Airlines Oppose Bill to Restrict TSA Facial Recognition

Published Date : 7/29/2025 

Major U.S. airline trade groups and travel industry organizations are pushing back against a bipartisan Senate bill that aims to restrict the TSA's use of facial recognition at airport checkpoints. The Traveler Privacy Protection Act, supported by Senators Merkley, Markey, Kennedy, and Marshall, seeks to make traditional identity verification the default method unless travelers opt in. 

As the Transportation Security Administration (TSA) continues to modernize airport security through biometrics, automation, and AI, a parallel effort is underway in Congress that could drastically reshape the agency’s approach to facial recognition. Major U.S. airline trade groups, travel industry organizations, and airport associations have collectively urged lawmakers to oppose the effort.

At the heart of this clash is the Traveler Privacy Protection Act, a bipartisan bill backed by Democrat Senators Jeff Merkley and Ed Markey and Republicans John Kennedy and Roger Marshall. The bill aims to restrict TSA’s use of facial recognition at airport checkpoints and shift the default screening method back to traditional identity verification unless travelers opt in.

The proposed legislation mandates the deletion of facial scans immediately after identity confirmation and prohibits any use of biometric data beyond that point. According to the bill’s sponsors and supporting civil liberties organizations, TSA’s expanding use of facial recognition poses a long-term surveillance risk that, if left unchecked, could normalize biometric tracking as a condition for travel.

The lawmakers argue that many passengers are unaware that they can opt out of face scans and contend that TSA’s signage and communication fail to make this option clear or easily accessible. The bill, which the Senate Committee on Commerce, Science and Technology is set to consider this week, represents a narrower and more pragmatic iteration of a 2023 proposal by the same name. Whereas the original bill sought to ban TSA’s use of facial recognition altogether unless specifically reauthorized by Congress, the new version instead aims to make human ID checks the default.

Supporters of the bill warn that the unchecked use of facial recognition at TSA checkpoints risks creating a de facto national tracking infrastructure. They point to persistent concerns over algorithmic bias, disparate impacts on people of color, and the potential for misuse of biometric data by government or private entities. Independent investigations have shown that some passengers have been misled, discouraged, or even obstructed when attempting to opt out of facial scans, suggesting that the opt-out process is not always respected in practice.

These legislative concerns are not hypothetical. In May, the U.S. Privacy and Civil Liberties Oversight Board (PCLOB) affirmed in a comprehensive 125-page report many of the senators’ warnings about a biometric ecosystem that is expanding in scope but underregulated and inconsistently implemented. The board commended certain safeguards while simultaneously warning of transparency failures, unclear consent practices, and the latent risks of mission creep.

The aviation industry, however, is pushing back against the proposed restrictions. In a joint letter to the Senate Commerce Committee, industry groups urged lawmakers to reject the bill, saying that it would undermine TSA’s security modernization efforts and force a costly reversion to manual identity checks. According to the industry’s estimates, eliminating or severely restricting facial recognition would require reallocation of nearly 75 percent of TSA’s budget to workforce operations, gutting investments in technology, automation, and throughput optimization.

From the industry’s perspective, facial recognition is a vital tool for meeting the dual challenges of record-setting air travel volumes and chronic staffing shortages. Airlines argue that biometric screening enables faster and more accurate identity verification, reduces bottlenecks, and facilitates contactless processing, especially important in a post-pandemic travel environment. TSA, for its part, asserts that scanned facial images are not retained beyond the identity check – except during limited system testing – and insists that declining a scan does not delay passengers or impact their ability to fly.

Still, privacy experts caution that these assurances have not been codified into regulation and rely too heavily on agency discretion. Broader civil rights concerns also loom. Numerous studies have shown that facial recognition systems – especially those trained on unbalanced datasets – can misidentify people of color, women, and older adults at disproportionately high rates. While TSA claims to use top-tier algorithms, critics argue that biometric tools should not be deployed without ironclad safeguards, especially when their adoption is rapidly expanding across more than 80 airports, with plans to reach over 400 locations in the coming years.

Jeramie Scott, Senior Counsel and Director of the Project on Surveillance Oversight at the Electronic Privacy Information Center, said, “the Act will ensure facial recognition technology is not forced upon the air traveling public and prevent TSA’s use of the tech from expanding beyond identity verification. Facial recognition requires strict regulations on if, when, and how it can be used; and we hope the Traveler Privacy Protection Act is the first step by Congress to meaningfully rein in this tech.”

According to the PCLOB report, TSA claims its systems are highly accurate, citing National Institute of Standards and Technology testing showing false positive rates below 0.001 percent and face capture success rates exceeding 99 percent across demographic groups. TSA argues that the systems are efficient and superior to human screeners in both speed and precision. Yet, even with these technical assurances, the report identified substantial cause for concern. It emphasized that even with high accuracy rates, issues of demographic bias persist and must be addressed. Although performance across demographic groups has improved, false negative rates can still lead to disproportionate burdens on marginalized communities, resulting in unnecessary scrutiny or delays, the report points out.

This debate is taking place against a backdrop of sweeping innovation initiatives at TSA. This week, the agency issued a new Request for Information (RFI) inviting the private sector to submit turnkey security solutions aimed at enhancing checkpoint operations through advanced technology. The RFI calls for ideas that blend AI, automation, remote screening, and robotics to create a faster, more efficient, and customer-centric screening process. According to TSA Acting Administrator Ha Nguyen McNeill, this effort is part of a broader strategy to usher in a “golden age” of aviation security innovation. She highlighted Homeland Security Secretary Kristi Noem’s recent announcement eliminating the requirement for passengers to remove their shoes during screening – a long-standing policy born out of post-9/11 concerns – as an example of how thoughtful modernization can ease burdens without compromising safety.

The new RFI reflects a desire to expand that logic to all aspects of checkpoint design and operation. TSA has specified that any proposed solutions must enhance security effectiveness, reduce labor costs, and maintain compliance with regulatory standards. Submissions must incorporate real-time data capabilities using open standards and be compatible with the TSA Cloud infrastructure. Responses to the RFI are due by August 1, and while this is not a formal procurement notice, it may inform future pilot programs or contracts under TSA’s Screening Partnership Program, which permits private screening companies to operate under federal oversight at select airports.

Meanwhile, Customs and Border Protection is preparing for a sweeping expansion of its Global Entry program, with a major emphasis on seamless facial recognition technology. This push for technological solutions comes as air travel in the U.S. reaches historic highs, with industry stakeholders warning of critical stress on aging infrastructure. The air traffic control system is already suffering from a shortfall of nearly 3,000 controllers, prompting calls from airline executives and lawmakers for bold action.

At a 2024 Washington Aero Club luncheon, Airlines for America President and CEO Nicholas Calio emphasized that “business as usual isn’t cutting it,” and urged Congress to address systemic underfunding, technology gaps, and workforce challenges. In recent testimony before Congress, Calio reiterated that the National Airspace System has reached an inflection point. Echoing that urgency, President Donald Trump said his administration would deliver a “great computerized system for our control towers – brand new, not pieced together, obsolete.” Transportation Secretary Sean Duffy similarly affirmed that the U.S. public deserves a next-generation air traffic system designed to keep travelers safe in an era of growing complexity.

The convergence of these issues – biometric surveillance, private-sector innovation, strained infrastructure, and congressional oversight – has made the skies a focal point in the broader struggle over the role of government technology in daily life. TSA sees itself as charting a path forward through automation and industry collaboration, but critics fear the agency’s biometric ambitions are outpacing its accountability. The industry’s opposition to the Traveler Privacy Protection Act is driven by both operational urgency and economic incentive. Airlines and airports have invested heavily in biometric infrastructure, from automated e-gates to touchless ID scanning systems. Rolling back facial recognition would not only disrupt these investments they maintain, but it also could open the door to increased delays, higher operating costs, and diminished traveler satisfaction.

Supporters of the legislation, on the other hand, argue that the stakes go beyond convenience. They view this moment as an opportunity to reset the balance between innovation and privacy, ensuring that traveler consent is meaningful and that biometric data is not quietly repurposed for secondary surveillance. In their view, legislation is essential to establish a legal framework that protects individual rights before biometric technologies become too entrenched to challenge. “The TSA program, which uses facial recognition to match passengers’ faces with their government ID on file, has been implemented without any guarantees of its effectiveness or ability to protect passenger privacy,” Merkley said. And “that’s a slippery slope into a surveillance state, and nothing could be more damaging to our national values of privacy and freedom.” 

Frequently Asked Questions (FAQS): 

Q: What is the Traveler Privacy Protection Act?

A: The Traveler Privacy Protection Act is a bipartisan bill that aims to restrict the TSA's use of facial recognition at airport checkpoints and shift the default screening method back to traditional identity verification unless travelers opt in.

Q: Why are airlines opposing the bill?

A: Airlines are opposing the bill because they believe it would undermine TSA’s security modernization efforts and force a costly reversion to manual identity checks, which could disrupt their investments in biometric infrastructure and lead to increased delays and higher operating costs.

Q: What concerns do privacy advocates have about facial recognition at airports?

A: Privacy advocates are concerned about the long-term surveillance risk, algorithmic bias, disparate impacts on people of color, and the potential for misuse of biometric data by government or private entities.

Q: What is TSA's stance on facial recognition technology?

A: TSA asserts that scanned facial images are not retained beyond the identity check and insists that declining a scan does not delay passengers or impact their ability to fly. They claim their systems are highly accurate and superior to human screeners in both speed and precision.

Q: What is the U.S. Privacy and Civil Liberties Oversight Board's stance on biometric systems?

A: The U.S. Privacy and Civil Liberties Oversight Board (PCLOB) has identified substantial cause for concern regarding biometric systems, emphasizing issues of demographic bias and the need for clearer consent practices and transparency. 

More Related Topics :