Lock Passenger Security Fees for Aviation

Summary#

The Pay TSA Act of 2026 would amend section 44940 of title 49 of the U.S. Code and create a fund within the Department of Homeland Security for the Transportation Security Administration (TSA). Its stated goal is to reserve passenger security fee revenue for aviation security and help keep security operations running during a lapse in appropriations (when funding laws have not been enacted). This bill has not become law; the supplied material does not include the laws it would amend, so current law could not be verified.

  • Money collected from the passenger security fee would go into the new Transportation Security Trust Fund. It would be available to the TSA Administrator without further congressional appropriation or a fiscal-year limit, and could be used only for listed aviation security purposes.
  • The fund could pay for TSA personnel, passenger and baggage screening, security technology, airport equipment and infrastructure, and research and development.
  • During a lapse in TSA appropriations, the TSA Administrator could use the trust fund and the existing Aviation Security Capital Fund to continue necessary aviation security work. The bill prioritizes personnel pay and frontline operations; personnel salaries, benefits, and overtime must be funded first.
  • Only after the specified personnel and operational needs are met could lapse-period funds go to listed technology and infrastructure uses, including grants to airports. Funding during a lapse could not exceed the prior year’s rate of operations.
  • The bill would also establish an Aviation Security Technology and Infrastructure Account within the new trust fund. Its money would be available until spent, but only after personnel and operational funding requirements are met.

What it means for you#

  • Airline passengers: The bill does not change the passenger security fee amount or create a new fee. It would change how the fee revenue is used.
  • TSA officers and other TSA personnel: During a lapse in appropriations, their salaries, benefits, and overtime would receive first priority from funds made available under the bill. This is a funding priority, not a guarantee that money would be sufficient for every need.
  • Airports: They could receive grants for security technology improvements, but the bill does not guarantee a grant or set application rules.
  • TSA: The agency would have access to the new fund for listed aviation security work. During a funding lapse, it could also use the existing Aviation Security Capital Fund for necessary operations, subject to the bill’s priorities and limits.
  • The public: The bill does not directly change screening rules or create a new passenger service.

Money#

The bill makes passenger security fee revenue available for TSA security work, but the supplied material gives no estimate of revenue, costs, or staffing needs.

  • The fee amount is not changed in the bill.
  • The trust fund would be available without further appropriation and without a fiscal-year limit.
  • During a lapse, the bill would also make the existing Aviation Security Capital Fund available for specified TSA activities.
  • No cost estimate or expected fee revenue is provided.

What is unclear#

  • How much fee revenue the trust fund would receive, and whether it would be enough to cover the listed work or sustain TSA operations during a lapse.
  • When the fund and account would begin operating; the bill text supplied does not give an effective date.
  • What application, selection, or oversight rules would apply to airport grants.
  • How the new trust fund would interact with existing fee rules and the Aviation Security Capital Fund outside the lapse provisions. The laws being amended were not supplied, so the current rules could not be checked.
  • What reporting or public accountability requirements would apply to spending from the new fund; the bill text supplied does not set them out.

Case for#

  • The bill appears intended to keep passenger security fee revenue focused on aviation security instead of other uses.
  • A fund available without a new yearly appropriation could give TSA a source of money for listed security work across fiscal years.
  • During a lapse in appropriations, the bill gives priority to frontline personnel and screening operations before technology and infrastructure spending.
  • The bill allows remaining funds to support security equipment and airport grants after personnel and operational needs are met.

Case against#

  • Making the fund available without further appropriation could reduce the role of annual appropriations in deciding how this money is spent, even though the bill limits its uses.
  • The bill does not show whether fee revenue would be enough to maintain operations during a lapse. Its funding authority is not a guarantee that every expense will be covered.
  • Because personnel and operations come first, technology and infrastructure investments could receive less or later funding if those needs use most of the available money.
  • The bill does not set grant procedures or reporting requirements in the supplied text, leaving important details about airport funding and oversight unresolved.