By Douglas V. Gibbs
The Department of Homeland Security (DHS) was created in November 2002 in response to the September 11, 2001 terrorist attacks. Before DHS, national security responsibilities were scattered across more than 20 different agencies with poor communication and coordination between them. The new department consolidated these agencies under one roof, including the Coast Guard, Secret Service, Transportation Security Administration (TSA), and Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE). This merger was the largest government reorganization in over 50 years, designed to break down the intelligence-sharing failures that had allowed the 9/11 attacks to succeed.
Since its creation, DHS has focused primarily on preventing terrorism, securing borders, enforcing immigration laws, and responding to natural disasters. The agency created the color-coded terror alert system (later replaced) and established the Transportation Security Administration, which dramatically changed airport security nationwide. While terrorism prevention remains its core mission, DHS has evolved to address new threats like cybersecurity, domestic extremism, and emerging challenges like pandemics. The department’s effectiveness has been debated, with critics pointing to privacy concerns, bureaucratic inefficiencies, and questions about whether centralizing so many agencies has actually improved security outcomes.
Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) was established on March 1, 2003, as part of the massive government reorganization following the 9/11 terrorist attacks. The agency was created by merging the investigative and interior enforcement functions of two legacy agencies: the U.S. Customs Service (previously under the Treasury Department) and the Immigration and Naturalization Service (formerly under the Justice Department). This consolidation was designed to improve coordination and eliminate the intelligence-sharing failures that had allowed the 9/11 attacks to succeed. Initially called the “Bureau of Immigration and Customs Enforcement” (BICE), the “B” was quickly dropped, and the agency became known simply as ICE. With approximately 20,000 employees and an annual budget of around $8 billion, ICE operates more than 400 offices throughout the United States and in 46 other countries.
ICE’s mission focuses on enforcing federal laws governing border control, customs, trade, and immigration primarily within U.S. borders. The agency is organized into three main operational directorates: Homeland Security Investigations (HSI), which investigates transnational criminal organizations and terrorist networks; Enforcement and Removal Operations (ERO), which detains and removes undocumented immigrants; and the Office of the Principal Legal Advisor (OPLA), which provides legal services to the agency. Unlike Border Patrol agents who patrol the nation’s borders, ICE personnel operate primarily in the interior of the country, conducting targeted enforcement operations, investigating customs violations, and managing detention facilities for those awaiting immigration proceedings. Over its two decades of existence, ICE has evolved to address emerging threats while maintaining its core mission of protecting national security and public safety through immigration and customs enforcement.
The Transportation Security Administration (TSA) was created in November 2001 as a direct response to the security failures exposed by the September 11th terrorist attacks. Prior to TSA, airport security was a patchwork system managed by private security companies hired individually by each airline. These companies operated under regulations set by the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), but standards were inconsistent, pay was extremely low leading to high turnover, and screening procedures varied dramatically from airport to airport. The Aviation and Transportation Security Act, signed just two months after 9/11, federalized this system, creating TSA as a new agency within the Department of Transportation (before being moved to the newly formed Department of Homeland Security in 2003). In its first year, TSA rapidly deployed a federal workforce of over 55,000 screeners and implemented standardized security protocols across the nation’s commercial airports.
Since its creation, TSA’s role has evolved beyond just screening passengers and baggage at airports. The agency is now responsible for securing all modes of transportation, including rail, mass transit, highways, and pipelines. While its most visible presence remains at airport security checkpoints where travelers encounter standardized screening procedures, liquid restrictions, and advanced imaging technology, TSA has developed a multi-layered approach to security. This includes Federal Air Marshals on flights, intelligence gathering and analysis, canine teams, and partnerships with other law enforcement agencies. The agency has continually adapted to emerging threats, implementing new technologies like full-body scanners and enhanced ID verification requirements while attempting to balance security needs with the efficient movement of millions of travelers daily.
The Transportation Security Administration has faced criticism over its screening practices and perceived inconsistencies. One notable program that drew scrutiny was the “Quiet Skies” surveillance initiative, which monitored travelers deemed suspicious but not on any terrorist watchlist. In June 2025, Homeland Security Secretary Kristi Noem ended the “Quiet Skies” program, revealing it had cost taxpayers approximately $200 million annually without preventing a single terrorist attack since its inception. The program was also criticized for potential politicization, with allegations that it was used to target political opponents while excluding certain individuals connected to known or suspected terrorists. Criticism in social media and memes online depicting TSA agents screening nuns and children while letting “terrorist types” walk on by emerged. Even The Naked Gun series of movies often parodied airport security, with scenes of normal families being frisked and scanned with a wand as gun-toting terrorists walk through the metal detector without even a glance. These concerns highlighted questions about TSA’s risk assessment priorities and resource allocation.
Regarding passenger screening protocols, TSA has continually evolved its procedures in response to emerging threats. The agency has implemented various screening measures over the years, including restrictions on liquids and electronics, based on intelligence indicating terrorist groups’ interest in concealing explosive devices in commercial electronics, clothing, and cosmetics. Despite the TSA’s standardized screening approach sometimes resulting in public criticism when seemingly low-risk individuals received enhanced screening while other potentially suspicious travelers passed through with less scrutiny, the agency has maintained that its risk-based security approach focuses on behavior and threat indicators rather than profiling. Even so, the effectiveness and fairness of these methods have been subjects of ongoing public debate.
From conservative perspectives, a push to privatize TSA remains an option as the current partial shutdown has seen the departure of hundreds of agents, and long lines at many airports just to get through security. The argument is framed as a common-sense solution to government inefficiency and political gamesmanship. Ben Carson argues that the current system “turns efficient, convenient air travel into a political football,” with government shutdowns making “metaphorical hostages of airline passengers” by creating hours-long waits at security checkpoints. Conservative pundits and political figures point out that airports already using private contractors through the Screening Partnership Program (SPP) maintained short wait times even during recent DHS funding disputes, while TSA-run airports experienced significant delays. They advocate for a model where TSA would focus on “intelligence and counter-terrorism while allowing the private sector to focus on efficiency and customer experience,” arguing this would insulate air travel from partisan budget battles. The Trump administration’s 2027 budget proposal reflects this approach, calling for expanding SPP to smaller airports and cutting approximately 8,400 TSA positions (about 14% of the workforce).
Progressive commentators view the privatization push with skepticism, framing it as an ideologically motivated attempt to weaken unions and enrich private contractors. AFGE Union representatives argue that Republicans’ “ultimate goal” is to “eliminate union protections and privatize the TSA” so “their millionaire buddies can make more money by having contracts,” which would lead to “not better security, not better screening for anyone, but just more possibilities for gaps in the system that terrorists can get through.” Progressives point out that even if screening were privatized, the federal government would still need to oversee security standards, meaning federal workers and costs would remain. The fact is, during the current DHS funding dispute, ICE (the agency Democrats are targeting) remains fully funded through separate legislation. The left, it seems, to go after ICE and President Trump’s immigration policies, are willing to compromise national security with the TSA funding crisis.
Trump responded by bringing in ICE agents to handle some of the TSA responsibilities, and Republicans have argued the current crisis reveals the need for at least a private sector partnership when it comes to airport security. While progressive Democrats are claiming their ire is regarding ICE, Republicans have responded by generally supporting strengthening the immigration enforcement agency and expanding its role. The use of ICE agents at the airports demonstrates ICE’s versatility and importance to national security. Progressives, meanwhile, strongly oppose expanding ICE’s presence anywhere, much less in airports, viewing the latter as an inappropriate mixing of functions that could intimidate travelers and create a chilling effect, particularly for immigrant communities. They contend ICE agents lack proper training for passenger screening and that their presence at airports represents an unnecessary militarization of civilian spaces.
President Trump has been a vocal and forceful proponent of using ICE agents to supplement security at airports, framing it as a necessary and pragmatic response to what he describes as a “manufactured crisis” created by political opponents. He has repeatedly stated that while Democrats in Congress “play political games” with Department of Homeland Security funding by holding it hostage over immigration enforcement, he would not allow the American traveling public to suffer the consequences of “long lines and chaos at our airports.” From his perspective, deploying highly trained ICE personnel was a logical solution, as he has emphasized that these agents are “some of the best law enforcement professionals in the world” who are fully capable of handling screening duties while maintaining national security.
Trump’s view is that this move exemplifies his administration’s commitment to “results over rhetoric” and his willingness to take decisive action when Congress fails to act. He has praised ICE agents for stepping up and “filling the gaps” left by TSA workers who walked off the job during the funding dispute, portraying it as a demonstration of their versatility and dedication to protecting Americans. The President has argued that this situation proves the fundamental inefficiency of government bureaucracy and reinforces his long-standing belief that private sector solutions and flexible inter-agency cooperation are superior to rigid, unionized federal workforces. For Trump, using ICE at airports was not just a temporary fix but a demonstration of how his administration “gets things done” by prioritizing security and efficiency over political correctness and bureaucratic resistance.
From a constitutional perspective, privatizing ICE is necessary. While national security is within the realm of the federal government, and more specifically the executive branch, aviation is not. Technically, there are no expressly enumerated powers regarding aviation, though opponents to the opinions of constitutional originalists will argue that aviation is implied by the Commerce Clause and General Welfare Clause. I believe, if aviation must fall within federal authority (and I am not suggesting it shouldn’t be), then Congress needs to propose an amendment to the Constitution and the States need to ratify it to codify the authority. Even so, there is a legitimate argument that federal bureaucracy without any private partnership may not be the best way to go when it comes to airport security. A hybrid model where both federal standards and administration are combined with a private workforce may be the best avenue not only for efficiency, but to ensure the TSA is not used as a political tool by anyone in Congress in the future.
— Political Pistachio Conservative News and Commentary
