A United Airlines shirt removal incident at Hartsfield-Jackson Atlanta International Airport (ATL) on 4 June has reignited debate across the industry about how carriers apply their own clothing bans, after a passenger was ordered off a flight and told to change before he could travel.
Sam Saadeh, of Linden, New Jersey, according to CBS News New York, had already boarded United flight UA 1152 from Atlanta to Newark when a supervisor identified only as Steven instructed him to leave the aircraft. The reason given: a flight attendant had deemed his T-shirt, which read ‘Bombing is not self defense’, offensive. Saadeh, who is of Palestinian descent, was told he could change the shirt or he would not be permitted to reboard.
What Happened on United Flight UA 1152
In an email Saadeh sent to clothing brand Wear the Peace, where he purchased the shirt, he said the supervisor’s stated justification was ‘because it had the word “bomb” on it.’ After complying and changing, Saadeh boarded and completed his journey. Fox News reported that United Airlines confirmed to Fox News Digital that Saadeh ultimately travelled on the flight after changing his shirt.
Following the flight, a United representative named Cynthia told Saadeh that other passengers had complained to crew because they found the shirt offensive and felt unsafe. Upon arriving in Newark, Saadeh sought further explanation from United’s airport staff and was told: ‘You could see how the shirt is offensive. It’s 2026.’ United’s only formal statement on the matter was brief: ‘This customer flew as scheduled after changing his shirt.’
Saadeh described the episode as a ‘very emotional ordeal’ and said he is now exploring his legal options and planning to file a complaint with the US Department of Transportation (DOT).
United Airlines Dress Code Rules and Enforcement Consistency
United Airlines‘ Contract of Carriage permits the carrier to refuse or remove a passenger who is ‘barefoot, not properly clothed, or whose clothing is lewd, obscene or offensive.’ The language gives crew broad discretion, but that discretion is drawing scrutiny. In a separate June incident, a traveller wearing a ‘lesbian as sh*t’ shirt was allowed to remain on a United flight even after a flight attendant described it as ‘deeply offensive’, prompting questions about the consistency of enforcement. The two incidents, both occurring in June, have led passengers to question whether United applies its clothing rules evenly.
Delta Air Lines does not maintain a traditional dress code section but states in its Contract of Carriage that passengers may be removed if their ‘conduct, attire, hygiene or odor creates an unreasonable risk of offense or annoyance to other passengers.’ American Airlines and Southwest Airlines similarly reserve the right to deny boarding over clothing considered ‘offensive in nature.’ The DOT does not impose any official clothing regulations on air travellers, leaving enforcement entirely to individual carriers, which goes some way to explaining the inconsistency passengers report across airlines.
The Saadeh case is not the first of its kind this year. In April, a man at Ronald Reagan Washington National Airport (DCA) was questioned by the Secret Service in an incident that drew attention on social media, linked by users to a T-shirt he was wearing carrying multiple ‘Palestine’ text prints. In 2025, a Spirit Airlines passenger was removed from a flight over a hoodie from brand FWUH bearing the message ‘Fvck Hate World Tour’ after crew misread its intent; that passenger chose to book an alternative flight rather than change.
Context for the broader climate is relevant here. US Transportation Secretary Sean Duffy publicly urged air passengers to stop wearing ‘disrespectful’ clothing in late 2025, and airlines have tightened dress-code enforcement in the period since. Saadeh’s case, and the social media reaction it generated, suggest that tension between carriers and passengers over political or charged messaging on clothing is far from resolved. His planned DOT complaint may test how the department responds to a passenger grievance the airlines’ own inconsistent enforcement has left without a clear answer.
