TSA Havoc Enters Week Five
Think Black Friday, but make it federal.
Most government shutdowns are so uneventful that the average American only really notices when a national park bathroom is locked or a panda cam goes dark. But every once in a while, we get the kind of bureaucratic blackout where, after more than a month of political blustering, the nation’s airports begin to resemble a fire drill in the middle of a Black Friday sale.
Welcome to week five of the congressional game of chicken.
For thirty-five consecutive days, roughly 50,000 TSA agents have been working without pay as Congress continues its standoff over a bill to fund the Department of Homeland Security (which includes TSA, FEMA, the Coast Guard, Border Patrol, the Secret Service and more). It turns out, the vast majority of DHS employees are classified as “essential” workers—which, in practice, means they fall somewhere between air traffic controllers and ER surgeons on the importance scale, but apparently somewhere below Congress on the getting-paid scale. Go figure.
Democrats have refused to sign off on the funding bill without major immigration enforcement policy reform. Republicans say they’ve agreed to considerable changes already—but refuse to greenlight a number of key Democrat demands (like banning ICE agents from wearing masks, which they believe are critical to protecting federal officers from being identified and harassed).
In the meantime, no paychecks go out… not because the government is out of money—well it is, but it has the planet’s fastest currency printer—or the Office of Personnel Management misplaced the Venmo password, but because without an approved budget, the Antideficiency Act makes it illegal to pay federal employees. (It’s actually not quite as bad as it sounds; federal law guarantees all employees receive retroactive back pay once funding is restored. The problem is, not many can afford to be on the work-now-get-paid-eventually plan for long.)
Can we just acknowledge how completely insane this setup is? Only in America could the government look you dead in the eye and say, “Your job is so vital to national security that not showing up for work is literally not an option, ever,” while also sneaking a clause into your employment contract that says “also if we’re acting like big, fat babies and can’t get along, we don’t have to pay you until after we make up.”
Who signed off on this? Who was in the strategic planning meeting and said, “I know, let’s define ‘essential’ as ‘no matter what we do—including but not limited to temporarily turning your role into a volunteer position and removing your ability to participate in the economy entirely—you must continue clocking in,’” and everyone else just nodded and then they all went to lunch?
I guess government has never attracted the best and brightest.
Anyway, here we are: with spring break in full swing, security lines looking like mosh pits, TSA no-show rates as high as 40% in some major airports, and hundreds of agents rage-quitting because—shockingly—people tend to enjoy being paid for their labor.
If government dysfunction were an Olympic sport, we’d be setting world records (and then probably refusing to certify them).
In a Trumpian twist that’s both ironic and iconic, POTUS announced that starting today, he’ll be sending in Immigration and Customs Enforcement agents to assist skeleton TSA crews with security screening. Yes, ICE—the same agency at the center of the entire standoff—is being positioned inside airports (as in, places specifically designed for people entering and leaving the country).
“This is about helping TSA do their mission and get the American public through that airport as quick[ly] as they can, while adhering to all the security guidelines and protocols,” White House Border Czar Tom Homan said in an interview.
Democrats, as you might imagine, are less than thrilled. “The last thing the American people need is for untrained ICE agents to be deployed at airports across the country potentially to brutalize or to kill them [emphasis mine],” Representative Hakeem Jeffries told CNN’s Dana Bash dramatically yesterday—effectively recasting something travelers normally find highly reassuring as something that’s supposed to evoke existential dread: ‘Oh, crap, they’ve got federal law enforcement agents here. Well, this probably ends in a fatality.’
If only there were a billionaire somewhere with the resources to casually underwrite the federal government so workers could still get paid while lawmakers pout and play stalling games!
Oh, wait.
“I would like to offer to pay the salaries of TSA personnel during this funding impasse that is negatively affecting the lives of so many Americans at airports throughout the country,” Elon Musk posted on his own platform on Saturday, presumably between launching rockets and tweeting memes.
NOTE: Grok estimated this little move would cost the almost-trillionaire a mere $7 million a day until the shutdown is, well, shut down. If the impasse dragged on for a full year, we’re talking $2.5 billion—which is still less than .3 percent of Musk’s loose-change pile.
Of course, there are a few logistical issues with the rocket man’s patently generous offer. For one thing, there’s the small matter of whether a private citizen—even one with the net worth of a mid-sized country—can legally fund federal employees. (Spoiler: not easily. The money would have to go through the Treasury, Congress would have to approve it, and the whole thing would have to be sprinkled with virgin unicorn tears and then notarized by seven committees and a subcommittee.)
But let’s not get bogged down in technicalities. The real question for the left is philosophical: Which is worse? Do you want ICE agents—whom you’ve repeatedly described as inhumane, dangerous, and fundamentally incompatible with civilized society—running airport security? (I mean, you just know that one agent is going to find a pair of rogue nail clippers on some dude and promptly deport him.) Or do you want Elon Musk—the guy who bought a social media platform and immediately turned it into a free-speech free-for-all—cleaning up your petty mess? Because those appear to be the choices currently on the menu.
It’s almost poetic, really. In their effort to block immigration enforcement funding, Democrats have managed to create a scenario where the only immediate fixes are either expanding the presence of the very agency they oppose… or accepting financial rescue from a man most of them despise. This is not what game theorists would call a “win.”
Over the very busy weekend, Democrats floated what they proposed as a seemingly-reasonable compromise: a standalone vote to fund TSA immediately and deal with the rest later. Republicans swiftly rejected it—not because they oppose paying TSA salaries, but because they don’t want to separate TSA funding from the bigger DHS fight. From their perspective, once you solve the problem everyone’s up in arms about, the urgency to fix everything else mysteriously disappears. From the Democratic side, tying TSA pay to immigration policy is the problem. Frustratingly, neither is wrong.
So the bill failed, security lines are still insane, agents are still unpaid, and both camps are accusing the other of holding the country hostage—while the actual hostages are stuck in security, barefoot, clutching Ziploc bags of toiletries. At this point, the only thing moving faster than the TSA line is the blame.
LMK what you think (and if you plan to travel anytime soon hahahaha my oldest daughter is in the air as you read) in the comments!
I have always thought that as a legislature, if you deny pay for government workers, you should not get payed as well. Specifically if you actually vote to defund. It is the legislature's job to keep the lights on, so to speak. And if after a certain period of time, since you obviously can't do your job, special elections should happen to replace you. Especially those who vote down to fund the government. In my perfect world, that is how it would work.
Between the DHS shutdown and not being able to pass the SAVE Act, Congress is officially a dysfunctional Branch of the Federal Government. Is there a way to defund Congress?