DHS Secretary Accused of Creating Airport Security Vulnerabilities with Shoe Policy Reversal
A classified report from the Department of Homeland Security inspector general has concluded that Secretary Kristi Noem created significant security risks at American airports by allowing passengers to keep their shoes on during security screenings, according to sources familiar with the matter. The report, obtained by The Wall Street Journal, found that Noem's policy reversal inadvertently opened a new vulnerability in the nation's aviation security system.
Blocked Findings and Increased Classification
When Noem's office was informed of these security concerns in November, it reportedly took no corrective action. Instead, the office prohibited the report from being published and increased its classification level, preventing public disclosure of the findings. A DHS spokesperson disputed this account, claiming the inspector general's recommendations had been implemented and that the policy change followed numerous risk assessments, including some conducted during the Biden administration.
Longstanding Security Protocol Overturned
The no-shoes rule was originally implemented nationwide by the Transportation Security Administration in 2006, following British national Richard Reid's attempted bombing of an American Airlines flight using explosives concealed in his footwear. For nearly two decades, travelers had been required to remove shoes during security screenings, a policy that frustrated many passengers but was considered essential for aviation security.
In July of last year, Noem scrapped this longstanding requirement, ending what many Americans viewed as an ineffective and inconvenient security measure. However, the inspector general's report revealed that some full-body scanners operated by TSA cannot properly screen shoes, creating a dangerous gap in security protocols.
Congressional Notification and Unresolved Concerns
Despite the report's classification, the DHS inspector general wrote to congressional committees in February, alerting them to the unresolved oversight matter with significant safety implications. The letter stated that the department and TSA had failed to address requests to remedy the security lapse, despite being legally required to create a corrective plan by January 30—three months after the report was filed.
The inspector general noted he had first informed Noem of the security concern in August and had provided four specific recommendations for corrective action that TSA had not responded to. "My office has advanced this issue as far as we are able," the letter stated, "yet the findings and recommendations have not been addressed despite our best efforts."
White House Support Amid Growing Scrutiny
The report was also brought to the attention of several White House officials. When contacted by the WSJ, White House Press Secretary Karoline Leavitt expressed President Donald Trump's complete confidence in Noem's leadership. "Our homeland is undoubtedly safer today than it was when the president took office last year," Leavitt added, defending the administration's security record.
This controversy emerges as Noem faces increasing scrutiny over her management approach at DHS. Department officials have claimed that Noem's focus on maintaining her public profile has sometimes compromised the department's core responsibilities, according to the WSJ report.
Broader Departmental Challenges
Simultaneously, the department Noem oversees has encountered criticism regarding the administration's immigration enforcement actions in Minnesota, where federal agents were involved in two fatal shootings of American citizens. These incidents have raised questions about operational protocols and oversight within DHS agencies under Noem's leadership.
The security vulnerability identified in the inspector general's report represents a potentially serious breach in aviation safety protocols that could affect millions of travelers annually. With the findings remaining classified and corrective actions reportedly unimplemented, concerns persist about whether adequate measures are being taken to address the identified security gaps.
