[music]

Brian Lehrer: Brian Lehrer on WNYC. Two words, airport security. With those two words, has the routine of it all been summoned to your mind already? You know the drill. Grab a bin, toss your water bottle, take out your laptop. If you thought the list was going to end with "And take off your shoes," if it were any other time in the last 20-plus years, you'd be right, but as of last week, the TSA has decreed that you can keep your shoes on at airports when you go through security. No more socks or bare feet shuffling through the scanners; you can walk right through. Why the change? Why now? Is it safe? Joining us now, Allison Poley, a reporter covering travel and tourism for The Wall Street Journal, who's been following this story since the rule was done away with last week. Allison, welcome to WNYC.

Allison Poley: Thanks so much for having me.

Brian Lehrer: Let's start big picture. Is this for all airports?

Allison Poley: This is for all airports, and it's effective immediately, so summer travelers will not have to take their shoes off for their trips that started last week.

Brian Lehrer: For people who weren't old enough then or just don't remember, why was the shoes off rule originally implemented?

Allison Poley: It all dates back to 2001 when a man named Richard Reid, who became known as the so-called shoe bomber, attempted to detonate explosives that were in his shoes on a transatlantic flight. This was in the post-9/11 concern about airport security. From that time, various airports did implement policies related to keeping your shoes on, but it wasn't a requirement for every airport until 2006. It has been in place for almost 20 years since then.

Brian Lehrer: Listeners, if you've been through airport security in the last week or over the weekend, help us report this story. Did you keep your shoes on? How did it feel? 212-433-WNYC. It seems like such an absurd question, but here we are. Did the lines move quicker? If you haven't traveled recently but have thoughts on this, you can call in, too, or text us. Are you glad to keep your shoes on, or are you worried about flight security? Call or text. 212-433-WNYC 212-433-9692.

When the rule was devised back 20 years ago, the TSA cited intelligence saying shoe explosives were still a threat. Back in 2012, in an op-ed for The Wall Street Journal where you work, a former head of the TSA said there was no sure-shot way to detect them, bombs and shoes, without using an X-ray. Are the threats rarer, or how did they come to this conclusion that if it wasn't safe to leave your shoes on last week, it is today?

Allison Poley: Well, they're not exactly specifying what technology has changed, but they do say that there's a multi-layer security approach now that they're taking. Let's go back, way back when this rule was developed, the actual scanning technology did not extend down to the floor. That's why you had to take your shoes off, because it wasn't able to scan at shoe or foot level back then.

Since then, the technology has improved, and we believe that, yes, it can scan your shoes and do full head-to-toe scanning, but there's also a lot of different ways that they're assessing threats. Some people told me that, really, this has been a long time coming, and it could have been implemented at various points in the past. This administration took the steps to do it this past week, but there was no change in the past week that all of a sudden meant this was a different technology, for example.

Brian Lehrer: Was there any shoe bomber anywhere in the world other than Mr. Reid that one time?

Allison Poley: Not that I'm aware of, no. That one incident really did change the way that we went through airport security and all around the world for decades to follow.

Brian Lehrer: Do we have any data yet or anecdotal evidence that this is actually speeding up security lines, or is it still too early to tell? I assume that's the reason that they did it, if they assessed that the threat was low enough.

Allison Poley: Yes, that is the reason that they did it. I'll be curious to hear what the listeners have to say. What I've heard is that it actually has slowed things down a little bit in the initial rollout because people were going through TSA screening, and their shoes were actually setting off the alarm. A lot of people reported that they needed to take their shoes off after all, or it was taking them a little bit longer in this initial stage. They weren't just flying through.

Brian Lehrer: This is WNYC-FM, [unintelligible 00:05:07] New York, WNJT-FM 88.1 Trenton, WNJP 88.5 Sussex, WNJY 89.3 Netcong, and WNJO 90.3 Toms River. We are New York and New Jersey Public Radio. Live streaming@wnyc.org, coming up to eleven o'clock as we talk about the news that you no longer have to take off your shoes according to the federal government, at the airports, when you Go through TSA screening with Allison Poley, a reporter covering travel and tourism for The Wall Street Journal, who's been following this story. Is this a Trump administration thing? Is this like a MAGA thing in any way, or is it kind of independent of that, on its own long-term professional track?

Allison Poley: I think modernization of airports and airport screening is something a lot of administrations have looked at. Maybe they just haven't had the political will to actually put the changes in, because when you think about it, I don't think any administration wants to be in the hot seat if there is an issue with someone putting an explosive in their shoe. There's always a risk. If you're thinking about it in general, there's always some type of risk associated with flying or with potential security issues.

This administration is saying, "Look, the technology is up to date." If you look at all the other airports in the world, people aren't taking their shoes off there unless a detector does go off. At this point, the US was the last main developed country that was requiring people to do this. There is a lot of political will in this administration to change airport screening to make it more modern, to make it faster, especially ahead of the World Cup. Then the Olympics will be coming up in 2028. They're expecting a lot of air travelers, and they want people to get through quicker.

Brian Lehrer: I see we have a former TSA employee calling in. Jamel in Brooklyn, you're on WNYC. Hi, Jamel.

Jamel: Hey, good morning, Brian. I am a longtime listener, first-time caller. I'm actually surprised that I got through so easily.

Brian Lehrer: Well, there aren't a lot of TSA employees calling in, so you are our most relevant caller. We appreciate it. Hi.

Jamel: Just for disclosure, I did leave the agency some years ago, but when I was there, that was before we had the body scanners that we now find in the airports. I worked out at JFK, which is a category X airport, one of the busier ones in the country. When we had those scanners that were at the checkpoints, those CTX scanners, that was what people relied on primarily to be able to detect explosive devices. With the implementation of those full body scanners, now you can be able to get a scan as somebody walks through, where that wasn't available, say back in 2010, 2011. Then once you also add into the idea that already we've allowed people to walk through with their sneakers on and shoes on for some time through TSA PreCheck, I think this was the logical next step for them.

Brian Lehrer: Right. The people who were signed up for pre-check were already doing it. Jamel, thank you very much. Call us again. I guess the follow up to that and as you kind of reflected in an earlier answer, is as he talks about technology now making it harder to get away with sneaking a bomb in your shoe, does your reporting indicate that anybody, any expert in particular, or any organized group of people are opposed to removing the take-off-your-shoes requirement?

Allison Poley: I did talk to some TSOs, Transportation Security officers, who said that there is a bit of concern that, basically, the threat is never zero. If you think about risk in general, there's always some type of risk. They were a little bit concerned just because it's a big change to what's going on. Then others still said, "No, the technology has improved. We really feel that this is the right move."

Of course, the government isn't rolling out its risk assessments, so we don't know what intelligence they have if whether the risk of this has changed. It's a little bit hard to say. There were some people who thought this was a change that happened, maybe a little bit abruptly, from their perspective. They came in, and the change was rolled out. Just going to take some getting used to and figuring out how the new process works.

Brian Lehrer: We're getting a lot of support for this change in our text thread. Here's one that's fairly representative and a little bit colorful. It says, "It's about time they came to their senses. One nutty plot to put a bomb in their shoes, and they irrationally decided it was a worrisome issue. What about the person who put a bomb in their underwear? Why didn't we have to take off our pants to go through airport screening?" Was there an underwear bomber? Remind me.

Allison Poley: If there is an underwear bomber, that is not known to me, but I guess you learn something new every day if that did happen.

Brian Lehrer: Maybe that was a hypothetical, I don't know.

Allison Poley: [laughs] There you go.

Brian Lehrer: The other big thing we're getting on text messages, and I'll just paraphrase, in this case, a lot of people are wondering, what's the point of pre-check now?

Allison Poley: I got that question a lot, too. I think what they've done is they've changed the shoe requirement only, but not the other requirements. With pre-check, you can keep your laptop in your bag, you can keep a belt on. Sometimes they don't make you remove your jacket. The line does tend to move faster. When they announced this change, the Secretary of Homeland Security did say they were taking a look at the laptop rules and broader rules in general.

I think that is a question a lot of people will be paying attention to. Does precheck become inherently less valuable because of this? There were some people who told us that taking their shoes off was so annoying to them that paying for pre-check was worth it, and now they don't feel like they have to. I guess we'll just see how the lines go and whether that value proposition has changed.

Brian Lehrer: Another listener writes, "I brought an extra pair of socks with me to the airport just for this, because I find it disgusting to walk without shoes in an airport." Pratika, in Pennington, New Jersey, you're on WNYC. You just flew, right, Pratika?

Pratika: I just did. I flew from Newark on 30th of June to Alaska, and we had to take our shoes off. While coming back, we took the shoes off, and they said, "You don't need to." It's just been happening. The other thing that I also wanted to point out, and it could just be that airport, we also didn't have to take our laptops out. I forgot to take my laptop out, and nobody pointed it out. Nobody pulled my bag to the side and checked. I was wondering if maybe they are getting loose with other things also, but that's a thought.

Brian Lehrer: Pratika, thank you very much. We have another text that asks simply, "What about laptops?" What about laptops, Allison?

Allison Poley: I'm not aware of any change in protocol that they are intentionally allowing people to keep their laptops in. Like I said, for pre-check, you're allowed to do that, but they are taking a look at it, and they've said the technology needs to justify the change. They need to feel like there is warranted technology there to make that change. I'm not aware of any policy change. Again, that's another thing. If you have a laptop, an iPad, maybe a camera, you're taking all of these things out, and sometimes you forget. That can be annoying to people when they have these new scanners that are able to tell what actually is inside the bag.

Brian Lehrer: I was distracted during that last answer, I will admit, by looking up something that another caller texted, "What, you forgot about the underwear bomber?" and sent us a link to an article that is now being blocked by an ad. [chuckles] There it is. "The man who smuggled a bomb in his underwear aboard a commercial airliner on Christmas Day in 2009,-" This is CNN. "-has been sentenced to life in prison months after he pleaded guilty for his role in what officials later determined was an Al Qaeda plot." I guess there was an underwear bomber that we both forgot about.

Allison Poley: There was. Thank you for fact-checking me on that. I won't forget that again.

Brian Lehrer: Did you say this while I was looking at that article? What's the hypothetical threat from a laptop?

Allison Poley: I think just having something that isn't explosive, that is in some technology that could be implemented in there. Again, they're able to do a really detailed threat assessment when it does go through the scanner. I guess taking it out when you have a bunch of stuff stacked in a backpack or in a bag, for example, it could be harder to tell what certain things are with the prior machines.

Taking the laptop out separates it so it's not jumbled in there with the rest of the stuff in the bag. Now, with these X-ray scanners, they're so much more detailed than when this technology was introduced. Some people say this is just another change waiting to happen because the machines are able to do their jobs now, and it doesn't matter what's in the bag, for example.

Brian Lehrer: Just to acknowledge, not everybody is convinced. Danny in Massapequa, you're on WNYC. Hi, Danny.

Danny: Good morning, Brian. Hope you're having a good summer. I would have much rather been talking about our mayoral candidate. I just love the topic. As everybody tried to parse his words and step back from--

Brian Lehrer: Another day.

Danny: Another day. Listen, since my son moved to South Carolina, I've flown there about 20 times in the past four years, round-trip. I didn't really seem to be that bothered by the fact that I knew I was going to have to take my shoes off. I made sure, like my mother said when I was a young kid, "Make sure you have fresh socks on. Nice whitey Windsor." Flipped off my little sneakers that didn't need laces and took another 10 seconds to put them back on, which gave me another hour and a half to walk around the terminal waiting for my plane to leave if it wasn't delayed. It didn't seem, to me, to be such an intrusive element like taking off the belt.

Okay, this is the routine. We haven't had a major incident since all of these things were instituted. Whether you're a Major League pitcher trying to hide your pitch or anything else, why were we announcing? Well, I always get a kick at that one, when cops announce how they solve the crime. Why are we telling the criminals this? What now? Now, as soon as we announced, "We're no longer taking your shoes off," there's somewhere somebody in the world is saying, "Oh, okay, that's interesting. Why did they do that?

What technology do they now have, and how do we defeat that?" I don't see the point. To me, it didn't feel overly intrusive. I would have flown in a robe if it meant I had to get there safely because I'm not that big on flying anyway. I don't understand why we have to make these announcements and why we're doing away with that and let the enemy know what we're up to.

Brian Lehrer: Danny, thank you very much. That's an interesting point. They made a big announcement of it. I guess they thought it would be a big, popular thing, which I think mostly it is. If there is a game of cat and mouse where a new technology makes it hard to do it the old way, the bad guys, if we consider somebody who wants to blow up an airplane a bad guy, by definition, then they're going to, now that it's been so publicly announced, figure out how to defeat the new technology. Is he the only one saying that, to your knowledge?

Allison Poley: He's not the only one. I think, as you mentioned, it is a broadly popular policy overall. Of course, there are people who say, "Well, why change it?" As he mentioned, it's worked up until this point. Why are you going to go ahead and change something that was working and draw attention to it? At the same time, I think if you look broadly, there hasn't been an incident like this at any airport. In other places around the world, people were keeping their shoes on, and we're doing this, too, so you could see it from both sides.

Brian Lehrer: Last thing. Our next segment is going to be about immigration enforcement. For many people, the airport is the most common place that anybody interacts with Homeland Security. Is there anything to be said about how the administration is making it easier for American citizens to travel at a moment when others are being targeted for extra screening for their documentation, status, or even, in some cases, they are American citizens? Anything on how this intersects with that, if at all?

Allison Poley: Yes, I think there are so many initiatives that are going on at the same time. If you look at the reconciliation, the Republican spending bill, there was a lot of money put toward border enforcement, but there really wasn't as much for TSA technology in particular. It's kind of interesting. This is something that they could change, that there's not really a lot of finances tied to it.

You don't need to necessarily hire a bunch of extra agents. It's just a change in the protocol. Apparently, they had this technology already in place. This is all going in a broader context of a world in which perhaps it's easier for Americans or people who are traveling domestically to get through screening. There are a lot of other questions about what's going on at the border and people coming into the country.

Brian Lehrer: I'll throw in one more here from a listener who asked about yet another thing about going through airport screening. Listener writes, "Can you please also speak about the restrictions on liquids?"

Allison Poley: [chuckles] That's another one that, again, really gets to people, especially, you're going through, you have a water bottle filled up, and then they scan it, you have to go dump it out. That's also one that they're looking at, too. Hopefully, there will be changes on that one in the future.

Brian Lehrer: Was there a water bottle bomber, or what, in all seriousness, is the perceived risk there?

Allison Poley: Again, after I missed the underwear bomber, I'm not confident about the water bottle bomber, but no. I think it's just, again, some type of explosive or-

Brian Lehrer: Liquid explosive.

Allison Poley: -something that could be detonated that's contained as a liquid.

Brian Lehrer: Allison Poley covers travel and tourism for The Wall Street Journal. Thank you for coming on.

Allison Poley: Thanks so much for having me.

Copyright © 2025 New York Public Radio. All rights reserved. Visit our website terms of use at www.wnyc.org for further information.

New York Public Radio transcripts are created on a rush deadline, often by contractors. This text may not be in its final form and may be updated or revised in the future. Accuracy and availability may vary. The authoritative record of New York Public Radio’s programming is the audio record.