Lawmakers target TSA facial recognition expansion

In a renewed bipartisan push to curtail the expanding use of facial recognition technology by federal agencies, Democrat Sen. Jeff Merkley and Republican John Kennedy said they will introduce a revised version of the Traveler Privacy Protection Act that is designed to limit how the Transportation Security Administration (TSA) can deploy biometric surveillance at airports.

The two senators’ bill reflects a growing unease over privacy, civil liberties, and the potential for state overreach in the name of security.

The latest bill represents a narrower and more pragmatic iteration of a 2023 proposal by the same name. Whereas the original bill sought to ban TSA’s use of facial recognition altogether unless specifically reauthorized by Congress, the new version instead aims to make human ID checks the default.

Under the proposed framework, travelers would need to opt in to facial recognition screenings and TSA would be barred from using facial scans for any purpose other than verifying a traveler’s identity. The new version of the bill would mandate that TSA delete face scans immediately after verification for general boarding passengers, eliminating the possibility of long-term retention or secondary use.

Merkley has been one of the most vocal critics of facial recognition programs in public infrastructure. He draws a direct line between such technologies and authoritarian surveillance models abroad, particularly referencing China’s use of biometric tracking to monitor and suppress its Uyghur minority.

In an interview with the Washington Post, Merkley warned that the deployment of this technology within the US without proper constraints poses “a massive threat to freedom and privacy.” He stressed that the government should not be trusted with unchecked biometric powers, especially when the public is often misled or uninformed about how the technology is used.

In a written statement, Kennedy echoed his Merkley’s concerns, emphasizing that TSA’s current practices amount to excessive screening that invades Americans’ privacy without clear notification that opting out is even possible. Kennedy asserted that the bill would reinforce the public’s right to decline participation in facial recognition screenings and ensure that the government does not accumulate and store personal biometric data without meaningful consent.

The legislation comes at a time when TSA’s facial recognition efforts are rapidly expanding. What began in 2021 as a limited pilot for “trusted traveler” programs like TSA PreCheck has since quietly been broadened to include general boarding passengers. As of early 2025, TSA’s website confirms that the technology is operational in at least 84 airports, with plans to extend it to over 400 nationwide.

TSA maintains that the system is both more efficient and more accurate than traditional ID checks performed by humans and claims that face scans are not retained except for limited testing purposes. However, such assurances have not quelled privacy advocates’ concerns, especially given the lack of independent audits and the ease with which policy could change without public input.

Merkley’s personal experience with TSA’s biometric systems illustrates the problems with the agency’s claims of it being voluntary. In 2023, when he attempted to opt out of a facial scan at Reagan National Airport, a TSA agent wrongly told him that declining the scan would cause significant delays.

The incident raised serious questions about the program’s transparency, especially when a sitting U.S. Senator found it difficult to exercise what was supposed to be a protected choice. According to Merkley, he has since heard from constituents and family members who experienced similar pressure or confusion at TSA checkpoints.

The push for reform is not without precedent. In 2023, the original Traveler Privacy Protection Act failed to move beyond the Senate Commerce, Science, and Transportation Committee, despite bipartisan sponsorship and public backing. That version would have banned TSA’s use of facial recognition entirely unless Congress enacted a new law explicitly granting permission.

The bill was introduced in response to evidence that TSA had expanded its facial recognition pilots without meaningful oversight, while routinely failing to inform travelers of their right to decline biometric screening.

Despite the bill’s failure to advance, the mounting evidence of TSA overreach and the public’s growing concern about privacy laid the groundwork for its reintroduction in 2025.

In January, the Department of Homeland Security’s Office of Inspector General launched a formal audit of TSA’s use of facial biometric data, following a letter co-signed by Merkley, Kennedy, and several other lawmakers across the political spectrum. The signatories included Republican Senators Ted Cruz and Roger Marshall, and Democrat Edward Markey.

As debate intensifies, privacy advocates and tech industry groups remain sharply divided over the role and risks of facial recognition. Daniel Castro, vice president of the tech-funded Information Technology and Innovation Foundation, argued that the technology is often misunderstood and suggested that biometrics offer a straightforward and effective method for verifying identity. He noted that computers generally outperform humans in facial matching tasks, and in his view, properly implemented, facial recognition could actually enhance airport security while streamlining passenger flow.

Opponents of the technology reject that argument. Chris Gilliard, a digital privacy researcher and co-director of the Critical Internet Studies Institute, countered that facial recognition is fundamentally “dangerous, unreliable, and a persistent threat to human rights.” He warned that the U.S. is witnessing a steady erosion of privacy rights without adequate safeguards and welcomes any legislative effort to halt what he calls a slide into “techno-authoritarianism.”

As the legislative battle over facial recognition continues to unfold, the broader stakes are becoming increasingly clear. The dispute is not just about airport screening, but rather about what kind of society Americans want to live in. Do they want a government that treats biometric identity as a routine condition of travel, or one that protects the right to anonymity and consent in public spaces?

For Senators Merkley and Kennedy, the answer is clear: Congress must step in before a surveillance architecture becomes an irreversible fixture of American life.

Article Topics

biometric identification  |  biometrics  |  facial recognition  |  legislation  |  trusted traveller  |  TSA  |  U.S. Government