It took the Obama Administration three nominees and 18 months to get John Pistole installed as top man at the Transportation Security Administration—an agency shaped by George W. Bush appointee Kip Hawley, who didn't care about business travelers, Congressional oversight, public opinion, or anything other than the TSA's internal agenda.

Meet the new boss. Same as the old boss.

In nearly four years as the nation's public face of airport security, Hawley systematically insulated the TSA from any semblance of governmental balance. Whenever Hawley wanted to do something, he did it, even if was self-evidently ludicrous or ignored the letter or spirit of the 2001 law that created the agency. And while Hawley left the TSA a better organization than he found it—not a high bar given that it had been founded in haste and desperation after the September 11 terrorist attacks—most observers expected the Obama administration to steer a kinder, gentler path that focused on a more rationale approach to airport security.

But almost since the day Pistole took over as TSA administrator last summer, he has employed what can only be called the Hawley Doctrine: The TSA is above the law, accountable to no one, disinterested in any security mechanism that does not serve the TSA's bureaucracy, and is oblivious to political realities.

A former deputy director of the FBI, Pistole didn't exactly wow the masses during his first public controversy last Thanksgiving. That's when a public uprising against the graphic images produced by new TSA screening machines led many flyers to conclude the agency imposed punitive body searches on anyone who refused to use the technology. That issue has almost disappeared from public view, but the TSA still faces at least a half-dozen lawsuits, and it has sped up development of even newer technology that won't render the traveler's body so clearly.

In recent weeks, however, Pistole has gone to war with Congress over the scope, size, and essential nature of the TSA. And, inexplicably, he often seems on the wrong side of the law and the wrong side of public opinion, which currently favors a smaller, less intrusive government footprint.

The 2001 law that created the agency was clear: The TSA was formed to federalize the security screening of passengers and cargo, which until then had been handled by an indifferent, ineffective collection of private rent-a-cop outfits. But the law also had an "opt-out" provision baked right into the federalization process: The TSA was required to train and test private screeners at five airports. It was then required to create a permanent process to allow commercial airports to use private-sector screeners if they chose.

The so-called Screening Partnership Program has been a modest, but undeniable, success. With TSA guidance, 16 of the nation's approximately 500 commercial airports use private-sector personnel rather than TSA employees. Airports as large as San Francisco International and as small Key West International are part of the program, and no traveler I've ever spoken with has even noticed a difference. Moreover, the TSA has never challenged the effectiveness of the private screeners who worked under SPP.

After last November's election, however, Florida Representative John Mica, the front man for Republicans in transportation affairs, began urging airports to "opt out" of federalized screening. Pistole's reaction to Mica's call was shocking. Late in January, he turned down miniscule Springfield-Branson Airport's request to go private and then locked down the airport opt-out program altogether.

"I examined [SPP] and decided not to expand the program beyond the current 16 airports, as I do not see any clear or substantial advantage to do so," Pistole said. In a memo to TSA employees, Pistole went even further. "To preserve the TSA as an effective, federal counterterrorism security network, SPP will not be expanded…unless a clear and substantial advantage to do so emerges."

The problem with Pistole's decision? The law clearly states that the TSA should create a privatization path for airports. There's nothing that permits the TSA administrator to deny applications based on his assessment of privatization's impact on TSA as an "effective, federal counterterrorism security network," either.

Pistole also opened an old wound at a congressional hearing earlier this month when he said the TSA is considering a "trusted traveler" program. Trusted traveler—which would offer faster access to security and perhaps even some security bypass for travelers who had undergone extensive prescreening and background checks—is also part of the bill that created the TSA.

There's just two problems with Pistole's tentative embrace of trusted traveler: The TSA under Hawley strangled all attempts to create such a bypass program, and the TSA was supposed to make trusted traveler a private-sector initiative, not another government-run proposition.