Earlier this week, the Senate Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs Committee under Chairman Rand Paul (R-KY) held a hearing on “Quiet Skies,” a watch-listing program that is credibly alleged to have been used for doling out political penalties and favors to travelers while catching zero terrorists. I spent a decade on counterterrorism strategy, drawn to it by the privacy implications of many programs. It was a pleasure to return to those issues as a witness at the hearing—an embarrassment, too, for all of us, because the country still struggles with counterterrorism and security policy nearly a quarter century after the September 11, 2001, attacks.

Doing nothing to actually secure, Quiet Skies ended up notably monitoring former U.S. Representative and now Director of National Intelligence Tulsi Gabbard, who was not a threat to air travel (in case it needs saying). The program gave relief from tracking to the husband of New Hampshire Senator Jeanne Shaheen (D) for political reasons, apparently, not based on any security merits.

Writing my testimony brought me back again and again to watch-listing as a security and constitutional half-measure. Interfering with the travel freedom of people who aren’t really suspected of concrete wrongdoing does not secure us. It does offend due process, the separation of powers, and the presumption of innocence.

When I go before Congress, I try to provide a thorough testimony. You might enjoy reading it if you love freedom.

The hearing itself had interesting and important bits. I was pleased to take a question from Senator James Lankford (R-OK) about my recommendation that Congress affirm Americans’ right to travel. Our intuition is that we can travel by right, but the treatment of travel in the courts is uneven. Senator Lankford’s inquiries into that and other legal issues with me and Tristan Leavitt of Empower Oversight begin at about 1:20:15 in the hearing video.

If there were a clear right to travel, Americans who believe themselves mistreated by airline security programs would have a stronger case and more access to legal discovery when they sued. This would strengthen public and judicial oversight, which is lacking.

One suit might have gone differently 15 years ago if there were a clear right to travel. It was brought by a man named Jonathan Corbett who was confident that the strip-search machines (“millimeter wave” and “backscatter,” technically, “Advanced Imaging Technology” to the Transportation Security Administration [TSA]) were highly susceptible to evasion. If they don’t even secure, the creation of a nude body image of each traveler for TSA personnel to review (which they originally did) was not a reasonable search under the Fourth Amendment. His case was thrown out.

Chairman Paul was not fond of strip-search machines when they came out, either. I remember, but I can’t confirm, him asking then of the prison-style search pose people must take in such machines, “Is that the stance of a free man?” At the hearing, referencing the continuing lack of disclosure about them, Paul ruminated on some of the issues with these “whirligig machines” starting at 1:27:20.

It took extraordinary effort by several groups to get the TSA to follow the law when it introduced those machines. Along with arguing to TSA that those machines do not pass muster in terms of risk management, I sought the declassification of a study that allegedly showed that they would be good for throughput at airports. That’s part of the cost-benefit calculation, how long security procedures delay millions of travelers per year, which can really add up. Delays and discomforts cost lives by pushing people to drive, where deaths are far more common than in air travel.

In April 2018, I filed a challenge to the classification of the TSA’s throughput study with the Interagency Security Classification Appeals Panel (ISCAP) at the National Archives and Records Administration. In February 2024—almost six years later—I won. When I received the email saying so, I didn’t remember what it was about.

ISCAP’s ruling was “DECLASSIFY IN FULL,” but it doesn’t review withholding under the statutory authority of the TSA, so the document remains heavily redacted.

That’s secrecy at work: Waiting out members of the public who wish to oversee their government and then untangling only a small part of the Gordian Knot.

In the ancient legend, the Gordian Knot was tied to a chariot. By cutting it, Alexander the Great earned the right to rule all of Asia. Today it’s tied to a plane. If Chairman Paul can cut through it, he can get something better: the legacy of bequeathing to a great people their freedom to travel.