News broke over the weekend that a Delta Air Lines passenger took a loaded gun from the United States to Tokyo. President Trump critics blamed this on the lack of TSA employees working during the partial government shutdown. Whether that’s true or not, I don’t know. But I do know the job of the TSA is nearly impossible whether the government is partially shut down or open. Their job performance is often poor due to the extraordinary size and importance of the task, and the government should abolish the TSA and private security companies should start working airport security.
The idea of the TSA, which was created as a response to the 9/11 attacks and which is funded in large part by taxpayer dollars, as well as added fees on tickets and airlines, was a good one. But the task itself is overwhelmingly large and was executed from the beginning with the deftness of a hatchet. What TSA lacked in gathering security intelligence, precise screening, and (my favorite) profiling, they have made up for in sheer numbers, a lackadaisical pace, and a one-size-fits all approach to security.
In an August piece calling for regional airports to quit using TSA, opinion writer Jonathan Cristol aptly observed, “TSA security screening is security theater. The beleaguered agency has a terrible track record — with failure rates ranging from 80-95 percent, according to ABC News. To be perfectly clear, TSA agents, their equipment and their processes fail to detect banned items in carry-on luggage in almost every instance. They are, however, extraordinarily adept at locating toothpaste.” Kristol makes an astute observation.
TSA apologists might observe that employees are underpaid, overworked, and hardly trained to spot the difference between someone who might pose a security threat and a person who forgot to purchase a three-ounce bottle of hairspray. This is true and for that, I don’t blame the employees but management (the Department of Homeland Security) which continued this security charade as a salve to the gaping wound of 9/11 long after it became obvious the TSA is inefficient and unnecessary.
Several airports have looked into hiring private companies to offer airport security, but according to this Bloomberg report, “Any airport wishing to switch must be pass a security and cost analysis by the TSA to demonstrate that hiring private contractors will not harm the agency’s budget or compromise security,” and it takes about 12 months to transition. This makes many airports hesitate to use private security.
However, those that have switched to the private sector say they have seen more efficiency. Bloomberg reported Brian Sprenger, director at Bozeman Yellowstone International Airport in Montana, which uses private security, said, “It’s a difficult balancing act because it is balancing customer service versus ensuring security and safety. We now have a little bit more say in ensuring that the customer service side is a little more elevated in the process.”
Of course, now 18 years after 9/11, one couldn’t just banish the TSA in one fell swoop without serious consequences. It would have to be done carefully, incrementally, a few airports at a time. It would be a large undertaking but one worth attempting — to better utilize tax dollars, the size of the force, and most importantly, continue keeping people safe as they travel.
Private airport security could be what Amazon is to the other online retailers: Cheaper, faster, safer, and more rewarding. If the Department of Homeland Security is serious about better, faster security, they should condense the transition time and work with more private contractors to ensure a more efficient way forward.
Nicole Russell (@russell_nm) is a contributor to the Washington Examiner’s Beltway Confidential blog. She is a journalist who previously worked in Republican politics in Minnesota.
