New TSA facial recognition audit faces skepticism

The Department of Homeland Security’s (DHS) Inspector General (IG) has announced an audit into the Transportation Security Administration’s (TSA) expanding use of facial recognition technology following a formal request from Senator Jeff Merkley and a bipartisan coalition of lawmakers. The audit aims to evaluate whether TSA’s biometric screening system enhances security while safeguarding passenger privacy.

However, the investigation itself is now facing scrutiny, as critics question whether Inspector General Joseph Cuffari – who has been embroiled in controversy over allegations of withholding critical oversight reports – can be trusted to conduct a thorough and unbiased review.

Cuffari was not among the more than a dozen IG’s illegally fired last week by President Trump. Cuffari was appointed the DHS IG by Trump during Trump’s first term in the White House. Cuffari’s continued tenure has remained contentious. His role in evaluating TSA’s facial recognition expansion amidst privacy concerns and alleged coercive practices by TSA officers places him at the center of a critical debate about government surveillance, civil liberties, and accountability within DHS. The contrast between Cuffari’s retention and the dismissal of other IGs by Trump adds another layer of complexity to the ongoing discussion about executive influence over federal watchdogs and the politicization of oversight roles.

Cuffari’s letter to Senator Merkley on January 29, confirmed that his office had launched an audit he identified as TSA’s Modernization of Identity Authentication and Biometric Technology to Enhance Passenger Screening at U.S. Airports. The review will assess the extent to which TSA’s use of facial recognition technology improves security screening and protects civil liberties. Cuffari acknowledged that the Senators’ concerns, as well as input from watchdog groups and complaints from travelers, influenced his decision to move forward with the review.

Yet, this response has done little to reassure critics. Cuffari has faced persistent allegations of failing to properly investigate other major DHS programs, including those related to the Secret Service and the January 6, 2021, attack on the U.S. Capitol. His office has been accused of delaying or suppressing reports that cast DHS policies in a negative light, leading some lawmakers and oversight groups to question whether his audit of TSA’s facial recognition program will be a genuine attempt to address privacy concerns or simply a bureaucratic maneuver to placate Congress.

Merkley and his colleagues – including Republicans – have made it clear that they are deeply troubled by TSA’s aggressive push for biometric screening, something the new Trump administration has called for. Their November 20, 2024, letter to Cuffari emphasized that TSA has failed to justify why facial recognition is necessary, especially when existing non-biometric systems, such as credential authentication technology, already detect fraudulent identification. The Senators pointed to TSA’s own data which shows a three percent false negative rate in identity verification. With approximately 2.3 million travelers passing through security daily, that failure rate could lead to nearly 70,000 misidentifications each day.

The lawmakers also warned that, despite TSA’s claims that facial recognition screening is optional, travelers frequently report feeling pressured or misled into compliance. Some passengers have described instances where TSA officers gave misleading information or suggested that opting out would cause significant delays. Additionally, signage outlining the opt-out option is often difficult to find, leading to confusion among travelers. Merkley, who personally tested the opt-out process, has called the implementation “flawed and misleading,” arguing that it appears designed to discourage travelers from exercising their right to refuse biometric screening.

At the core of the Senators’ objections is the concern that TSA’s biometric database could rapidly evolve into a broad government surveillance apparatus. Former TSA Administrator David Pekoske had acknowledged that the agency’s long-term goal was to make biometric screening mandatory, contradicting its current assurances that participation remains voluntary. Lawmakers argue that this shift would require explicit Congressional authorization and a robust public debate – neither of which has taken place. Pekoske was given the axe by the White House soon after Trump was sworn in as President last month.

The bipartisan nature of the opposition to TSA’s expanding use of biometrics reflects broader unease about the unchecked expansion of biometric surveillance. While some lawmakers generally support biometric technology for national security purposes, they remain skeptical of its implications for civil liberties. Republicans in particular have become increasingly vocal about the risks of government overreach in biometric data collection, citing concerns about privacy, data security, and the potential for misuse.

Now, with the IG’s audit underway, attention has turned to whether Cuffari’s office will conduct a thorough and impartial investigation. Given his track record of delaying critical reports and suppressing findings that could be damaging to DHS, some lawmakers worry that this audit will amount to little more than a rubber stamp. Transparency advocates argue that an independent review – separate from Cuffari’s office – may be necessary to ensure an objective assessment of TSA’s biometric program.

Meanwhile, Senator Merkley continues to push for legislative action. His proposed Traveler Privacy Protection Act seeks to impose strict limitations on TSA’s use of facial recognition technology, while broader privacy protections were incorporated into the Federal Aviation Administration Reauthorization Act last year. However, legislative efforts to curb biometric surveillance have faced significant hurdles, with many proposals stalled in committee.

As millions of Americans pass through airport security – many of them unknowingly subjected to biometric scanning – the debate over TSA’s facial recognition program is becoming increasingly urgent. Whether the IG’s audit will provide meaningful oversight or merely serve as a bureaucratic formality remains to be seen. But with public trust in government surveillance at stake – more so under the Trump administration – the battle over biometric privacy is far from over.