
The End of Airport Shoe-Screening
The TSA's mandate to go shoeless, like the volume limit on toiletry items (to thwart the assembly of explosives from liquids) and the need to remove laptops from carry-on bags (to better examine them for hidden threats), came to give the mere appearance of vigilance: not security but security theater. From the start, it provided newly federalized and uniformed TSA agents with stuff to do at every moment, and government officials with the chance to embrace 'an abundance of caution,' a stock idea that can transform almost any inconvenience into leadership. Now, by closing the curtain on the shoe requirements, Noem has indulged in a rival form of spectacle: populism theater. Her new policy gives citizens something they actually want, and something that has until this point been reserved for upscale travelers who pay for premium airport-security-hopping services. But with this week's change, the system hasn't really been democratized so much as made indifferent. In this case, the fact of the TSA's doing less—and caring less—just happens to be helpful.
In its earliest phase, the shoe-removal policy was applied haphazardly, showing up from time to time and terminal to terminal in response to ever-shifting, secret intelligence on terrorist threats tracked by the Department of Homeland Security. Where the new form of screening was in place, it served not only to avert future shoe bombs but also to speed up the queue. Metal detectors had been tuned to be more sensitive, and the metal shank inside the soles of many shoes, installed to provide support, often set them off. (In response, some major footwear brands, including Rockport and Timberland, rushed out lines of shoes with plastic shanks that were marketed as being ' security friendly.')
By the summer of 2003, the policy had become more formalized; the TSA started 'strongly' recommending that all passengers everywhere remove their shoes, or else risk being subject to a secondary screening. Speaking to The New York Times, a TSA representative said this new approach would 'ensure that the experience you have in one airport is similar to the experience you have in another airport coast to coast.' Three years later, the policy of universal urging was made into a hard rule: Now your shoes had to come off, no matter what.
Although footwear checks applied to all in principle, some individuals—especially those deemed suspicious on the basis of their looks, or who evinced anxiety —were getting more aggressive treatment from the screeners. The system seemed unfair for some, and also far too burdensome for everyone. Why couldn't some new and better form of scanner be invented, one that could spot a shoe explosive even as the wearer stood there? Would Americans be padding across the gross airport floors forever, just because of Richard Reid?
Better technology should have been the answer. In the decade after 9/11, tech firms completely reinvented everyday life: Web search, broadband, mobile telephony, e-commerce, smartphones, social networking, and real-time document collaboration all became routine. Back in 2002, many travelers would not have had so much as a flip phone in their carry-ons; 10 years later, most were toting handheld supercomputers. Yet when it came to building new devices for screening shoes, very little was accomplished. DHS spent millions of dollars in an effort to buy or subcontract the development of next-generation scanners that could avert sole-borne risks in airports, to no avail. (During this time, airport screening's most significant innovation was the gray plastic bin into which you might hurl your pumps, boots, or loafers.) Shoe removal would 'be a part of air travel for the foreseeable future,' a TSA spokesperson somberly announced in 2012, after another four experimental scanners had failed in real-world testing.
But a different way to solve the problem also started to emerge that summer: It turned out just to be money. The privately operated Clear service was launched in airports, giving travelers willing to pay a couple of hundred dollars a year and hand over their biometrics the ability to shortcut the screening line. And when the government's own pay-for-comfort airport-security service, TSA PreCheck, rolled out widely in 2013, enrollees could finally forgo the lingering inconvenience of taking off their shoes. PreCheck also let them keep their laptops packed and their toiletries inside their bags. For a time, airline flyers with elite status got special access to both PreCheck and Clear.
This would be right in line with other trends of the early 2010s, when the VIP experience was being sold in a thousand different ways. Pay-to-play became a way of life. It's hard to remember anymore, but before ride-hailing apps were available for nearly everyone, private cars were associated with late-night talk-show guests and people being shuttled to airports directly after giving conference keynotes. The precursors to the modern smartphone, such as the BlackBerry, were originally made for important executives before everyone adopted the air of importance. Since then, the whole economy has shifted upmarket. Those with money can now buy online memberships that get them tables at restaurants or tickets to shows whenever they want. Even Disneyland lets you pay to skip ahead in line.
Trading cash for the right to get through airport security with your shoes on prefigured all this and made it visible for everyone to see. Being in the TSA PreCheck queue not only gave you quick, shod access to the terminal; it also offered a perch from which to look down on the rabble nearby, stripped down to their socks and belt loops, presenting their shampoos and ointments, and unsheathing their electronics. What a bunch of losers, frequent fliers might think, before ascending to the airline club in their Lobbs or Louboutins.
It's surely long past time to broaden out this special privilege and to stop demanding that every other person among the 1 billion annual air passengers in the United States take off their shoes because one guy tried to hide a bomb in his sneakers a quarter century ago. But the termination of the policy does not feel justified by any new development in science, technology, intelligence, or geopolitics. In announcing the change, Noem gave no satisfying explanation. She said only that it was enabled by the presence of 'multi-layers of screening,' new scanners, more personnel, and Real ID —a nationwide identification system that was ginned up by Congress 20 years ago and somehow still has not been fully implemented.
By all appearances, the rule on shoes was not rescinded just because rescinding it happens to make sense. Rather, the change was made because the terror-hardened discipline of the millennium's beginning has finally, fully been replaced by nihilism. These days, you board a plane that might or might not be flight-worthy, regulated by a shrunken-down Federal Aviation Administration, routed by an air-traffic-control system undermined by neglect and disdain. The president blamed a fatal plane collision on diversity programs, while selling access to the White House in plain view. No one seems to care. But at least you'll be able to keep your shoes on before lifting off into America's sunset.
Hashtags

Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles


Newsweek
an hour ago
- Newsweek
Michelle Obama on Opening Up About Life With Barack—'It Can Feel Dangerous'
Based on facts, either observed and verified firsthand by the reporter, or reported and verified from knowledgeable sources. Newsweek AI is in beta. Translations may contain inaccuracies—please refer to the original content. In a new interview, former first lady Michelle Obama spoke out about the "messy" and "complicated" aspects of life with her husband, former President Barack Obama, noting that sharing those details with the public "can feel dangerous." Newsweek reached out to Michelle Obama's representative via email on Wednesday for comment. Why It Matters The Obamas married on October 3, 1992, and share two daughters: Malia, 27, and Sasha, 24. Earlier this year, the couple faced divorce rumors, leading Michelle to address the speculation on several occasions. The rumors first began when she didn't attend former President Jimmy Carter's state funeral or President Donald Trump's inauguration in January. Most recently, Barack appeared on the podcast his wife co-hosts alongside her brother, Craig Robinson, and they poked fun at the rumor mill. When the couple greeted each other with a kiss, Robinson joked, "Wait, you guys like each other?" "She took me back!" Barack teased, to which Michelle said, "Now don't start." "It was touch and go for a while," he playfully added. Then-President Barack Obama and first lady Michelle Obama commemorate the 14th anniversary of the September 11 terrorist attacks at the White House on September 11, 2015. Then-President Barack Obama and first lady Michelle Obama commemorate the 14th anniversary of the September 11 terrorist attacks at the White House on September 11, 2015. Kevin Dietsch-Pool/Getty Images What To Know In an interview with Parents magazine published on Tuesday, the former first lady spoke out about revealing personal aspects of her life on IMO with Michelle Obama and Craig Robinson. "It's so easy for us to curl up into this protective instinct and not talk about the messy or more complicated bits of our lives," Obama said. "It can feel dangerous to expose those imperfect parts of ourselves. But over the years, I have learned that it's really the opposite." She said that when it came to parenting their daughters during his presidency, "Barack and I did everything we could to give our girls as normal of a life as possible." "When we were at the White House, we made sure they were doing things like making their beds every morning and as they got older, getting summer jobs. Once we left the White House, their lives slowly began to inch a little closer toward normalcy," the Becoming author said. "But the truth is, their circumstances have been extraordinary in so many ways—and that forced them to learn critical skills like discipline, flexibility, and determination to go after what they really wanted. And now here we are." Malia and Sasha are still "under more scrutiny than others their age," she said. Still, "they've learned to roll with the punches." "I'm always so impressed by how they handle it—with grace, resolve, and charm. These days, more than anything, I can't wait to see how they surprise us next." What People Are Saying On a recent episode of IMO, Michelle Obama spoke out about a parenting hack she and her husband currently use as empty nesters: "Barack and I, we are all about creating what we call 'the attractive nuisance.' We want to, you know, make it so that you want to be back here. There's that period when they leave in their early 20s, and they're just like, 'Bye! We're living our lives, and we're so happy to be sleeping on a dirty mattress and in college.' They're just now getting to the point where they hang around just a little, a couple of days longer, because the tub is clean and there are bath salts." What Happens Next IMO with Michelle Obama and Craig Robinson airs new episodes on Wednesdays on platforms like Spotify, YouTube and Apple Podcasts.


Newsweek
an hour ago
- Newsweek
Green Card Applicant Who Served in Afghanistan Detained by ICE Agents
Based on facts, either observed and verified firsthand by the reporter, or reported and verified from knowledgeable sources. Newsweek AI is in beta. Translations may contain inaccuracies—please refer to the original content. An Afghan man who served with U.S. troops and has a pending green card application was detained by federal agents following a routine immigration appointment. Zia S., a 35-year-old father of five and former interpreter for the U.S. military, was taken into custody by Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) agents outside a USCIS office in East Hartford, Connecticut, on July 16. A senior Department of Homeland Security official told Newsweek that the man "is currently under investigation for a serious criminal allegation." Newsweek reached out to the man's attorney for comment via email. Why It Matters After the U.S. military's two-decade presence in Afghanistan ended in 2021, many Afghans who had supported American forces were granted entry into the United States through refugee programs, Special Immigrant Visas (SIVs), or Temporary Protected Status (TPS). However, changes under the Trump administration have led to the termination of TPS for some individuals, raising concerns about deportation. President Donald Trump ordered his administration to remove millions of migrants without legal status to fulfill his campaign pledge of widespread mass deportations. The White House has maintained that anyone living in the country unlawfully is considered to be a "criminal." File photo: The Application to Register Permanent Residence or Adjust Status from the Department of Homeland Security. File photo: The Application to Register Permanent Residence or Adjust Status from the Department of Homeland Security. AP/Jon Elswick What to Know Zia, whose full name is being withheld for safety reasons, had been living in Connecticut since October 2024 after arriving in the U.S. on humanitarian parole. He and his family had reportedly received Special Immigrant Visa approvals and were in the process of applying for permanent residency. He spent about five years assisting U.S. troops in Afghanistan before he and his family fled the country in 2021, after the Taliban regained control. He legally entered the U.S. in October 2024 at John F. Kennedy International Airport in New York. Zia was placed in expedited removal proceedings. However, a federal judge has since issued a temporary stay, halting his deportation for the time being. "Zia has done everything right. He's followed the rules. He has no criminal history," his attorney, Lauren Cundick Petersen, told reporters. After initially being detained in Connecticut, Zia was transferred to an immigration detention facility in Plymouth, Massachusetts. His detainment comes amid growing outcry against Afghan allies being detained by ICE even as they comply with legal procedures. Senator Chris Murphy lambasted the Trump administration's immigration policy and told Newsweek that it's a "disgrace." "The Trump administration's decision to turn its back on our Afghan allies who risked their lives and the lives of their families to support American troops in Afghanistan is unconscionable," the Connecticut Democrat said. "They stood shoulder to shoulder with our men and women in uniform, and our country made a commitment to protect them and their families. Now, Donald Trump has ripped the rug out from under them, a betrayal that will be a death sentence for any Afghan national sent back." Connecticut Senator Richard Blumenthal, a Democrat, also said it was "disgraceful" that ICE agents arrested a man who risked his life for the U.S. "For masked agents to snatch someone off the street with no warning, no counsel, no opportunity even to know who is doing it while it's in process, is un-American," Blumenthal told reporters on Tuesday. "He actually worked and risked his life in Afghanistan to uphold the values and rights that are central to democracy. And for now, for him to be, in effect, violated in his rights when he has fought for those rights here is completely disgraceful." What are People Saying Senator Chris Murphy told Newsweek: "It's a disgrace that will have long-term consequences for our national security as foreign nationals simply refuse to help the U.S. abroad because they know we'll just abandon them in the end." A senior DHS Official told Newsweek: Zia is "a national of Afghanistan, entered the U.S. on October 8, 2024, and paroled by the Biden administration into our country." Senator Richard Blumenthal told reporters on a press call on Tuesday: "Zia thought he was safe when he arrived in America, the land of freedom and opportunity. Where in the world are you safer than in America? And as it turns out, he was totally unsafe because of this administration." Zia's attorney, Lauren Cundick Petersen, told reporters on a press call: "Following the rules are supposed to protect you. It's not supposed to land you in detention. If he is deported, as so many of the people have articulated today, he faces death."


Newsweek
2 hours ago
- Newsweek
US Falls to Record Low in Powerful Passport Ranking
Based on facts, either observed and verified firsthand by the reporter, or reported and verified from knowledgeable sources. Newsweek AI is in beta. Translations may contain inaccuracies—please refer to the original content. The American passport, once ranked the most powerful in the world, has now slipped to 10th place for global mobility—its lowest ever position. The 2025 Henley Passport Index has dropped America's rating three spots from last year, after a decade of decline. Newsweek has contacted the Department of Homeland Security, via email, for comment. File photo of a United States of America passport, taken in Brooklyn, N.Y. on July 16, 2021. File photo of a United States of America passport, taken in Brooklyn, N.Y. on July 16, 2021. AP Why It Matters The fall in the ranking highlights shifting global mobility trends and reflects concerns about the U.S.'s approach to international relations and border policies—impacting both American travelers and the nation's global influence. The index, produced by London-based Henley & Partners, draws on exclusive International Air Transport Association data to rank passports by the number of countries granting their holders visa-free or visa-on-arrival access, making it a significant barometer of diplomatic ties and "soft power" worldwide. What To Know For 2025, the United States tied with Iceland and Lithuania for 10th place, marking its lowest position since the creation of the index 20 years ago, and continuing a decade-long slide from the No.1 spot it shared in 2014. Americans can travel visa-free to 182 destinations—four fewer than last year and 11 fewer than holders of the top-ranked passport, Singapore. Singapore retained its lead at the top of the list, with visa-free access to 193 out of 227 possible destinations. Japan and South Korea followed in joint second place, each offering access to 190 destinations. The decline in U.S. passport power seems to be attributable to a lack of reciprocation in visa-free travel, according to how Henley & Partners' calculates its rankings, which also looks at imbalances. America allows 46 nationalities to enter without a visa, the index showed. What Is the Criteria? Each passport earns one point for every country it can enter without needing a visa in advance. This includes destinations where travelers can enter visa-free, get a visa on arrival, or use an electronic travel permit without needing government approval before the trip. If a visa is required before departure, including needing government approval for an e-visa or visa on arrival, the passport gets 0 points. The total score reflects how many countries a passport allows entry to without needing prior visa approval. Top 10 Most Powerful Passports 1. Singapore: 195 visa‑free destinations 2. Japan and South Korea: 190 visa‑free destinations 3. Denmark, Finland, France, Germany, Ireland, Italy, Spain: 189 visa‑free destinations 4. Austria, Belgium, Luxembourg, Netherlands, Norway, Portugal, Sweden: 188 visa‑free destinations 5. Greece, New Zealand, Switzerland: 187 visa‑free destinations 6. United Kingdom: 186 visa‑free destinations 7. Australia, Czechia, Hungary, Malta, Poland: 185 visa‑free destinations 8. Canada, Estonia, United Arab Emirates: 184 visa‑free destinations 9. Croatia, Latvia, Slovakia, Slovenia: 183 visa‑free destinations 10. Iceland, Lithuania, United States: 182 visa‑free destinations What People Are Saying Juerg Steffen, CEO of Henley & Partners, said in a statement: "Your passport is no longer just a travel document—it's a reflection of your country's diplomatic influence and international relationships. In an era of growing inequality and mounting geopolitical uncertainty, strategic mobility and citizenship planning are more critical than ever." Christian H. Kaelin, chair of Henley & Partners, said: "The consolidation we're seeing at the top underscores that access is earned—and must be maintained—through active and strategic diplomacy. Nations that proactively negotiate visa waivers and nurture reciprocal agreements continue to rise, while the opposite applies to those that are less engaged in such efforts." What Happens Next The United States' declining passport power could impact American travelers' global mobility, business opportunities and perceptions abroad. Experts say future rankings will likely hinge on either renewed diplomatic efforts to increase reciprocal visa agreements or the continuation of recent trends toward tighter border controls.