Homeland Security Secretary Kristi Noem announced Thursday the termination of the Transportation Security Administration’s (TSA) “Quiet Skies” program, describing it as a costly and politically weaponized initiative that failed to enhance national security.
In a press statement, the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) explained the rationale behind shutting down the surveillance program. According to the release, “since its existence, the traveler surveillance program has failed to stop a single terrorist attack while costing US taxpayers $200 million a year.” The statement further charged that the program, “under the guise of ‘national security,’ was used to target political opponents and benefit political allies.”
An internal investigation by DHS and TSA revealed concerning details about the application of the program. The department said the probe uncovered “documents, correspondence and timelines” which demonstrate the “inconsistent application of Quiet Skies and watchlisting programs” to serve political interests.
Although DHS has not released the internal documents publicly, Noem urged Congress to delve deeper into the findings. In her words, “It is clear that the Quiet Skies program was used as a political rolodex of the Biden Administration—weaponized against its political foes and exploited to benefit their well-heeled friends.” She added, “I am calling for a Congressional investigation to unearth further corruption at the expense of the American people and the undermining of US national security.”
Noem also assured that ending the Quiet Skies initiative would not compromise aviation safety. “TSA’s critical aviation and security vetting functions will be maintained,” she said, emphasizing that the Trump Administration would “return TSA to its true mission of being laser-focused on the safety and security of the traveling public.” She also promised the restoration of “the integrity, privacy, and equal application of the law for all Americans.”
The Quiet Skies program, once classified, was initially developed to keep tabs on “unknown or partially known terrorists.” It involved federal air marshals discreetly monitoring airline passengers’ behaviors, such as their proximity to boarding areas, frequency of bathroom use, and physical signs of stress like sweating or twitching. The goal was to identify suspicious behavior that might not be captured through traditional screening methods.
However, the program has been controversial since its inception, drawing bipartisan scrutiny over privacy issues and potential civil liberty infringements. These concerns intensified in recent years, with increasing criticism from both Democrats and Republicans.
Last year, former Congresswoman and Director of National Intelligence Tulsi Gabbard ignited further debate when she disclosed she had been placed on a “secret terror watch list.” She implied the move was politically motivated. Her claim sparked outrage and renewed questions about the political neutrality of TSA watchlists.
However, according to The New York Times, Gabbard’s inclusion on the list was likely tied to her international travel rather than politics. The report stated that her visit to the Vatican for an event hosted by someone on an FBI watchlist, along with previous trips to Lebanon and Syria—where she met with then-Syrian President Bashar Assad—were the probable causes of her being flagged.
Responding to Gabbard’s claims, Rep. Bennie Thompson of Mississippi, the top Democrat on the House Homeland Security Committee, dismissed her accusations. “To be clear, Tulsi Gabbard being targeted by TSA’s targeting systems was automatic and well deserved,” he said. Thompson insisted that the process “has worked the same under administrations of both parties, including the first Trump administration,” and added, “She can only blame herself—and the Trump administration’s herculean effort to cast her as a victim here is not supported by the facts.”
Thompson also criticized Noem’s call for a congressional inquiry. He questioned the logic of requesting a political investigation after an internal review had already been conducted. “Kristi Noem is lying when she pretends that the Quiet Skies security program was previously politicized,” he said in a statement. “It is truly bizarre she is begging for a politicized Congressional investigation into this matter when she runs a Department of 240,000 that can conduct its own – unless it already has completed an investigation and found nothing.”
Nonetheless, Thompson welcomed the idea of a deeper probe into the matter. “That said, I am happy to launch an investigation into what’s really going on here and I look forward to her full compliance,” he added.
Thompson also took aim at those who argue elected officials should receive special treatment regarding security screening. “The notion that current or former members of Congress are special and should be automatically exempt, regardless of the facts, from security rules or security screening—like some Republicans have argued—is asinine,” he said.
Further complicating the picture, earlier this week, CBS News reported that Sen. Jeanne Shaheen’s husband had been placed on the watchlist in 2023. According to the network, the issue was resolved and he was removed from the list after the senator communicated with the former TSA director. A spokesperson for Sen. Shaheen later told CBS that the senator had been unaware her husband had been monitored under the Quiet Skies program.
While the DHS statement and Noem’s announcement framed the Quiet Skies program as a partisan tool abused by the Biden administration, the overall narrative surrounding the initiative is far more complex. It has existed through multiple administrations and has been defended and critiqued by both sides of the political spectrum. Critics argue that ending the program entirely could leave a blind spot in aviation security, while supporters of its elimination see it as a necessary correction to government overreach and political misuse.
As this debate unfolds, attention will likely shift to Capitol Hill, where the possibility of congressional hearings now looms. Both parties seem willing to investigate, though for different reasons—Republicans focusing on alleged political abuse under the Biden administration, and Democrats looking to expose what they consider a politicized dismantling of a security measure that has operated consistently across several presidencies.
For now, with Secretary Noem’s announcement, the Quiet Skies program is officially grounded, ushering in a new chapter in the ongoing debate over the balance between national security and civil liberties.