The Transportation Security Administration (TSA) has just implemented one of its most significant policy shifts in decades, which I imagine most travelers will be quite happy about.
In this post:
TSA updates rules regarding shoes at security
As of today (Monday, July 7, 2025), the TSA no longer requires passengers to remove their shoes when passing through security checkpoints.
For context, this hasn’t been necessary for a long time for those with TSA PreCheck. Furthermore, enforcement of this has been inconsistent in recent years, with many non-PreCheck checkpoints not requiring shoes to be removed either. However, this is now an official policy across airports and checkpoints in the United States.
The only exception to this rule is for those who are unable to present a REAL ID, as those passengers are subject to extra screening (REAL ID requirements were finally implemented as of May 2025). Furthermore, if you have to go through secondary security, then you can also of course be asked to remove your shoes.
Why is the TSA finally changing its shoe policy?
What has changed that’s suddenly causing the TSA to update its policy on passengers wearing shoes at the checkpoint? Per an internal memo, the organization explained that this updated rule is a result of both technological advancements and a comprehensive reassessment of threat-level risks.
The claim is that modern scanning equipment is now able to detect potential hazards without requiring shoes to be removed. It’s interesting to note that the TSA is planning on maintaining its restrictions on liquids until 2040, despite screening technology being improved there as well. So the difference in how those two things are being handled is quite interesting.
But what’s really causing the TSA to change its policy now, specifically? While it’s anyone’s guess, one certainly wonders if it reflects the political climate. In recent times, we’ve seen bills introduced to abolish the TSA, with many claiming that the TSA is bloated, inefficient, and ineffective. So one wonders if that negative perception of the organization might be causing some policy updates, in order to improve optics.
The requirement to take off shoes at security was first introduced after Richard Reid, often referred to as the “shoe bomber,” tried to detonate explosives in his shoes onboard a transatlantic flight. Fortunately he was stopped, but he’s had quite the lasting impact on our aviation ecosystem.
Bottom line
Effective immediately, the TSA has updated its policy on passengers needing to remove their shoes at security. This is no longer required, with the only exception being for those who don’t have a REAL ID. So even without PreCheck, you can expect that you can now keep your shoes on when passing through security.
This is certainly a change that will streamline the security experience for passengers, so I’m curious if it makes the screening process more efficient.
What do you make of the TSA no longer requiring shoes to be removed?
The TSA is useless. A massively over bloated gov agency that is full of waste and inefficacy, not to mention rude employees that make travel any more miserable. The TSA has never prevented a terrorist attack, and needs to be replaced with private security companies asap!
You might as well go back pre-9/11 and get rid of DHS while you're at it.
Did you read the Yahoo article you linked or watch the video in the article? Nothing in there links back to anything official. The video creator says twice that everything is alleged and not confirmed. Do you have something from TSA that says this is happening?
Creator also says "as early as Monday" so he even hedges the effective date yet it's reported as fact here.
My question is if you only have a passport, are you still requested to take off your shoes. I'm also a senior
You keeping shoes on no mater what
A passport is a form of RealID.
The traveling public need to wake up. TSA is not the enemy. We do our job with keeping America safe and preventing planes from falling out of the sky. The political aspect or not does not concern us! We do our job!
The public needs a much better understanding of what TSA does and then maybe they will have a different perspective and respect for what we do!
God Bless America!
The TSA is useless. A massively over bloated gov agency that is full of waste and inefficacy, not to mention rude employees that make travel any more miserable. The TSA has never prevented a terrorist attack, and needs to be replaced with private security companies asap!
Didn’t you already say this?
I agree with everything you said up and until you said they should be replaced by private companies. Please no more incompetence. Private contractors are worse than government agencies.
To the person who called himself/herself “abolish the TSA,” it appears you’ve forgot—or perhaps never knew—about the plane landing in Detroit, that had a terrorist on board with explosives embedded in his shoes.
The only reason why that plane didn't catch on fire and go down is because the terrorist was incompetent and wasn't able to set off his explosives.
You must be thinking of Richard Reid, aka "The Shoe Bomber". If you are, that was on AA 63 from Paris to Miami in 2001. Richard looks like he can't even tie his own shoelaces. So no surprise that he wasn't able to detonate the explosive. Perhaps he should have read the instructions......if only he knew how to read. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Richard_Reid
Or he could be thinking of Umar Farouk Abdulmutallab on NW 253 from Amsterdam to Detroit. Probably got his incidents and flights mixed up ;)
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Northwest_Airlines_Flight_253
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Umar_Farouk_Abdulmutallab
Speaking of explosives, there's PR 434 from Manila to Tokyo way back in '94 that did explode, but was not catastrophic due to a different 747 variant used.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Philippine_Airlines_Flight_434
Or he could be thinking of Umar Farouk Abdulmutallab on NW 253 from Amsterdam to Detroit. Probably got his incidents and flights mixed up ;)
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Northwest_Airlines_Flight_253
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Umar_Farouk_Abdulmutallab
Speaking of explosives, there's PR 434 from Manila to Tokyo way back in '94 that did explode, but was not catastrophic due to a different 747 variant used.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Philippine_Airlines_Flight_434
To the person who called himself/herself “Al in Silicon Valley” it appears you’ve forgot—or perhaps never knew—about the plane landing in Detroit, NEVER went through TSA!!!!
Nor did the underwear bomber who you're actually thinking of nor the shoe guy who landed in Boston. None of them went through TSA.
And you're a disgrace to human and AI. Idiot pretending to be an algorithm is the dumbest of all.
It has to do with perception more than reality. And it has to do with politics. One person one time trying to do something unsuccessfully resulted in inconveniencing people for decades for a small risk. If one factor is seen that might have a chance of causing a problem in an airplane, it's addressed. But when other factors that definitely caused problems in school shootings are seen, no steps are taken to mitigate those risks....
It has to do with perception more than reality. And it has to do with politics. One person one time trying to do something unsuccessfully resulted in inconveniencing people for decades for a small risk. If one factor is seen that might have a chance of causing a problem in an airplane, it's addressed. But when other factors that definitely caused problems in school shootings are seen, no steps are taken to mitigate those risks. It's not really about mitigation.
Likewise, steps are taken to minimize blowing up a planeload of people on an airplane, but not to protect a larger number who have yet to go through security and are in a crowded location.
With luggage, there are steps taken to prevent certain things from getting on airplanes, and people are told to be vigilant if they see unattended bags. But few airports check luggage and tags as people leave the airport, so a person could easily walk into the airport at the baggage claim area, leave baggage unattended without people caring (such as putting it on the carousel) and expose many planeloads of people to more risk.
Nobody is looking at things systemically and trying to assure a consistent level of security in all high risk areas. Letting people on an airplane with a bottle of water is less risky than letting a person walk into a playground with a rifle, but it comes down to public perception. If one political party supported a fundamental right to bring water on airplanes and another opposed it, it would be different. But with all sides not objecting to it, people will give up freedom for virtually no gain.
Your entire post can be summed up how they (ab)use propaganda to control the public.
PATRIOT Act.
Now if we can only get rid of 3.5 ounces.
It's about time, especially since it can severely impact seniors who may have related health issues !
Good thing seniors over 75 keep shoes on anyway .. so that comment was not neededed.. and even if they can’t take them off all you have to do is tell them.. TSA chill if you are
Won’t shoes that have metal arch supports in the sole still set off the metal detector thereby requiring that you remove your shoes and go back through the detector?
I flew yesterday and today and had to remove shoes.
So I am skeptical this is a policy
Station manager hasn’t checked their emails yet for the day lol
A tiny step to making America great again!
A huge barrier to making America great again is for AA to give good service again. That is impossible.
One tiny step to Make America Great Again!
A huge barrier to making America great again is for American Airlines to have good service again.
It is BS. I flew yesterday and today and shoes were removed.
Good news. About 95% of the world doesn't have a rule to remove shoes at security for airports. The US has long been one of the outliers. Though I have Pre-Check and hence have been free from this rule for some time, it's nice that all travellers will stand to gain here.
In the long run, I think the liquids rule should go, considering other countries like Britain et al. are making progress in removing...
Good news. About 95% of the world doesn't have a rule to remove shoes at security for airports. The US has long been one of the outliers. Though I have Pre-Check and hence have been free from this rule for some time, it's nice that all travellers will stand to gain here.
In the long run, I think the liquids rule should go, considering other countries like Britain et al. are making progress in removing this. Of course, it will take more time, as America has about 450 odd airports, and we should be patient for any sign of change. But it must be done nontheless.
It could absolutely be rolled out faster. That's a question of funding and political will, but for unfortunately the current political priority ball is making the uber-rich richer, resulting in no funding.
Look up One Stop Security. TSA is planning to recognize certain overseas airports (starting with Heathrow) as providing equally effective security, so passengers coming from those airports to the US and connecting to another flight won't have to go through security again.
Heathrow generally doesn't require people to remove shoes.
Agreed. European airports don't really have a mandate to remove shoes for security. The only exceptions are footwear with metal or high heeled shoes/boots. But I usually wear trainers (what Americans call running shoes), so it's pretty convenient.
Equally effective?
You mean more effectively and efficient.
How will those passengers then be exempted after going through immigration and customs?
Excellent question. Once you clear immigration and customs, you are directed landside (at least in all of the US airports where I' have arrived from an international flight). Then you have to go through security with everyone else flying from the airport if you have a connecting flight. Even if a provision is provided to go directly airside once you have cleared immigration and customs, there would need to be some means to separate out...
Excellent question. Once you clear immigration and customs, you are directed landside (at least in all of the US airports where I' have arrived from an international flight). Then you have to go through security with everyone else flying from the airport if you have a connecting flight. Even if a provision is provided to go directly airside once you have cleared immigration and customs, there would need to be some means to separate out arrivals from countries with "effective" security.
BTW, back in March I flew to the US from LHR. I was required to remove my shoes at fast track security.
The USA has virtually no international transit so that point is moot
I’ve read the ESTA fee will more than double from USD21 to 40. The international tax will increase from USD6 to 30.
With international traffic falling as I can see the figures for LAX online and it’s dropping month by month, because of the lunatics running the country. They are too preoccupied with building concentration camps and vilifying anyone who isn’t aryan.
Bout time. Shoe policy was always security kabuki - other countries with comparable threat levels abandoned it years ago. The timing feels politically motivated given recent TSA abolition bills, but I'll take practical improvements however they come. Now if only they'd apply the same 'technological advancement' logic to the liquid restrictions they're keeping until 2040.
I would love to bring my own water and coffee. Just put it on the belt with everything else and get on with it. We're spending millions if not billions on all kinds of tech and we can't even something as simple as water and coffee.
I agree with the sentiment, but I really don't want people's spilled coffee on my bags if they "put it on the belt".
Then put it on the tray with the cover on lol
I feel like the liquids is more of a commercial decision as the shops are afraid to lose some amount of business as airport prices are double than what would you get at the corner store.
Cmon
This is bullying people without REAL ID.
See how mothership wants to indirectly force everyone under surveillance.