Airport security line cutters are target of first-in-the-nation California bill

SACRAMENTO, California — In this deep blue state where 
Republicans rarely back Democratic colleagues in the Capitol, 
one issue is overcoming the partisan divide: line skipping at 
airports.

A pair of Orange County state senators from opposing parties — 
who frequently fly between their districts and Sacramento — are 
both boosting a first-in-the-nation proposal critics say would 
ban the expedited security screening company CLEAR from state 
airports.

“The least you can expect when you have to go through the 
security line at the airport is that you don’t suffer the 
indignity of somebody pushing you out of the way to let the rich 
person pass you,” Josh Newman, the Democratic lawmaker who 
authored the bill, told POLITICO.

His Republican colleague, Janet Nguyen, expressed similar 
sentiments about the bill.

“I do understand the frustration stated in Senator Newman’s 
bill,” Nguyen, who sits on the transportation committee, said in 
an email to POLITICO. “It becomes a haves vs. have nots where 
those who can afford it jump in front of the rest of us. They 
even cut in front of TSA Pre-boarding pass travelers who have 
been screened by the TSA.”

After publication, Nguyen’s staff reached out to say she hasn’t 
taken a formal position on the bill.

Newman’s bill would require third-party vendors like CLEAR to 
get their own dedicated security lane or lose the ability to 
operate in California airports. Currently, CLEAR customers pay 
$189 a year to verify their identities at airport kiosks before 
being escorted past queued passengers to the front of TSA lines.

Although there’s some bipartisan agreement on the bill, it still 
faces a tough path to passage because industry groups have lined 
up against the measure that’s set to come before the Senate 
transportation committee Tuesday. It’s the latest example of 
California’s business interests trying to quash what they see as 
government overreach in the state that’s banned everything from 
gas-powered vehicles to purple Peeps. But the lawmakers have a 
powerful labor ally in this fight — flight attendants and TSA 
agents who denounce CLEAR as a pay-to-play system.

Six major airlines — Delta, United, Southwest, Alaska, JetBlue 
and Hawaiian — are fighting the bill, citing revenue loss from 
CLEAR that could result in an increase in airfare. CLEAR 
verified more than five million frequent fliers at those six 
airlines in California last year, “which means our most loyal 
customers find value in using CLEAR,” according to their letter. 
Delta, United and Alaska have partnerships with CLEAR.

CLEAR, founded in 2010, provides identity verification services 
for expedited security screenings at more than 50 airports, as 
well as other venues like stadiums. It currently operates in 
nine California airports, charging travelers to cut the line at 
security once their identity is confirmed at a CLEAR pod. It is 
different from TSA PreCheck, which expedites the actual security 
checkpoint process.

Newman stressed that he’s not trying to ban CLEAR and claims has 
no issue with concierge airport services. But he believes the 
CLEAR system is neither efficient nor secure.

This isn’t the first time lawmakers have questioned CLEAR’s 
procedures. The company faced scrutiny last year from members of 
Congress after employees escorted passengers through TSA 
security checkpoints who were not enrolled in CLEAR and did not 
display identification, including a case where someone got 
through using a boarding pass they found in the trash.

CLEAR spokesperson Ricardo Quinto said the company is concerned 
about the unintended consequences of the bill, such as airports 
losing jobs and revenue.

“We will continue to work constructively with legislators as 
well as the federal government and our airport partners to 
ensure operations at California airports are as seamless and 
efficient as possible,” Quinto said in a statement.

Both Gov. Gavin Newsom and Senate President Pro Tempore Mike 
McGuire — both Democrats — declined to comment on the measure, 
which currently has union support from the Association of Flight 
Attendants and the Northern California branch of the American 
Federation of Government Employees, which represents around 
1,200 TSA agents.

CLEAR is “nothing more than the luxury resale of upcharge of 
space in the airport security queue, where those who pay can 
skip the line at the direct expense of every other traveler,” 
James Mudrock, president of AFGE Local 1230, said in a letter to 
Senate Transportation Committee chair Dave Cortese.

Sarah Nelson, head of the flight attendants union, raised 
concerns about CLEAR’s security protocols in a letter supporting 
the bill, claiming that CLEAR “doesn’t add any enhanced layer of 
security.”

“CLEAR is a pay for play way to cut the screening line,” Nelson 
wrote.

She added that the bill would “restore equal access and 
treatment at the airport security checkpoint,” and streamline 
the security process while preserving CLEAR’s ability to operate 
in California.

CLEAR would need federal approval to fund and operate a separate 
lane because TSA oversees the security checkpoints. TSA did not 
respond to a request for comment. Newman said he has “every 
confidence” in CLEAR’s ability to “re-engineer” its business — 
an outcome that is more doubtful to Jim Lites, executive 
director of the California Airports Council.

 MOST READ
airport-security-sfo-19901.jpg
Airport security line cutters are target of first-in-the-nation 
California bill
Prosecutors say Trump violated his gag order 10 times. The judge 
is finally set to weigh in.
Appeals court greenlights release of secret Trump battles to 
block aides from testifying
Republicans are starting to worry about RFK Jr.
Inside the Off-the-Record Calls Held by Anti-Trump Legal Pundits
Lites, whose organization represents the state’s 31 commercial 
airports, said that California’s attempt to leverage federal 
policymakers by passing this bill would backfire. Lites added 
that the TSA would likely have to dedicate officers specifically 
for the additional CLEAR lanes.

“I think there’s going to be a lot less sympathy for the state 
of California if we kick [CLEAR] out, and then try and compel 
the TSA to change their staffing model,” Lites told POLITICO.

CLEAR paid $13 million to California airports last year, and 
over $49 million since launching in the state in 2012, according 
to the airports council’s letter to Newman. But CLEAR accounted 
for less than 1 percent of concession revenue last year at SFO, 
California’s second busiest airport, and Newman contends that 
the loss won’t have a big impact on airports’ revenue.

The Chamber of Commerce, TechNet and a coalition of other 
powerful industry groups also came out against the bill, citing 
government overreach and the potential harm to California’s 
image as a tourism hub if it is the only state in the nation to 
ban CLEAR.

Doug Yakel, public information officer at SFO, said in an email 
that “CLEAR provides a valuable and popular passenger service, 
and this bill would reduce flexibility and add unnecessary 
complications at airport security checkpoints.”

“My bottom line for the airports is to not limit their options,” 
Lites said. “If they want to do business with CLEAR, then the 
state should not be telling them that they cannot. That should 
be an airport-by-airport decision.”

The bill would allow airports to continue using CLEAR until 
their current agreements expire, which Lites said would likely 
all happen within the next few years.

Newman is also open to extending the timeline if CLEAR is 
“making a good faith effort” to change its operations. The bill 
also may be amended amid ongoing discussions with Cortese, the 
transportation committee chair, ahead of Tuesday’s hearing. 
Cortese told POLITICO in a text last week that he was 
negotiating with Newman on changes and had not taken a position 
on the bill.

Newman’s goal is to avoid framing the measure as taking a shot 
at CLEAR, and hopes instead that it can spark a policy 
discussion around what people should expect from a public 
resource that they can’t avoid — like airport security.

“The hardest part is just getting a clear — no pun intended — 
understanding from all of the participants about what the bill 
is or isn’t,” he said. “It is not a personal grudge by one 
senator against this company.”

It clearly is.

https://www.politico.com/news/2024/04/22/california-bill-to-ban-
clear-00153447