Watchdog Claims Kristi Noem Ended Shoes-Off Rule Despite TSA Warning That Scanners Can't Fully Scan Shoes

A classified Department of Homeland Security (DHS) report has concluded that the decision by DHS Secretary Kristi Noem to scrap the long‑standing rule requiring passengers to remove their shoes at airport security checkpoints resulted in serious security gaps. This is because many Transportation Security Administration (TSA) scanners are not capable of detecting threats in footwear.

According to the inspector general's letter to Congress, shared by The Daily Beast, Noem's office was alerted to the problem in August last year. However, she did not take public or substantive corrective action and instead reclassified the findings, despite the law requiring the department to address the issue by Jan. 30.

How a Popular Policy Moved Ahead of Security Warnings

In July 2025, Kristi Noem announced a shift away from the long‑loathed practice of requiring air travellers to remove their shoes during airport security checks, even if they were not enrolled in the TSA PreCheck programme. At the time, she said the agency was 'fully confident' that the new, multi‑layered screening technology would keep travellers safe without the old requirement.

But a classified report completed in November 2025 by the DHS inspector general — the department's internal watchdog — told a different story. The report found that many full‑body scanners used at TSA checkpoints could not effectively detect threats concealed in shoes. This reportedly created a 'significant security vulnerability' in the system once passengers were allowed to keep their footwear on.

The inspector general alerted Kristi Noem's office in August 2025, just weeks after the new policy took effect, and again later in the year. Rather than releasing the findings or publicising them for industry or congressional review, officials increased the report's classification.

Lawmakers Demand Accountability

The inspector general's letter to key congressional committees painted a stark picture, noting that those deadlines have passed, and the lack of action has angered some members of Congress.

Representative Bennie G. Thompson, the top Democrat on the House Homeland Security Committee, said Noem's response endangered passengers by putting politics ahead of safety.

In a statement, he argued that the secretary had prioritised her own image over rigorous oversight and called for her resignation or impeachment, stressing that oversight of aviation security cannot be delayed.

DHS and the White House Push Back

Not everyone agrees with the inspector general's warning. Spokespeople for DHS and TSA have pushed back, saying the report is misleading. They claim all the recommended safety steps have been taken and that the decision to let passengers keep their shoes on came from careful risk checks, some condiucted under previous administrations.

The agencies also cite more than 1,000 red‑team tests, practice exercises simulating possible threats, to show that the policy change has not made airports less safe. The White House has also backed Noem, with Press Secretary Karoline Leavitt stating that President Trump still has full confidence in her and that security is stronger now than before.

What This Means for Airport Security

The shoes‑off rule started in 2006 after Richard Reid, a British man nicknamed the 'shoe bomber' tried to set off explosives hidden in his shoes on a flight to the US.

Many passengers welcomed the change when the rule was removed, seeing it as more convenient. But critics now say that convenience should not come before safety, especially when the scanners used cannot detect everything.

Security experts point out that full‑body scanners are not all the same. Most are designed to spot threats on the body or in bags, not inside shoes. The inspector general's report shows that some scanners can miss things, so letting everyone keep their shoes on could create gaps that attackers might exploit.

For millions of travellers every week, the question is simple, how much risk is worth taking to save a few seconds at security?