of Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent days earlier, when he suggested the tariff deadlines were flexible. 'The important thing here is the quality of the deal, not the timing of the deals,' Bessent told CNBC on Monday. The hard deadline comes months after the president earned the TACO acronym after he backed out of his sweeping tariff plan. On April 2, which he's dubbed Liberation Day, Trump declared the day would 'forever be remembered as the day American industry was reborn, the day America's destiny was reclaimed, and the day that we began to make America wealthy again.' Stock market turbulence ensued. The NASDAQ broke a record with its largest single-day point drop in the market's 50-year history as investors responded to Trump's tariff plan. Just one week after Liberation Day, he walked back on his grand plan and the stock market surged. That's when the acronym TACO emerged. Financial Times columnist Robert Armstrong coined the term to describe the president's pattern of implementing trade policy threats, which investors predicted would cause the market to tumble, before he walks back on that policy, leading to a market rebound. Last month, he delayed the July 9 tariff deadline to August 1. Trump is meeting with European Commission chief Ursula von der Leyen on Sunday to try to avoid a potential trade war. "We're working very diligently with Europe, the EU," Trump told reporters before he left for Scotland on Friday. "I would say that we have a 50-50 chance, maybe less than that, but a 50-50 chance of making a deal with the EU." Lutnick also commented on Sunday's meeting. Speaking on 'Fox News Sunday,' he remarked: 'The question is, do they offer President Trump a good enough deal that is worth it for him to step off of the 30% tariffs that he set.' Trump has announced trade deals with several countries, including Japan, Indonesia, the Philippines, Vietnam and the United Kingdom. He's said letters had been sent out earlier this month to dozens of countries with tariff rates. 'We'll have a straight, simple tariff of anywhere between 15 percent and 50 percent," Trump said this week. "We have 50 [percent] because we haven't been getting along with those countries too well." Economic experts have warned that consumers could pay the price for the new levies. "Now that the Trump administration is concluding deals that would see the tariff rate facing most trading partners settling at between 15% and 20%, with even higher rates levied on Chinese imports, we suspect retailers will be forced to finally raise the prices paid by consumers,' Paul Ashworth, chief North America economist with Capital Economics, said in a research note, CBS News reported. Some companies have preemptively taken action. Trump has threatened a 50 percent tariff on Brazil. The steep levy threats against the country have prompted a New Jersey-based orange juice manufacturer to sue the Trump administration, arguing that the 50 percent tariff could result in a $70 million hit to its business. Sign in to access your portfolio
Wall Street Journal
26 minutes ago
- Wall Street Journal
America Should Travel Fast
Regarding Allysia Finley's 'California's Bullet Train Is a Model of Progressive Governance' (Life Science, July 21): Every highway and airport in America is subsidized—by billions more than we've ever given to high-speed rail. The $6 billion private line in Florida isn't high-speed, which costs more. But the benefit of true high-speed rail is that more people ride it because it's more convenient than driving or flying. Dozens of other countries, even those with far fewer resources than America, such as Morocco, build it because it's a better return on investment. I conducted a financial analysis of the California high-speed rail with some Harvard Business School colleagues more than a decade ago, and we came to two conclusions: It will cost more than they say, and it will still cost less than expanding highways or airports. The rail project should be reformed, not tanked.
Wall Street Journal
26 minutes ago
- Wall Street Journal
Readers Respond to Gavin Newsom on Energy
Regarding Gov. Gavin Newsom's 'Clean Energy Powers California's Economic Growth' (op-ed, July 24): Mr. Newsom brags of two-thirds of California energy being 'cheap, abundant, clean power.' Meanwhile, in the real world, a kilowatt hour of California electricity is among the highest in the country at around 32 cents—more than double the median state's 15 cents. This results in excess energy costs to consumers and businesses in California of billions of dollars a year. The extra dollar per gallon for gasoline adds insult to injury. If a President Newsom had his druthers, annual U.S. energy costs would be nearly $1 trillion higher if California policies were applied nationally.
