Read twice and referred to the Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation.
This bill amends Title 49 U.S.C. to change how revenue from the 9/11 Security Fee is allocated. Beginning in fiscal year 2026, the bill increases the annual amount set aside for the Aviation Security Capital Fund from $250 million to $500 million and establishes a new Aviation Security Checkpoint Technology (ASCT) Fund to receive the next $250 million annually from the same fee.
Whether redirecting or increasing passenger-paid 9/11 Security Fee collections is acceptable (liberal and centrist generally comfortable; conservative more skeptical).
Relative to its intended legislative type, this bill clearly defines its purpose and sets specific statutory funding allocations and grant authority to direct 9/11 Security Fee revenue toward aviation security capital and checkpoint technology beginning in fiscal year 2026.
This bill amends Title 49 U.S.C. to change how revenue from the 9/11 Security Fee is allocated.
Beginning in fiscal year 2026, the bill increases the annual amount set aside for the Aviation Security Capital Fund from $250 million to $500 million and establishes a new Aviation Security Checkpoint Technology (ASCT) Fund to receive the next $250 million annually from the same fee.
The ASCT Fund will be used for procurement, deployment, and sustainment of checkpoint and exit-lane security technology and authorizes the Transportation Security Administration (TSA) to make grants from these funds, including retroactive approval for projects implemented on or after January 1, 2023.
On substance the bill is a targeted, administrable change that supports aviation security and could attract bipartisan support; it imposes a recurring allocation of fee revenue which could draw fiscal pushback and create jurisdictional negotiations. Because it is limited in scope, operationally clear, and tied to homeland security priorities, it has a moderate-to-good chance of enactment based on content alone — but passage depends on budget tradeoffs and committee/leadership priorities.
Relative to its intended legislative type, this bill clearly defines its purpose and sets specific statutory funding allocations and grant authority to direct 9/11 Security Fee revenue toward aviation security capital and checkpoint technology beginning in fiscal year 2026. It integrates these changes directly into title 49 and names the implementing official (TSA Administrator).
Whether redirecting or increasing passenger-paid 9/11 Security Fee collections is acceptable (liberal and centrist generally comfortable; conservative more skeptical).
These are examples from the analysis, not a ranked list of the most-affected groups.
Whether redirecting or increasing passenger-paid 9/11 Security Fee collections is acceptable (liberal and centrist generally comfortable; conservative more skeptical).
A mainstream liberal would generally welcome securing stable, dedicated funding for improved checkpoint technology that could strengthen passenger safety, but would have concerns about regressive fee impacts and civil liberties.
They would emphasize ensuring that technology upgrades include privacy protections, non-discriminatory implementation, accessibility for disabled travelers, and oversight to prevent mission creep.
They would also want assurances that the funds strengthen frontline worker capacity (TSA staffing, training) rather than only buying equipment.
A centrist would view the bill as a pragmatic, targeted reallocation of an existing aviation security fee toward tangible upgrades in checkpoint technology while restoring fee-use fidelity to the fee's stated purpose.
They would be supportive provided there are accountability mechanisms, cost-effectiveness analyses, and oversight to prevent wasteful procurement.
The retroactive grant authority is a practical fix for ongoing projects, but centrists would want clarity about total passenger costs and whether the fee increases will affect travel demand.
A mainstream conservative would be skeptical about further earmarking of passenger fees and expanding dedicated federal funds and TSA authority, but could be partially supportive if the changes demonstrably improve security and are implemented efficiently.
Key objections would focus on passenger fee increases, federal overreach, potential procurement inefficiency, and insufficient protections against mission creep or expanded surveillance.
Some conservatives may accept the measure if accompanied by strict oversight, limits on bureaucratic expansion, and assurances that fees do not function as a hidden tax growth.
Reached or meaningfully advanced
Reached or meaningfully advanced
Still ahead
Still ahead
Still ahead
On substance the bill is a targeted, administrable change that supports aviation security and could attract bipartisan support; it imposes a recurring allocation of fee revenue which could draw fiscal pushback and create jurisdictional negotiations. Because it is limited in scope, operationally clear, and tied to homeland security priorities, it has a moderate-to-good chance of enactment based on content alone — but passage depends on budget tradeoffs and committee/leadership priorities.
The bill has not accumulated any surfaced votes yet.
Whether redirecting or increasing passenger-paid 9/11 Security Fee collections is acceptable (liberal and centrist generally comfortable; c…
On substance the bill is a targeted, administrable change that supports aviation security and could attract bipartisan support; it imposes…
Relative to its intended legislative type, this bill clearly defines its purpose and sets specific statutory funding allocations and grant authority to direct 9/11 Security Fee revenue toward aviation security capital a…
Go beyond the headline summary with full stakeholder mapping, legislative design analysis, passage barriers, and lens-by-lens tradeoff breakdowns.