Privatize the TSA



The Transportation Security Administration is not a terrorist's nightmare, but rather a regular traveler's. People don’t fear the TSA because it’s effective at stopping threats; they fear it for confiscating their favorite food, treating them like a criminal for carrying 3.5 oz of toothpaste, or subjecting them to an invasive pat-down. Travelers are greeted with hostility, not professionalism.

In 2024, taxpayers were forced to hand over $11.2 billion to fund these unpleasant experiences. Now, in 2025, the TSA is asking for even more: $11.8 billion. In 2015, the TSA operated on $4.8 billion, meaning their funding has increased by 133% in just a decade. Despite this massive increase, they’ve only become slower, more inefficient, and angrier at the people they’re supposed to serve.

Competition Is Needed

Competition works. People have different needs, and competition allows them to choose what works best for them. Businesses, in turn, have to improve to meet those needs or risk losing customers. That’s how efficiency is created.

The TSA, as a government monopoly, doesn’t have to compete, and the result is a bloated, inefficient system where travelers have no choice. It’s time to change that.

Proposal to Replace the TSA

The Screening Partnership Program (SPP): Some airports already allow private contractors to handle security under the Screening Partnership Program (SPP), established by the TSA in 2004. San Francisco International Airport is a great example. Since 2002, Covenant Aviation Security has been providing security at SFO. These private contractors do the same job as the TSA but with more flexibility, greater efficiency, and better customer service. Private companies are held accountable by the airports that hire them. If they fail to perform, they lose the contract. The TSA, by contrast, faces no consequences for poor performance. But even the SPP has its limits. The TSA still controls the program, approving contractors and dictating terms, which suppresses competition. It’s like requiring Burger King to ask McDonald’s for permission to sell burgers. Private partnerships are a step in the right direction, but we need to take it further.


1. Remove the TSA’s Ability to Block Private Contractors

Right now, airports wanting to switch to private contractors have to get approval from the

TSA. The Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) Modernization and Reform Act of 2012 says the TSA must approve these requests unless it compromises security, efficiency, or effectiveness. But the TSA makes the process so bureaucratic that it’s practically meaningless. If we eliminate this barrier, more airports can opt into privatized security, and competition can take over.


2. Transition the TSA Into a Regulatory Agency

The TSA should no longer run airport security. Its role should be to set safety standards, certify private security companies, and ensure compliance. Airports would then hire TSA-certified contractors based on their specific needs. This allows the TSA to focus on maintaining safety while letting airports manage operations. Airports would select contractors offering the best value, creating competition while maintaining high safety standards.


3. Introduce a Multi-Provider Screening Model

Airports could divide screening zones among multiple private contractors, giving travelers the ability to choose their provider. Right now, travelers pay a $5.60 TSA fee for screening. Instead, they could pay a similar fee directly to their chosen provider.

For example, someone running late could choose a provider offering expedited screening with shorter lines and advanced technology, even if it costs more. This higher cost comes from employing more staff and using advanced technology, which allows for faster processing of travelers. On the other hand, someone with time to spare could save money by choosing a provider with longer lines and fewer staff. This system allows people to be treated as individuals with unique needs, not as objects to be screened. Additionally, private companies are incentivized to operate efficiently since their revenue depends on processing travelers, and competition ensures they continually improve to retain passengers.


The TSA has become an inefficient monopoly, wasting taxpayer money and making travel miserable for everyone. Introducing competition through private contractors would give travelers choice, improve efficiency, and reduce costs. It would make security about meeting the needs of travelers, not just serving a bureaucratic system. Competition works—let’s use it to fix airport security.

Comments

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

Why DOGE Will FAIL... Unless

Image
​​ The Department of Government Efficiency (DOGE) is a promising idea, but it’s just the beginning. Vivek Ramaswamy and Elon Musk’s current plan has two critical flaws: it is neither efficient nor sustainable. In a free market, people use their dollars to signal which products or services they value most. This is called a price signal. It’s a common misconception that prices are only set by producers—they are also determined by consumers. Market prices reflect what individuals are willing to pay, signaling demand. If a coffee shop offers both a $7 specialty latte and a $2 drip coffee, but customers overwhelmingly buy the drip coffee, it sends a clear signal: people value the drip coffee more. The higher price of the latte factors in the additional resources required to make it, such as milk and specialized machinery. By choosing the drip coffee, customers indicate that these extra resources aren’t worth the higher cost and aren’t needed. This tells the coffee shop to focus its beans, l...
Read more

9/11 Explanation

Image
  I recently had a discussion with my friend about why the Twin Towers were specifically chosen in the 9/11 attacks. This debate originally started due to my friend being a Twin Tower enthusiast,  exclaiming that their modern design, simplicity, and maximum functionality is what makes them iconic. I, taking the side of the Empire State Building, argued that the WTC was bland, simple, and represented nothing compared to the ESB. As we presented our points, he brought up an argument about how the WTC was specifically chosen in the 9/11 attacks due to its symbolism of economic prosperity, using this point to “prove” that the Twin Towers were symbolic. That is what I have been told my entire life about the 9/11 attacks. Islamic terrorists attacked such a great nation because we possess qualities of freedom. Their envy of American economic, democratic, and military prosperity is what drove them to perform such terrible acts. This idea that there's someone out there that wants to ki...
Read more

Homesteading in Action

Image
As previously mentioned in my article on land, I outlined why homesteading and trading is the only moral and correct way to obtain property. Homesteading is when an unused natural good is first used by a person, which was not previously used or was abandoned. This person can be called the first-comer as he was the first person to use the resource, mixing his labor with the now property. Now I would like to illustrate how homesteading is the only way to establish clear property boundaries and why a government decrees make no sense. (If you want to see more on why governments drawing up property lines is completely useless, read this article: Intro To Anarcho Capitalism ). My family and I were doing some landscaping a while back, we had this wall near our property that was overtaken with weeds and tall grass. So wanting to tidy up the surrounding area, we decided to clear the area of the unwanted material and throw down some brown mulch, and add some ground cover plants to further preven...
Read more