DHS Inspector General Joseph Cuffari filed a classified report claiming that TSA body scanners cannot adequately screen footwear, and that Secretary Kristi Noem's decision last July to eliminate the longstanding shoe-removal requirement at airport security checkpoints created what he called "significant" national security risks. Noem, according to Cuffari, was made aware of the problem as early as August 2025 and has not acted on it.
Cuffari escalated the matter in a letter to Congress dated February 17, stating that neither DHS nor TSA had responded to any of his requests to address the issue, and that by failing to act on his recommendations within three months, both agencies broke the law.
A DHS spokesperson disputed Cuffari's account, claiming the department had "appropriately responded to the report" and that many of his recommendations were already in practice. The White House backed Noem. Press secretary Karoline Leavitt told the Daily Mail:
"President Trump and Secretary Noem have ensured the most secure border in our Nation's history and our homeland is undoubtedly safer today than it was when the President took office last year."
Leavitt added that the President "continues to have full confidence in the Secretary."
The shoe-removal requirement had been a fixture of American air travel for more than two decades, introduced after Richard Reid attempted to detonate explosives hidden in his sneakers during a transatlantic flight in 2001. It was one of those universally loathed but broadly accepted security rituals. Everyone hated it. Most understood why it existed.
Last July, Noem ended the requirement effective immediately. An internal memo at the time cited improvements in screening technology and an updated threat assessment. The move was popular. Nobody misses standing barefoot on a filthy airport floor while a TSA agent waves you through.
But popularity and prudence are not the same thing.
According to DHS, the shoe-removal policy had been tested and risk-assessed over a thousand times, a process dating back to the Biden administration. That long history of evaluation makes Cuffari's claim harder to dismiss. If the inspector general is right that current scanners cannot adequately screen shoes, then the policy change leaped ahead of the technology that was supposed to justify it.
To board a domestic flight under the new rules, passengers must hold a federally approved REAL ID or passport; a standard driver's license no longer suffices. Travelers flagged for special security procedures may still be asked to remove their shoes. Previously, only PreCheck members and passengers under 12 or over 75 were exempt.
Cuffari filed his classified report in November. What happened next raises questions that go beyond the shoe policy itself.
DHS officials allegedly blocked the report from public release and elevated its classification level. Many White House officials are reportedly unaware that the report exists. Cuffari told Congress he made "four recommendations for corrective action" that TSA has yet to engage with.
The instinct to bury an inspector general's findings is not unique to any administration or party. It is, however, always wrong. Inspectors general exist precisely to surface problems that agencies would rather not confront. When career bureaucrats suppress a watchdog report, it is a sign that institutional self-preservation has overtaken institutional responsibility. When political appointees do it, the implications are worse.
If Cuffari's concerns are overblown, the proper response is to declassify the findings and demonstrate why. Suppression does the opposite of reassurance.
The shoe-scanner controversy lands on a DHS secretary already navigating serious turbulence. Unnamed homeland security officials told the Wall Street Journal that Noem's handling of the report is "typical of her attitude toward national security concerns." Department-wide officials have accused her of prioritizing her public image and standing with the President over the department's actual work.
The internal picture is not flattering:
After two ICE-involved shootings in Minnesota in January and the death of an individual identified as Pretti, the President placed Homan in charge of the immigration crackdown in Minneapolis, effectively sidelining Noem on the issue that defines DHS's current mission.
Conservatives should be honest about what this story actually reveals, even when it involves one of their own.
The shoe-removal policy was genuinely ripe for reform. The security theater critique was legitimate. Millions of Americans cheered when the requirement disappeared, and rightly so. But reforming a policy requires doing the homework first, not announcing the change and hoping the technology catches up.
If Noem's team had the data to support the shift, they should be releasing it, not classifying the inspector general's objections into silence. If they didn't have the data, the decision was reckless regardless of how popular it proved.
The deeper issue is one of institutional seriousness. DHS is the third-largest federal department. It manages border security, immigration enforcement, cybersecurity, disaster response, and, yes, aviation security. Running it well requires more than media instincts and loyalty tests. It requires the grinding, unglamorous work of managing career professionals, responding to internal oversight, and treating watchdog reports as tools rather than threats.
Commissioning approval-rating polls while an inspector general's security recommendations sit unanswered tells you where the attention is going. Firing 80 percent of career ICE leadership tells you what kind of organization is being built. Neither inspires confidence that the nation's homeland security apparatus is operating at the level the moment demands.
The White House says it has full confidence in Noem. That confidence will be tested not by what the press says, but by whether DHS can demonstrate that American airports are secure, that the inspector general's concerns have been substantively addressed, and that the department's internal dysfunction hasn't compromised its mission.
Confidence is earned by results, not declared by a press release.