On Thursday, December 18, 2025, a routine security screening at a U.S. airport erupted into a public debate about privacy, government overreach, and the future of air travel. Evita Duffy-Alfonso, daughter of U.S. Transportation Secretary Sean Duffy, took to the social platform X to recount her experience with the Transportation Security Administration (TSA), calling her pat-down "absurdly invasive" and igniting a fresh round of criticism over airport security procedures.
Duffy-Alfonso, who is pregnant, explained on X that she opted out of the standard body scan due to concerns about radiation exposure. "I nearly missed my flight," she wrote, describing how she waited 15 minutes for a pat-down. According to her, TSA agents were "rude" and "tried to pressure" her into walking through the scanner despite her stated health concerns. She didn’t mince words about the agency itself, declaring, "All this for an unconstitutional agency that isn’t even good at its job." Her posts quickly gained traction, with supporters and critics weighing in on the balance between security and personal rights.
The TSA, for its part, responded the following day. In a statement reported by multiple outlets, the agency said, "TSA takes complaints about airport security screening procedures seriously and investigates complaints thoroughly to ensure the correct procedures are applied." The agency did not comment further on the specifics of Duffy-Alfonso’s experience, but it did point to its established policy: passengers may request a private screening as an alternative to the body scanner, and according to the TSA website, "sufficient pressure must be applied in order to ensure detection" because a "pat-down screening is conducted to determine whether prohibited items are concealed under clothing."
The incident comes at a time when the TSA’s role and effectiveness are being debated in political circles and among the traveling public. Duffy-Alfonso’s criticisms were not limited to her personal experience. In another post, she remarked that her father, if he had authority over the TSA, would "radically limit" or "lobby Congress to abolish" the agency. She argued that the "golden age of transportation"—a phrase her father uses to describe his vision for a more family-friendly, dignified era of travel—"cannot begin until the TSA is gone."
This isn’t just a family squabble played out on social media. Sean Duffy, as Transportation Secretary, heads the Department of Transportation (DOT), which oversees the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) and is responsible for setting and enforcing safety regulations for all major modes of transportation, including air travel. However, the TSA falls under the Department of Homeland Security (DHS), not the DOT, a distinction that often confuses the public but is critical when considering who has the authority to enact changes to airport security protocols.
The TSA was created in the aftermath of the September 11, 2001 terrorist attacks, charged with screening passengers, baggage, and cargo for weapons or explosives. Its formation was intended to restore public confidence in air travel and prevent future attacks. Yet, over the years, the agency has faced persistent criticism for the intrusiveness of its procedures, the effectiveness of its methods, and the professionalism of its agents. Duffy-Alfonso’s experience, while personal, taps into a larger vein of discontent that has simmered for years among frequent flyers and privacy advocates.
Her comments on X were pointed: "The ‘golden age of transportation’ cannot begin until the TSA is gone." This reference to her father’s campaign to make travel more family friendly includes not only regulatory reforms but also a push for passengers to "dress more formally while flying," an effort to recapture what he calls "the golden age of travel." While some see this as a nostalgic nod to a bygone era of air travel, others view it as impractical or out of touch with today’s realities.
Despite her harsh words for the TSA, Duffy-Alfonso took care to clarify her broader political stance. In a follow-up post, she stated, "I support President Donald Trump and Homeland Security, but there needs to be more common sense around how we treat Americans exercising their right to travel." This nuance reflects a complex political landscape, where criticism of specific agencies does not necessarily translate into opposition to the broader goals of national security or the current administration.
The Department of Transportation declined to comment on Duffy-Alfonso’s complaints about the TSA, perhaps recognizing the sensitivity of a cabinet member’s family criticizing another federal agency. The silence from the DOT leaves the debate squarely in the public domain, where travelers, lawmakers, and advocacy groups continue to argue over the best way to balance security with personal freedoms.
For the TSA, these kinds of complaints are nothing new. The agency routinely faces scrutiny over its pat-down procedures, particularly when they involve vulnerable populations such as pregnant women, children, or the elderly. The TSA maintains that its procedures are necessary to ensure the safety of all passengers and that alternative screening options are available upon request. Still, stories like Duffy-Alfonso’s fuel ongoing debates about whether the agency’s approach is proportionate to the risks it aims to mitigate.
It’s worth noting that the TSA’s pat-down procedures are designed to be thorough, sometimes to the discomfort of those being screened. The agency’s website is explicit: "Sufficient pressure must be applied in order to ensure detection." Critics argue that this can lead to unnecessary invasiveness, especially in cases where passengers have legitimate reasons for opting out of body scanners, such as medical or religious concerns. Advocates for reform suggest that more training, better communication, and increased use of technology could help strike a better balance between security and dignity.
Meanwhile, the broader conversation about the TSA’s future continues. Duffy-Alfonso’s suggestion that her father would "radically limit" or even "abolish" the agency if he could is a reminder that, for some, the very existence of the TSA remains up for debate. Yet, the agency’s defenders point to its record in preventing attacks and argue that any rollback in security could have serious consequences.
As the holiday travel season ramps up, stories like this resonate with millions of Americans navigating airports, often weary of both long lines and invasive procedures. Whether Duffy-Alfonso’s experience will lead to policy changes or simply fade as another viral moment remains to be seen. What’s clear is that the tension between security and liberty remains a central issue in American air travel, with no easy resolution in sight.
For now, the TSA stands by its procedures, promising to investigate complaints and ensure correct protocols are followed. But as travelers continue to share their stories—good, bad, and ugly—the debate over how to keep the skies safe while respecting individual rights is far from over.