Fact check: What is the quiet skies program

1. Summary of the results

The Quiet Skies Program was a TSA surveillance operation that allowed federal marshals to monitor U.S. citizens on domestic and international flights ^[1]. The program targeted individuals who had contact with "known or suspected terrorists," even if they weren't on terrorism watch lists or suspected of any crimes themselves ^[2]. Launched in 2010 during the Obama administration ^[3], the program was ultimately terminated by the Trump administration under Homeland Security Secretary Kristi Noem ^[2] after costing $200 million annually and failing to stop any terrorist attacks ^[1].

2. Missing context/alternative viewpoints

Several crucial aspects of the program weren't widely publicized:

• The program used specific surveillance methods including facial recognition, travel pattern analysis, and checks for outstanding warrants ^[3]
• First revealed by The Boston Globe in 2018, the program's criteria for "suspicious behavior" included subjective factors like fidgeting or having an intense stare ^[4]
• A 2020 DHS Inspector General's report highlighted the program's lack of sufficient oversight and responsible passenger data management ^[2]
• The program became particularly controversial after surveilling political figure Tulsi Gabbard during her campaign for Trump ^[3]

3. Potential misinformation/bias in the original statement

The program's termination has become politically charged, with different stakeholders presenting conflicting narratives:

• Conservative perspective: Secretary Kristi Noem and conservatives claim the program was used to target their political allies while providing exemptions to politically connected individuals ^[2]
• Civil Rights perspective: Critics argue the program enabled racial and religious discrimination through its subjective behavioral criteria ^[4]
• Government perspective: The Department of Homeland Security ultimately deemed the program redundant and costly ^[1]

Those benefiting from these narratives include:

• Political figures on both sides who can use the program's controversial nature for political gain
• Security contractors and agencies who received funding from the $200 million annual budget
• Civil rights organizations who can use this as an example of government overreach