UPDATE: This policy is now official, with a statement from TSA explaining why it has lifted the shoe removal requirement:
“The new policy will increase hospitality for travelers and streamline the TSA security checkpoint process, leading to lower wait times.”
Homeland Security Secretary Kristi Noem added:
“Ending the ‘Shoes-Off’ policy is the latest effort DHS is implementing to modernize and enhance traveler experience across our nation’s airports. We expect this change will drastically decrease passenger wait times at our TSA checkpoints, leading to a more pleasant and efficient passenger experience. As always, security remains our top priority. Thanks to our cutting-edge technological advancements and multi-layered security approach, we are confident we can implement this change while maintaining the highest security standards. This initiative is just one of many the Trump administration is pursuing to usher in the President’s vision for a new Golden Age of American travel.”
Bravo, TSA. Now how about that liquid ban?
My original story is below.
In what may be the most welcome change to airport security since the introduction of PreCheck, the Transportation Security Administration (TSA) has quietly ended the requirement for travelers to remove their shoes at airport checkpoints.
TSA Abolishes Shoe Removal Requirement As Summer Travel Heats Up
I first got wind of this news when my brother flew home from Newark to Los Angeles last Thursday. Here was the text he sent me:
“Odd. TSA did not require anyone to remove shoes. They were barking at people who were removing shoes to leave them on, as if this was obvious after 20 years of forcing everyone to keep them on. Typical TSA.”
24 years to be precise…
(Don’t ask me why he doesn’t have PreCheck…)
I didn’t think too much about it, figuring it may be a test, but it appears far more than a test, with a broader policy now in effect that excludes passengers traveling with REAL ID from the requirement of removing shoes.
At least this is the claim of one YouTuber who claims to be a former TSA agent with several reliable sources who provided him this information:
While we are still waiting for official confirmation from TSA, I’m confident that this is the case based on my brother’s experience (meaning it went into effect before today) and those of several others who have shared about their own TSA checkpoint experiences over the last few days.
According to internal memos, the updated rule is a result of both technological advancements and a comprehensive reassessment of threat-level risks. Modern scanning equipment is now capable of detecting potential hazards without requiring passengers to remove their shoes, a perk previously reserved for TSA PreCheck lanes.
The news comes as one US Senator, Mike Lee (R-UT) continues his crusade to abolish the TSA:
Without compromising security, hopefully, this move will reduce wait times and improve the overall traveler experience.
CONCLUSION
TSA’s decision to stop requiring shoe removal is a long-overdue and sensible move. The rule was never implemented internationally, and the US has looked out of step for years. More importantly, the rule was never implemented intentionally, with the policy driven by fear rather than any rational response commensurate with the threat. This change will speed up screening and reduce traveler frustration with zero cost to security.
Let’s hope this is the beginning of a larger trend. Next up: removing the liquid rule (sadly, the TSA has said that rule will remain in effect until 2040).
image: TSA
the liquid rule
you mean the enrich the airport vendors rule
That is the practical effect, though I think it was driven more by fear and paranoia than by wanting to enrich thse vendors.
I wish instead of banning aluminimum, a “progressive” airport like SFO ahd limited airport pricing such that water and other essentials had to match street pricing.
“fear and paranoia” can be useful when mobbed with bad actors . That is the reason for tsa in the first place .
No one was ever harmed by taking off their shows for a cursory check .
I say , reinstitute the shoe and airside water rules .
Never forget Richard Reid!
But hopefully technology has advanced enough that someone with unscrupulous materials in their shoes would still be found.
It is always about money. Removing shoes was not generating any extra cash to vendors and just slowing down the screening process. The liquid ban generates a lot of money to a few that own the concessions at the airports so they will keep lobbying to ban liquids forever.
“Liquid ban” and “removing shoes” never harmed anyone .
It was never about money for vendors .
It harms passenger’s pockets. Not being able to bring your own drink usually forces people to buy overpriced drinks after TSA. There wouldn’t be lines at Starbucks if passengers could bring their own coffee through security. Bottle of water for $5? I fly through AMS a lot and you can bring your liquids through security without any issues.
All correct . Yet , the purpose was “security” , and not money for vendors , which is merely an unforeseen corollary consequence . Vendors pay exorbitant rent , we know .
Anyway , I prefer my gin and tonics , or Brazilian wine , air-side ; whist listening to Jobin’s music .
Que isso ? Nao caipirinha ?
Tudo bem !
@bossa ,,, The music is wonderful , although I don’t understand the words .
That sounds like EWR’s TSA alright.
“TSA’s decision to stop requiring shoe removal is a long-overdue and sensible move. The rule was never implemented internationally”
It was in a few countries for a while…
I don’t recall ALL pax having to remove shoes. The most ridiculous effort, though, was at Barbados airport, when my partner was forced to remove his flip-flops for X ray purposes!
In some countries all pax did have to remove shoes.
Having traveled more than 100k in each of the past three years, I have encountered many countries where guests have to remove shoes.
Hopefully my fears are unfounded, but I am worried that, considering the sycophantic wording of the announcement, this change may be an example of implementing policies demanded by a person who insists his will be done regardless of facts or potential outcome.
Speaking of this rule not existing internationally… if anyone’s wondering “why is TSA getting rid of this now?”, here’s a possible hint: One Stop Security. TSA is planning to recognize certain overseas airports (starting with Heathrow) as providing equally effective security, so passengers coming from those airports to the US and connecting to another flight won’t have to go through security again.
Somewhere along the way, someone high up enough at TSA probably asked themselves “Hey, why are we doing this? Does it really improve security?”
How many typos in one post??
Well, we’re waiting for the answer. I assume, since it is of high importance to you, you’d know.
They will do what they want and we’ll we won’t know when, why or how.
They just increased the sensitivity of the metal detectors so many shoes need to come off, like Birkenstocks.
BTW, I have noticed that although the 3.4oz rule might still being employed, the quarter size bag is definitely not. I have seen passengers have huge plastic bags or several small ones go through security and nobody says anything. Note that passengers may use several trays and the trays go into the x-Ray machine one following the other and unless you are called for a secondary check nobody knows which tray belongs to whom so same passenger may have two or three quarter size bags placed in different trays. It is just a big theater.
Good. Now abolish the TSA and get some decent security.
SFO is private and they are bad.
This reduces the value of Global Entry!!! NOOOOOO! Give us something to compensate! GImme gimme gimme.
I’ve chuckled for years about the liquid rule: What’s to stop smurfing liquids into multiple 100ml containers and then combining them post security? Baby formula and milk is allowed because, well, babies, but coffee or an open Diet Coke is somehow still a security hazard because adults drink it?
The shoe rule was similar security Kabuki theater: Shoes for the disabled didn’t apply.
The secondary purpose of these actual scenarios was successful: They inconvenienced billions of travelers for more than 2 decades.
Unfortunately, the stupid shoe removal theatre isn’t exclusive to the USA- it remains alive and well in lots of places around the world. Even if I am travelling less than usual this year as a result of wrapping some studies up, I’ve already been asked to take my shoes off on 3-4 occasions (most recently at BHX and EZE).
While the shoe show might be changing, the bottled water cartel is probably doubling down on its grip. How they determined 2040 for liquids I cannot recall, but I hope that ridiculousness will now get some attention.
Still amazed we have people spending thousands on flights but cry about a $5 bottle of water.
You must never go to a concert or sporting event.
One liquid bomb and you might stop crying about it. Hopefully we never find out but how soon we forget that there are still people out there that would love nothing more than to blow up and American plane.
Hopefully things turn around for some of you and $5 for a bottle of water isn’t such a burden on your life. And maybe look at the overpriced junk or services you peddle to your customers. I’m sure everyone of you could reduce your prices in half as well.
Perhaps you’d feel safer if you had to show up at the airport naked in order to fully guarantee safety.
As I said above, liquids can be smurfed under the present regulations. The ONLY way to guarantee what you want is to prohibit ALL liquids including baby formula and milk. Do you think the bad guys would hesitate to bring a baby and a big container of what looks like milk?
Security theater!
In answer to your amazement where $5 is no big deal. I USED to fly more often but sadly, as a mere commoner, do not, but when I do, I strive to get a reasonable price under good conditions and don’t want to spend $20 for a burger or $5 for water. Yes, it matters. Ripping off travelers via concessions behind a security screen is immoral if you think about it, like Tony Soprano running a racket at the Catholic church festival. Concessions should be reasonably priced according to the prevailing local economy with perhaps a markup for the costs to maintain the facility itself, not as a profit center.
I would hesitate, for example, to shop at Atlanta airport after I read that ALL businesses have to be African American owned (I don’t know if that’s true, or just DEI) but to me, that smacks of racism so I’ll avoid that airport or strive to bring my own food and drink with me somehow (perhaps save a diet coke from the plane).
Here is Mr. Edwards showing how he doesn’t give a toss about working ordinary people struggling from high prices.
This dilutes the value of Pre-Check. TSA should require all non-pre-check passengers to remove underwear before going through the detector. That will restore the value of pre-check.
Punish those non-pre-check cattle. Make them pay their fair share.
I’m thinking how Peak Capitalism works which is that the standard-of-living slowly declines overall, but for a few elites, things get better but it appears ok because the influencers show how happy they are.
Look at lounge crowding: Peak Capitalism says merely raise prices for lounge access OR cut off access. A healthy system would expand the lounge space making more people’s lives better. Is being elite meaning one is happy to pay more for the lounge simply to watch the peasants all gate-lice for an hour standing up?
Airports should have more affordable concessions, comfortable areas to sit, designated quiet zones, children’s play areas, you name it.
Why do people want to visit Europe, Japan, and so on? (Well, at least for now.). They are usually superior public spaces such as clean public transit, aesthetic and walkable city centers and towns, and free public activities with high trust social interaction.
When I left the USA for the first time, 30 years ago for a week, it was a transformative experience. There are different ways to live.
YES! I can now wear my holy socks on the plane!
Did you catch the AFA is ticked they weren’t consulted on this? Wow! BTW, AFA, I’m having chicken for lunch. Is that OK?