Behind the Curtain of Security Theater: Why the TSA Must Go

In Dante’s Inferno, fraud ranks deeper than violence in the circles of hell. The Transportation Security Administration (TSA) is the living embodiment of bureaucratic fraud: a colossal, costly illusion of safety, wrapped in blue uniforms and plastic trays. We were promised that a federally centralized security regime would reduce costs and fortify protection. Instead, the TSA has grown into a bloated, inefficient juggernaut, failing at its singular purpose while draining billions from taxpayers and passengers alike. It is time to dismantle this costly experiment and restore security responsibilities to airlines and airports under the oversight of the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA).

The Financial Disaster: Exploding Costs, No Accountability

Like any other federal behemoth, the TSA has predictably ballooned in cost since its inception in 2001. Born in the wake of 9/11 with a mandate to standardize airport security, the TSA was initially envisioned as an efficient, protective bulwark. The agency's first-year budget was $6.8 billion. Today, its budget has exploded to a staggering $10.5 billion, a 54% increase, with projections surging even higher—$11.8 billion by 2025.

Yet TSA’s appetite for taxpayer money is rivaled only by its inefficiency. A significant portion of its funding comes from passenger security fees, a hidden tax that has grown 330% since the TSA’s creation. This translates to $4.5 billion per year drained directly from travelers—not to mention the billions pulled annually from congressional appropriations.

One might ask: With this level of funding, surely we are safer? Quite the opposite. The TSA’s performance is so abysmal that it would be comical were it not so dangerous. In 2015, a Department of Homeland Security (DHS) report revealed that undercover agents successfully smuggled weapons and explosives past TSA checkpoints 95% of the time. Out of 70 tests, TSA agents failed 67 times—a failure rate that would embarrass even the most dysfunctional private enterprise. In short, the agency built to secure our skies cannot even secure its own checkpoints.

Theater, Not Security

The TSA is a perfect example of “security theater,” a term coined by security expert Bruce Schneier to describe measures that provide the illusion of security rather than its reality. Removing shoes, confiscating shampoo bottles, and subjecting passengers to invasive pat-downs—these are hollow rituals designed to pacify anxious travelers rather than thwart real threats.

The TSA’s reliance on outdated, rigid procedures creates vulnerabilities that real-world attackers exploit with ease. Terrorists are not defeated by confiscating baby formula or harassing elderly women in wheelchairs. They adapt, as demonstrated by the TSA’s shocking failure to detect threats during DHS tests.

The American people have paid dearly for this theater. They pay in exorbitant fees, endless lines, and constitutional dignity. To add insult to injury, TSA staffing—now approaching 65,000 employees—has become a bureaucratic jobs program with no demonstrable benefit to national security.

A Better Path: Returning to Airline and Airport Control

Before the TSA’s creation, airlines and airports managed security through private contractors. While imperfect, this decentralized model incentivized competence. Airlines, after all, had every financial and reputational reason to ensure passenger safety. Under such a system, security would be responsive to market forces, accountable to consumers, and tailored to the unique needs of individual airports.

Critics argue that privatizing security would sacrifice standards. Nonsense. The FAA can establish rigorous regulations and conduct frequent audits to ensure compliance. The FAA already governs the safety of aircraft and pilots with great success; there is no reason it cannot oversee security protocols.

Moreover, successful alternatives to the TSA already exist. The Screening Partnership Program (SPP), a little-known initiative, allows airports to opt out of TSA screeners in favor of private contractors. The program remains obscure not because of its lack of success but due to bureaucratic inertia and the TSA's resistance to promoting a solution that undermines its monopoly. Airports that wish to join the SPP must navigate a convoluted approval process, one riddled with red tape and subject to TSA oversight—a clear conflict of interest. Despite these hurdles, the program has thrived where implemented, offering tangible proof that privatized security can outperform the federal model in both efficiency and passenger satisfaction. As of today, approximately 22 airports have embraced the program, proving that private security is not only feasible but often superior.

San Francisco International Airport (SFO) is the most prominent example. As the largest U.S. airport under the SPP, SFO has relied on private screeners since the program’s inception. A 2022 report revealed that SFO’s private screeners consistently outperform TSA agents in efficiency, with passengers experiencing 15% shorter wait times on average. Customer satisfaction surveys also rank SFO’s screening process among the highest in the country, further demonstrating the program’s superiority over TSA-managed airports. Reports consistently show that SFO’s private screeners deliver faster, more efficient service while maintaining higher customer satisfaction compared to their TSA counterparts.

Kansas City International Airport (MCI) was among the first to adopt SPP, signaling an early recognition that a decentralized, competitive model could outperform the federal alternative. After transitioning to private contractors, MCI reported reduced wait times and operational costs, demonstrating measurable improvements in efficiency while maintaining rigorous security standards. This early success set a precedent for other airports to follow, proving that private security can deliver tangible benefits where the TSA consistently falls short. Smaller airports have followed suit, benefiting from the program’s flexibility. Bozeman Yellowstone International Airport (BZN), for instance, reports faster screening times and greater adaptability with private contractors. Orlando Sanford International Airport (SFB) transitioned to private screeners specifically to improve passenger experience, and by all accounts, it has succeeded.

These airports demonstrate that private contractors, when held to FAA standards, can deliver higher-quality security services tailored to the specific needs of airports and their travelers. The FAA ensures consistency by setting rigorous security protocols, mandating regular audits, and requiring compliance with standardized screening practices. These regulations ensure that private contractors meet or exceed the same security benchmarks expected of TSA-managed operations, while offering the added benefits of efficiency, flexibility, and customer-focused service. In essence, the FAA provides the framework, but private contractors deliver the results. They are not anomalies but harbingers of what a fully decentralized, competitive system could achieve nationwide. If these airports can succeed under the Screening Partnership Program, what justification remains for the TSA’s bloated, failing bureaucracy?

If SFO can secure millions of passengers a year with private contractors, why can’t other airports follow suit? The answer lies in a combination of political opposition, entrenched bureaucracy, and TSA lobbying. The TSA has every incentive to resist the expansion of the Screening Partnership Program, as its success exposes the agency’s failures. Additionally, misconceptions about privatized security—fueled by bureaucratic scaremongering—lead some to believe that decentralization compromises safety, despite clear evidence to the contrary. Navigating the convoluted process to join the program also deters many airports, as approval requires TSA oversight—a glaring conflict of interest that protects the agency’s turf rather than prioritizing passenger safety.?

The Inevitability of Bureaucratic Decay

As Cicero once observed, “The more laws, the less justice.” So too with the TSA: The more centralized the bureaucracy, the less security. Bureaucracies are inherently self-serving, prioritizing their own expansion over mission success. For two decades, the TSA has proven this axiom true. Its ballooning budget and dismal results reflect not a failure of resources, but of incentives. No matter how much funding it receives, the TSA has no incentive to improve because its failures do not jeopardize its survival.

In a competitive, privatized system, failure has consequences. Airlines and airports that fail to provide adequate security face economic ruin and legal liability—powerful motivators for competence and innovation. Government agencies, on the other hand, simply lobby for more funding and blame systemic shortcomings.

Restoring Sanity and Security

Eliminating the TSA would represent a restoration of sanity in both governance and air travel. Passengers would benefit from shorter lines, lower fees, and security measures that reflect genuine risk rather than bureaucratic theater. Taxpayers would save billions annually. Most importantly, America’s airports would be safer under a system that rewards competence rather than protects incompetence.

The FAA can and should assume a regulatory role, setting standards and auditing compliance. But the task of implementing security should return to those with a vested interest in its success: airlines and airports.

In Atlas Shrugged, Ayn Rand warns of what happens when competence is sacrificed at the altar of bureaucracy. The TSA is precisely this sacrifice. It is long past time to reclaim security, dismantle the TSA, and let airports and airlines do what the federal government cannot: secure the skies.

Conclusion

The TSA stands as the perfect candidate for elimination by the Department of Government Efficiency (DOGE), the agency led by Elon Musk and Vivek Ramaswamy. It is a bloated, taxpayer-funded relic that inconveniences millions, burns through billions, and fails spectacularly at its core mission: security. The TSA is not just inefficient—it is the poster child for bureaucratic stagnation, a monument to how government power grows fat and unaccountable while delivering nothing of substance.

For DOGE, dismantling this $10 billion farce would be the low-hanging fruit. Replacing the TSA with competitive private screening under FAA oversight would slash costs, relieve taxpayers, and finally deliver security that works. Musk’s flair for innovation and Ramaswamy’s relentless focus on cutting red tape would streamline airport screening into a model of efficiency and customer satisfaction—everything the TSA is not. America’s travelers deserve real security, not theater, and DOGE has the mandate, the vision, and the leadership to make it happen.

If you don't already, please follow me on 𝕏 at https://x.com/amuse or medium .