Trump Orders TSA Officers Paid Amid Congressional Stalemate

On March 26, 2026, President Donald Trump announced he would sign an executive order declaring a national emergency at the nation's airports and instructing Department of Homeland Security Secretary Markwayne Mullin to "immediately pay our TSA Agents" [1]. The order came on the 41st day of a partial government shutdown that has left nearly 50,000 Transportation Security Administration officers working without pay, produced the longest airport security lines in TSA's 24-year history, and driven almost 500 officers to resign [2].

The move thrusts a simmering constitutional question into the open: can a president spend money Congress has not appropriated?

The Human Cost: TSA Officers at the Breaking Point

TSA officers are classified as "essential workers," meaning they must report for duty even when their agency has no funding. Since DHS funding lapsed on February 14, these workers have missed two full paychecks and were on track to miss a third by the end of March [3].

The financial toll has been severe. Officers have reported selling blood plasma to cover basic expenses, sleeping in their cars at airports to save gas, taking second and third jobs, receiving eviction notices, defaulting on loans, and losing childcare [4]. Mac Johnson, executive vice president of AFGE TSA Council 100, confirmed that plasma donations had become a survival strategy for some officers [5].

Sean Root, president of AFGE Local 1260, described the situation bluntly: "There's only so much that these people can take until there's a breaking point, and I think we're at that breaking point" [3].

The attrition numbers bear this out. Since the shutdown began, approximately 480 TSA officers have quit — nearly 1% of the total workforce [6]. Daily callout rates have spiked from a pre-shutdown baseline of roughly 4% to over 11% nationwide, with some airports seeing rates above 40% and even 50% [2]. On a single Sunday in late March, more than 3,450 officers called out — the highest single-day figure since the shutdown started [6].

These workers had already endured the longest government shutdown in modern history just months earlier: the full-government shutdown that ran from October 1 through November 12, 2025, lasting 43 days [7]. Many had exhausted whatever financial reserves they built up during normal operations [3].

Airport Chaos: Record Wait Times and Operational Crisis

The staffing collapse has translated directly into record-breaking disruption for air travelers. Acting TSA Administrator testified to Congress that the agency was experiencing "the highest wait times in TSA history, with some wait times greater than four and a half hours" [6].

Houston's George Bush Intercontinental Airport became the epicenter of the crisis. Wait times there exceeded four hours earlier in the week of March 24, with the airport able to operate only about half of its 37 security checkpoints due to staffing shortages [8]. Roughly 40% of the airport's TSA officers called out on a single Tuesday [8].

The disruptions extended across the country. ICE agents were deployed to 14 major airports — including Atlanta's Hartsfield-Jackson, Chicago O'Hare, New York's JFK and LaGuardia, Newark, Philadelphia, and Phoenix Sky Harbor — in an attempt to supplement TSA screening [6]. AFGE National President Everett Kelley dismissed this measure as inadequate: "That's like giving a person dying of pneumonia a teaspoon of cough syrup" [3].

Airlines began adjusting to the new reality. Delta waived fare change fees for affected passengers [6]. Airports advised travelers to arrive three to four hours before domestic departures — double the standard recommendation [6]. Several major airports suspended online wait-time reporting because daily fluctuations made the numbers unreliable [6].

Source: NPR / Federal News Network / Time

Data as of Mar 27, 2026CSV

The Congressional Stalemate: Immigration Enforcement at the Core

The DHS shutdown is not a product of routine budget disagreements. It stems from a specific and politically charged dispute over immigration enforcement policy, triggered in part by the killing of Alex Pretti by Customs and Border Protection agents [7].

The broader fiscal year 2026 appropriations process had already been contentious. The first shutdown of the fiscal year ran from October 1 through November 12, 2025, encompassing the entire federal government [7]. After that shutdown ended, Congress managed to pass five of six full-year appropriations bills. The sixth — funding the Department of Homeland Security — was stripped out by the Senate for separate negotiation [9].

A short-term extension kept DHS funded through February 13, 2026. When that expired without a deal, the current partial shutdown began [10].

The sticking points are specific. Democrats are demanding reforms to Immigration and Customs Enforcement operations, including:

• Requiring ICE agents to obtain judicial warrants before entering private property
• Banning agents from wearing masks during operations
• Requiring agents to display visible identification
• Prohibiting raids near schools, churches, hospitals, and other sensitive locations
• Restricting ICE's use of excessive force [7][10]

These demands intensified after the deaths of two Americans protesting immigration sweeps in Minneapolis [1]. Democrats have proposed at least five different resolutions to reopen DHS, all of which Republicans have blocked [7].

Republicans and the White House have resisted these conditions. President Trump has said he does not want to negotiate reopening DHS until the SAVE Act is passed [7]. The House-passed DHS funding bill included roughly $10 billion in base funding for ICE, which Democrats have been unwilling to approve without the enforcement reforms attached [9].

Senate Majority Leader John Thune and Republican leadership have rejected the proposed ICE restrictions [10]. A bipartisan deal floated by some Senate Republicans drew criticism from both flanks — Democrats called it insufficient, and Trump expressed displeasure with the compromises it entailed [11].

The Executive Order: Legal Authority in Question

Trump's announcement framed the situation as a national emergency. "Because the Democrats have recklessly created a true National Crisis, I am using my authorities under the Law to protect our Great Country," he wrote on Truth Social [12].

The specific legal mechanism remains unclear. The White House considered invoking a formal national emergency declaration to unlock emergency funds, though this approach was described as "politically fraught and almost certain to face legal challenges" [2]. An alternative approach would involve shifting money from other DHS accounts — Senator Susan Collins suggested there was "funding elsewhere that can be legally used to pay TSA as well as the Coast Guard, without declaring a national emergency" [2].

One potential source: the GOP's tax-and-spending reconciliation bill signed in 2025 funneled approximately $75 billion to DHS, primarily for ICE operations [2]. Whether those funds can legally be redirected to TSA payroll is an open question.

Senator John Barrasso (R-WY) endorsed the action: "The president is doing absolutely the right thing" [2]. But legal experts have raised substantial concerns.

The central legal obstacle is the Antideficiency Act, a statute dating to 1870 that prohibits federal agencies from obligating or spending funds that Congress has not appropriated [13]. The law carries personal liability for officials who knowingly violate it, including potential criminal penalties [13]. The Purpose Statute further requires that appropriated funds be used "only to the objects for which the appropriations were made" [13].

Article I, Section 9 of the Constitution reinforces this framework: "No Money shall be drawn from the Treasury, but in Consequence of Appropriations made by Law." The Antideficiency Act is widely understood as the statutory embodiment of Congress's power of the purse [13].

As one expert told CNN, "those funds were appropriated for specific purposes, and the president can't move money around without congressional authority" [1].

Historical Precedent: Uncharted Territory

No president has previously used executive authority to pay federal workers whose agency funding has lapsed during a shutdown. The closest precedent involves the Government Employees Fair Treatment Act (GEFTA) of 2019, signed after the 35-day shutdown during Trump's first term, which guaranteed that all federal workers would receive back pay once funding was restored [14].

However, GEFTA addressed retroactive pay after a shutdown ends — not real-time payments during one. The distinction is critical. A recent internal legal opinion by OMB General Counsel Mark Paoletta argued that even GEFTA only authorizes backpay for furloughed workers and that Congress must still appropriate the actual funds [15]. Legal scholars have disputed this interpretation, noting the law's language says workers "shall" be made whole [15].

Before 2019, there was no statutory guarantee of back pay at all. Congress had historically passed ad hoc legislation to compensate workers after each shutdown, but this was a legislative act, not an executive one [14].

The current executive order goes further than any previous action by attempting to authorize payments during an active funding lapse — a step that tests the boundaries of executive power in ways courts have not previously adjudicated.

Constitutional Stakes: Separation of Powers Under Strain

The legal and constitutional objections extend beyond the Antideficiency Act. If a president can direct payment to federal employees without congressional appropriation, the implications reach far beyond TSA.

The Constitution's spending framework is designed so that Congress — not the executive — decides how taxpayer money is allocated. This is not an incidental feature of the system; the Founders considered the power of the purse to be the legislature's most important check on executive authority [13].

If the executive order stands unchallenged, it could establish a precedent allowing future presidents to fund any program they deem an "emergency" — bypassing Congress entirely. The logic that supports paying TSA officers could equally support funding any agency or initiative the executive branch decides is critical, regardless of whether Congress has approved the spending.

This concern cuts across partisan lines. While the immediate beneficiaries are TSA workers — and the immediate political pressure falls on Democrats for blocking DHS funding — the structural precedent affects the balance of power between branches regardless of which party holds the White House.

The Moral Hazard Question: Does Executive Action Enable Dysfunction?

AFGE and its members have expressed a more nuanced concern: that executive workarounds, however welcome in the short term, may actually prolong the congressional dysfunction that created the crisis.

AFGE National President Everett Kelley's demand was directed squarely at Congress: "Right now, these workers need a vote, a signature and a paycheck." He warned lawmakers: "Do not get on a plane that a TSA officer screened for free and fly home for Easter dinner" [5].

The union has advocated for passage of the Shutdown Fairness Act, which would require agencies to continue paying employees who work through shutdowns — a structural fix rather than a one-time executive patch [3].

Some union leaders have framed the crisis in even starker terms. Aaron Barker, president of AFGE Local 554, suggested the administration's handling of the situation — including the deployment of ICE agents to airports and earlier efforts to curtail TSA union rights — pointed toward a broader agenda of privatizing airport security screening. "It has always been about privatization," Barker said [5].

Johnny Jones, secretary-treasurer of AFGE's TSA Council 100, called the ICE deployment "a straight-up distraction" from the fundamental issue: "The ICE officers are being paid" while TSA officers are not [3].

The underlying tension is real. If the executive order successfully delivers paychecks to TSA workers, the most visible consequence of the shutdown — airport chaos — diminishes. With that pressure relieved, Congress faces less urgency to compromise. The workers get paid, but the policy dispute that caused the shutdown remains unresolved, and the precedent of executive spending without appropriation enters the political toolkit.

Sustainability and What Comes Next

The durability of Trump's executive payment mechanism remains uncertain. No public accounting has been provided for how large the available funding pool is or how long it could sustain TSA payroll of roughly 50,000 officers [2]. TSA's total annual budget runs to several billion dollars; even a few weeks of payroll represents hundreds of millions.

If the funding source is a reallocation from other DHS accounts — such as the $75 billion in ICE funding from the reconciliation bill — it will face scrutiny over whether the original appropriation permits such transfers [2]. If it rests on a national emergency declaration, it will almost certainly face immediate legal challenges [2].

Meanwhile, the Senate failed to advance DHS funding for the seventh time on the same day Trump announced his order [16]. Congressional negotiations show no signs of a breakthrough. Democrats continue to insist on immigration enforcement reforms; Republicans continue to reject them; and the president has signaled he is "pretty much not happy" with any deal currently on the table [11].

The executive order may provide temporary financial relief to TSA officers who have been working without pay for over five weeks. Whether it can survive legal challenge, how long its funding can last, and whether it ultimately helps or hinders a congressional resolution remain open questions that will shape both the immediate crisis and the longer-term balance of power between the branches of government.

Source: Bureau of Labor Statistics / FRED

Data as of Mar 27, 2026CSV