Airline passengers wait in long lines to get through the TSA security screening at William P. Hobby Airport in Houston, Sunday, March 8, 2026. The line stretched from the security checkpoint into the lower level baggage claim area to the lower level parking garage. (Brett Coomer/Houston Chronicle via Getty Images)
Houston Chronicle via Getty Images
The aggravating wait lines to clear security checkpoints at airports during the government shutdown earlier this year underscore the need to overhaul how the Transportation Security Administration (TSA) is administered.
The TSA was created in the aftermath of 9/11 to bring federal uniformity to airport security. More than two decades later, however, the TSA has grown into a bloated, slow-moving bureaucracy that struggles with high employee turnover, inconsistent performance and mounting costs.
There’s a better alternative already in existence: The Screening Partnership Program (SPP) was created in 2004. It allows airports to hire TSA-certified private screeners instead of federal employees. This alternative successfully operates in 20 airports today, including in San Francisco and Kansas City.
During the federal government shutdown, the SPP airports operated normally, and the salaries of the TSA-certified personnel were never interrupted.
In its proposed budget for 2027, the Trump Administration calls for extending the SPP to all small airports. Good idea. But there’s a reason why only a handful of airports have moved to the SPP since it was created more than 20 years ago.
Airports seeking to join the SPP must navigate a lengthy federal review, and the TSA has historically dragged its feet on approvals—at one point even imposing an informal moratorium on new applications. After the long application is completed, the TSA puts the contract out for competitive bidding to pre-approved contractors. Then the TSA, not the applying airport, picks the winning bidder.
Once enrolled, airports have a somewhat limited ability to customize screening operations to their specific layout, passenger mix or peak-travel patterns. A small regional airport and a major international hub have vastly different needs, yet both are squeezed into the same rigid federal framework.
This is why Congress should streamline the application process, set firm approval timelines and grant airports greater operational flexibility within the program’s security standards. The goal should be a leaner, more responsive SPP that fulfills its original mission. Even with its current shortcomings, however, the SPP is far superior to what we have now at other airports, which is why, along with such reforms, Washington should push for the extension of the SPP nationwide, not just at small airports.
The core argument for private screening is efficiency. Despite some current obstacles, airports that participate in the SPP, such as San Francisco International, have consistently reported greater operational flexibility. Private contractors can adjust staffing levels quickly to match passenger volume, reducing the long lines that have become synonymous with TSA checkpoints. Federal agencies, bound by civil service rules and union agreements, cannot match that agility. Taxpayers end up paying for overstaffed slow periods and suffering through understaffed peak hours.
Cost savings are another powerful argument. Multiple Government Accountability Office studies have found that private screening, when properly managed, can be performed at comparable or lower cost than federal screening. Private firms compete for contracts, creating market pressure to innovate and cut waste. Obviously, such spurs simply do not exist within a federal workforce that faces no competitive consequences for poor performance.
Employee morale and retention are another factor. The TSA has chronically struggled with some of the highest attrition rates in the federal government. Screeners are poorly paid relative to the demands of the job, and advancement is slow. Private contractors, competing for talent, have more tools to reward high performers and weed out poor ones. Better-motivated, more experienced screeners translate directly into more effective security—the ultimate goal of the entire enterprise.
Critics argue that privatizing screening compromises security. But the 20-plus-year experience of the SPP disproves this. All private screeners under the program must meet the same federal standards, use the same equipment and operate under TSA oversight. Security is not diminished; it is maintained while management improves.
Let’s get the SPP off the ground at all airports.