logo
The End of Airport Shoe-Screening

The End of Airport Shoe-Screening

The Atlantic10-07-2025
Air travelers in America shall no more doff their chukkas, their wedges, their wingtips, their espadrilles, or their Mary Janes, according to a rule-change announced by Department of Homeland Security Secretary Kristi Noem on Tuesday. It's been more than two decades since the Transportation Security Administration started putting people's footwear through its scanners, after a man named Richard Reid tried and failed to detonate his high-top sneakers on a flight to Miami in December 2001. Indeed, the requirement has been in place so long that my adult children, who were born just before and after the September 11 attacks, didn't even know its rationale. Feeling the cold airline-terminal floor through socks has been, for them, a lifelong ritual—as fundamental to the experience of flight as narrow seats and insufficient overhead bins.
The TSA's mandate to go shoeless, like the volume limit on toiletry items (to thwart the assembly of explosives from liquids) and the need to remove laptops from carry-on bags (to better examine them for hidden threats), came to give the mere appearance of vigilance: not security but security theater. From the start, it provided newly federalized and uniformed TSA agents with stuff to do at every moment, and government officials with the chance to embrace 'an abundance of caution,' a stock idea that can transform almost any inconvenience into leadership. Now, by closing the curtain on the shoe requirements, Noem has indulged in a rival form of spectacle: populism theater. Her new policy gives citizens something they actually want, and something that has until this point been reserved for upscale travelers who pay for premium airport-security-hopping services. But with this week's change, the system hasn't really been democratized so much as made indifferent. In this case, the fact of the TSA's doing less—and caring less—just happens to be helpful.
In its earliest phase, the shoe-removal policy was applied haphazardly, showing up from time to time and terminal to terminal in response to ever-shifting, secret intelligence on terrorist threats tracked by the Department of Homeland Security. Where the new form of screening was in place, it served not only to avert future shoe bombs but also to speed up the queue. Metal detectors had been tuned to be more sensitive, and the metal shank inside the soles of many shoes, installed to provide support, often set them off. (In response, some major footwear brands, including Rockport and Timberland, rushed out lines of shoes with plastic shanks that were marketed as being ' security friendly.')
By the summer of 2003, the policy had become more formalized; the TSA started 'strongly' recommending that all passengers everywhere remove their shoes, or else risk being subject to a secondary screening. Speaking to The New York Times, a TSA representative said this new approach would 'ensure that the experience you have in one airport is similar to the experience you have in another airport coast to coast.' Three years later, the policy of universal urging was made into a hard rule: Now your shoes had to come off, no matter what.
Although footwear checks applied to all in principle, some individuals—especially those deemed suspicious on the basis of their looks, or who evinced anxiety —were getting more aggressive treatment from the screeners. The system seemed unfair for some, and also far too burdensome for everyone. Why couldn't some new and better form of scanner be invented, one that could spot a shoe explosive even as the wearer stood there? Would Americans be padding across the gross airport floors forever, just because of Richard Reid?
Better technology should have been the answer. In the decade after 9/11, tech firms completely reinvented everyday life: Web search, broadband, mobile telephony, e-commerce, smartphones, social networking, and real-time document collaboration all became routine. Back in 2002, many travelers would not have had so much as a flip phone in their carry-ons; 10 years later, most were toting handheld supercomputers. Yet when it came to building new devices for screening shoes, very little was accomplished. DHS spent millions of dollars in an effort to buy or subcontract the development of next-generation scanners that could avert sole-borne risks in airports, to no avail. (During this time, airport screening's most significant innovation was the gray plastic bin into which you might hurl your pumps, boots, or loafers.) Shoe removal would 'be a part of air travel for the foreseeable future,' a TSA spokesperson somberly announced in 2012, after another four experimental scanners had failed in real-world testing.
But a different way to solve the problem also started to emerge that summer: It turned out just to be money. The privately operated Clear service was launched in airports, giving travelers willing to pay a couple of hundred dollars a year and hand over their biometrics the ability to shortcut the screening line. And when the government's own pay-for-comfort airport-security service, TSA PreCheck, rolled out widely in 2013, enrollees could finally forgo the lingering inconvenience of taking off their shoes. PreCheck also let them keep their laptops packed and their toiletries inside their bags. For a time, airline flyers with elite status got special access to both PreCheck and Clear.
This would be right in line with other trends of the early 2010s, when the VIP experience was being sold in a thousand different ways. Pay-to-play became a way of life. It's hard to remember anymore, but before ride-hailing apps were available for nearly everyone, private cars were associated with late-night talk-show guests and people being shuttled to airports directly after giving conference keynotes. The precursors to the modern smartphone, such as the BlackBerry, were originally made for important executives before everyone adopted the air of importance. Since then, the whole economy has shifted upmarket. Those with money can now buy online memberships that get them tables at restaurants or tickets to shows whenever they want. Even Disneyland lets you pay to skip ahead in line.
Trading cash for the right to get through airport security with your shoes on prefigured all this and made it visible for everyone to see. Being in the TSA PreCheck queue not only gave you quick, shod access to the terminal; it also offered a perch from which to look down on the rabble nearby, stripped down to their socks and belt loops, presenting their shampoos and ointments, and unsheathing their electronics. What a bunch of losers, frequent fliers might think, before ascending to the airline club in their Lobbs or Louboutins.
It's surely long past time to broaden out this special privilege and to stop demanding that every other person among the 1 billion annual air passengers in the United States take off their shoes because one guy tried to hide a bomb in his sneakers a quarter century ago. But the termination of the policy does not feel justified by any new development in science, technology, intelligence, or geopolitics. In announcing the change, Noem gave no satisfying explanation. She said only that it was enabled by the presence of 'multi-layers of screening,' new scanners, more personnel, and Real ID —a nationwide identification system that was ginned up by Congress 20 years ago and somehow still has not been fully implemented.
By all appearances, the rule on shoes was not rescinded just because rescinding it happens to make sense. Rather, the change was made because the terror-hardened discipline of the millennium's beginning has finally, fully been replaced by nihilism. These days, you board a plane that might or might not be flight-worthy, regulated by a shrunken-down Federal Aviation Administration, routed by an air-traffic-control system undermined by neglect and disdain. The president blamed a fatal plane collision on diversity programs, while selling access to the White House in plain view. No one seems to care. But at least you'll be able to keep your shoes on before lifting off into America's sunset.
Orange background

Try Our AI Features

Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:

Comments

No comments yet...

Related Articles

Safety measure? Or intimidation tactic? Masked ICE agents spark the debate
Safety measure? Or intimidation tactic? Masked ICE agents spark the debate

Yahoo

time2 hours ago

  • Yahoo

Safety measure? Or intimidation tactic? Masked ICE agents spark the debate

Immigration agents are increasingly hiding their faces behind masks, a move that is drawing new criticism as the White House ramps up detention and deportations and prepares to dispatch more officers. A group of Democratic attorneys general has now asked Congress to pass a law forcing Immigration and Customs Enforcement agents to routinely operate without masks, arguing the policy of letting agents operate anonymously has sparked multiple police impersonators. Democratic members of Congress have also pushed the administration to make ICE agents more readily identifiable. Federal authorities say ICE agents need to conceal their identities to protect their families from retaliation as they execute President Donald Trump's orders to conduct the largest mass deportation in history. Attacks on the rise: ICE agents hurt as assaults surge 700% amid aggressive enforcement Homeland Security Secretary Kristi Noem said gang members and Antifa-affiliated groups have been publicizing agents' faces and home addresses. She said agents need to mask up to remain safe, especially when there have now been multiple attacks on federal immigration sites and individual agents. "We will prosecute those who dox ICE agents to the fullest extent of the law. These criminals are taking the side of vicious cartels and human traffickers," Noem said in a July 11 statement. "We won't allow it in America." 'Pissing off ordinary Americans' Critics say masked agents are being used largely as an intimidation tactic that has little grounding in actual officer safety. They fear it's instead weakening bonds between the public and law enforcement. The American Civil Liberties Union also argues the lack of accountability exacerbates racial profiling by unidentifiable officers. "Secret police tactics like this erode trust in law enforcement and allows criminals to dangerously impersonate officers ‒ which is already happening," said Arizona Attorney General Kris Mayes, a Democrat. Retired California police supervisor Diane Goldstein said masked agents are exacerbating tensions because there's virtually no public accountability when law enforcement operates anonymously. Goldstein was a police lieutenant in the Los Angeles area and is now executive director of the Law Enforcement Action Partnership, a nonprofit that works with communities to help reform policing. "You know who doesn't wear masks? Judges. District attorneys. Public defenders. State and local law enforcement, except for very narrow carveouts," Goldstein said. "The safety issue is just an excuse. The administration doesn't seem to understand that it's their heavy-handed tactics that are increasing the level of danger to their officers. They are pissing off ordinary Americans." Harder to 'tell the difference between a bad guy and a good guy' The issue of wearing masks in public to provide anonymity has a long history in the United States, and some states ban protesters from wearing them. Those laws typically trace their origin to KKK marches, but have more recently been used by authorities to limit mask-wearing by pro-Palestinian protesters, often on college campuses, according the the ACLU. Trump himself has criticized protesters who wear masks, posting on Truth Social on June 8, "... from now on, masks will not be allowed to be worn at protests. What do these people have to hide, and why???" Goldstein said Trump's comment gets at the heart of why police officers should rarely hide their identity. Modern policing traces its origins to Sir Robert Peel's Nine Principles of Policing, developed in the early 1800s to guide England's new Metropolitan Police. The "Peelian principles" centered the approach that effective policing depends on community cooperation, trust, and the concept that officers are part of the community, not standing apart from it. "Everything they are saying goes against everything law enforcement has been taught about how we should serve others," Goldstein said of the masked agents. "Right now, Homeland Security is operating like thugs and criminals. And when we can't tell the difference between a bad guy and a good guy..." This article originally appeared on USA TODAY: Safety measure or intimidation tactic? Masked ICE agents spark debate Solve the daily Crossword

US states to get $608 million from FEMA to build migrant detention centers
US states to get $608 million from FEMA to build migrant detention centers

Yahoo

time5 hours ago

  • Yahoo

US states to get $608 million from FEMA to build migrant detention centers

By Courtney Rozen WASHINGTON (Reuters) -The Federal Emergency Management Agency is preparing to send $608 million to states to construct immigrant detention centers as part of the Trump administration's push to expand capacity to hold migrants. FEMA is starting a 'detention support grant program' to cover the cost of states building temporary facilities, according to an agency announcement. States have until August 8 to apply for the funds, according to the post. The Trump administration has been encouraging states to build their own facilities to detain migrants. This program provides a way for the administration to help states pay for it. The Department of Homeland Security, FEMA's parent agency, did not immediately respond to a request for comment. The funds will be distributed by FEMA in partnership with U.S. Customs and Border Protection, according to the post. Florida Governor Ron DeSantis, a Republican, said on Friday morning that the state would apply for FEMA reimbursement to pay for its new immigrant detention center known as 'Alligator Alcatraz.' DHS officials said this summer the facility will cost an estimated $450 million annually. Homeland Security Secretary Kristi Noem has said DHS will tap FEMA's $650-million shelter and services program to fund Florida's facility. Congress during the Biden administration directed DHS to distribute the money to state and local governments to cover the cost of sheltering migrants. Nonprofits were also eligible. The funding stream was separate from money Congress set aside for FEMA to cover disaster relief.

DeSantis says deportation flights have started from ‘Alligator Alcatraz'
DeSantis says deportation flights have started from ‘Alligator Alcatraz'

The Hill

time6 hours ago

  • The Hill

DeSantis says deportation flights have started from ‘Alligator Alcatraz'

Deportation flights have begun to leave Florida's immigration detention center, also known as 'Alligator Alcatraz', Florida Gov. Ron DeSantis (R) said Friday. Three flights operated by the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) have already taken off, DeSantis said. The first one had 100 detainees on board. It is not clear where the flights are going. 'The flights are going, I think the cadence is going to increase, I think you're going to see the numbers really go up dramatically,' said the governor at a press conference. DeSantis hopes that Florida will be a 'force multiplier' for deportations. 'I don't want it to be where illegals are just stored there, and then just kind of sitting. I want it to be where illegals are here, there's an aggressive processing and an aggressive deportation schedule,' he continued. 'Alligator Alcatraz' has been open since July 1 and now holds up to 2,000 undocumented immigrants. The center gets its name because it is located in the middle of the Florida Everglades and is surrounded by dangerous wildlife. It holds a 2-mile runway to facilitate deportation flights. Democrats have called to the facility to close, citing 'cruel and inhumane stunt.' Other reports state that some cells contain up to 30 people crammed together. On July 13, DHS Secretary Kristi Noem defended Alligator Alcatraz, saying, 'Our detention centers at the federal level are held to a higher standard than most local or state centers and even federal prisons. The standards are extremely high.' There is also speculation that undocumented immigrants are not receiving due process before being deported. When asked about immigration lawyers not having access to their clients, DeSantis answered, 'The idea that somehow you need some elaborate process in some of those situations, it's just not factually true in terms of the law.' Florida has conducted aggressive tactics to comply with the President's immigration agenda and seeks to be even more involved. The governor touted the idea that 'Alligator Alcatraz' could hold up to 3,000 undocumented immigrants and expressed interest in opening up Camp Blanding Joint Training Center to detain even more undocumented immigrants. 'It's all about realizing the vision, fulfilling the mandate with what people want,' he said. 'Florida's playing the leading role among the 50 states, and I don't think there's anyone who's even close to doing what we've done.' The administration is looking to create similar detention centers in other states such as Texas, Mississippi and South Carolina. Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth announced last week that Indiana's Camp Atterbury and New Jersey's Joint Base McGuire-Dix-Lakehurst will be turned into temporary migrant detention centers.

DOWNLOAD THE APP

Get Started Now: Download the App

Ready to dive into a world of global content with local flavor? Download Daily8 app today from your preferred app store and start exploring.
app-storeplay-store