Travelers at John F. Kennedy International Airport (JFK) faced mixed TSA security wait times Tuesday, March 17, 2026, with some terminals seeing lines exceeding 30 minutes while others cleared in under 5 minutes. Real-time data from the official JFK Airport website showed significant variation across the airport’s terminals during peak spring break travel, compounded by lingering staffing pressures from the partial government shutdown now in its second month.

As of mid-morning EDT (late evening KST), general security lines stood at: Terminal 1 — 1 minute; Terminal 4 — exceeds 30 minutes; Terminal 5 — 20 minutes; Terminal 7 — 1 minute; Terminal 8 — 29 minutes. TSA PreCheck lanes offered faster access, with waits of no wait at Terminal 1, 7 minutes at Terminal 4, 10 minutes at Terminal 5, and 6 minutes at Terminal 8. Terminal 7 had no PreCheck listed. These figures update in real time on the airport’s site, reflecting checkpoint conditions over recent minutes.

The disparities highlight Terminal 4 and Terminal 8 as hotspots, often due to high international traffic and major carriers like Delta, JetBlue, and American Airlines operating there. Terminal 4, a key hub for international arrivals and departures, frequently sees longer lines from global passengers navigating additional screening protocols. In contrast, Terminals 1 and 7 — serving airlines like Aer Lingus and British Airways — moved quickly Tuesday.

The ongoing partial government shutdown has exacerbated delays at JFK and other major U.S. airports during the busy spring break season. Staffing shortages from unpaid TSA agents and call-outs have led to longer processing times, though JFK’s lines appeared more manageable Tuesday than earlier in the week. Reports from March 12-14 indicated waits up to 36 minutes at Terminal 4 and 33 minutes at Terminals 5 and 8, with PreCheck holding under 10 minutes. By March 17, some improvement occurred in non-peak terminals, but international-heavy checkpoints remained strained.

Average daily waits at JFK typically range 14-20 minutes for standard lines, climbing to 18-35 minutes during peaks like 6-9 a.m. and 4-7 p.m. Early mornings (5-8 a.m.) often see 24-minute averages due to business travel surges. Historical data suggests off-peak overnight hours dip below 15 minutes, but spring break crowds and shutdown effects push variability higher.

Passengers can monitor conditions via multiple sources. The JFK Airport website provides terminal-specific real-time updates, refreshed every few minutes, including PreCheck and estimated gate travel times post-security. The MyTSA app offers 15-minute interval estimates based on crowd-sourced and official data, though shutdown-related disruptions may affect accuracy. Third-party sites like Way.com and OnAirParking aggregate live feeds, reporting averages around 14-19 minutes recently.

To minimize delays, experts recommend arriving 2-3 hours early for domestic flights and 3+ hours for international, especially now. Enrolling in TSA PreCheck or CLEAR expedites screening: PreCheck allows kept-on shoes, laptops in bags, and shorter dedicated lanes, while CLEAR uses biometrics for front-of-line access. Programs remain operational despite earlier shutdown pauses. T4 Reserve at Terminal 4 lets passengers book free security slots in advance.

Additional tips include reviewing TSA guidelines on liquids (3-1-1 rule), avoiding prohibited items, and using mobile boarding passes. The airport advises checking flight status via airline apps, as security waits can compound with gate changes or delays.

JFK’s five active terminals handle over 60 million passengers annually, making efficient security crucial. While Tuesday’s data showed relief in some areas, the shutdown’s impact persists, with no immediate resolution in sight after recent failed Senate votes. Travelers should plan conservatively and use live tools for updates.

As spring break continues, JFK remains a high-volume hub where preparation pays off. Real-time monitoring and expedited programs offer the best defense against unpredictable lines.

HM Revenue & Customs has come under fresh criticism over what tax experts describe as a “deeply unfair” imbalance between the interest it charges taxpayers and the rate it pays on refunds, raising wider concerns about trust, transparency and the efficiency of the UK’s tax system.

According to analysis from audit, tax and advisory firm Blick Rothenberg, taxpayers who fall behind on payments are currently charged daily late payment interest at a rate of 7.75 per cent. By contrast, those owed money by HMRC receive interest at just 2.75 per cent on repayments, even when delays stretch over many months.

Tom Goddard, assistant manager at the firm, said the disparity creates a system that appears heavily weighted in favour of the tax authority. He argued that while taxpayers face escalating financial penalties for delays, HMRC itself is not subject to equivalent consequences when repayments are slow.

The imbalance becomes more pronounced when penalties are factored in. Taxpayers who fail to settle liabilities within 12 months can face additional charges of up to 15 per cent of the outstanding amount, alongside further penalties if tax returns are submitted late. In contrast, there is no comparable compensation mechanism when HMRC delays repayments, even in cases where individuals or businesses suffer financial consequences as a result.

Goddard pointed to the real-world impact of these delays, citing cases where taxpayers have waited more than a year for repayments to be processed. In one instance, a client missed a significant investment opportunity after funds earmarked for deployment were tied up in a prolonged HMRC repayment process. Despite repeated attempts to resolve the issue, the delay persisted due to internal administrative complications and a lack of clear ownership within the organisation.

The broader concern, he suggested, is not only the financial disparity but the operational friction involved in resolving disputes. Taxpayers seeking to reclaim funds often face a lengthy and complex process, involving multiple departments and repeated follow-ups. For many, the cost of professional advice required to navigate the system can offset any financial benefit from the repayment itself.

This dynamic risks creating a perception that the system is both inefficient and adversarial. While HMRC attributes delays largely to administrative pressures, critics argue that the burden of those inefficiencies falls disproportionately on taxpayers, particularly at a time when many individuals and businesses are already under financial strain.

The issue also raises questions about HMRC’s broader transformation agenda. One of the stated priorities in its “Transformational Roadmap” is to improve day-to-day performance for individuals and businesses, with a shift towards a more automated, digital-first system intended to handle up to 90 per cent of queries.

While digitalisation is expected to streamline processes and reduce the estimated £20 billion annual cost of tax administration, there is scepticism about whether it will address underlying service challenges. Critics argue that without sufficient investment in expertise and support, automation alone may not resolve delays or improve outcomes for taxpayers.

Trust remains a central theme in the debate. HMRC has identified closing the UK’s £46.8 billion tax gap as a key objective, but advisers suggest that rebuilding confidence in the system is equally important. A more balanced approach to interest rates and compensation, they argue, could encourage greater cooperation and compliance from taxpayers.

There is also a behavioural dimension to consider. If taxpayers perceive the system as inequitable, they may be less inclined to engage proactively with HMRC or prioritise timely compliance. Conversely, a system that treats delays on both sides more evenly could foster a more collaborative relationship between the tax authority and those it serves.

For now, however, the disparity in interest rates remains a point of contention. As scrutiny of HMRC’s performance intensifies, pressure is likely to grow for reforms that address both the financial imbalance and the operational challenges that underpin it.

Without such changes, critics warn, the gap between policy intent and taxpayer experience will continue to widen, undermining confidence in a system that relies on voluntary compliance to function effectively.

Amy Ingham

Amy is a newly qualified journalist specialising in business journalism at Business Matters with responsibility for news content for what is now the UK’s largest print and online source of current business news.

Individual insolvencies across England and Wales have surged by 18 per cent year-on-year, in what experts are warning is clear evidence of a deepening household financial crisis as rising borrowing costs, persistent inflation and accumulated debt continue to weigh heavily on consumers.

New data from The Insolvency Service shows that 11,609 people entered insolvency in February 2026, marking a 6 per cent increase on January and a significant jump compared with the same month last year. The figures paint a stark picture of mounting financial strain, particularly among vulnerable households and increasingly, middle-income earners.

The total comprised 768 bankruptcies, 4,210 debt relief orders (DROs) and 6,631 individual voluntary arrangements (IVAs), with DROs reaching their highest monthly level since their introduction in 2009. The record number reflects both structural financial pressures and policy changes, including the removal of the application fee in April 2024, which has made the process more accessible.

However, industry observers say the scale of the increase goes far beyond administrative changes. Darryl Dhoffer, founder of The Mortgage Geezer, described the data as a clear signal that many households have reached a tipping point after years of financial pressure. He pointed to what he described as the “lag effect” of higher interest rates, which is now feeding through into household finances after a prolonged period of tightening monetary policy.

While the Bank of England’s base rate currently stands at 3.75 per cent, elevated borrowing costs have continued to squeeze mortgage holders and consumers carrying unsecured debt. At the same time, inflation, although easing from its peak, remains above target at around 3 per cent, limiting the extent to which households are seeing meaningful relief in day-to-day costs.

Tony Redondo, founder of Cosmos Currency Exchange, said the figures highlight how cumulative financial pressures are now manifesting in real-world outcomes. He noted that while the removal of fees has contributed to the rise in DROs, the broader trend reflects households “finally collapsing under accumulated debt from previous years”.

He warned that the outlook remains fragile, particularly in light of geopolitical uncertainty and the potential for renewed inflationary pressures linked to energy markets. Any sustained increase in inflation could force the Bank of England to keep interest rates higher for longer, further intensifying the strain on borrowers approaching refinancing deadlines.

Financial planners echoed concerns that the current data may represent the early stages of a wider deterioration. Nouran Moustafa, practice principal at Roxton Wealth, said the figures should not be viewed as a one-off spike but rather as part of a broader pattern of economic fragility.

She emphasised that behind the statistics lies significant human impact, with many households operating without any financial buffer. In such conditions, even relatively small increases in costs or interest rates can push individuals into insolvency.

The pressure is not limited to households. Company insolvencies rose by 7 per cent month-on-month to 1,878 in February, although they remain below levels seen during the peak of business failures between 2022 and 2025. Analysts suggest this reflects a mixed picture, with some businesses stabilising while others continue to face tightening margins and weakening demand.

Anita Wright, chartered financial planner at Ribble Wealth Management, said the data reflects a broader liquidity squeeze across the economy. She noted that rising bond yields are feeding into higher borrowing costs for businesses, while consumers facing higher living costs are cutting back on spending, further compressing margins.

This combination of weak growth and persistent inflation, often described as stagflationary conditions, creates a particularly challenging environment for both households and businesses. While some firms have been able to absorb pressures through cost-cutting or the use of reserves, that resilience is finite, and insolvency rates tend to rise once those buffers are exhausted.

The implications are also being felt in the workplace. Kate Underwood, founder of Kate Underwood HR and Training, warned that financial stress among employees is increasingly spilling over into business operations. She highlighted rising levels of absenteeism, reduced productivity and higher staff turnover as workers struggle to cope with mounting financial pressures.

For small businesses in particular, the challenge is acute. Unlike larger corporates, they often lack the financial flexibility to absorb rising wage demands or offer higher salaries, making them more vulnerable to workforce instability driven by cost-of-living pressures.

The latest figures also come at a time when expectations for interest rate cuts have been significantly scaled back. Prior to the recent escalation in geopolitical tensions, markets had anticipated multiple rate reductions in 2026. However, rising oil and gas prices have shifted expectations, with policymakers now more cautious about easing monetary policy.

This change in outlook could prove critical. As Redondo noted, the combination of higher rates, depleted savings and thin margins leaves both households and businesses exposed to further shocks. Should borrowing costs remain elevated or increase further, the risk of a broader wave of defaults and insolvencies could intensify.

For now, the data underscores a fundamental issue facing the UK economy: a growing number of households and businesses are operating with little to no margin for error. In such an environment, the difference between stability and financial distress can be measured in relatively small shifts in costs or income.

As policymakers weigh the next steps on interest rates and fiscal policy, the sharp rise in insolvencies serves as a clear warning signal that underlying financial pressures are not only persistent but increasingly visible across the economy.

Amy Ingham

Amy is a newly qualified journalist specialising in business journalism at Business Matters with responsibility for news content for what is now the UK’s largest print and online source of current business news.

This article was written by

Follow