9/11 Looms Over Trump’s Push To Privatize Airport Security

The partial government shutdown and President Donald Trump’s budget proposal are adding new momentum to a conservative push to privatize airport security screening — a move that could counter one of the main federal responses to the Sept. 11, 2001 terror attacks.

Twenty airports already use private screeners to scan luggage and passengers, allowing them to escape the long lines and other chaos triggered by this year’s shutdown of the Transportation Security Administration. Now the White House is looking to expand that effort, releasing a proposed budget last week that seeks $52 million to “begin the privatization of TSA’s airport screeners.”

Supporters say private screeners would improve performance and encourage efficiency and innovation, while insulating airport security from Congress’ shutdown battles. The conservative policy blueprint Project 2025 — a template for many of Trump’s second-term actions — also endorses the idea, denouncing the TSA as “costly” and “ripe for reform.”

Steve Swedberg, a policy analyst with the Competitive Enterprise Institute, noted that San Francisco International — the largest airport in the U.S. that uses private screeners — sailed through the shutdown without disruption. He also argued that other countries, including in Europe, have privatized airports or use a hybrid model, with screening regulated by the government but operated by the private sector.

“It’s not like this is radical or this is out of left field,” said Swedberg, who has advocated for privatization. “This wouldn’t be like, ‘Oh there’s no oversight over airport security whatsoever.’”

But others say that after decades of refining its approach to transportation security, TSA still remains the most effective option for airport screening despite the recent setbacks caused by the shutdown.

“TSA maintains overall responsibility for security. And they have that flexibility as new and emerging threats are identified, to adapt and modify procedures accordingly,” said a former government official who was granted anonymity to discuss TSA’s operations. “It goes back to why the agency was created ... 9/11, never forget.”

Congress created the TSA in November 2001 — two months after al Qaeda hijackers armed with knives and box cutters passed through privately operated airport security checkpoints in Boston, Northern Virginia and Newark, New Jersey, triggering terror attacks that killed nearly 3,000 Americans. A year later the agency became part of the new, sprawling Department of Homeland Security.

But private screening never went away entirely. To win support from skeptical Republicans, the law creating TSA also established a pilot program that would let some airports opt into private screening with federal oversight. The program, called the Screening Partnership Program, now includes San Francisco International, Kansas City International, Orlando Sanford and 17 smaller airports.

New airports haven’t been added to the program in a decade. But this year’s partial DHS shutdown, along with fresh leadership at the agency, have given new life to old attempts to expand it — and possibly pave the way to even broader privatization. The shutdown left TSA employees without pay for nearly six weeks until late March, leading to a wave of resignations and no-shows that spawned hourslong security lines at airports nationwide.

New Homeland Security Secretary Markwayne Mullin is considering candidates to lead the TSA, whose top job has been vacant since January 2025, according to an administration official and a congressional aide who were granted anonymity to disclose private conversations. Some in the Trump administration want whoever takes the post to be more aggressive in expanding the privatization program, the administration official said.

'A complete revamping'

The rising discussion of privatization could become “an unintended consequence” of Democrats’ efforts to rein in immigration enforcement during the shutdown, said John Pistole, who led the TSA for four years during the Obama administration. He said the ripple effects could go beyond a select few airports applying for privatization.

“It might lead to just that: A complete revamping of the aviation security apparatus here in the U.S.,” he said.

A department spokesperson said that “DHS and TSA have no personnel announcements to make at this time.” And on efforts to expand SPP, the spokesperson said the private companies “operate under federal oversight and must comply with all TSA security standards.”

“Under President Trump, TSA is pursuing solutions that improve resiliency, security, and efficiency across our entire system,” the spokesperson said. “Programs like the Screening Partnership Program demonstrate that there is no need to adhere to a one-size-fits-all approach as we work to optimize our operations nationwide.”

Some in the travel and aviation industry are privately hoping the administration pumps the brakes, arguing that a rush to full privatization could compromise security.

A quick or broad expansion of the program would raise questions about the quality of TSA’s oversight of the private screeners, or the agency’s ability to obtain top-tier providers, said two aviation industry officials who were granted anonymity to discuss the issue candidly.

Before 9/11, airport screening often devolved into “a race to the bottom” on cost, one of the aviation officials said, with airports or airlines opting for the lowest bidders when hiring the screeners and, in turn, investing less in security.

“The federal government's trying to figure out how to save money,” the official said. “So are they going to go with one vendor that is 15 percent more expensive than some other vendor? Maybe, but maybe not.”

The report of the federal 9/11 Commission described some of the private screening of the al Qaeda hijackers as “marginal at best,” writing that one screener waved at least two of the men through a checkpoint at Washington Dulles International Airport without figuring out why they had set off the metal detector.

While screening technology has improved substantially since then, the aviation industry official said, the system still needs properly trained screeners alongside those machines.

“It can work — it's just when you force it and require everybody to do it, you take away some of the collaboration that has taken place” over the years, the person added.

The shutdown’s chaos doesn’t necessarily bolster the case for privatizing, said another aviation industry official. “If anything, it seems that there is so much goodwill towards [TSA agents] working without pay that I don’t see a rush to privatize,” the official said.

Eyeing wider expansion

Still, some expansion of the 20-airport Screening Partnership Program could end up being a palatable middle ground.

“In terms of political feasibility, I think it’s easier in that you already have the mechanism in play,” said Swedberg, the policy analyst at CEI. “Congress doesn’t need to pass a new law or anything like that.”

In last week’s budget request, the White House urged Congress to require small airports to opt into the program. The White House’s budget summary said the proposal would “begin reform of a troubled Federal agency.”

In a separate budget document, the administration said airports that serve scheduled, small flights or larger, non-scheduled flights would be ripe for the program. The proposal would cut more than 4,500 federal screening positions, reducing personnel costs by roughly $529 million — resulting in a net savings of about $52 million. Such a change would need to be approved by Congress.

A travel industry official who supports expanding the program said discussions about revitalizing it predate the current shutdown and have included exploring ways to make the program more attractive for airports. The official was granted anonymity to speak about its communications with the administration.

Airports can apply to be a part of the program. If TSA approves, the agency determines which security company can meet the airport’s needs. The contractor would have to follow the same rules, procedures and requirements as TSA, which would oversee its work.

“Now with Secretary Mullin on board, if that changes any dynamics, that would probably be certainly an area of focus that we would be interested in,” the travel official said.

But others are still hoping for a much wider expansion.

The SPP could become the foundation for eventually privatizing airport security screening altogether, said Chris Edwards, who examines federal agency spending at the libertarian Cato Institute. He cited the example of some European countries and Canada, where airport security is already run by private security screening companies.

“From a safety perspective, there’s no reason why not,” Edwards said. “We can do this incrementally by expanding the SPP program” with more airports, he said, but then eventually allowing them greater flexibility to decide how — and by whom — screening is carried out.

Edwards said airports vary widely in their traffic patterns, with peaks and lulls depending on location and demand. He said that’s often hard to staff adequately with TSA screeners, leading to mismatches between staffing and demand that can result in long lines or idle capacity.

“We have these 20 airports with experience now,” Edwards said. “Let’s get them in and testify to Congress about how it’s working.”