Edit: xp84’s comment is a more eloquent representation of the situation.

Agree to disagree in this instance (I find the identity proofing theater part distasteful for some reason). I’m going to keep writing congressional reps and pressuring airport authorities on these concession agreements. CLEAR isn’t solidly profitable (refer to their 10-Ks, NYSE: $YOU), so hopefully the end of this practice is in sight considering a rising interest rate environment and the TSA implementing such proofing directly.

Just call it airport fastpass if you’re going to enable the practice. Still gross, just more honest.

(Strong opinions on the topic; https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brandolini's_law )

Assuming I agree with your premise, which some might find deeply disturbing in the context of government, doesn’t it seem shady that this one for-profit private company is deputized to offer this service? I too want to know the terms, and at least whether these contracts are up for bid regularly. If I were the negotiator for the government side, I’d feel obliged to cap subscriber fees as a condition of the deal, and also to encourage multiple companies to compete for the contracts on how much of the revenue they’ll give the government/airport. The lack of competitors makes it seem like a sweetheart deal.

Seems like paying to create two classes of citizens

Why is there a separate company involved? What service are they even providing?

perhaps at theme parks or bribing bouncers/maitre's d

not at government checkpoints