The bill redirects a larger, specified portion of the airline passenger 9/11 Security Fee into two dedicated accounts inside DHS for aviation security investments and creates a new fund specifically for checkpoint and exit lane technology. It clarifies congressional intent that proceeds from the 9/11 Security Fee should be used solely for aviation security and directs an end to diversions of that revenue.
Why it matters: the measure aims to create predictable, earmarked funding for procurement, deployment, and sustainment of checkpoint detection systems and related equipment — a focus likely to accelerate adoption of advanced screening technology at airports and to change TSA’s internal capital-planning and grant priorities. The bill also permits retroactive grant approvals for recent projects, which affects airports and vendors that already invested in new technology.
At a Glance
What It Does
Starting in fiscal year 2026 the bill changes the fee deposit order under 49 U.S.C. 44923 so the first specified tranche of 9/11 Security Fee receipts funds the Aviation Security Capital Fund and the next tranche is deposited into a newly created Aviation Security Checkpoint Technology (ASCT) Fund. It authorizes TSA to use amounts in those funds to make grants for procurement, deployment, and sustainment of checkpoint and exit-lane technology and allows retroactive approval for projects implemented on or after January 1, 2023.
Who It Affects
The Transportation Security Administration (TSA), airports that apply for capital grants, vendors and integrators of checkpoint and exit-lane screening systems, and ultimately airline passengers who pay the 9/11 Security Fee because TSA must set the fee to meet the statutory collection targets. Treasury and DHS budget officers will also see shifts in how fee receipts are reserved and spent.
Why It Matters
The bill formalizes multi‑year, source-specific funding for checkpoint upgrades, reducing reliance on annual appropriations for those purchases and creating a predictable grant pipeline. That predictability changes procurement timelines for technology vendors and may accelerate replacement cycles for legacy screening equipment while limiting the use of fee revenue for non-security purposes.
More articles like this one.
A weekly email with all the latest developments on this topic.
What This Bill Actually Does
The bill operates at two levels: it states Congress’s intent about the 9/11 Security Fee and it rewrites how a portion of that fee is routed and spent. The sense of Congress language reiterates that the fee was created to fund aviation security and instructs that fee revenue should be reserved for activities that directly improve passenger and baggage screening and relevant personnel support.
It also directs that any diversion of those funds to unrelated purposes should stop by 2027.
On the statutory side, the bill amends the Aviation Security Capital Fund rules in 49 U.S.C. 44923 to change how TSA deposits and earmarks fee receipts. The amendment instructs TSA to set the fee level so that specified amounts are collected and deposited into the two funds each fiscal year; money in those funds is available to TSA for grants.
The ASCT Fund is a new, discrete account created specifically to finance checkpoint and exit-lane technology acquisition, deployment, and sustainment. The statute makes clear that ASCT money is available until expended and can be used through TSA grant programs established in the statutory section.A practical consequence is that TSA must monitor fee collections and adjust the fee rate to meet the statutory deposit targets.
TSA’s grant administration will be the operational tool for turning fund balances into deployed equipment at airports — meaning TSA will set grant criteria, prioritize projects, and manage reimbursements and sustainment contracts. The bill also permits TSA to retroactively approve grant-funded projects that began on or after January 1, 2023, which creates a pathway for airports and vendors that already invested in new checkpoint equipment to seek reimbursement or credit against future awards.Because the ASCT Fund focuses narrowly on checkpoint and exit-lane technology, other aviation security needs not squarely tied to screening technology — for example, certain air cargo initiatives or broader behavioral detection programs — will remain subject to TSA’s other funding channels.
The statutory language gives TSA authority to make grants from these funds but does not itself prescribe scoring criteria or a distribution formula; those implementation details will be set in TSA grant guidance and program rules.
The Five Things You Need to Know
The bill requires TSA to collect fee receipts sufficient to deposit fixed tranches into two funds each fiscal year beginning in FY2026.
Under the new deposit order the first tranche for the Aviation Security Capital Fund is specified at $500,000,000 each fiscal year beginning in FY2026.
After that capital tranche, the bill directs the next $250,000,000 each fiscal year beginning in FY2026 to a newly created Aviation Security Checkpoint Technology (ASCT) Fund.
The ASCT Fund is available until expended and authorizes grants for procurement, deployment, and sustainment of checkpoint and exit-lane technology; TSA may retroactively approve grant funding for qualifying projects implemented on or after January 1, 2023.
The bill includes a sense of Congress directing that diversion of 9/11 Security Fee revenue to non-aviation-security purposes should end no later than 2027.
Section-by-Section Breakdown
Every bill we cover gets an analysis of its key sections.
Sense of Congress on 9/11 Security Fee purpose and diversion
This section sets out congressional findings and intent: it reiterates that the 9/11 Security Fee was created to enhance aviation safety and security, states that fee revenue should be used exclusively for aviation security activities, and calls for an end to diversions of the fee to unrelated purposes by 2027. While non‑binding, the sense language is a policy signal that will guide appropriation and administrative decisions, and it provides a statutory hook for stakeholders pressing for stricter adherence to fee-use limitations.
Increases minimum annual capital deposit and ties fee-setting to collection targets
This amendment raises the required annual amount that TSA must collect and deposit into the Aviation Security Capital Fund for FY2026 and later, and it explicitly directs the Administrator to impose the 9/11 Security Fee at a level that yields that deposit. Practically, TSA will need to model passenger volumes and fee elasticity to set the fee to meet the collection floor. The section preserves grant authority from the Fund to support capital investments, but by increasing the guaranteed deposit it alters TSA’s capital planning envelope and likely shifts the composition of projects eligible for grants.
Creates Aviation Security Checkpoint Technology (ASCT) Fund and authorizes retroactive grants
This new subsection establishes the ASCT Fund inside DHS, specifies that after the capital fund deposit the next tranche of fee receipts flows into this account each year, and makes those amounts available for procurement, deployment, and sustainment of checkpoint and exit‑lane technology. The provision allows TSA to issue grants from the ASCT Fund and uniquely permits TSA to retroactively approve grant funding for qualifying projects implemented on or after January 1, 2023. The retroactivity clause means airports that already installed equipment in that window can seek reimbursement, which creates administrative work for TSA to validate past procurements and for recipients to document compliance with grant terms.
This bill is one of many.
Codify tracks hundreds of bills on Transportation across all five countries.
Explore Transportation in Codify Search →Who Benefits and Who Bears the Cost
Every bill creates winners and losers. Here's who stands to gain and who bears the cost.
Who Benefits
- Airports that invested early in advanced checkpoint systems — they can seek retroactive grant approvals and reimbursement for qualifying projects implemented on or after Jan 1, 2023, improving project economics.
- Vendors and integrators of checkpoint and exit-lane screening equipment — increased, earmarked funding creates a clearer, longer-term market for capital sales and sustainment contracts.
- TSA program managers focused on screening modernization — the dedicated funding stream provides predictable capital to accelerate procurement and lifecycle sustainment.
- Traveling public (indirectly) — more funding targeted at screening technology should speed deployment of modern detection systems and reduce reliance on legacy equipment.
Who Bears the Cost
- Airline passengers — TSA must set the 9/11 Security Fee to collect specified deposit tranches, so fee adjustments to meet statutory targets are likely to be passed through to passengers.
- Other aviation security programs and discretionary DHS priorities — earmarking fee revenue for checkpoint technology reduces flexibility to fund non‑screening priorities out of the same fee pool.
- TSA and DHS budget offices — implementing the new deposit mechanics, managing retroactive approvals, and administering grants will require administrative resources and oversight capacity.
- Airports that have not upgraded screening systems — they may face competitive pressure to seek grants or accelerate capital projects to meet new standards, incurring planning and matching costs.
Key Issues
The Core Tension
The bill pits targeted, predictable investment in checkpoint technology against the flexibility of a centralized security fee: locking fee receipts into narrow purposes accelerates modernization but constrains TSA’s ability to allocate resources to other, potentially urgent, security needs and shifts the economic burden onto passengers via fee adjustments.
The bill narrows the uses of the 9/11 Security Fee by specifying deposit order and creating a purpose-limited fund. That earmarking improves predictability for checkpoint upgrades but reduces budgetary flexibility: fee receipts that previously could supplement other aviation security needs will now be sequestered for capital and checkpoint technology.
Implementation requires TSA to translate statutory deposit floors into fee-setting actions, which means TSA will periodically model passenger traffic and may need to raise the per‑passenger fee in low-volume years to hit the statutory collection targets.
The retroactive grant authorization raises procedural and equity questions. TSA must validate past procurements, ensure they meet current grant-eligibility standards, and decide whether to reimburse projects that used different procurement processes.
Retroactive awards may favor larger airports with the administrative bandwidth to apply and document prior spending. The statute leaves many operational details — eligible cost categories, grant scoring, match requirements, and oversight metrics — to TSA rulemaking or guidance, so the real-world impact will depend on subsequent program design and DHS execution capacity.
Try it yourself.
Ask a question in plain English, or pick a topic below. Results in seconds.