Shoes stay on at security, and a bigger liquid limit for carry-ons may be coming
Travelers at major U.S. airports could be watching a broader shakeup in security rules, with Homeland Security officials signaling potential adjustments to how much liquid travelers may carry in carry-on bags. At the same time, changes already underway—such as not requiring shoes to be removed at screening—signal a broader push toward streamlined, user-friendly experiences without compromising safety. In this evolving landscape, the spotlight has shifted to changes in liquids restrictions and the future shape of airport screening, as policymakers weigh efficiency, security, and traveler convenience.
Context: The long arc of TSA screening and the scent of reform
The security process at U.S. airports has long lived at the intersection of risk management and public expectation. The origins of today’s layered approach trace back to a string of incidents and the imperative to balance tough screening with efficient travel. In the early 2000s, aviation security shifted dramatically after the 9/11 attacks, leading to a governance framework that emphasizes multiple layers of verification, screening technologies, and procedural controls. One of the most visible changes came in the aftermath of a high-profile attempt to bring down a flight with improvised, liquid-based devices, which prompted the adoption of rigorous limits on carry-on liquids and gels.
In the years since, the Transportation Security Administration has maintained a policy framework designed to minimize risk while allowing travelers to move through checkpoints with practical speed. The iconic rule—restricting liquids in carry-on bags to containers of 3.4 ounces (100 milliliters) or less, all placed in a single quart-sized, resealable bag—became a standard for domestic travel. This policy, together with other screening measures, created a predictable, auditable process for both passengers and security personnel. It also produced a host of everyday experiences—people sipping water before or after screening, travelers rummaging through bags to discard items that exceed size limits, and families juggling containers of snacks, baby formula, and medications within the rules.
Within this broader context, public attention has periodically shifted to the balance between fastest possible throughput and the risk-based safeguards that keep air travel secure. The ongoing discussion around liquids is a natural extension of this balance. Any modification to the size, labeling, or handling of liquids in carry-on luggage would ripple through airline operations, security workflows, and traveler education. It is in this setting that policymakers like Homeland Security officials and members of Congress begin to explore adjustments that could maintain safety while reducing friction at the checkpoint.
This evolving narrative also includes ongoing modernization of screening technology and processes. A multilayered approach to screening can enable adjustments to certain rules without diminishing security performance. The concept hinges on the idea that multiple, overlapping safeguards—advanced scanners, validated risk-based screening, and staff training—can compensate for relaxations in any single component. The broader implication is that changes to how liquids are managed might be implemented gradually, with pilots, data analysis, and stakeholder feedback guiding when and how to scale up any adjustments.
In such a climate, any proposal to revisit the liquids rule or related carry-on restrictions would be assessed not merely on theoretical risk but on empirical performance, passenger experience impact, and operational feasibility across airports of varying size and throughput. The conversation is ongoing, and officials have indicated openness to reexamining elements of the security architecture as part of a continuous improvement effort. The ultimate objective remains clear: preserve airtight safety while making the journey through checkpoints as frictionless as possible for travelers.
Travelers and industry observers are watching closely for signals about future changes, even as a number of rulings and pilot programs already show that the security landscape is capable of evolving. The tension between hard safeguards and smoother travel remains at the center of policy discussions. As such, the conversation around liquids, shoes, and other screening protocols sits within a broader, practical debate about how to modernize airports without compromising safety for the traveling public.
Noem’s remarks: A high-profile call for rethinking liquids and screening
During a recent conference hosted by The Hill, Homeland Security Secretary Kristi Noem articulated a provocative line of inquiry that has already sparked conversation within policy circles and the traveling public. She signaled that she is evaluating “everything TSA does,” indicating an openness to reexamining the metrics, thresholds, and procedures that undergird security at airports. In particular, Noem drew attention to the potential redefinition of what constitutes a liquid and how much one may carry in carry-on luggage. Her remarks suggested the next major public discussion could pivot on the permissible size of liquids in containers carried onto planes.
Noem emphasized that the TSA has already deployed a multilayered screening framework. This framework, she argued, provides flexibility to adjust certain practices while sustaining the safety standards necessary to protect travelers and flight operations. Her position implies that any proposed changes would be built on a foundation of layered safeguards, rather than a single adjustment to one parameter. She did not offer a timetable or specifics about the changes that might emerge, but the statement underscored a willingness to consider policy adaptations in the service of both security and efficiency.
The remarks at The Hill conference reflect a broader trend in national security policy: the willingness to revisit long-standing rules in light of new technologies, improved risk assessment, and evolving traveler expectations. The emphasis on “multilayered screening” signals that changes to liquids could be approached through a combination of measures—improved inspection methods, smarter threat detection, and more precise management of carried items—rather than a wholesale reversal of core principles. The dual aim of preserving safety and increasing operational agility makes any potential reform subject to careful scrutiny and phased implementation.
Noem’s public-facing stance also touches on the operational side of screening—how changes would be executed in practice and how quickly they could be rolled out. She did not provide a concrete timeline for when a decision might be announced or when any policy shift would take effect. This lack of specificity is not unusual in high-stakes policy debates, where the adoption of new procedures typically follows a period of pilot testing, stakeholder consultations, and regulatory review. Still, her remarks establish a narrative thread: the door remains open to rethinking liquids as part of a broader reassessment of TSA’s security toolkit.
The reference to a potential announcement about liquid sizes highlights how policy conversations at the federal level can shape traveler expectations even before formal changes are proposed. If policymakers move forward, travelers may anticipate updated guidance, revised packaging rules, and potentially new thresholds for what counts as a carry-on liquid. This anticipation underscores the sensitivity around any modification that could affect day-to-day airport experiences, including the time travelers spend in queues, the need to organize belongings efficiently, and the overall predictability of screening procedures.
Beyond the technical aspects, Noem’s remarks signal a broader political and administrative appetite for reform. Advocates for streamlined travel argue that modern security procedures should reflect advances in technology and data analytics, while critics caution that loosening restrictions could undermine safety. The tension between these viewpoints is a hallmark of the policy process, and it is likely to influence how quickly any changes would be proposed, tested, and scaled. In the near term, travelers should watch for official communications from TSA and DHS that spell out any new rules or adjustments, as well as guidance on how to prepare for potential changes in how liquids are regulated at checkpoints.
Noem’s broader vision for airport travel, as discussed publicly, also intersects with the potential for more efficient throughput at security checkpoints. She outlined a future in which travelers could walk through security with minimal delay and proceed directly to their planes after passing a scanner. This image—of a nearly instantaneous transition from terminal entry to boarding—frames the conversation around the human experience of air travel, not only the technical safeguards that keep flights secure. The emphasis on simplicity and speed resonates with a public that has grown accustomed to digital conveniences and real-time information across many aspects of travel.
Understanding the current liquids rule and practical implications for travelers
Under current Transportation Security Administration guidance, passengers are allowed to carry liquids in travel-sized containers no larger than 3.4 ounces (100 milliliters) per item in their carry-on bags. All such containers must be placed inside a single quart-sized, resealable plastic bag. The bag itself is typically subjected to separate screening at the security checkpoint so that each item can be inspected individually without delaying others. For liquids that exceed this size limit, travelers are instructed to place them in checked baggage, barring exceptions for medically necessary liquids and infant formula, which may be carried through security in ways that align with medical and child-care needs.
This policy has been widely publicized and drilled into traveler behavior for years. The practical impact is visible at checkpoints: passengers sorting items, squeezing into a clear bag, and sometimes performing last-minute reorganizations as items are scanned. The rules were designed to reduce the risk posed by liquid explosives and other improvised threats while maintaining reasonable convenience for most travelers. The ingredient lists of common household products, often carried as samples or cosmetics, become a focal point for travelers who must quickly determine whether a jar of jam, a tube of toothpaste, or a bottle of coffee must be relegated to checked baggage.
The policy’s reach extends beyond the bottle or jar itself. It shapes how travelers pack for trips, how they coordinate meals or snacks on flights, and how they manage medications and baby formulas. In practice, this means people frequently discard or transfer items that would otherwise be usable during travel, sometimes leading to frustration or reconciliation discussions with family members and friends within the security line. The rule’s clarity is essential, but it sometimes leads to debates about borderline items—are certain spreads or yogurts considered liquids? The TSA maintains an extensive list that clarifies what can be carried, reducing ambiguity yet still leaving room for interpretation in edge cases.
Discussions around liquid restrictions are deeply intertwined with broader safety considerations. Liquid explosives have historically been a concern for air travel security, which is why the policy exists in the first place. The 2006 incident that prompted the initial liquid ban involved a plot to use liquid explosives to damage aircraft. The policy is as much about deterrence and rapid identification of potential threats as it is about practical everyday packing. The ongoing evaluation of this rule is therefore framed within a careful risk assessment that weighs the probability of specific threats against the operational impact on travelers and airline operations.
Another layer of complexity arises from the diverse needs of travelers. Families with young children rely on baby formula and medications, which must be accommodated within reasonable safety constraints. The acknowledged exceptions for medications and baby formula reflect a recognition that some necessities cannot be easily substituted by travel-sized equivalents. This accommodation is essential for ensuring that basic health needs are met while maintaining a robust risk management posture. The policy thus reflects a balancing act between accessibility for the essential items and strict controls on other liquids.
From a traveler experience perspective, the liquids rule generates a variety of patterns that have become almost ritualistic at checkpoints. People likely refold labels to verify volumes, rearrange containers within the bag, and sometimes indulge in minor rituals like rechecking the quart bag after scanning to ensure nothing was misinterpreted. The rule’s operational effectiveness relies not only on the policy itself but also on traveler compliance and the efficiency of the bag-check workflow. TSA screeners, in turn, must manage the due diligence required to inspect every bag while maintaining a steady flow through security lines.
While the liquids rule has remained comparatively stable in recent years, Noem’s comments suggest that it could be a focal point for policy revision as part of a broader efficiency push. Any change would likely be implemented through a measured approach, possibly including pilot programs at select airports, followed by a period of data collection and stakeholder feedback. The aim would be to preserve the core safety benefits of the current approach while enabling more streamlined experiences for the majority of travelers. The potential modifications could involve new thresholds, more nuanced categorizations of items, or different handling protocols that reduce the time spent in security lines while maintaining robust threat detection.
In this evolving policy environment, travelers should remain attentive to official TSA guidance and reflect on how any future changes might alter packing habits and security line experiences. The core message—prioritizing safety while seeking to improve throughput and passenger satisfaction—persists, but the precise mechanisms by which liquids are handled may transform as technology, data analytics, and risk-scoring capabilities continue to mature. The interplay between policy evolution and traveler adaptation will shape airport experiences in the years ahead.
Shoes policy: A milestone toward smoother screening
A notable change that has already progressed is the relaxation of the shoes-off rule at security checkpoints. On July 8, Noem announced that travelers are no longer required to remove their shoes during screening after a pilot program demonstrated that TSA equipment and procedures were sufficient to maintain safety while allowing people to keep their shoes on. This policy shift marked a significant departure from the longstanding practice that had been in effect since 2006, a period that followed the 2001 attempts by Richard Reid, known as the “shoe bomber,” to bring down a flight from Paris to Miami.
The shift away from shoe removal reflects a broader strategy to modernize the screening process through technology and improved procedures. The underlying rationale is that enhanced screening equipment and standardized protocols can detect threats without the need for travelers to empty their pockets and remove footwear. The change has a direct impact on traveler convenience: it reduces the physical burden of going through security, speeds up the process, and lowers the cognitive load of keeping track of personal items as they move through the checkpoint.
The decision to reevaluate the shoes-off requirement did not occur in isolation. It followed years of evaluating risk, investing in screening technology, and assessing the cumulative effects of security measures on throughput. The pilot program that informed the decision demonstrated that airports could maintain safety standards while removing one of the most universally disliked elements of the screening experience. For many travelers, this change is a tangible improvement, especially for frequent flyers and families traveling with children who benefit from fewer tasks and less stress during the screening process.
Despite the positive reception from many travelers, the shoes-on policy remains part of a broader set of security considerations. TSA and DHS officials will continue to monitor the effectiveness of shoe-based screening in conjunction with other layers of protection, ensuring that removing shoes does not inadvertently create new vulnerabilities. This approach aligns with a data-informed, risk-based framework that emphasizes continuous improvement and adaptation to emerging threats and technologies.
From an operational standpoint, the transition away from shoe removal also has implications for gate-to-gate efficiency. Reduced handling time at security translates into shorter queues for many passengers and better flight schedule adherence. Airports that previously faced bottlenecks at security checkpoints may notice relief as the overall throughput improves, enabling travelers to reach their gates more quickly. The political and public communication aspects of this decision were also notable: it sent a message that safety enhancements can be achieved without imposing unnecessary burdens on travelers.
Noem’s comments about the future of airport travel tie into this broader theme. The idea of an airport where you arrive with your carry-on, pass through a scanner, and proceed directly to your plane evokes a streamlined workflow that could become more widespread as technology matures. The shoes-on policy change is a concrete demonstration of how policy can shift in response to evidence from pilots and performance data, signaling a willingness to reuse lessons learned in one domain to inform others across the security stack.
Visualizing a streamlined airport experience: Noem’s broader vision
Beyond the specific policy adjustments, Noem outlined a broader vision for the airport experience—one that emphasizes speed, simplicity, and a direct path from entry to boarding. Her description of a future where travelers “walk in the door with your carry-on suitcase, you walk through a scanner and go right to your plane”—with an anticipated time of about one minute—harbors both optimism and pragmatic questions. This vision captures the appeal of a seamless journey, reducing the frictions associated with conventional security lines. It also underscores the tension between aspirational efficiency and the operational realities of high-throughput security screening.
In exploring this vision, policymakers and industry stakeholders would need to consider several dimensions. First, the technological readiness of scanners and adjacent detection systems must align with the demand for rapid, accurate processing while maintaining robust threat detection. The integration of advanced imaging, artificial intelligence-enabled risk assessment, and real-time analytics would need to be compatible with existing airport infrastructure and future expansions. Second, workforce considerations—training, deployment, and staffing models—play a critical role in sustaining a fast, reliable flow of passengers through checkpoints. Third, accountability and privacy concerns must be addressed as security technologies become more pervasive and more autonomous in decision-making processes.
A streamlined airport experience would likely involve a combination of policy reforms, technology upgrades, and process redesign. For example, passengers could benefit from more intuitive packing rules, reduced need to separate items, or even pre-check programs that streamline the screening process for eligible travelers. The objective would be to minimize bottlenecks and uncertainty, producing a more predictable journey from the moment a traveler arrives at the terminal to the moment they board their aircraft. Achieving this level of efficiency would require coordinated investments across agencies, airports, manufacturers, and airlines, as well as standardized procedures that can be scaled nationwide.
Noem’s remarks also invite reflection on how travelers can prepare for potential changes. If liquids are reclassified or packaging rules are adjusted, passengers would benefit from clear, early guidance about what constitutes compliant containers, how to organize bags for efficient screening, and what items could be relocated to checked baggage ahead of travel. Travelers who are routinely subject to security demands—such as those with medications, special dietary needs, or infant formula—would particularly benefit from transparent instructions that minimize confusion and improve the speed of the screening process. The preparation dimension is essential for ensuring that reforms translate into tangible improvements in the travel experience.
In addition to immediate policy implications, the broader debate about airport efficiency intersects with questions about the costs and benefits of security investments. The push toward a faster, more intuitive experience may require upward investments in screening technologies, staff training, data-sharing protocols, and interagency coordination. The return on such investments would be measured not merely in shorter security lines but also in higher traveler satisfaction, better on-time performance for flights, and a perceived improvement in overall safety. These potential benefits could, in turn, influence the political feasibility of proposed reforms and the pace at which they are implemented.
The conversation around future airport travel is not limited to the United States. Global travel demands and international security standards exert influence on how U.S. airports adopt new technologies and processes. As other nations adopt analogous systems and share best practices, the United States can leverage cross-border learning to accelerate improvements while maintaining its own stringent safety standards. The result could be a more consistent, predictable experience for international travelers who move across borders and fly into U.S. airports, reducing friction at customs, immigration, and security checkpoints in a harmonized way.
Policy implications: Balancing safety, accessibility, and efficiency
Any prospective reforms to liquids restrictions or the broader screening regime must grapple with a core tension: the need to preserve robust safety while enabling a smoother travel experience. The safety case for liquids remains anchored in evidence about potential threats and the effectiveness of existing safeguards. The accessibility case rests on ensuring that travelers—especially those with medical needs or caregiving responsibilities—can move through security without unnecessary burdens. The efficiency case centers on reducing queue times, improving passenger throughput, and delivering a more predictable journey.
To achieve these competing aims, policymakers may consider a multi-pronged approach. One possibility is the refinement of risk-based screening measures, where travelers deemed lower risk could experience faster processing through dedicated lanes, automated systems, or pre-clearance programs. This would require reliable risk assessment protocols, robust data protection measures, and strong governance to prevent misuse of risk signals. A second potential pathway is the modernization of screening technology. Investments in advanced imaging, automated tray handling, and real-time monitoring could shorten processing times while maintaining, or even enhancing, detection capabilities. Third, policy adjustments could explore flexibility in how liquids are categorized and managed, potentially enabling a broader range of items to pass through without compromising safety. Any approach would necessitate clear communication with travelers to minimize confusion and ensure consistent adherence to guidelines.
Equally important is the question of privacy and civil liberties in an increasingly automated security environment. As screening technologies evolve, travelers may be exposed to more data collection, biometric verification, or objective scoring systems that determine how they are treated at checkpoints. Policymakers must weigh the benefits of enhanced security and efficiency against concerns about overreach, data security, and potential biases. Transparent governance, robust oversight, and accountability mechanisms will be essential to maintaining public trust in any reforms.
Operationally, the implementation of reforms would likely be incremental. A staged rollout—beginning with targeted airports or specific lanes—could provide valuable real-world data while minimizing disruption. Feedback loops from travelers, security personnel, airline partners, and regulatory bodies would inform adjustments before a broader rollout. This approach would also help identify any unintended consequences, such as bottlenecks in other parts of the travel process or new challenges in the supply chain for screening equipment. A careful, methodical approach increases the likelihood that reforms deliver the desired balance of safety and efficiency.
Public messaging would be a critical component of any reform strategy. Clear, consistent guidance would help travelers understand what to expect under new rules, how to pack their belongings, and how to prepare for potential changes in screening expectations. Educational campaigns, updated signage, and proactive communication through airline and airport channels would reduce confusion and improve compliance. When travelers feel informed and confident in the process, the overall security environment benefits, as non-compliance tends to decrease and throughput improves.
The economic implications of reforms should also be considered. While safety remains the primary objective, improved efficiency can yield tangible benefits for airlines through shorter turnaround times and reduced ground delays. Airports might realize economies of scale as throughput increases and resource allocation becomes more deterministic. However, any investment in new technologies, staff training, or policy changes must be evaluated for cost-effectiveness and long-term sustainability, ensuring that benefits outweigh the costs and that funds are allocated to the most impactful initiatives.
In sum, the discussion around liquids, shoes, and future airport travel sits at the crossroads of safety, efficiency, and traveler experience. The direction chosen by policymakers will shape how passengers pack, how security processes evolve, and how quickly individuals can move from terminal entry to boarding. Noem’s remarks signal openness to rethinking conventional rules within a framework of layered security, technological enablement, and data-informed decision-making. The path forward will require careful planning, robust stakeholder engagement, and a clear demonstration that reforms enhance safety while delivering practical improvements in the day-to-day experience of air travel.
The practical road ahead: timelines, pilots, and public expectations
Any potential changes to liquids or related screening policies will almost certainly follow a process that includes pilots, data collection, and phased deployment. While Noem signaled a readiness to consider revisions, the absence of a concrete timetable suggests that any substantive changes would unfold gradually. Airports would likely pilot new thresholds or handling rules in limited environments to gather performance data, traveler feedback, and operational feasibility before expanding to additional locations. This measured approach helps ensure that the policy is not only theoretically sound but also practically effective in diverse airport settings.
Public expectations will be a critical variable in shaping reform. Travelers, airlines, and airport operators will watch for early signals about what to expect, including any changes to allowed liquid sizes, packaging requirements, or exceptions for approved medical items. If adjustments are announced, clear and accessible guidance will be essential to minimize confusion and ensure a smooth transition for travelers preparing for trips. Stakeholders will look for alignment among federal agencies, aviation industry groups, and consumer advocacy organizations to foster trust and broad-based acceptance of any future changes.
Industry groups and airports themselves may also engage in collaborative pilots designed to test new configurations of screening processes. These pilots could explore scenarios such as expanded allowances for certain liquids under controlled constraints or alternative packaging requirements that maintain rigorous scrutiny while expediting throughput. By piloting and evaluating different arrangements, the TSA and DHS can identify the most effective combinations of policy, technology, and practice that deliver safety and efficiency gains.
For travelers, the potential changes present both opportunities and responsibilities. The opportunity lies in a faster, more predictable journey through security and into the terminal, with fewer steps and a smoother flow. The responsibility includes staying informed about updated rules, preparing carry-on bags accordingly, and understanding any new exceptions or limitations. In this sense, reform is a collaborative process that depends on informed travelers who participate actively in compliance and forward-looking preparation.
Ultimately, the conversation around liquids and screening is part of a broader movement toward modernizing aviation security. The objective is to associate high-precision risk assessment with high-speed processing, leveraging advances in technology and data science to support safer, more efficient travel. The balance of safety, practicality, and traveler experience will continue to guide decisions as policymakers, industry stakeholders, and the traveling public engage in this ongoing evolution. The next steps will unfold through careful planning, evidence-based piloting, and patient, transparent communication about what changes mean for day-to-day travel.
Conclusion
The discussion surrounding TSA liquids limits, shoe removal policies, and the broader future of airport screening is unfolding at a moment when safety, efficiency, and traveler experience intersect in meaningful ways. Kristi Noem’s remarks signal an openness to reevaluating long-standing rules within a framework of multilayered screening and technological advancement. While she did not announce specific changes, her comments indicate that the next wave of policy discussions could center on the size and handling of liquids, alongside continued exploration of streamlined screening practices.
History shows why these questions matter: the liquids rule emerged in response to a credible threat and has endured as a practical measure for many years, even as other protocols—such as the shoes-off requirement—have evolved in line with improved capabilities. The shifting stance on shoes reflects a broader appetite for policy adjustments that improve traveler comfort without compromising security. As policymakers weigh potential reforms, the emphasis will remain on preserving safety while smoothing the passenger journey from entry to boarding.
The envisioned future—where passengers pass through a scanner with minimal friction and reach their planes quickly—captures the aspirational goal of a modern, efficient, and secure aviation system. Realizing this vision will require a coordinated, multi-stakeholder effort that brings together policy clarity, technological readiness, and clear, actionable guidance for travelers. The path forward will be shaped by pilot programs, data-driven analysis, and ongoing conversations among federal agencies, industry players, and the traveling public. In that sense, today’s discussions about liquids and screening are not isolated policy debates but steps along a longer trajectory toward a smoother, safer, and more predictable air travel experience.