Keep your shoes on: What to know about the TSA rule change at US airports
The policy, long a source of ire for travellers, had its roots in the aftermath of the September 11, 2001, attacks on the US, when authorities sought to bolster security around air travel through a host of measures.
Many more rules have been added in the time since, some criticised as arbitrary and needlessly intrusive, and have been supplemented by the integration of measures such as facial scanning technology at airports across the country.
What's behind the change, what rules remain, and could other policies change next?
STARS, STRIPES, AND SHOES ON! 🇺🇸👟
Under the leadership of @Sec_Noem, DHS is announcing a new policy today which will allow passengers traveling through domestic airports to keep their shoes on through security screening at TSA checkpoints.
This policy change will drastically… pic.twitter.com/clyk46RXvI
— Homeland Security (@DHSgov) July 8, 2025
What was the 'shoes off' policy?
The 'shoes off' policy was first implemented by the Transportation Security Administration (TSA) in 2006 and required travellers to remove their shoes as they advanced through airport security screenings to check them for possible explosives.
Those enrolled in TSA PreCheck, a programme in which people who pass a basic security check are allowed to bypass certain airport security measures, had already been allowed to pass through screenings with their shoes on.
Why was it implemented?
The policy was the result of a failed December 2001 attack by a British man named Richard Reid, who packed explosives into his shoes and tried to detonate them during a flight from Paris to Miami.
The incident, like many attempted attacks carried out in the post-9/11 period, was highly amateur: Reid, a petty criminal who became an Islamic fundamentalist, was foiled after an airline worker noticed that he was trying to light his shoe on fire with a match.
But the failed attack played into fears that were prominent during the post-9/11 era. And, when it came to safety, why take a chance?
'TSA can't just rely on the next attack being as incompetent as this one was,' Jay Stanley, a privacy advocate and senior policy analyst at the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU), told Al Jazeera.
The agency asked people, on a voluntary basis, to consider removing their shoes while passing through screening so they could be checked for explosives. TSA later made the policy mandatory in August 2006.
Why was the policy scrapped?
DHS Secretary Kristi Noem said in a statement on Tuesday that eliminating the policy would remove a source of strain on travellers and reduce TSA wait times at airports, and was no longer necessary due to technological innovations.
'We expect this change will drastically decrease passenger wait times at our TSA checkpoints, leading to a more pleasant and efficient passenger experience,' she said.
The change was effective immediately.
What other policies remain in place, and could they change?
While the 'no shoes' policy is gone, travellers expecting an easy, stress-free trip to the airport should temper their expectations as many other security measures remain in place.
Passengers will, for example, still have to remove their belts, coats, laptops, and certain items from their bags while passing through security. Rules limiting gels and liquids in carry-on items to 3.4 ounces (100 ml) still apply, and checked bags must also be subjected to X-ray screenings.
Canines used for detecting bombs and drugs are still frequently used, and full-body scanners were brought to airports after another failed attack in December 2009, in which a man tried to detonate explosives smuggled onto a plane in his underwear.
Noem has suggested that DHS is reviewing some rules, but did not offer further details.
Are those measures effective or just security theatre?
Travellers have long fumed about an ever-growing list of measures that can seem arbitrary and do not always have a clear utility.
While the government argues that the increases in airport security reflect efforts to patch up vulnerabilities exposed by the 9/11 hijackers and subsequent failed attacks, some experts say that certain measures provide the impression of security more than provable benefits.
'People are hesitant to push back against new rules because nobody wants to be seen as responsible if there's another attack,' said Stanley.
'Security theatre has always been a part of this, where you make a big show of security in order to give people the impression of greater safety.'
But enforcing so many rules can be difficult for agency workers themselves, who have the industrial-scale task of screening around two million travellers per day.
A 2015 report from the agency's inspector general found that TSA officers had failed to detect weapons, explosives and other prohibited items brought through security by undercover agents to test the effectiveness of the system in 95 percent of cases.
Despite such concerns, TSA has continued to grow in size and scope each year. The agency has a workforce of nearly 63,000 people and a budget that is set to reach more than $11bn in 2025. In 2006, when 'shoes off' was first implemented, it was around $6bn.
What new technologies are being used in airport security?
In her statement, Noem said that one of the reasons that the 'shoes off' policy could be safely discarded is that 'cutting-edge technological advancements' have rendered it unnecessary.
One that travellers may have noticed is the greater use of facial recognition technology, a development some privacy advocates have viewed with concern.
What are the privacy concerns?
Petra Molnar, a lawyer and author of the book, The Walls Have Eyes: Surviving Migration in the Age of Artificial Intelligence, told Al Jazeera that in an era of heightening restrictions on movement, airports have become testing grounds for new technologies, with civil liberties a largely secondary concern.
'With increasingly more digital technologies used at borders, airports have become epicentres of surveillance tech, with facial recognition and biometric technologies augmenting to physical surveillance practices,' said Molnar.
'Airports and borders are often one of the first places where new surveillance technologies are tested out, often with little regulation and oversight. Airports are the true testing grounds where unregulated technology experiments can run unchecked.'
While the decision to scrap the 'shoes off' policy is a rare example of airport security measures being dialed back in the name of efficiency and convenience, it also comes at a time when those traveling or returning to the US are increasingly wary of being pulled aside and questioned about their political views on topics such as Israel's war in Gaza.
The administration of President Donald Trump recently warned, for example, that international students entering the US must make their social media profiles available for inspection by authorities.
'The goal of security measures should be to ensure that nobody can get through this security process if they pose a threat,' said Staley. 'The problems start when the government tries to categorise people by traits they believe could make them a risk, and to do that, you need to go into people's lives and find out more about them.'
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Al Jazeera
2 hours ago
- Al Jazeera
Why is South Africa's army chief under fire for backing Iran?
South African Army Chief General Rudzani Maphwanya is facing backlash in his home country following the release of alleged comments he made during an official visit to Iran, which analysts say could further complicate the already turbulent relations between South Africa and the United States. The comments, which appeared to suggest that Iran and South Africa have common military goals, come at a time when Pretoria is attempting to mend strained relations with US President Donald Trump to stabilise trade. Last week, a 30 percent trade tariff on South African goods entering the US kicked in, alarming business owners in the country. That's despite President Cyril Ramaphosa's attempts to appease Trump, including by leading a delegation to the White House in May. Here's what to know about what the army chief said and why there's backlash for it: What did the army chief say in Iran? Meeting with his Iranian counterpart, Major-General Seyyed Abdolrahim Mousavi in Tehran on Tuesday, Maphwanya is reported to have stated that the two countries had close ties, according to Iran's state news agency, Press TV and the Tehran Times. 'Commander Maphwanya, recalling Iran's historical support for South Africa's anti-apartheid struggle, stated that these ties have forged a lasting bond between the two nations,' the Press TV article read. According to Tehran Times, he went on to say: 'The Republic of South Africa and the Islamic Republic of Iran have common goals. We always stand alongside the oppressed and defenceless people of the world.' Maphwanya also reportedly condemned Israel's 'bombing of civilians standing in line for food' and its 'ongoing aggression in the occupied West Bank', Tehran Times reported. His visit, the publication quoted Maphwanya as saying, 'carries a political message', and comes 'at the best possible time to express our heartfelt sentiments to the peace-loving people of Iran'. On the other hand, General Mousavi hailed South Africa's genocide case against the 'Zionist regime' at the International Court of Justice, and said that the effort was aligned with Iran's policies, according to Press TV. He also condemned the US and Israel's military and economic actions against Iran as 'violations of international laws and norms'. He added that Iran's army is prepared to deliver 'a more decisive response in the event of renewed aggression', Press TV reported. How has the South African government reacted? President Cyril Ramaphosa's office on Thursday clarified that the president was not aware of General Maphwanya's visit to Iran, although such a trip would normally be approved by the Ministry of Defence, not the president's office. Ramaphosa appointed Maphwanya as army chief in 2021. The general, in apartheid-era South Africa, served in the army wing of the African National Congress (ANC), which started as a liberation movement, and commanded a parliamentary majority until 2024. Presidency spokesperson Vincent Magwenya, at a press briefing, said the general's decision to visit Iran was itself badly timed. 'At this period of heightened geopolitical tensions and conflict in the Middle East, one can say the visit was ill-advised, and more so, the general should have been a lot more circumspect with the comments he makes.' He added, 'We are in the delicate process of resetting political relations with the US, but more importantly, balancing the trade relationship in such a manner that the trade relationship is mutually beneficial.' Similarly, the Ministry of International Relations and the Defence Ministry dissociated the government from the army chief's alleged comments. 'It is unfortunate that political and policy statements were reportedly made…The minister of defence and military veterans [Matsie Angelina Motshekga] will be engaging with General Maphwanya on his return,' a statement by the Defence Ministry on Wednesday read. Meanwhile, the Democratic Alliance (DA) party, one of the four parties that form the South African coalition government, is calling for the army chief to be tried in a military court on grounds of 'gross misconduct and a flagrant breach of the SANDF [South African National Defence Force] Code of Conduct.' 'According to Iranian state media, General Maphwanya went far beyond his constitutional and professional mandate, pledging 'common goals' with Iran, endorsing its stance on Gaza, and calling for deeper strategic alignment,' the DA said in a statement on Thursday. 'Such political statements are explicitly prohibited for serving officers, violate the SANDF's duty of political neutrality, and undermine the constitutional principle of civilian control over the military,' the party added. Why is there backlash over the alleged comments? The US and South Africa's relations are at their lowest in decades, making this a particularly sensitive time, analysts say, as it follows June's 12-day war between Iran and the US-Israel coalition. President Trump slapped a 30 percent tariff on South African goods entering the US as part of his wide-ranging reciprocal tariff wars in April. The US is a major destination for South African goods such as cars, precious metals and wine. Trump's main gripes with Pretoria include South Africa instigating a genocide case against Israel, the US's ally, at the International Court of Justice, amid the ongoing war in Gaza. He earlier accused South Africa of strengthening ties with Iran. Trump has also wrongly claimed that white South Africans are being persecuted in the country under the majority Black leadership of the ANC, the country's main political party to which President Ramaphosa belongs. He also claims South Africa is confiscating land belonging to whites. White South Africans are a wealthy minority and largely descendants of Dutch settlers. Afrikaner governments controlled the country under the racist apartheid system until 1990. South African wealth, particularly land, continues to be controlled disproportionately by the country's white population. In recent times, fringe, extremist Afrikaner groups claiming that whites are being targeted by Black people have emerged, pointing to cases of white farmers being attacked by criminals on their farmland. Elon Musk, Trump's one-time adviser before their public fallout in June, had also made claims of white persecution and claimed that the South African government's business laws were blocking his internet company from operating in the country. He was referring to laws requiring that foreign businesses be partly owned by Blacks or other historically disadvantaged groups, such as people living with disabilities. The South African government denied Musk's accusations. In early May, Trump's government admitted 59 white 'refugees' in a resettlement programme meant to protect them. Previously, the US, under former President Joe Biden, was at loggerheads with South Africa over its close ties with Russia and its vocal criticism of Israel. The latest incident echoes a 2022 scandal when a sanctioned Russian cargo ship called the Lady R docked at Simon's Town Naval Base in the Western Cape, said analyst Chris Vandome of think tank Chatham House. The US alleged at the time that South African military supplies were loaded onto the ship and used in the Ukraine war, claims South Africa denied. 'It lies with South African foreign policy formation and the lack of clarity and consistency around it that has created this confusion whereby people think they are saying things in line with what the nation thinks,' he said. How has South Africa tried to appease the US? On May 21, President Ramaphosa led a delegation to the White House in a bid to 'reset relations' with Trump and hopefully secure lower tariff deals. At the heated meeting, however, Trump refused to back down from his claims of white persecution, despite Ramaphosa clarifying that South Africa was facing widespread crime in general, and that there was no evidence that whites in particular were being targeted. South Africa, during the meeting, offered to buy US liquefied natural gas and invest $3.3bn in US industries in exchange for lower tariffs. The delegation also agreed to a review of the country's business ownership laws. However, Trump's 30 percent tariffs went into effect last week. Analysts say it could put up to 30,000 South African jobs at risk, particularly in the manufacturing and agricultural sectors. Meanwhile, Ramaphosa's government promised to take further action to ease the burden on manufacturers and exporters. On Tuesday, Trade Minister Parks Tau told reporters that South Africa has submitted a revised proposal to Washington, without giving details. General Maphwanya's pronouncements this week, therefore, 'couldn't have come at a worse time' for South African diplomatic ties with the US, security analyst Jakkie Cilliers of the International Security Institute said, speaking to South African state TV, SABC. 'For the chief of the national defence force to pronounce so clearly and so unequivocally at this time is remarkably politically sensitive,' Cilliers said, adding that the general could be asked to resign upon his return. What has General Maphwanya said? Maphwanya, who the presidency said has returned to the country, has not put out public statements on the controversy. It is unclear how the government might sanction him. President Ramaphosa is set to meet with the army chief for briefings in the coming weeks, a presidency spokesperson said.
Al Jazeera
14 hours ago
- Al Jazeera
Afghans in US mark Taliban Kabul takeover amid Trump immigration crackdown
Four years have passed since Hanifa Girowal fled Afghanistan on a US evacuation flight. But every August, her mind returns to the same place. Like many Afghans evacuated amid the August 15 Taliban takeover of Kabul, Girowal, who worked in human rights under the former Afghan government, still remains stuck in 'legal limbo' in the United States. She is steadfastly pursuing a more stable status in the US, even as the political landscape surrounding her, and thousands of other Afghans in similar situations, shifts. 'I somehow feel like I'm still stuck in August 2021 and all the other Augusts in between, I can't remember anything about them,' Girowal told Al Jazeera. She often recalls the mad dash amid a crush of bodies at the crowded Kabul International Airport: people shot in front of her, a week of hiding, a flight to Qatar, then Germany and then finally, the US state of Virginia. Followed by the early days of trying to begin a new life from the fragments of the old. 'Everything just comes up again to the surface, and it's like reliving that trauma we went through, and we have been trying to heal from since that day,' she said. The struggle may have become familiar, but her disquiet has been heightened since US President Donald Trump took office on January 20. His hardline immigration policies have touched nearly every immigrant community in the US, underscoring vulnerabilities for anyone on a precarious legal status. There is a feeling that anything could happen, from one day to the next. 'I have an approved asylum case, which gives a certain level of protection, but we still don't know the future of certain policies on immigration,' Girowal said. 'I am very much fearful that I can be subjected to deportation at any time.' Unheeded warnings Four years after the US withdrawal, much remains unclear about how Trump's policies will affect Afghans who are already in the US, estimated to total about 180,000. They arrived through a tangle of different avenues, including 75,000 flown in on evacuation flights in the immediate aftermath of the withdrawal, as the administration of US President Joe Biden undertook what it dubbed 'Operation Allies Welcome'. Thousands more have since sought asylum by making treacherous journeys across the world to traverse the US southern border. Some have relocated via so-called Special Immigrant Visas (SIVs), reserved for individuals who worked directly with the US military in Afghanistan, under a notoriously backlogged programme. Others have been resettled through a special State Department programme, known as Priority 1 (P1) and Priority 2 (P2), launched by the administration of President Biden, meant for Afghans who face persecution for having worked in various capacities on behalf of the US government or with a US-based organisation in Afghanistan. Adam Bates, a supervisory policy counsel at the International Refugee Assistance Programme, explained that some of those pathways, most notably the SIV and refugee programmes, provide a clear course towards US residency and, eventually, citizenship. But, he clarified, others do not – a fact that advocates have warned leaves members of the population subject to perpetual uncertainty and political whims. 'A lot of the advocacy to the Biden administration officials was about finding more permanent legal pathways for Afghans,' Bates told Al Jazeera. 'That was with one eye towards the potential of giving the Trump administration this opportunity to really double down and target this community.' Pressure on Afghans in the US During Trump's new term, his administration has taken several concrete – and at times contradictory – moves that affect Afghans living in the US. It ended 'temporary protected status' (TPS) for Afghans already in the country at the time of the Taliban takeover, arguing the country shows 'an improved security situation' and 'stabilising economy', a claim contradicted by several human rights reports. At the same time, the Trump administration added Afghanistan to a new travel ban list, restricting visas for Afghans, saying such admissions broadly run counter to US 'foreign policy, national security, and counterterrorism'. These actions underscore that 'the situation in Afghanistan seems to be whatever it needs to be, from the Trump administration's perspective,' according to Bates. Trump has offered his contradictory messaging, criticising the Biden administration on the campaign trail for its handling of the withdrawal, and as recently as July, pledging to 'save' evacuated Afghans subject to deportation from the United Arab Emirates. Meanwhile, the administration terminated a special status for those who entered the US via the CBP One app in April, potentially affecting thousands of Afghans who entered via the southern border. Advocates warn that many more Afghans may soon be facing another legal cliff. After being evacuated in 2021, tens of thousands of Afghans were granted humanitarian parole, a temporary status that allowed them to legally live and work in the US for two years, with an extension granted in 2023. That programme is soon set to end. While many granted the status have since sought other legal avenues, most often applying for asylum or SIVs, an unknown number could be rendered undocumented and subject to deportation when the extension ends. Legislation creating a clearer pathway to citizenship has languished in Congress for years. The US Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS) has not publicly released how many evacuated Afghans remain in the US on humanitarian parole, and did not respond to Al Jazeera's request for the data. Evacuated Afghans' unease has been compounded by Trump's aggressive approach to immigration enforcement, which has increasingly seen those without criminal histories targeted for deportations and permanent residents targeted for their political advocacy. 'It's just an escalation across the board and a compounding of fear and instability in this community,' Bates said. 'It's hard to make life decisions if you aren't sure what's going to happen tomorrow or next week or in a year'. 'Pulled the rug out' Meanwhile, for the thousands of Afghans continuing to seek safety in the US from abroad, pathways have been severely constricted or have become completely blocked. The Trump administration has paused asylum claims at the US southern border, citing a national emergency. It has almost completely suspended the US Refugee Program (USRAP), allowing only a trickle of new refugees in amid an ongoing legal challenge by rights groups. Advocates say the special P1 and P2 programme created for Afghan refugees appears to have been completely halted under Trump. The administration has not published refugee admission numbers since taking office, and did not reply to Al Jazeera's request for data. 'It feels as if we have pulled the rug out from many of our Afghan allies through these policy changes that strip legal protection for many Afghans in the US and limit pathways for Afghans who are still abroad to come to the US safely,' Kristyn Peck, the chief executive officer of the Lutheran Social Services of the National Capital Area, told Al Jazeera. She noted that the SIV pipeline has continued to operate under Trump, although there have been some limitations, including requiring those approved for relocation to pay for their own travel. Meanwhile, resettlement agencies like Lutheran have been forced to seriously curtail their operations following a stop-work order from the administration on January 24. As of March, Peck said, the organisation has been forced to let go of about 120 of its staff. Susan Antolin, the executive director of Women for Afghan Women, a non-profit organisation that offers mental health, legal and social support to Afghans in the US, said organisations like hers are also bracing for sustained uncertainty. 'We are diversifying our funding and trying very hard, as so many other organisations are, to find other avenues to bring in that funding to continue to support our programmes,' she told Al Jazeera. 'As organisations that deal with this kind of work, we have to step up. We have to do 10 times more, or 100 times more, of the work.' 'No more a priority for the world' The unstable situation in the US reflects a broader global trend. The Taliban government, despite promising reforms in a push for international recognition, has continued to be accused of widespread human rights abuses and revenge killings. Still, it has upgraded diplomatic ties with several governments in recent years, and in July, Russia became the first country to formally recognise the group as the legitimate government of Afghanistan. At the same time, the governments of Pakistan and Iran have accelerated expulsions of Afghans back to Afghanistan, with more than 1.4 million Afghans either being expelled or leaving Iran alone from January to July of 2025, according to UNHCR. The Reuters news agency also reported in July that the UAE had notified Washington that it had begun returning evacuated Afghans. Germany, too, has begun deporting Afghans back to Afghanistan, in July, it conducted its second deportation flight since the Taliban came to power, despite continuing not to recognise or maintain diplomatic ties with the group. The collective moves send a clear message, evacuee Girowal said: 'We know that Afghanistan is no more a priority for the world.' Still, she said she has not abandoned hope that the US under Trump's leadership will 'not forget its allies'. 'I know the resilience of our own Afghan community. We are trained to be resilient wherever we are and fight back as much as we can,' she said. 'That's one thing that gives me hope.'
Al Jazeera
15 hours ago
- Al Jazeera
Taliban marks fourth anniversary of return to power with internal threats
The Taliban's leader has warned that Afghans ungrateful for its hardline rule will be severely punished by God in a statement marking the fourth anniversary of the group's return to power. The statement from Haibatullah Akhunzada was made in a social media post on Friday to commemorate 'Victory Day', four years on from the chaotic United States and NATO withdrawal from the country after more than 20 years of war as the Taliban retook the capital, Kabul. The threat was a stark reminder of the sweeping restrictions and repression of rights, especially of women and girls, that has taken place under the Taliban's rule, which is based on its strict interpretation of Islamic law. In his statement, Akhunzada said Afghans had faced hardships for decades in the name of establishing religious law in the country, which he said had saved citizens from 'corruption, oppression, usurpation, drugs, theft, robbery and plunder'. 'These are great divine blessings that our people should not forget and, during the commemoration of Victory Day, express great gratitude to Allah Almighty so that the blessings will increase,' his statement said. 'If, against God's will, we fail to express gratitude for blessings and are ungrateful for them, we will be subjected to the severe punishment of Allah Almighty.' He also advised government ministers to remove the word 'acting' from their job titles, signalling the consolidation of his administration's rule in the country amid a lack of internal opposition. Victory Day Four years on from its return to power, the Taliban government remains largely isolated in the international arena over the severe rights restrictions imposed under its rule although Russia became the first country to officially recognise the Taliban administration in early July. It also has close ties with China, the United Arab Emirates and a number of Central Asian states although none of these officially recognises the Taliban administration. Victory Day parades were planned in several Afghan cities on Friday, and in Kabul, helicopters were scheduled to drop flowers across the city. Photographs of an official ceremony in Kabul to open the commemorations showed a hall filled exclusively with male delegates. 'An open wound of history' Rather than celebrating, members of the activist group United Afghan Women's Movement for Freedom staged an indoor protest in the northeastern province of Takhar against the Taliban's oppressive rule, The Associated Press news agency reported. 'This day marked the beginning of a black domination that excluded women from work, education and social life,' the group said in a statement to the agency. 'We, the protesting women, remember this day not as a memory, but as an open wound of history, a wound that has not yet healed. The fall of Afghanistan was not the fall of our will. We stand, even in the darkness.' Afghan women also held an indoor protest in the Pakistani capital, Islamabad, the agency reported. Repression and death threats The United Nations, foreign governments and human rights groups have condemned the Taliban for their treatment of women and girls, who are banned from most education and work, as well as parks, gyms and travelling without a male guardian. Inspectors from the Vice and Virtue Ministry require women to wear a chador, a full-body cloak covering the head, while a law announced a year ago ordered women not to sing or recite poetry in public and for their voices and bodies to be 'concealed' outside the home. Last month, the International Criminal Court (ICC) issued arrest warrants against Akhunzada and the country's chief justice on charges of committing gender-based persecution against women and girls. ICC judges said the Taliban had 'severely deprived' girls and women of the rights to education, privacy, family life and the freedoms of movement, expression, thought, conscience and religion. At least 1.4 million girls have been 'deliberately deprived' of their right to an education by the Taliban government, a UN report from August 2024 found. Among the restrictions imposed on women is a ban on working for nongovernmental groups, among other jobs. A UN report this month revealed that dozens of Afghan women working for the organisation in the country had received direct death threats. The report said the Taliban had told the UN mission that its cadres were not responsible for the threats and a Ministry of Interior Affairs investigation is under way. An Interior Ministry spokesman, Abdul Mateen Qani, later told The Associated Press news agency that no threats had been made. In the meantime, Iran, Pakistan and the US have been sending Afghan refugees back to Taliban rule, where they risk persecution.
