Why do some U.S. airports have private security, but others use TSA?
Why Do Some U.S. Airports Rely on Private Security, While Others Use the TSA?
Why do some U S airports - Imagine the typical scene at any airport: travelers queue up to show their identification to a security officer, place carry-on bags on a conveyor belt, and step through a scanner. This process is familiar to most, but one element in Kansas City International Airport stands out. The uniformed staff managing checkpoints wear badges and U.S. flag patches, yet they are not employed by the Transportation Security Administration (TSA) — they work for VMD Corp., a private security firm based in McLean, Virginia. This distinction often goes unnoticed by passengers, who may not realize that the officers guiding them through screening are not federal employees.
Take Natasha Greenway, for example. She was holding her son’s stroller at the airport, preparing to board a flight to Philadelphia, when she was surprised to learn that the officers at the checkpoint were not TSA personnel. “That came as a surprise to me,” she said. Similarly, Kim Eckels, traveling with her family to Portland, Ore., admitted she hadn’t paid much attention. “I taught my kids not to question anything during security,” she laughed. “Just keep your mouth shut and move on.”
Such attitudes are common among travelers, who might overlook the difference between federal and private security staff. According to Gabe Murphy, a program manager at VMD Corp., the TSA still maintains a presence at the airport. “We do have TSA here,” he explained, emphasizing that the agency oversees the private operators. This dual system — where private employees handle daily security tasks, while TSA inspectors monitor compliance — is a key feature of the Screening Partnership Program (SPP), which has been in place since the creation of the TSA following the 9/11 attacks.
The division between federal and private security dates back to the establishment of the TSA in 2001. At the time, the government gave airports a choice: they could either hire federal officers or opt for private contractors through the SPP. While most U.S. airports now use federal staff, two major holdouts remain — Kansas City and San Francisco International Airport. Other SPP airports are spread across the country, from Sarasota, Fla., to Atlantic City, N.J., and even as far as Yellowstone, Mont.
However, the trend is shifting. Airports like Hartsfield-Jackson Atlanta International are exploring privatization, signaling a potential expansion of the SPP. Tina Won Sherman, director of the U.S. Government Accountability Office’s Homeland Security and Justice team, noted that the program has stagnated for years. “It’s really remained a small number: 20 privatized airports, where there are currently 440 federalized airports across the country,” she said. The Trump administration has now introduced a new version of the SPP, called TSA Gold+, aiming to increase private involvement in security operations.
Under the current federal law, private contracting companies must pay their employees wages comparable to those of TSA workers. This requirement has been a point of contention for years, as TSA officers have historically faced some of the lowest pay in the federal workforce. The situation improved in 2023 with the passage of an omnibus budget bill, which raised salaries. Officers also saw benefits from a 2024 collective bargaining agreement between the TSA and the American Federation of Government Employees (AFGE) union. However, the Trump administration has sought to eliminate this agreement, sparking concerns about the impact on security standards.
The TSA’s role in overseeing private contractors remains crucial, even as more airports consider switching to private security. As Sherman pointed out, the agency’s ability to maintain consistent oversight across a larger number of privatized airports could be tested. “If dozens of small- and medium-sized airports join the program, it would raise questions about how TSA ensures compliance with technology standards and screeners’ efficiency,” she said. These challenges highlight the importance of the TSA’s regulatory role, which she emphasized is “absolutely critical” for maintaining high security standards.
Private security firms like VMD Corp. are eager to demonstrate their capability to uphold safety protocols. Their staff handles everything from verifying IDs to inspecting luggage, all while adhering to the TSA’s guidelines. Murphy noted that the private team’s procedures mirror those of federal officers, as the TSA’s standard operating procedures are the benchmark for their operations. “Their SOP is our SOP,” he said, underscoring the tight alignment between the two systems.
Yet, the debate over privatization extends beyond operational efficiency. Critics argue that relying on private contractors may lead to cost-cutting measures that compromise security. The American Federation of Government Employees (AFGE) union has raised concerns about the Trump administration’s plan to shift more airports to private security, warning that it could weaken the effectiveness of federal officers. “The plan would undermine the security infrastructure that federal employees have built over the years,” the union stated, highlighting the potential risks of scaling back government oversight.
As the conversation around TSA Gold+ continues, questions remain about its long-term implications. While the program offers potential savings, its success depends on the ability to balance cost-efficiency with consistent security quality. For now, passengers at Kansas City International Airport may not notice the difference, but for those who do, the distinction could shape the future of air travel security. Whether this shift leads to greater efficiency or new challenges, the TSA’s role in maintaining oversight is central to ensuring that safety standards are not compromised.