Kristi Noem faces accusations that her policy reversal, which allowed passengers to keep their shoes on at airport security, created notable security vulnerabilities at U.S. airports. A recent report cited by sources describes these risks as “significant,” arguing that the change undermined decades of screening protocols.
The no-shoes rule has been in place nationwide since 2006, when the Transportation Security Administration implemented it after a man attempted to carry explosives in footwear on a flight. In July, Noem ended the policy, a move that frustrated travelers and was viewed by many Americans as an ineffective fix to a longstanding security process.
However, in November, insiders familiar with a classified DHS inspector general report told The Wall Street Journal that some TSA full-body scanners cannot reliably detect shoes, implying the policy reversal may have created a new weakness in the security system. When Noem’s office learned of these findings, it apparently did not take steps to address them; instead, it reportedly restricted publication and increased the document’s classification level, according to the same sources.
DHS spokespersons dispute this narrative, saying that the inspector general’s recommendations were acted upon and that the no-shoes policy was discarded after numerous risk assessments, some of which occurred during the Biden administration. The Independent has asked DHS for comment.
The matter also reached several White House aides, and White House Press Secretary Karoline Leavitt said President Donald Trump maintains full confidence in Noem, asserting that the homeland is safer now than at the start of the president’s term.
Although the report was not publicly released, the inspector general sent a letter to congressional leaders noting that, as of February, DHS and TSA had not responded to requests outlining how to fix the apparent security lapse. The letter emphasized that the department was legally required to develop a corrective plan by January 30—three months after the report’s issuance. The inspector general’s office indicated that it first alerted Noem to the issue in August.
Beyond the security debate, the story intersects with broader criticisms of Noem’s leadership style, with DHS officials suggesting her emphasis on maintaining a high public profile may sometimes be at odds with core departmental duties. At the same time, some critics highlight tensions within immigration enforcement actions in Minnesota that have drawn federal scrutiny and have coincided with incidents involving American citizens.
Would you like this rewritten piece to emphasize potential security policy debates more, or to foreground the political controversy and leadership questions surrounding Noem? Also, would you prefer a tighter, shorter version or a longer, more explanatory one with additional context and examples?
