As the government shutdown deepens, a growing number of major U.S. airports are taking a firm stand against the Department of Homeland Security’s request to air a video blaming Democrats for the crisis. Citing federal and local laws like the Hatch Act, these airports argue that public facilities should remain non-partisan, highlighting a broader debate about political messaging from government agencies and its impact on public trust.
In an unusual move that has sparked widespread debate, numerous airports across the United States are actively refusing to play a video from the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) that explicitly blames Democrats for the ongoing federal government shutdown. This collective denial underscores a critical tension between government agencies’ communication strategies and long-standing principles of non-partisanship in public spaces.
The Shutdown’s Unfolding Impact and the DHS Message
The current government shutdown commenced on October 1, 2025, stemming from a persistent stalemate between Democrats and Republicans in Congress. Democrats have insisted on extending expiring health insurance tax credits, while Republican leaders have refused to negotiate, demanding that the government be reopened first. This impasse has left thousands of federal workers in limbo, particularly those deemed essential.
Among those severely impacted are Transportation Security Administration (TSA) officers and air traffic controllers, who are required to work without immediate pay. The stress of this situation has led to an uptick in sick calls, resulting in significant staffing shortages at airports and, consequently, flight delays and cancellations across the country. It is against this backdrop that the DHS video was introduced.
In the video, Secretary Kristi Noem addresses travelers directly, stating, “Democrats in Congress refuse to fund the federal government and because of this, many of our operations are impacted and most of our TSA employees are working without pay.” She concludes by expressing hope that “Democrats will soon recognize the importance of opening the government.” DHS Assistant Secretary Tricia McLaughlin reiterated this message in a statement, while asserting that “security operations remain largely unimpacted at this time.”
Why Airports Are Saying “No”: Violations of Policy and Law
Airports have widely rejected the DHS video, asserting that its overtly partisan content violates their established policies and, in many cases, state or federal regulations. This firm stance highlights a commitment to maintaining non-political public spaces. The list of airports refusing to play the video includes, but is not limited to:
- Portland International Airport (Oregon)
- Seattle-Tacoma International Airport (Washington)
- Phoenix Sky Harbor International Airport (Arizona)
- Charlotte Douglas International Airport (North Carolina)
- Buffalo Niagara International Airport (New York)
- Westchester County Airport (New York)
- Harry Reid International Airport (Las Vegas, Nevada)
- John F. Kennedy International Airport (New York)
- LaGuardia Airport (New York)
- Newark Liberty International Airport (New Jersey)
- O’Hare International Airport (Chicago, Illinois)
- Midway International Airport (Chicago, Illinois)
- Airports managed by Massachusetts Port Authority (Boston)
- Spokane, Boise, Los Angeles, and Cleveland airports
The Hatch Act: A Pillar of Non-Partisanship
A central legal argument cited by many airports is the Hatch Act of 1939. This federal law restricts the political activities of most executive branch employees, aiming to ensure that federal programs and assets are used for non-partisan public service. The Port of Portland spokesperson, Molly Prescott, articulated this concern, stating, “We believe the Hatch Act clearly prohibits use of public assets for political purposes and messaging.” You can learn more about the specifics of the Hatch Act from the Office of Special Counsel, which enforces the law, on their official website.
State, Municipal, and Airport-Specific Regulations
Beyond the federal Hatch Act, airports also pointed to local regulations and internal policies. The Port of Portland further noted that “Oregon law states no public employee can promote or oppose any political committee, party, or affiliation.” Similarly, Charlotte Douglas International Airport cited “North Carolina municipal law as well as CLT Airport’s policy for digital content” as reasons for their refusal. Airports like Harry Reid International Airport in Las Vegas underscored their regulations that terminals “are not designated public forums” and their intent “to avoid the use of the facility for political or religious advocacy.”
Westchester County Executive Ken Jenkins issued a particularly strong rebuke, calling the video “inappropriate, unacceptable, and inconsistent with the values we expect from our nation’s top public officials.” Jenkins’ statement, available through the Westchester County government press releases, also emphasized that such messaging “undermines public trust” at a time when focus should be on stability and collaboration.
A Broader Pattern: Partisan Messaging Across Government Agencies
This incident at airports is not an isolated event in the current shutdown. Multiple reports indicate that other federal agencies have also engaged in partisan messaging, with some explicitly blaming Democrats or “the radical left” for service disruptions on their official websites and in internal communications. These actions have drawn criticism from experts and the public alike, raising questions about whether these instances constitute additional violations of the Hatch Act and other ethical guidelines for government communication.
Traditionally, communications from government officials on airport monitors or agency websites during times of crisis, such as a shutdown, are expected to be purely informational, focusing on safety or operational updates without delving into political blame. The current trend marks a significant departure from this norm, prompting concerns about the politicization of public service announcements.
Long-Term Implications and Public Trust
The refusal of airports to carry the DHS video highlights a critical defense of non-partisan public spaces. Airports are gateways, serving a diverse populace, and maintaining a politically neutral environment is seen as essential for public trust and operational integrity. When government bodies use official channels for partisan messaging, it risks eroding the public’s confidence in the objectivity and impartiality of essential services, including national security and public safety.
The ongoing government shutdown itself, with its direct impact on federal employees and critical services like air travel, is already a source of significant public concern. Injecting political blame into official communications further complicates the situation, distracting from efforts to find a resolution and potentially deepening societal divisions. The airports’ united front serves as a powerful reminder of the importance of clear, honest, and non-partisan communication from public officials, especially during periods of national uncertainty.
