Politics & Power Quote by John Mica

Mica’s line is less a policy memo than a power diagnosis: the TSA isn’t merely doing too much, it has structured itself to keep doing too much. By stacking “operator, administrator and regulator” in one breath, he frames the agency as a closed loop - the same institution writes the rules, enforces them, and runs the day-to-day machinery. That triad is rhetorically efficient because it turns a bureaucratic org chart into an intuitive conflict-of-interest story.

The sharper move is the word “thwart.” It implies intent, not inertia. Mica isn’t arguing the TSA is simply slow to change; he’s arguing it’s self-protective, behaving like any monopoly guarding its market. “Bureaucracy” does extra work here, signaling faceless procedure while also suggesting a constituency: careers, contracts, and committees that benefit from the status quo. The subtext is a familiar Washington critique dressed in security language: agencies expand, then defend their expanded turf.

Context matters. Post-9/11, the TSA grew into a symbol of visible safety - shoes off, liquids bagged, a ritual of reassurance. By the time Mica is speaking, public frustration with “security theater” and long airport lines had become bipartisan small talk, and privatization had re-entered the conversation as a fix that sounds both managerial and ideological.

His “more private-sector operations and strong federal oversight and standards” tries to preempt the obvious counterpunch: that privatization means weaker security. He’s selling a hybrid model where government sets the floor and contractors handle the grind. “Cannot, and should not” is the closer’s double lock: a claim about competence paired with a claim about legitimacy. The intent isn’t just reform; it’s reassigning trust - away from a single federal bureaucracy, toward a market-plus-referee vision of security.