Margaret Brennan Blames CDC Critics For Shooting (And Other Face The Nation Questions)
Here are all the questions Margaret Brennan asked her Republican and Democrat guests on Sunday’s 'Face The Nation.'Here are all the questions Margaret Brennan asked her Republican and Democrat guests on Sunday’s 'Face The Nation.'The same people who took your shoes now want your face
The Trump administration recently ended the Transportation Security Administration’s outdated shoe-removal rule — a long-overdue rollback of post-9/11 security theater. But at the same time, it’s resisting a bipartisan push to rein in something far more intrusive: the agency’s unregulated use of facial recognition technology at airports.
The Traveler Privacy Protection Act — co-sponsored by Sens. Jeff Merkley (D-Ore.), John Kennedy (R-La.), Ed Markey (D-Mass.), and Roger Marshall (R-Kan.) — would set limits on the TSA’s biometric surveillance program at airports.
Facial recognition checkpoints are already being piloted at major airports. TSA officials have made clear that their goal is to replace traditional IDs altogether.
Here’s what the bill does:
- Restores consent: Manual ID checks would become the default again. Passengers would have to opt in to facial recognition. The TSA would be required to notify travelers clearly that they can opt out.
- Limits retention: Most biometric data would have to be deleted within 24 hours.
- Restricts sharing: The TSA could no longer hand over biometric data to other federal agencies or private entities, except in very narrow circumstances.
The legislation follows a bipartisan letter sent in November 2023 to the Department of Homeland Security inspector general, requesting a full audit of the TSA’s biometric collection, retention, deletion, and cybersecurity protocols. The letter was co-authored by Senate Commerce Committee Chairman Ted Cruz (R-Texas).
“TSA has not provided Congress with evidence that facial recognition technology is necessary to catch fraudulent documents, decrease wait times, or stop terrorists from boarding planes,” the senators wrote.
Despite that, the TSA appears to be quietly lobbying against the bill.
When asked directly whether the TSA was fighting the legislation, Kennedy said: “The short answer is yes; the long answer is hell yes.”
Behind-the-scenes pressure
The Senate Commerce Committee had planned to mark up the bill just before the August recess. But at the last minute, the legislation was pulled from the docket.
Officially, the travel industry raised concerns. But Politico reported that behind the scenes, TSA leadership — backed by political appointees — played a central role in derailing the bill. Republican staffers familiar with the process said the agency helped coordinate opposition that ultimately killed the markup.
It’s not hard to see why TSA brass would resist oversight.
Acting TSA Administrator Ha Nguyen McNeill previously served as TSA chief of staff during part of Trump’s first term. After leaving government, she joined BigBear.ai, a company specializing in facial recognition and identity verification powered by artificial intelligence. She eventually became the firm’s president.
Now she’s back — nominated to lead the TSA for the duration of Trump’s administration.
AI, contracts, and civil liberties
Under McNeill’s leadership, the TSA has pushed to expand its use of AI-powered surveillance tools. In 2023, officials openly discussed plans to eliminate boarding passes and photo IDs altogether in favor of biometric scans.
“Imagine embarking on a journey where the seamless orchestration of technology transforms traditional security checkpoints,” said Kristin Ruiz, the TSA’s deputy chief information officer, at an AI summit last year. “AI-powered advancements signify an evolution driven by data science, analytics, and intelligent automation.”
That vision may sound efficient. But it’s also a red flag for anyone who doesn’t want American airports to become nodes in a Chinese-style surveillance state.
The TSA isn’t alone. The Department of Homeland Security has been inking massive contracts with tech companies specializing in surveillance.
Palantir Technologies, co-founded by Trump ally Peter Thiel, has landed a $1 billion contract with the DHS. The company also has similar contracts with the Department of Health and Human Services and the Pentagon, now worth a combined $10 billion.
RELATED: The One Big Beautiful Bill Act hides a big, ugly AI betrayal
Palantir’s market cap now exceeds $400 billion — bigger than Home Depot or Coca-Cola. Since its first DHS deal was announced in April, the company’s stock price has jumped 131%.
It doesn’t need a marketing team. The federal government is its customer.
Palantir has also benefited from the revolving door.
- Gregory Barbaccia, Palantir’s former head of intelligence, now serves as the chief information officer of the federal government.
- Clark Minor, a longtime Palantir employee, now holds the same role at HHS.
- Jacob Helberg, a senior adviser to Palantir CEO Alex Karp, was appointed to lead the State Department’s economic and trade policy.
This is the ecosystem driving the TSA’s resistance to reform: private contractors, political insiders, and intelligence bureaucrats profiting from biometric surveillance — at your expense.
The stakes
Facial recognition checkpoints are already being piloted at major airports. TSA officials have made clear that their goal is to replace traditional IDs altogether. And if this bill fails, there may be no legal limit to how far the agency can go.
Congress has a choice: Protect passengers or protect the Big Tech-Big Government industrial complex.
At the very least, senators should not confirm McNeill without hard, enforceable commitments: clear opt-outs, data deletion requirements, and strict limits on sharing and retention. The federal government should not be harvesting and storing your face just so a contractor can hit its quarterly earnings target.
You don’t build a free society by handing over the keys to Big Tech and hoping the companies don’t abuse them.
Congress just saved your credit card rewards — for now
Sens. Dick Durbin (D-Ill.) and Roger Marshall (R-Kan.) just failed — again — in their bid to ram through the Credit Card Competition Act, a sweeping regulatory proposal that would overhaul the U.S. credit card system to resemble Europe’s heavy-handed financial regime. Their latest attempt to sneak the measure into a stablecoin bill collapsed under scrutiny, marking yet another setback for legislation that critics say would harm consumers, weaken data security, and empower retail giants.
This outcome is welcome but unsurprising. The bill is wildly unpopular with consumers — for good reason. As written, it’s a thinly veiled giveaway to big-box retailers at the expense of virtually everyone else. Its sponsors claim it would inject competition into a noncompetitive market.
Senate leadership clearly got the message. Americans don’t want to fix something that isn’t broken.
In reality, the CCCA would allow retailers to continue accepting name-brand credit cards while processing payments through lesser-known networks — all without consumer knowledge or consent. Lawmakers should stand firm against any future efforts to resurrect this awful proposal.
The central premise of the bill — that the credit card market lacks competition — is unfounded. As of 2025, 152 companies in the United States issue credit cards. Between 2020 and 2025, market entry has grown at an average annual rate of 8.1%. This kind of steady growth does not indicate a broken market, but rather a dynamic and competitive system that continues to serve consumers well.
Kiss rewards goodbye
If passed, the CCCA would jeopardize that progress. Fraud rates, already on the rise, would skyrocket. Unvetted payment processors would be handed vast troves of sensitive consumer data. The only beneficiaries of using these cheaper alternatives are the retailers, who lack a vested interest in cardholder safety. Meanwhile, smaller institutions — including community banks and credit unions — would see revenue streams dry up.
RELATED: SCARY: President of European Central Bank admits 'digital Euro' is ready for launch
Retailers insist these alleged “cost savings” would trickle down to their customers. That’s about as likely as the claim that businesses absorb tariffs or taxes without raising prices. History suggests otherwise.
Worse still, the bill would also end the ability of banks and credit unions to operate popular credit card rewards programs. These programs are funded largely by the interchange fees charged by payment processors. When Durbin succeeded in passing his debit card price controls, consumers lost card benefits and experienced no savings. A Wall Street Journal article highlighted this history:
Debit-card rewards programs have nearly disappeared since the Durbin amendment, part of the 2010 Dodd-Frank law that cut retailers’ fees nearly in half. Stores didn’t pass the savings to customers, while the banks that issue the cards found other ways to recoup revenue.
A failed Trojan horse
Like a one-trick pony, Durbin and Marshall have not given up — despite the bill neither gaining traction nor receiving a committee markup. As they have done previously, the senators once again tried to tuck their proposal into a “must-pass” bill. Their first target in the 119th Congress was the GENIUS Act, a bipartisan bill focused on stablecoin regulations. Thankfully, Senate leadership saw right through this ploy.
Polling confirms that Americans are largely content with the current credit card marketplace. In fact, 77% of respondents trust credit card companies to handle key responsibilities, such as fraud prevention. Three-quarters of respondents trust that their private payment networks will handle the protection of personal data. The poll also showed that 79% of cardholders use rewards cards, and more than half (58%) use those rewards regularly. Rewards are a tool many families and businesses rely on to make purchases while also earning cash back.
Senate leadership clearly got the message. Americans don’t want to fix something that isn’t broken — which is why they rightly rejected the addition of Durbin’s credit card mandates to the GENIUS Act.
Consumers can breathe easier
It is a relief the bill didn’t slip in as an amendment with no opportunity for debate. Any legislation with sweeping financial implications deserves full congressional scrutiny — and the voices of constituents must be heard. Still, Durbin and Marshall are reportedly eyeing the National Defense Authorization Act as their next legislative vehicle.
Taxpayers must remain vigilant to hold their representatives accountable. Policymakers must also be vigilant in defending the interests of their constituents. But for now, millions of Americans can breathe a sigh of relief.
EXCLUSIVE: Sen. Marshall Introduces Legislation Mandating Truck Drivers Speak English
On Wednesday, Sen. Roger Marshall, R-Kan., will introduce legislation that would require prospective truck drivers or other commercial motor vehicle drivers to speak, read, and understand proficient English before obtaining a license. “Common sense would tell us that anyone driving on American roads, especially those operating large trucks and trailers, should be capable of understanding […]Trump Ends Federal Involvement In Child ‘Chemical And Surgical Mutilation’
President Donald Trump declared war on the American medical-industrial complex on Tuesday, signing an executive order cutting off all federal funding and involvement in the mutilation of children 18 and under for purposes of “transitioning genders.” “Countless children soon regret that they have been mutilated and begin to grasp the horrifying tragedy that they will […]Republican Senator Introduces Federal Ban On Mutilating Trans Procedures For Children
Sen. Marshall introduced a federal ban on mutilating transgender procedures for minors that would punish anyone who performs such procedures.Today's top stories
www.theblaze.com