Sen. Tammy Duckworth, the Illinois Democrat who serves as ranking member of the Senate subcommittee overseeing aviation, fired off a letter demanding that TSA immediately rescind its "shoes-on" airport screening policy, calling it a security risk created without proper vetting and left unaddressed for months despite warnings from the government's own watchdog.
The letter, dated April 3 and addressed to acting TSA Administrator Nguyen McNeill, was obtained by CBS News. In it, Duckworth cited a classified inspector general audit that she said found the shoes-on policy created a new security vulnerability in airport screening systems nationwide. She accused the agency of missing a legally required 90-day deadline to outline corrective actions after receiving the watchdog's findings, and of leaving recommended fixes "open and unresolved" months later.
The Department of Homeland Security lifted the longstanding shoe-removal rule on July 8, 2025, under then-Secretary Kristi Noem. DHS said at the time that the change would "increase hospitality for travelers and streamline the TSA security checkpoint process, leading to lower wait times." The department argued the move would not compromise security because of "our cutting-edge technological advancements and multi-layered security approach."
Duckworth's letter tells a different story, or at least raises pointed questions about whether the policy was implemented over the objections of the agency's own security professionals.
The shoe-removal requirement traces back to 2001, when a passenger attempted to detonate explosives hidden in his footwear aboard a U.S.-bound flight. For years afterward, travelers at every American airport were required to remove their shoes and send them through X-ray machines before boarding. It was one of the most visible, and most loathed, post-9/11 security protocols.
When DHS reversed the rule last July, the decision was framed as a modernization. But Duckworth wrote that the inspector general flagged the issue as urgent in a rare "Seven-Day Letter" to Noem, a mechanism reserved for the most serious findings. The senator charged that the policy had been enacted "without meaningful consultation with TSA."
That claim, if accurate, would mean the political leadership at DHS overrode the agency responsible for day-to-day screening without giving its own experts a meaningful say. The Senate has shown bipartisan interest in TSA screening standards before, but the question of who actually drives security decisions, career professionals or political appointees, sits at the center of this dispute.
Duckworth wrote that the inspector general's office used covert "red team" testing to identify vulnerabilities in TSA screening nationwide. Red-team exercises simulate real-world threats, agents posing as passengers try to smuggle prohibited items past checkpoints. The results of these tests are classified, but Duckworth described the findings as alarming enough to warrant immediate action.
The senator described the situation as a "stunning failure of leadership" and accused the agency of a "willingness to gamble the American people's security." In her letter, Duckworth wrote:
"Allowing a potentially catastrophic security deficiency to remain in place for seven months and counting betrays TSA's mission."
She went further, arguing that TSA's inaction after receiving the watchdog's findings amounts to a legal violation. Duckworth stated:
"Such inaction violates Federal law, Office of Management and Budget (OMB) guidance and DHS's own directives."
The senator did not specify which federal statute she believes was violated. But the 90-day corrective-action deadline she referenced is a standard requirement agencies face after receiving inspector general findings, and CBS News reported that TSA had blown past it without issuing the required response.
She called the overall situation "outrageous, unacceptable and dangerous to the flying public." And she demanded, at minimum, "the immediate withdrawal of Secretary Noem's reckless and dangerous policy that increases the risk of a terrorist smuggling a dangerous item onto a flight."
The timing adds another layer. Noem, who oversaw the policy's implementation, left her role last month. DHS Secretary Markwayne Mullin has since taken over. Neither Noem nor Mullin was quoted in the CBS News report, and it remains unclear whether DHS or TSA provided any comment in response to the letter.
The leadership transition raises a practical question: who owns this decision now? Noem made the call. Mullin inherited it. The inspector general flagged it. And TSA, the agency that actually runs the checkpoints, has apparently done nothing to address the findings.
This is not the first time TSA has been caught in the crossfire of political disputes over DHS operations. Earlier this year, the agency became a focal point during a protracted DHS funding standoff that left agents working without clear financial backing and airports struggling with long wait times.
That fight exposed a familiar pattern: politicians on both sides using TSA as a bargaining chip while the agency's frontline workers and the traveling public absorbed the consequences.
The broader context matters. Senate Republicans earlier this year blocked a Democratic attempt to carve out TSA-only funding during the DHS shutdown, arguing that piecemeal bills would undermine leverage for a comprehensive deal. The administration eventually stepped in with an emergency order to keep agents paid.
Duckworth's letter makes a straightforward security argument, and the classified audit she cites deserves serious attention. If the inspector general's red-team testing found that passengers can now smuggle prohibited items through checkpoints more easily without shoe removal, that is a problem no amount of "hospitality" language can paper over.
But there is a question the senator conspicuously avoids. For years, Democrats have been happy to let DHS and TSA operate with broad executive discretion, expanding screening exemptions, adjusting enforcement priorities, and making policy through internal guidance rather than legislation. The complaint now is that a Republican administration used that same discretion to change a rule Duckworth liked.
The senator frames this as a matter of law. She may be right that TSA missed its corrective-action deadline. But the underlying policy dispute, whether shoe removal is necessary given modern screening technology, is a judgment call that has been debated inside TSA for years. DHS said its "multi-layered security approach" made the old rule unnecessary. Duckworth says the classified audit proves otherwise.
Both claims are unfalsifiable to the public, because the audit is classified. Travelers are left trusting one side or the other.
What is not in dispute is the timeline. DHS changed the policy in July 2025. The inspector general flagged concerns. TSA missed its 90-day deadline. Months passed. No corrective action was taken. And the flying public was never told what the watchdog found.
That sequence, policy change, watchdog warning, missed deadline, silence, is a pattern that should concern anyone who expects government agencies to follow their own rules, regardless of which party is in charge. The TSA funding crisis earlier this year already demonstrated how quickly airport security can deteriorate when political leadership fails to act.
If the inspector general's findings are as serious as Duckworth claims, the new DHS leadership under Mullin should review them and respond publicly, not because a Democratic senator demanded it, but because the agency's own internal rules require it.
Sen. John Fetterman recently broke with his own party over the DHS shutdown, arguing that security should not be a partisan football. He was right then. The same principle applies here. If the shoes-on policy created a genuine vulnerability, fix it. If it didn't, release enough of the audit to prove it.
What the public cannot afford is another round of classified findings, missed deadlines, and bureaucratic silence, while millions of Americans walk through airport checkpoints every day trusting that someone, somewhere, is paying attention.
