TSA agents checking travelers' IDs and passports at airport checkpoint entrances will no longer be able to sit down on the job.
The American Federation of Government Employees' TSA Council 100 said in a statement this week that TSA is removing all chairs from the travel document checker station at checkpoint entrances in airports around the country. TSA confirmed the change to Fortune.
A TSA spokesperson said the move reinforces 'our security posture and our commitment to hospitality' by keeping officers 'on their feet and alert.' The spokesperson added that all officers must meet 'fitness for duty requirements' to perform what TSA called their 'vital national security function' while creating 'a welcoming and professional environment for travelers.'
The change comes as TSA Administrator David Cummins, who took the helm in August, has brought a series of changes outlined in the 'Horizon 25 Strategy,' described as a series of initiatives to improve travel efficiency linked with TSA's 25th anniversary.
The Trump administration has also put an emphasis on fitness for federal workers. President Donald Trump signed an executive order last March broadening the power of the Office of Personnel Management to evaluate federal workers, including, in a final rule made effective in July 2026, on the grounds of 'suitability and fitness.' Under that rule, agencies can use fitness as grounds for disciplining or firing an employee.
AFGE TSA Council 100 called the removal of chairs a 'disregard for workers rights and safety,' saying the chairs provide 'basic ergonomic and safety support' for officers who stand and walk on hard surfaces all day. The union said TSA is treating the issue 'like it is a privilege' when it is 'basic safety and common decency for the workforce.'
Worker tensions over fitness requirements extend beyond TSA. A coalition of unions, including AFGE and the National Federation of Federal Employees, filed a lawsuit in August claiming OPM exceeded its statutory authority through the suitability and fitness regulations applied to the federal workforce's performance management system. The suit seeks to reverse OPM's changes, including the final rule applying suitability standards to both job applicants and current employees and a rule allowing expedited firings if workers do not meet suitability and fitness standards.
The market has already voted on what this kind of federal management looks like: more rules, more oversight, and less room for bureaucratic comfort. If Washington is going to demand higher standards from the workforce it pays, it should at least be clear about the rules and honest about the tradeoffs.
For taxpayers, the question is not whether federal workers deserve standards. It is whether the administrative state is using 'fitness' as a discipline tool while calling it reform. Capital rewards clear rules; government works best when it applies them without pretending ergonomics is a privilege.
