Homeland Security ends collective bargaining agreement with TSA employees
The Department of Homeland Security said Friday it is ending the collective bargaining agreement with the union representing thousands of frontline workers with the Transportation Security Administration, a decision the TSA union called an "unprovoked attack."
In announcing the decision, DHS criticized the union — which represents worker responsible for screening airline passengers — claiming TSA employs more people working full-time on union issues than those "performing screening functions at 86% of our airports."
"This action will ensure Americans will have more effective and modernized workforces across the nation's transportation networks," Homeland Security said in a statement. "TSA is renewing its commitment to providing a quick and secure travel process for Americans."
The decision to end collective bargaining was criticized by the Association of Flight Attendants, a union representing flight attendants, and Democratic lawmakers, with both claiming that the action will make flying less safe. DHS's decision comes after the agency last year pushed to boost TSA workers' pay, which has historically lagged that of other government employees.
In May 2024, the TSA administrator at the time, David Pekoske, signed the collective bargaining agreement and credited pay increases that went into effect in 2023 for helping to improve employee retention and morale, areas where TSA has had challenges.
"Attempting to negate [TSA workers'] legally binding collective bargaining agreement now makes zero sense – it will only reduce morale and hamper the workforce," said Rep. Bennie G. Thompson, a Democrat from Mississippi and ranking member of the Committee on Homeland Security, in a statement on Friday.
In the announcement, DHS said poor performers were being allowed to stay on the job and that the agreement was hindering the ability of the organization "to safeguard our transportation systems and keep Americans safe" — an assessment that faced immediate pushback from Thompson and the union.
The decision is "terrible for aviation security and everyone who depends on safe travel," the Association of Flight Attendants said. The group added, "This will take us back to the days of security at the lowest price with the highest costs for our country."
Impact on 47,000 TSA workers
The American Federation of Government Employees, the union representing the TSA workers, said in a statement that the order would strip collective bargaining rights from roughly 47,000 transportation security officers, or TSOs. Those are people responsible for staffing airports around the country and checking to make sure that hundreds of thousands of passengers a day do not carry any weapons or explosives into the secure areas of airports.
The union said Homeland Security Secretary Kristi Noem and President Donald Trump's administration were violating the right of staffers to join a union. It also said that the reasons the Republican administration had given for the decision — specifically the criticisms of union activity — were "completely fabricated."
Instead, the union said, the decision was retaliation for its wider efforts challenging a range of decisions taken by the Trump administration that have affected federal workers.
AFGE represents roughly 800,000 federal government workers in Washington, D.C., and across the country, and it has been pushing back on many of the administration's actions such as firing probationary employees and cuts to the U.S. Agency for International Development, or USAID.
"Our union has been out in front challenging this administration's unlawful actions targeting federal workers, both in the legal courts and in the court of public opinion," the union said. "Now our TSA officers are paying the price with this clearly retaliatory action."
The decision to end the collective bargaining agreement comes after Trump's administration pushed out Pekoske the day Trump was sworn into office. The TSA does not currently have an administrator or a deputy administrator.
In a note to staff, acting TSA Administrator Adam Stahl said Noem made the decision to rescind officers' collective bargaining rights to align with the Trump administration's "vision of maximizing government productivity and efficiency and ensuring that our workforce can respond swiftly and effectively to evolving threats."
"By removing the constraints of collective bargaining, TSOs will be able to operate with greater flexibility and responsiveness, ensuring the highest level of security and efficiency in protecting the American public," Stahl wrote. "This determination is made with the TSO in mind, ensuring employee inclusivity and restoring meritocracy to the workforce."
Stahl said the agency "will establish alternative procedures" to address employee concerns and grievances "in a fair and transparent manner."
"Anti-union talking points"
Rep. Thompson criticized the Homeland Security press release, saying the department was using "flat out wrong anti-union talking points." He said the real aim was "diminishing" the workforce so "they can transform it in the mold of Project 2025."
"Attempting to negate their legally binding collective bargaining agreement now makes zero sense — it will only reduce morale and hamper the workforce," Thompson said. "Since the Biden Administration provided pay increases and a new collective bargaining contract to the workforce, TSA's attrition rates have plummeted."
Project 2025 was the conservative governing blueprint that Trump insisted during the 2024 campaign was not part of his agenda. Project 2025 calls for immediately ending the TSA union and eventually privatizing the entire agency.
The TSA was created after the terrorist attacks of Sept. 11, 2001, when hijackers smuggled knives and box cutters through security to use as weapons as they commandeered four airplanes and slammed them into the Pentagon, the World Trade Center towers and a Pennsylvania field. The TSA's mandate when it was created in November 2001 was to prevent a similar attack in the future.
Air travel since then has undergone a massive overhaul, with passengers and their luggage going through extensive screening at the airport and passenger information generally uploaded to TSA in advance of travel to facilitate screening. Increasingly, the agency has also been using facial recognition technology to scan passengers at checkpoints, leading to criticism by some members of Congress.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Yahoo
22 minutes ago
- Yahoo
Trump administration signals it will slash funds for long-delayed California high-speed rail project
LOS ANGELES (AP) — The Trump administration signaled Wednesday that it intends to cut off federal funding for a long-delayed California high-speed rail project plagued by multibillion-dollar cost overruns, following the release of a scathing federal report that concluded there is 'no viable path' to complete even a partial section of the line. Voters first authorized $10 billion in borrowed funds in 2008 to cover about a third of the estimated cost, with a promise the train would be up and running by 2020. Five years beyond that deadline, no tracks have been laid and its estimated price tag has ballooned to over $100 billion. In a letter to the California High-Speed Rail Authority, which oversees the project, Federal Railroad Administration acting Administrator Drew Feeley wrote that what was envisioned as an 800-mile system connecting the state's major cities has been reduced to a blueprint for 'a 119-mile track to nowhere.' After a $4 billion federal investment, the California agency 'has conned the taxpayer ... with no viable plan to deliver even that partial segment on time,' Feeley wrote. State officials defended what's known as the nation's largest infrastructure project and said they remain committed to construction, though it's not clear what funding would replace the federal support if it's withdrawn. Feeley noted the FRA could seek repayment of the federal funds but is not proposing to claw back those dollars at this time. Carol Dahmen, the state authority's chief of strategic communications, said in a statement that the federal conclusions are misguided and 'do not reflect the substantial progress made to deliver high-speed rail in California.' Dahmen noted that the majority of the funding for the line has been provided by the state and that Democratic Gov. Gavin Newsom's budget proposal would extend at least $1 billion a year for 20 years to complete an initial segment of the line. State officials are focused on a stretch connecting the Central Valley cities of Bakersfield and Merced, which is set to be operating by 2033. The state agency has about a month to formally respond to the FRA, after which the grants could be terminated. State Sen. Tony Strickland, a Republican from Huntington Beach who is vice chair of the Transportation Committee, said that 'commonsense has prevailed" and urged the Legislature's dominant Democrats to redirect the funds from the rail line to lowering gas prices or investing in viable construction projects. 'Let's stop wasting California's hard-earned taxpayer dollars,' Strickland said. There is no known source for the billions of dollars that would be needed to complete the line. California High-Speed Rail Authority CEO Ian Choudri suggested in April that private investors could step in and fill the funding gap for the project that promised nonstop rail service between San Francisco and Los Angeles in under three hours. At the time, he acknowledged that even if funding is secured, it might take nearly two more decades to complete most of that segment. President Donald Trump said in May that his administration will not continue to fund the line. 'That train is the worst cost overrun I've ever seen,' Trump told reporters at the time, calling it "totally out of control.' Michael R. Blood, The Associated Press Inicia sesión para acceder a tu portafolio
Washington Post
23 minutes ago
- Washington Post
The New York mayor's race shows a badly divided Democratic Party
At first glance, it's stunning that former New York governor Andrew M. Cuomo and state Rep. Zohran Mamdani are so far ahead of their competitors in the Democratic primary for mayor of New York. After all, the field of candidates, who will debate one another for the first time Wednesday night, includes numerous contenders with more traditional résumés — they aren't 33 years old like Mamdani or had a government report conclude they sexually harassed 11 women like Cuomo. But if you follow Democratic politics closely, the ascendance of Cuomo and Mamdani is less surprising. In primaries across the country over the past decade, a bloc of disproportionately younger, college-educated and very liberal Democrats have coalesced around progressive candidates. At the same time, older and more-ideologically moderate Democrats, particularly those without college degrees and African Americans, often back more centrist candidates with deep ties to the party's establishment. Ahead of the June 24 primary in New York, Mamdani has become the candidate of the city's young progressives; Cuomo of the older moderates — and there's not much space left for anyone else. The persistence of this divide matters far beyond New York. Older moderate Democrats and younger progressives have disagreed sharply on how to take on President Donald Trump in the first few months of his administration. Looking forward to 2026 and 2028, it will be hard for Democrats to be unified if every primary results in one big bloc of the party feeling frustrated and unrepresented. I am shocked that the perennial Democratic divide is so strong that it has made Cuomo and Mamdani the top candidates for mayor of New York. Neither is a conventional candidate for the job. In a city that often chooses insiders with long résumés for mayor, Mamdani is fairly new to the scene and not part of the political establishment. He worked on the campaigns of a few left-wing New York politicians before running on his own in 2020. Helped by an endorsement from the Democratic Socialists of America, he defeated an incumbent in the primary for a Queens state house district and then easily won the general election. Mamdani of course isn't the only 30-something progressive rising in New York politics. But U.S. Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez (D-New York), who has not endorsed Mamdani but is very critical of Cuomo, isn't in an executive role in a massive city. If elected, Mamdani will need to work with police chiefs, chief executives of major companies and other power brokers who aren't likely to show much deference to a 33-year-old. Cuomo, who has been the U.S. Secretary of Housing and Urban development, New York's attorney general and governor, has the requisite experience. But four years ago, it was hard to imagine him holding office again. The report from the office of New York Attorney General Letitia James detailing Cuomo allegedly touching women without their consent and making inappropriate comments seemed (and should have been) permanently disqualifying, particularly for a party that prides itself on women's rights and autonomy. Cuomo denies the allegations, but resigned under the threat of impeachment. Also, in 2021, it seemed the Democratic Party had moved decidedly left and would no longer tolerate the centrist Cuomo, who for years had collaborated with Republicans in the New York State Senate to reduce the power of progressives in Albany. But the ethics scandals and unpopularity of current mayor Eric Adams, who is a Democrat, created a huge void. Numerous candidates — moderates, progressive and those trying to position themselves in between — are all running, including city Comptroller Brad Lander and City Council Speaker Adrienne Adams. (She is not related to the incumbent mayor.) It's a very complicated election. The Democratic primary will be decided by ranked-choice voting, meaning that New Yorkers actually select up to five candidates, putting them in order of their preferences. Eric Adams, fearing he would lose the primary, is running as an independent. Mamdani or Cuomo, who are affiliated with minor parties in New York, could run in the general election even if they lose the primary. So it's possible New York has a four-way race in the fall: the Democratic primary winner; the runner-up; Adams; and the Republican candidate. What's less complicated is how voters and activists have aligned themselves so far. New York is one of the nation's most distinct cities, but its mayoral race is playing out similarly to other recent Democratic primaries across the country. Cuomo is getting support from veteran politicians, church leaders and labor unions who backed his past campaigns and in some cases his father's. (Mario Cuomo was New York's governor from 1983-1994). That establishment support is helping him with voters more likely to be connected with those institutions, particularly voters older than 50 and African Americans. His voting base resembles the ones that helped former secretary of state Hillary Clinton defeat Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-Vermont) in the 2016 Democratic primary and former president Joe Biden beat Sanders in 2020. The kind of voters who were drawn to Sanders nationally are behind Mamdani in New York: White college graduates, people younger than 50 and those who identify themselves as very liberal in particular. Like Sanders, Mamdani is courting voters by proposing progressive ideas, such as a rent freeze and free city buses. He's also appealing to them with clever, personable ads and videos. I hope Mamdani wins. My policy views are closer to his than Cuomo's. And while Cuomo says he did nothing wrong, James's report depicts someone who should never again be given a powerful job. That said, even if Mamdani became mayor, I would be concerned about how he got there and what it portends for the broader American left. It's entirely logical that there are some fissures in the Democratic Party, which is made up of millions of people. What's so troubling is how big and perhaps intractable those divides are. Biden entered the presidency facing deep skepticism from progressives and younger Democrats because so few of them backed him during the primary. He never really gained their trust. Similarly, President Sanders likely would have received little grace or loyalty from moderate or older Democratic voters, who opposed him en masse. In New York, Mamdani would triumph despite strong resistance from older moderates in the party; a Cuomo win would be a defeat for young progressives. The party desperately needs to break this old/moderate/non-college vs. young/progressive/college-educated divide. But that's not easy. Progressives like me view the old guard as stuck in the past, conservative and uncreative. Moderate Democrats view progressives as elitist and impractical. Having such negative views of people you are supposed to be in coalition with is not ideal. Progressives think the party's left wing should be in charge. (The moderates' leadership has led us to a country where Trump dominates politics.) The moderates would rightly point that Bill Clinton, Barack Obama and Joe Biden didn't win presidential elections by calling themselves socialists. Mamdani is a charismatic, inspirational politician. He has a much better chance of moving people in the other camp to his than Cuomo, who is disliked even by people who agree with him on policy. But the New York race has made me even more nervous about 2027 and 2028. Will Democrats, instead of focusing on Trump, engage in a super-divisive, toxic presidential primary? If progressives and moderates remain divided by age, education, ideology and race, then the answer to that question seems, obviously, yes.
Newsweek
24 minutes ago
- Newsweek
Donald Trump's World Is 'Fracturing,' Former Giuliani Associate Warns
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. Lev Parnas, a former associate of Rudy Giuliani, is warning that President Donald Trump's world is "fracturing" amid Elon Musk's rebuke of his sweeping spending bill and other recent policy moves. Newsweek reached out to the White House via email for comment on Wednesday. Why It Matters The One Big Beautiful Bill Act is a key avenue for Republicans to advance the White House's agenda following the widespread GOP victories in the November election. Key Republican holdouts in the House and Senate have voiced opposition to the bill, citing concerns that it would increase the national debt, among other worries. In a post on X, formerly Twitter, on Tuesday, former Department of Government Efficiency chief Musk bashed the piece of legislation, saying, "I'm sorry, but I just can't stand it anymore. This massive, outrageous, pork-filled Congressional spending bill is a disgusting abomination. Shame on those who voted for it: you know you did wrong. You know it." Musk doubled down in another X post on Wednesday: "A new spending bill should be drafted that doesn't massively grow the deficit and increase the debt ceiling by 5 TRILLION DOLLARS." What To Know In a Substack article published on Wednesday, Parnas mentioned Musk's recent shift against the president's beloved legislation. "I've been warning you for months now — there are real cracks forming inside Trump's world. And not just little disagreements behind the scenes," Parnas wrote. "The latest — and loudest — break came from Elon Musk." Parnas said that Musk was "paraded around the White House" in the first few months of Trump's second term, but the Tesla billionaire is no longer "playing" along. The former Giuliani associate is a Ukrainian American businessman who was convicted in 2021 of fraud and campaign finance crimes. He was then sentenced to 20 months in prison. "I've seen how this works from the inside," Parnas wrote. "When loyalty turns to silence, and silence turns to defiance — it's over. The myth of Trump's control starts to collapse." "But Elon is just the loudest crack. The truth is, Trump's empire is fracturing on every front," he added. Parnas went on to note that policy decisions, such as tariffs, praise for Russian President Vladimir Putin, and the acceptance of a Qatari airliner, are also causing cracks in Trump's world. "And I'm telling you now: the very foundation of Trump's power — fear and obedience — is crumbling," Parnas wrote. "Elon might be the first to break publicly, but he won't be the last. There are lawmakers. There are donors. There are insiders. I promise you, they are rattled. And some of them are looking for a way out." Lev Parnas testifies during a House Oversight and Accountability Committee hearing on March 20, 2024, in Washington, D.C. Lev Parnas testifies during a House Oversight and Accountability Committee hearing on March 20, 2024, in Washington, People Are Saying President Donald Trump, Monday on Truth Social: "So many false statements are being made about 'THE ONE, BIG, BEAUTIFUL BILL,' but what nobody understands is that it's the single biggest Spending Cut in History, by far! But there will be NO CUTS to Social Security, Medicare, or Medicaid." Trump continued: "In fact, they will be saved from the incompetence of the Democrats. The Democrats, who have totally lost their confidence and their way, are saying whatever comes to mind — Anything to win! They suffered the Greatest Humiliation in the History of Politics, and they're desperate to get back on their game, but they won't be able to do that because their Policies are so bad, in fact, they would lead to the Destruction of our Country, and almost did." The president concluded, "The only 'cutting' we will do is for Waste, Fraud, and Abuse, something that should have been done by the Incompetent, Radical Left Democrats for the last four years, but wasn't." White House press secretary Karoline Leavitt told reporters on Tuesday: "Look, the president already knows where Elon Musk stood on this bill. It doesn't change the president's opinion." What Happens Next Trump has set a deadline for Senate Republicans to pass the bill and have it on his desk before July 4. It is unclear whether Republican senators will garner enough votes to get it done.
