House committee weighs TSA privatization as officers endure unpaid work during shutdowns

Body

A bipartisan hearing of the House Committee on Homeland Security on Wednesday delved into the future of the Transportation Security Administration (TSA) as the Trump administration pushes to outsource airport screening to private contractors. Committee Chairman Rep. Andrew Garbarino (R‑NY) opened the session by noting that TSA officers endured a total of 119 days of shutdown‑related work between the 2025 and 2026 shutdowns, meaning they spent roughly 40 % of the fiscal year reporting to work without a paycheck while continuing to protect the nation’s skies.

“The very fact that our officers kept the checkpoints running without pay underscores the importance of reliable funding and fair labor practices,” Garbarino said. “If we can’t guarantee pay for our security workforce, how can we expect the public to trust the system?”

Lawmakers also confronted President Donald Trump’s FY 2027 budget, which earmarks $477.3 million for private companies to assume screening duties at about 250 smaller airports and proposes cutting more than 4,500 TSA positions to save $529.3 million in compensation and benefits. The budget would also let contractors in the TSA’s airport staffing program acquire and maintain screening equipment—functions that have traditionally been the sole purview of the federal government.

Rep. Lou Correa (D‑CA) blasted the proposal, describing it as “an ant‑government privatization ideology.” He warned, “Technology alone can’t replace the experienced people who make the security checkpoints work as they have for the past 25 years.” Correa also argued, “If TSA workers don’t get paid during shutdowns, neither should lawmakers,” emphasizing the moral equivalence between federal employees and elected officials.

Industry voices at the hearing offered mixed perspectives. Christopher Sununu, president and CEO of the airline trade group Airlines for America, stressed that “ensuring the Screening Partnership Program (SPP) remains an option for airports and does not become a mandatory program is paramount to the U.S. aviation industry.” Dallas‑Fort Worth International Airport CEO Chris McLaughlin echoed the sentiment, arguing that airports should retain the choice to employ private screeners.

Everett Kelley, president of the American Federation of Government Employees (AFGE), which represents TSA workers, took a hard line against privatization. “I’m totally against the privatization of any airport,” Kelley said. “You don’t contract out the CIA, do you?” His remarks highlighted concerns that handing security functions to private firms could erode both safety and labor standards.

Democratic members of the committee warned that privatizing a core security function could leave U.S. airspace more vulnerable. In response, Garbarino pointed out that “the very conservative cities of San Francisco, Seattle and Atlanta all use private screeners at their airports, so yeah, maybe it’s not a Republican thing,” attempting to frame the issue as bipartisan.

To address funding gaps, Garbarino and Rep. Tim Kennedy (D‑NY) introduced legislation to double the TSA’s capital‑cost reimbursement fund from $250 million to $500 million and to create an annual $250 million fund for screening technology. The proposal would finance both measures through a $5.60 per‑ticket fee that airline passengers already pay as the 9/11 Passenger Security Fee. Garbarino argued that “nearly half the fee’s revenue goes to something else” and that Congress must restore the fee to its original intent of directly funding aviation security.

The 9/11 fee, in place since 2002, has been diverted to deficit reduction since 2013, sending an estimated $15 billion to the Treasury. The committee’s bill seeks to redirect that money back into modernizing screening equipment and improving airport security infrastructure.

Trump’s FY 2027 budget also proposes ending the diversion of passenger fees and partially funding the TSA with $1.68 billion that would otherwise have supported deficit reduction.

The hearing highlighted a clash between efforts to modernize TSA technology and funding mechanisms, and a broader debate over whether critical security functions should remain in government hands or be transferred to private contractors. As the discussion moves forward, the balance between labor rights, national security, and fiscal responsibility will shape the next chapter of U.S. airport screening policy.