TSA apparently has once again decided to go beyond its charter to screen passengers and baggage, and can now make up its own air travel rules on the fly, no pun intended. Technically there’s a nugget of truth in there, in the formal rulemaking requirements in place, and the usually ignored pledge to “work closely with our stakeholder partners”. Not this time.

When travelers sometimes have problems with their ID, they – quite correctly– receive much more rigorous secondary screening before boarding. Many advocates maintain that domestic passengers are under no obligation to present an ID to TSA. Passengers may be required to show an ID to airline employees, but that it is a contractual matter between the airlines and their passengers. There are also grumpy persons who like to challenge the system with their belief in the 9th Circuit Federal Court of Appeals when it clarified a passenger's right to travel without showing an ID in its ruling in Gilmore v. Gonzales. It’s very frustrating when TSA doesn’t know its own rules.

With that background, here’s the issue:

When faced with persons without ID, for whatever good or bad reason, TSA has now decided to call in the local airport police to deal with the passenger. This causes many airport police departments considerable heartburn, to the point where at least a dozen major airports have advised TSA that they will not respond to such calls -- something about probable cause, and the notion that it is not illegal to be in a public place without an ID. The cops argue generally that if there ever were such a rule, no state or local law enforcement entity has the jurisdiction to deny air travel, so TSA should take responsibility for its own actions. Airports say they will respond only as a peacekeeper if the passenger becomes irate, not as an arbiter of non-existent Federal rules.

I do not argue that persons without an ID might (heavy emphasis on the uncertainty) be worth questioning more closely and screening more carefully. Indeed, that person might (see above) be on a no-fly watch list, and the lack of an ID could be a ruse – notwithstanding the silly notion that a true bad guy would insist on all that extra attention and an aggressive secondary screening. But even TSA itself has acknowledged in a letter to a U.S. Senator on behalf of a complaining constituent that no such ID requirements exist (although they claim the ability to do so.)
This leads me to an unrelated observation that may, upon reflection, indeed be relevant: an AP story indicating that “Homeland Security Department employees are mostly an unhappy lot.” An internal DHS survey found that only 58 percent of employees were satisfied with their jobs. While 91 percent of them think their work is important, only 54 percent would recommend DHS as a good place to work. That number is up from the 51 percent reported in 2006. In other words, it’s getting worse. Surprise.
The survey report offered no detailed analysis of the findings, but its follow-up recommendations include town hall meetings and focus groups to identify problems. I have a sign on my wall from my government days that says: “Convening meetings to study an issue in order to formulate a report to offer recommendations is not what we meant by "action".