When Airports Say “No” to Government Messaging

Getting your Trinity Audio player ready...

A quiet tension is erupting at a US airport near you. The Department of Homeland Security recently released a video featuring Secretary Kristi Noem, accusing congressional Democrats of causing the federal shutdown and its impact on TSA operations. Many airports refused to air it—citing legal and policy concerns. Here’s what’s at stake and why these refusals matter.

Table of Contents

• The Legal Ground: The Hatch Act & Beyond
• Who Refused—and What They Said
• What the Video States
• The Bigger Picture: Why Airports Resist
• 1. Maintaining Neutrality in Public Spaces
• 2. Legal Risk
• 3. Precedent & Slippery Slope
• 4. Practical Constraints
• What’s Next

The Legal Ground: The Hatch Act & Beyond

At the heart of this dispute is the Hatch Act, a 1939 federal law that restricts certain political activity by federal employees and bars using government resources for partisan messaging. (Wikipedia)

Airport authorities say this law applies to their facilities when a federal agency tries to broadcast a video that explicitly assigns blame to one political party. For instance, the Port of Portland declined to air the clip, stating it believed the Hatch Act prevents use of public assets for “political purposes and messaging.” (The Guardian)

In addition, some states and municipalities have laws or policies restricting public entities from endorsing or opposing political figures or parties. For example, Oregon state law prohibits public employees from promoting or opposing political affiliations — a law the Port of Portland says it must respect. (The Guardian)

Finally, many airports point to existing internal policies that block “politically partisan messages” in their terminals. The Port Authority of New York and New Jersey, which runs JFK, LaGuardia, and Newark airports, said it won’t permit such messaging under its longstanding policy. (AP News)

Who Refused—and What They Said

Some examples spread across the country:

• Portland International Airport declined to show the video, citing the Hatch Act and state law. (The Guardian)
• Seattle-Tacoma International Airport said the message was too political to display. (The Guardian)
• Westchester County’s airport rejected it, saying the video “politicizes the impacts” and is “inconsistent with values we expect.” (AP News)
• Port Authority of NY & NJ cited its rules against airing partisan content at its facilities. (AP News)

Other airports—such as in Phoenix, Las Vegas, Charlotte, Buffalo, and San Francisco—similarly declined to show the video. Some mentioned policy constraints, lack of appropriate monitors, or state-level legal restrictions. (AP News)

Even some red-state airports refrained from airing the clip. For example, Salt Lake City officials said state law forbids using city-owned property for political purposes. (AP News)

What the Video States

In the contested video, Secretary Noem criticizes Democratic members of Congress, saying:

• Democrats refuse to fund the federal government, which has impacted operations and put many TSA employees in a no-pay status.
• She expresses hope that Democrats will “recognize the importance of opening the government.”

The tone is overtly political, rather than strictly informational and does not address the larger issues of why. (AP News)

The Bigger Picture: Why Airports Resist

1. Maintaining Neutrality in Public Spaces

Airports are public or quasi-public spaces used by people across the political spectrum. Many airport authorities believe their communications must remain neutral so as not to alienate or appear biased toward any group.

2. Legal Risk

If an airport permitted a message that clearly blames one party, it could open itself to legal challenge or claims of violating federal statutes. Airport leadership often errs on the side of caution.

3. Precedent & Slippery Slope

If one political message is allowed, others might follow—making it harder to draw the line later. Airport officials may fear that allowing one controversial PSA could set an unwanted precedent.

4. Practical Constraints

Some airports say they simply do not have monitors or audio capability at TSA checkpoints. Others say the screens are reserved for traveler information or revenue-generating ads—not political content. (Business Insider)

What’s Next

• Legal challenges: It’s possible that some entity could sue over perceived censorship or misuse of government resources.
• Policy revisions: Airports may revisit or refine their internal communication policies to clarify boundaries.
• Federal pushback: The Department of Homeland Security may attempt to negotiate or demand compliance, though that risks further legal conflict.
• Public scrutiny: Travelers and the public will watch how these decisions affect transparency, trust, and expectations for neutrality in public spaces.

Who knows. Republicans already have the votes to pass a bill in the House and send it to the Senate. Yet they refuse to move forward without Democratic support—because if they pass it alone, they’d own every outcome, good or bad. So they drag their feet and point fingers, blaming Democrats for the shutdown. And they do this even though they hold power in the House, Senate, White House, and the courts. It’s not about governing; it’s about optics—about who takes the blame when TSA agents go unpaid, services stall, and chaos builds at the airport when all you want to do is visit grandma.

 

 

 

I love sharing my travel stories, lessons from life abroad, and tips for curious travelers. If my work has inspired you or made you smile, please buy me a coffee.

My articles are available as mobile apps for offline reading and GPS-assisted directions. Download my articles on GPSMyCity. This post contains sponsored and/or affiliate links. If you click these links, I may earn a small commission. Your support helps me keep the blog running—at no cost to you.