As long lines and delays stretched through airport security checkpoints across the country during last month’s federal funding lapse, Kansas City travelers experienced something different.
They kept moving.
While passengers elsewhere waited in backed-up lines caused by staffing shortages, Kansas City International Airport avoided the same level of disruption. The difference comes down to how security is staffed — and a growing national push to change that system.
Kansas City is among roughly 20 airports nationwide that use private contractors, rather than federal employees, to screen passengers through the Transportation Security Administration’s Screening Partnership Program (SPP).
At those airports, screeners are employed by private companies but must meet federal TSA standards. Because those workers are paid through existing contracts, they continued receiving pay during the funding lapse — unlike many TSA officers, who worked without pay or stayed home.
Nationwide, more than 500 TSA officers resigned during the disruption, and thousands more missed shifts, contributing to long lines and delays at many airports.
That contrast has fueled renewed interest in expanding privatized screening.
The Trump administration’s proposed 2027 budget would cut more than 8,000 TSA positions — about 14% of its workforce — while shifting funding toward private contractors.
Supporters say the model offers flexibility, stability and potential cost savings. Some estimates suggest outsourcing screening could reduce costs by up to 20%, while also allowing airports to adjust staffing more quickly during busy travel periods.
But the shift is also part of a broader ideological push toward privatization that has drawn sharp criticism.
Labor groups warn the move would eliminate thousands of federal jobs and weaken unions representing TSA workers. The administration has already moved to strip collective bargaining rights from TSA employees, a step that is being challenged in court.
Critics also raise concerns about accountability, arguing that private companies may prioritize cost-cutting over security in a system created after the Sept. 11 attacks to ensure consistent national standards.
Kansas City’s experience during the recent disruption offers a glimpse into what that future could look like: shorter lines and fewer delays during funding shortfalls, but also a system increasingly shaped by debates over cost, labor and the role of government.
As policymakers consider the next steps, the question is no longer just how fast security lines move — but who should be responsible for keeping them moving.