Bill Overview
Title: Securing Americans from Transportation Insanity Act
Description: This bill prohibits the Transportation Security Administration (TSA) from modifying Standard Operating Procedures to remove biologically determined sex-based screening procedures from security screening, including by (1) updating the TSA PreCheck program to include an 'X' gender marker option, (2) promoting the use and acceptance of the 'X' gender marker, and (3) requiring U.S. Customs and Border Protection to use gender-neutral language and an individual's self-identified pronouns or name.
Sponsors: Rep. Boebert, Lauren [R-CO-3]
Target Audience
Population: Non-binary and transgender individuals involved in travel security processes
Estimated Size: 1200000
- The bill primarily impacts individuals who identify as non-binary or transgender, as it focuses on maintaining biologically determined sex-based screening and prohibiting the recognition of non-binary markers like 'X'.
- It affects travelers who utilize TSA services, particularly those within the United States, given the focus on TSA and U.S. Customs and Border Protection.
- There are an estimated 1.2 million non-binary individuals in the United States, who will be directly affected by the lack of recognition and accommodation within TSA processes.
- Transgender individuals who do not conform strictly to male or female markers could also be impacted, as this bill denies updates to procedures that could make processes easier for them.
Reasoning
- The policy specifically impacts a subset of the population—those identifying as non-binary or transgender—by maintaining current sex-based procedures in TSA screening. The population most affected is around 1.2 million, which is relatively small compared to the total U.S. population.
- The policy's immediate and direct impact is limited to individuals who are using TSA services, even though there would be indirect effects related to societal attitudes about gender identity.
- With the budget constraints, the policy's operational costs don't appear to extend dramatically over time but would likely focus on administrative maintenance of current TSA procedures without technological upgrades or staff retraining for handling alternative gender identities.
- Overall, the policy's cost-effectiveness is questionable, as it restricts progressive inclusivity without directly saving or offering significant financial benefits. It does not appear to have significant benefits except for reaffirming traditional procedures, which could have societal and personal wellness repercussions.
Simulated Interviews
software engineer (New York City, NY)
Age: 28 | Gender: other
Wellbeing Before Policy: 6
Duration of Impact: 20.0 years
Commonness: 5/20
Statement of Opinion:
- I'm concerned by the lack of progress in recognizing non-binary identities. This policy feels like a step back.
- Travel can already be stressful enough, and having to go through outdated screening processes doesn't help.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 5 | 6 |
| Year 2 | 5 | 6 |
| Year 3 | 5 | 7 |
| Year 5 | 5 | 7 |
| Year 10 | 4 | 8 |
| Year 20 | 4 | 8 |
lawyer (Austin, TX)
Age: 45 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 7
Duration of Impact: 5.0 years
Commonness: 12/20
Statement of Opinion:
- It seems unnecessary not to update our systems in line with modern understandings of gender.
- This choice could make life harder for many people unnecessarily.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 7 | 7 |
| Year 2 | 7 | 8 |
| Year 3 | 6 | 8 |
| Year 5 | 6 | 8 |
| Year 10 | 6 | 8 |
| Year 20 | 6 | 8 |
TSA agent (Chicago, IL)
Age: 34 | Gender: male
Wellbeing Before Policy: 6
Duration of Impact: 10.0 years
Commonness: 3/20
Statement of Opinion:
- This policy makes the job easier since there's no need to learn new procedures.
- I understand it might be frustrating for some travelers but having fixed procedures helps with consistency.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 6 | 6 |
| Year 2 | 6 | 5 |
| Year 3 | 6 | 5 |
| Year 5 | 7 | 5 |
| Year 10 | 7 | 5 |
| Year 20 | 7 | 5 |
university student (Portland, OR)
Age: 22 | Gender: other
Wellbeing Before Policy: 5
Duration of Impact: 20.0 years
Commonness: 6/20
Statement of Opinion:
- It's really disappointing to see policies that feel exclusionary.
- I want to feel recognized by my own government when I'm traveling.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 4 | 5 |
| Year 2 | 3 | 5 |
| Year 3 | 3 | 5 |
| Year 5 | 3 | 5 |
| Year 10 | 2 | 5 |
| Year 20 | 2 | 5 |
human resources manager (Los Angeles, CA)
Age: 50 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 8
Duration of Impact: 7.0 years
Commonness: 14/20
Statement of Opinion:
- This policy is a missed opportunity to do better for the people who need it.
- There should be room for us all to be accurately represented.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 8 | 8 |
| Year 2 | 8 | 8 |
| Year 3 | 7 | 8 |
| Year 5 | 7 | 8 |
| Year 10 | 7 | 8 |
| Year 20 | 7 | 8 |
customs officer (Miami, FL)
Age: 39 | Gender: male
Wellbeing Before Policy: 6
Duration of Impact: 0.0 years
Commonness: 12/20
Statement of Opinion:
- Keeping things as they are helps manage security efficiently.
- However, I think we might need to adapt eventually.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 6 | 6 |
| Year 2 | 6 | 6 |
| Year 3 | 6 | 7 |
| Year 5 | 6 | 8 |
| Year 10 | 6 | 8 |
| Year 20 | 6 | 8 |
artist (San Francisco, CA)
Age: 30 | Gender: other
Wellbeing Before Policy: 7
Duration of Impact: 15.0 years
Commonness: 7/20
Statement of Opinion:
- I want my identity to be recognized throughout my journey in the US.
- Policies like these make me question my place here.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 6 | 7 |
| Year 2 | 6 | 7 |
| Year 3 | 5 | 8 |
| Year 5 | 5 | 8 |
| Year 10 | 5 | 8 |
| Year 20 | 5 | 9 |
teacher (Denver, CO)
Age: 27 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 7
Duration of Impact: 5.0 years
Commonness: 10/20
Statement of Opinion:
- I feel we should be more accommodating of all identities in our procedures.
- Having a policy that seems exclusionary worries me, even if it doesn't affect me directly.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 7 | 7 |
| Year 2 | 6 | 7 |
| Year 3 | 6 | 8 |
| Year 5 | 6 | 8 |
| Year 10 | 6 | 8 |
| Year 20 | 6 | 8 |
retired (Phoenix, AZ)
Age: 67 | Gender: male
Wellbeing Before Policy: 5
Duration of Impact: 0.0 years
Commonness: 15/20
Statement of Opinion:
- I suppose the current systems work fine the way they are.
- However, I do see people struggling sometimes at airports due to these issues.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 5 | 5 |
| Year 2 | 5 | 5 |
| Year 3 | 5 | 6 |
| Year 5 | 5 | 6 |
| Year 10 | 5 | 6 |
| Year 20 | 5 | 6 |
policy analyst (Seattle, WA)
Age: 41 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 6
Duration of Impact: 10.0 years
Commonness: 8/20
Statement of Opinion:
- Policies like these can alienate and harm our communities and their wellbeing.
- We should be pushing for more inclusive procedures.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 5 | 6 |
| Year 2 | 5 | 7 |
| Year 3 | 5 | 7 |
| Year 5 | 5 | 8 |
| Year 10 | 4 | 8 |
| Year 20 | 4 | 8 |
Cost Estimates
Year 1: $500000 (Low: $300000, High: $700000)
Year 2: $510000 (Low: $306000, High: $714000)
Year 3: $520000 (Low: $312000, High: $728000)
Year 5: $540000 (Low: $324000, High: $756000)
Year 10: $590000 (Low: $354000, High: $826000)
Year 100: $1500000 (Low: $1200000, High: $1800000)
Key Considerations
- Social repercussions of maintaining binary-only marker systems might lead to higher perceived discrimination against non-binary and transgender communities.
- Legal challenges could arise, potentially offsetting savings with additional litigation costs in the future.
- Maintaining current operations minimizes immediate fiscal impacts but has potential reputational costs on international and domestic levels related to inclusivity.