U.S. may change or get rid of liquid limit for carry-ons, U.S. Homeland Security secretary says
During a conference hosted by The Hill in Washington, Noem said on July 16 that she was 'questioning everything TSA (Transportation Security Administration) does' and hinted at potential revisions to the rules governing liquids in carry-on bags.
'The liquids, I'm questioning. So that may be the next big announcement, is what size your liquids need to be,' Noem said at the conference.
Her comments come about a week after she announced that passengers are no longer required to remove their shoes during regular TSA security checks, a change that went into effect immediately.
Here's what you need to know about Noem's comments about liquid restrictions in carry-on luggage and why the rule was implemented in the first place.
When did airlines start restricting liquids in carry-ons?
In 2006, authorities foiled a plan to use liquid explosives smuggled aboard carry-on luggage to blow up planes.
After the incident, the TSA banned all liquids in carry-on luggage. However, this ban was lifted after six weeks as it strained airline baggage systems, as more people were checking bags.
The FBI, along with other laboratories, found that a tiny amount of substances, those being small enough to fit into a quart-sized bag, could not blow up a plane. After that, the 3.4-ounce limit — or 3-1-1 rule — came into effect.
The rule stated that each container of liquid, gel or aerosol — whether it's water, shampoo or hairspray — must be 3.4 ounces (100 ml) or less, all containers must fit into one quart-sized (one-litre) clear zip-top bag, and only one bag is allowed per passenger. Since then, TSA checkpoints have borne the familiar rituals of chugging water and tossing oversized containers, and fights over what's considered a liquid or not.
After the restrictions were introduced in the U.S., other countries quickly followed suit with similar rules.
What does this mean for U.S. travellers?
For now, it is unclear how or when any changes to the liquid restrictions might take effect. Noem has not provided details on what a new policy could look like, whether that means lifting the size limit entirely, or just expanding it. Until then, passengers should expect to keep following the existing 3-1-1 rule.
Why is the U.S. considering changing this policy?
The TSA has been exploring changes to its liquid rules for years, but with recent advancements in technology, it seems more possible than ever.
Advanced computed tomography (CT) scanners are now being installed at security checkpoints across U.S. airports. These scanners generate detailed 3D images of the contents of carry-on bags and can automatically detect potential security threats, making it possible to carry bigger sized liquids through security.
Currently, U.S. travellers will still need to abide by existing TSA liquid restrictions, but with these advancements in technology, and the U.S. willing to change their approach, travellers may soon find themselves packing a little more freely.
'Hopefully, the future of an airport, where I'm looking to go is that you walk in the door with your carry-on suitcase, you walk through a scanner and go right to your plane,' Noem said at the conference. 'It takes you one minute.'
What could this mean for Canada?
If the U.S. moves ahead with easing or eliminating its liquid restrictions, Canada may not be far behind. While Canadian travellers have not been required to remove their shoes for domestic or non-U.S. flights, those flying to the United States through pre-clearance areas have followed TSA protocols, including removing their shoes. Earlier this month, however, Canada aligned with the U.S. and dropped that requirement.
This quick alignment suggests Canadian authorities could follow suit if the U.S. were to ease up on liquid restrictions. So far, there has been no official word from Canadian authorities on whether such changes are being considered.
What are other countries doing?
In the United Kingdom, several regional airports, including London City and Edinburgh, have begun lifting liquid restrictions, thanks to the rollout of advanced CT scanners. The new technology allows passengers to keep liquids and electronics in their bags during screening and permits containers of up to two litres.
Similar changes are underway elsewhere.
At Qatar's Hamad International Airport, select security lanes now let travellers leave liquids and laptops in their bags. This has also been made possible by upgraded CT scanning systems. In South Korea, major airports, such as Incheon and Jeju, are piloting the same technology on domestic routes, with plans to expand it more broadly in the future.
Reddit X Share on Linkedin Open more share options Who is Richard Reid, the 'shoe bomber' who likely influenced the 'shoes-off' policy at U.S. airports?
'Keep your shoes on': Canada says it will align with U.S. on ending unpopular airport security measure
Our website is the place for the latest breaking news, exclusive scoops, longreads and provocative commentary. Please bookmark nationalpost.com and sign up for our daily newsletter, Posted, here.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Yahoo
43 minutes ago
- Yahoo
The Golden Age of Flying Wasn't All That Golden
The Atlantic Daily, a newsletter that guides you through the biggest stories of the day, helps you discover new ideas, and recommends the best in culture. Sign up for it here. This is an edition of Time-Travel Thursdays, a journey through The Atlantic's archives to contextualize the present. Sign up here. Of YouTube's many microgenres, one of the most popular and most enduring is the airplane meltdown. There are thousands or maybe millions of these videos online: Passengers going nuts over spilled drinks or supposedly bad service; flight cancellations turning grown adults feral; tiny inconveniences disrupting the brittle peace of the temporary societies that exist in the air above us all the time. Sometimes, if you're lucky, you'll find a compilation, a clip show of modern misery. The Atlantic's early aviation writers would have a lot of questions about this. Those questions would probably start with 'What is a YouTube?,' but I suspect they'd get more philosophical pretty quickly. In the early 20th century, flying was a source of intense curiosity and great wonder; if anyone was melting down, it was probably because they were simply so dazzled by it all, or maybe very scared—not because someone used their armrest. 'For some years I have been afflicted with the belief that flight is possible to man,' Wilbur Wright wrote in a letter to a friend in 1900, eventually published in The Atlantic. Three years later, he and his brother, Orville, managed to get a biplane in the air for 12 seconds. Only 18 years after that, Kenneth Chafee McIntosh wrote that 'aviation has superposed itself upon civilization. Its future is limitless, not predictable.' Its present, however, was not fun. Early airplanes were used mostly for warcraft and mail carrying; occasionally, a passenger might come along for some reason or another, but they had to sit with the pilot in an open cockpit, exposed to whatever the weather was. Even once we figured out how to put more people inside planes, cabins weren't pressurized, so they flew low and jiggled everyone around. Until 1930, there were no flight attendants, which I suppose means there was no one to scream at. Some engines were loud enough to cause permanent hearing damage. Even so, the airplane's world-changing potential was obvious. By 1941, people were writing poetry collections about it, and The Atlantic was reviewing them. After 1945, the era of mass air travel began, aviation having been 'transformed by the war from a government-subsidized experiment into an economically sound transportation industry.' In the '50s, airplanes overtook trains, and then ships, as America's preferred means of long-distance transportation. This era is now widely considered to be commercial aviation's golden age, when the technology was established enough to be comfortable, safe, and fast, but still novel enough to feel remarkable: human ingenuity made material. In the popular imagination, at least, this was the last time flying was dignified. Stewardesses wore fabulous outfits and meals were served on real plates and nobody knew what a vape was. But that moment existed more in theory than it did in reality. In the century's middle decades, flying was significantly more expensive and more dangerous than it is today. Airports were segregated until the early 1960s. Every new advance seemed to come with a downside. As soon as planes got faster and flights got longer, passengers started reporting strange symptoms, ones they would later learn to call jet lag. As more people flew, the experience became both more banal and more crowded—just another form of mass transit. More flights and faster speeds meant mounting safety concerns (some warranted, some not). In 1978, the airline industry was deregulated, which resulted in less stability, lower quality of service, and, eventually, higher fares. By June 2001, three months before air travel was to change forever, it was already pretty bad, per the pilot and longtime Atlantic writer James Fallows. The industry was 'nearing the limits of its capacity,' he wrote, having routed more and more flights through hub airports in an effort to keep planes full and maximize profits. Delays were reaching record levels. After 9/11, security theater turned flight attendants into cops and passengers into would-be criminals. The airlines continued to cut costs, squooshing seats closer together and charging for just about everything they could: legroom, internet, checked bags, overhead space, food, even water, as Ester Bloom reported in 2015. 'To travel by air,' Lenika Cruz wrote in 2022, 'is to endure a million tiny indignities.' Flying really has gotten worse, due to greed and war and corporate decision making. But the truth is, the experience has always been somewhat unpleasant, because transporting human bodies through the air at hundreds of miles an hour is so difficult, it almost shouldn't be possible. I looked in our archives expecting to find stories about air travel's supposed midcentury glamor. I didn't find much. But I did find a piece from 2007, in which Virginia Postrel examines the collective longing for such a time, a time 'before price competition, security checks, and slobs in sweatpants ruined everything.' She quoted Aimée Bratt, who, as a flight attendant with Pan Am in the mid-'60s, 'was struck by 'how crowded it was on an airplane, no place to put anything, lines for the lavatories, no place to sit or stand … Passengers got their food trays, there was no choice of meals, drinks were served from a hand tray, six at a time, pillows and blankets were overhead, and there were no extra amenities like headsets or hot towels.'' But people didn't complain. 'Travel itself,' Postrel wrote, 'was privilege enough. Airline glamour was not about the actual experience of flying but about the idea of air travel—and the ideals and identity it represented.' Flying was budding internationalism, uncomplicated awe, wide skies, endless potential, the future made present and the impossible made real. Flying wasn't thrilling because the stewardesses dressed amazing—it was thrilling because up until very recently, the very concept of a waitress in the sky had been science fiction. Air travel has changed, but so have we. This is the noble life cycle of any technology: It is unimaginable, and then it is imaginable, and then it is just there. Fire, windmills, eyeglasses, the steam engine, pasteurization, cars, air-conditioning, microwaves, miniskirts, email, smartphones, bubble tea—every miracle eventually becomes mundane. It has to, I think: We need to make room for new miracles. We need to find new things to write poems about. When this magazine was first printed, in 1857, our species thought we were stuck on Earth. We eventually figured out how to liberate ourselves from the laws of physics and fly through the air, and then we figured out how to get live television and cold orange juice and fully reclining beds up there. And then we figured out how to make all of this dreadfully tedious. That's a remarkable human achievement, too. Article originally published at The Atlantic
Yahoo
43 minutes ago
- Yahoo
I'm an avid traveler and finally found a useful way to use ChatGPT to plan my trips that saves me hours
ChatGPT saved me hours of research when planning a trip to Door County, Wisconsin. Whereas I normally do a lot of background research before planning a trip, AI could do it for me. I found it was really good at giving a comprehensive overview of a destination. Before I plan a trip, I have a straightforward goal: Learn everything there is to know about the place I'm visiting. I know, I know. That sounds time-consuming. And truthfully, for me it is. But for ChatGPT? I stumbled upon this AI use case when starting to plan a relatively uncomplicated trip to Door County, Wisconsin, for later this summer. Rather than doing the hours of background reading that I usually do to get the lay of the land in a new destination, I let OpenAI's chatbot do it for me. For context, I travel frequently in my personal life and cover travel for Business Insider, but until now, I'd yet to find a use case for AI that I felt really made my trip planning process more efficient. I'd experimented with AI-powered trip planning tools but had never found them particularly useful. I'd also tried using ChatGPT as a glorified Google, describing to it vaguely what my interests were and asking it to recommend restaurants or attractions. The results were less than promising. From what I could tell, our individual tastes are still too personalized — and chatbot answers too universal — for specific recommendations to be helpful. But for replacing all my pre-planning background reading? It was great. AI does all my background reading for me Let me give you a sense of my usual process. Once I know I am visiting a place, I will Google the most generic things a tourist could think to ask: Top attractions. Must-do activities. Neighborhood guide. Best restaurants. One-day itinerary. Three-day itinerary. Weeklong itinerary. I will do all of these searches, open more tabs than any browser should be reasonably expected to host, and then, I read. I read the top 10 or so results for every search. Then I do more niche searches like best neighborhoods to live in or best vintage shopping, and do the process all over again, this time also rifling through countless Reddit threads where locals discuss the goings-on in their own neighborhoods. Next, I move to social media — often TikTok — to scroll all the videos I can find about the destination to get some visual context and, most importantly, to learn which restaurants or attractions are viral so that I can avoid them. It takes hours, and it's arguably more information than a tourist technically ever needs. But by the time I am done, I feel I have a shockingly full understanding of a place, as both a tourist destination and even as a place where real people live. I feel I could recommend to my friends which neighborhood would be uniquely right for them, which highly-rated restaurants are overrated, and which niche museum is actually a lot cooler than the one ranked first on TripAdvisor. The process is excessive, but it gives me confidence that when I get to the hard planning stage — selecting a neighborhood, narrowing down hotels or Airbnbs, booking restaurant reservations — that my hard-earned PTO is being put to its best possible use. Luckily for me, it turns out ChatGPT is pretty good at doing this. ChatGPT helped me plan my trip to Door County, Wisconsin I was recently planning a trip to Door County, which is a small peninsula in northeast Wisconsin situated between Lake Michigan and Green Bay that's known for being one of the prettier natural places in this part of the Midwest. I wanted to book a house on the water for a busy travel weekend, so I knew I needed to do it quickly. So, instead of embarking on my usual trip planning odyssey, I did something that I had previously been very skeptical about: I turned to AI. The kind of comprehensive overview that I get from reading all the top Google results, ChatGPT was able to give me with just a few prompts. I asked which popular attractions are frequently called overrated and which ones people say are worth weathering the crowds. I asked it to include any tips or tricks on the best times to visit certain places, and to provide several sample itineraries that were varied so I could get a complete picture of my options. I even described my vague travel preferences — good food, good drinks, nature, away from crowds, vintage shops, where locals actually go — and asked it what town I should stay in. It gave me a quick summary of what each of the towns were best known for and which were most likely up my alley. I also asked follow-up questions and played devil's advocate, as AI can tend to repeat marketing-speak or be overly optimistic. In about half an hour I felt like I understood visiting Door County almost as much as I would've if I had spent those hours consuming everything myself. It's able to summarize the 90% of recommendations that pop up on every list and then also include the more unique ones. The responses were not perfect. It recommended at least two restaurants that closed several years ago. And to be clear, I doubt that I know Door County as well as I would if I had done all that reading myself. But I felt like I knew it enough to be confident in my choices while planning — enough so to book a rental home that same night, a decision that would generally take me a lot more time. And yeah, I'm still going to do a bit of excessive reading for the hidden gems. What can I say? Old habits die hard. Read the original article on Business Insider
Yahoo
43 minutes ago
- Yahoo
U.S. commerce secretary dismisses question that free trade with Canada is dead
U.S. Commerce Secretary Howard Lutnick is dismissing the question of whether U.S. free trade with Canada is dead, calling the notion "silly" and saying a substantial amount of Canadian goods enter the U.S. tariff-free under the current North American free trade deal. "We have a plan called [the United States-Mexico-Canada Agreement], virtually 75 per cent of all goods coming from Mexico and Canada are already coming tariff-free," Lutnick said in an interview on Face the Nation that aired Sunday morning on CBS. But in the same breath, Lutnick suggested tariffs on Canada are here to stay, for now. "The president understands that we need to open the markets. Canada is not open to us. They need to open their market. Unless they're willing to open their market, they're going to pay a tariff," he added. The commerce secretary's comments come days after Prime Minister Mark Carney told reporters in French there's "not a lot of evidence right now" that the U.S. is willing to cut a deal with Canada without some tariffs included. WATCH | Carney says 'not a lot of evidence' for tariff-free deal: But the prime minister also said on Tuesday that Canada has "almost free trade" with the U.S. — a reference to tariff exemptions granted to Canadian goods that are compliant with USMCA, known as the Agreement (CUSMA) among Canadians. According to an RBC report released last month, approximately 79 per cent of U.S. imports from Canada were "explicitly duty free" in January 2025. That figure rose to approximately 89 per cent in April. "Why should we have our country be wide open while theirs is closed? This is an 80-year wrong that President Trump is trying to fix, and our businesses are going to really, really enjoy it," Lutnick told host Margaret Brennan. CUSMA negotiations looming Lutnick also told Brennan that Trump "is absolutely going to renegotiate [CUSMA], but that's a year from today." "It makes perfect sense for the president to renegotiate it. He wants to protect American jobs. He doesn't want cars built in Canada or Mexico when they could be built in Michigan or Ohio. It's just better for American workers," he added. CUSMA is not officially up for renegotiation until 2026, but some Canadian business leaders and others have called on the federal government to kick-start talks for the sake of economic stability. There are also lingering questions over whether negotiations will yield another trilateral trade pact. Last November, Ontario Premier Doug Ford pitched ditching Mexico and signing a bilateral deal with the United States — a move Alberta Premier Danielle Smith agreed was worth exploring. That suggestion sent a chill through Canada-Mexico relations, but Carney and Mexican President Claudia Sheinbaum appear to be closing the gap. The two leaders met with each other in June during the G7 summit in Kananaskis, Alta., and "looked forward to meeting again in Mexico in the coming months," according to a news release published on the prime minister's website. Canada-U.S. trade talks continue Carney and his negotiating team continue to work toward a deal with Trump in hopes of avoiding the U.S. president's latest threat — a 35 per cent tariff on all Canadian goods. The U.S. president made the threat in a letter he posted on social media that was addressed to the prime minister. He said the tariffs would come into effect on Aug. 1 and that the United States would increase levies if Canada retaliates. Lutnick said the White House will cut better deals with large countries that open their economies "to ranchers, fishermen, farmers and businesses," but if they keep tariff barriers in place then "it seems fair" to impose levies. WATCH | Trump threatens 35 per cent tariffs on Canadian goods: In his letter, Trump cited fentanyl "pouring" into the U.S. from Canada as the reason for his latest tariff threat, even though data continues to show minimal amounts of the drug are crossing the Canada-U.S. border compared to the U.S.-Mexico border. Trump also took a shot at Canada's supply management system, a long-standing irritant that he claims leads to Canada imposing tariffs as high as 400 per cent on American dairy products. High Canadian tariffs only apply if the agreed tariff-rate quotas on U.S. dairy imports under USMCA are reached or exceeded. The U.S.-based International Dairy Association says the Americans have never gotten close to exceeding quotas, but also claims it's because of "protectionist measures" from Canada that limit exports. The Liberal government has maintained it will not dismantle supply management.
