A Republican bill with 4 Democratic cosponsors · See all 12 cosponsors
Last activity — Placed on Senate Legislative Calendar under General Orders. Calendar No. 690.
Cleared committee, waiting for its first floor vote
A committee approved it and it is on the calendar of the chamber it started in.
This is further than most bills get, and still no promise of a vote: the calendar is a queue, and the majority leadership decides what is called. A bill can sit here until the Congress ends.
Its path through Congress
- Introduced
- On Calendar
What this bill would do
This bill is known as the SAFEGUARDS Act of 2026. It updates and establishes specific funding accounts within the Department of Homeland Security for aviation security. The legislation focuses on directing fees received under section 44940(a)(1) toward the Aviation Security Capital Fund and a newly created Aviation Security Checkpoint Technology Fund. These funds are meant to pay for security checkpoints, exit lane technology, and related capital needs at airports through fiscal year 2036. Additionally, the bill requires the Transportation Security Administration to report to Congress on how these funds are used. It also mandates that the Inspector General of the Department of Homeland Security conduct biennial audits to check for fraud, waste, and abuse.
Yes· 3 of 5
- Scored +5
Does this make the government pay for what it commits to?
The bill ensures that 9/11 security fees are strictly reserved and expended for aviation security rather than being diverted to other purposes.
- Scored +4
Does this put more money into scientific research?
The bill funds the deployment and sustainment of new aviation security and exit lane technology.
- Scored +4
Does this make what the government does easier for the public to see?
The bill mandates that security fees be used exclusively for their intended purpose, increasing the accountability of fee usage.
The opposite
No question was scored the opposite.
How the text last changed
Reported to Senate (11/9/2026), compared with Introduced in Senate. Each change is on the Text tab.
The newer version of the bill updates the short title year to 2026, alters funding amounts and timelines for aviation security funds through fiscal year 2036, and removes the congressional sense of purpose section. It adjusts the deposit amount for the Aviation Security Capital Fund from $500,000,000 down to $400,000,000 for fiscal years 2026 through 2036, and adds requirements for specific technology definitions, congressional reports, briefings, and biennial Inspector General audits.
Who it would affect, and how
Potential Positive Impacts for People
-
Better Security Funding Support: Section 2 amends the Aviation Security Capital Fund to require that at least $400,000,000 from specific fees is deposited into the fund for each fiscal year from 2026 through 2036. This helps ensure ongoing financial support for airport security projects.
-
Advanced Technology Investments: Section 3 establishes the Aviation Security Checkpoint Technology Fund, which provides $250,000,000 annually from 2026 through 2036 to purchase and deploy modern screening tools. This includes computed tomography scanners, explosives trace detection equipment, and advanced imaging technology to improve traveler screening.
-
Oversight and Accountability: Section 4 and Section 5 require detailed initial and annual reports to Congress, alongside regular audits by the Inspector General. These provisions help hold officials accountable by checking that money is properly spent and that fraud, waste, and abuse are prevented.
Potential Negative Impacts for People
- Mandatory Fee Collection: Sections 2 and 3 explicitly require the Administrator of the Transportation Security Administration to impose and collect specific fee amounts from travelers or the aviation sector, totaling hundreds of millions of dollars annually through fiscal year 2036. This means individuals will continue to pay these specific security fees when using the aviation system.
Groups and Interests Ranking
Every group the model scored this bill for, from -10 to +10. Tap or hover a score for the reason it gave.
- Economy And Finance
- Does this make the government pay for what it commits to? — The bill ensures that 9/11 security fees are strictly reserved and expended for aviation security rather than being diverted to other purposes.
- Education And Technology
- Does this put more money into scientific research? — The bill funds the deployment and sustainment of new aviation security and exit lane technology.
- Governance And Ideology
- Does this make what the government does easier for the public to see? — The bill mandates that security fees be used exclusively for their intended purpose, increasing the accountability of fee usage.
- National Security And Foreign Policy
- Does this better protect the country from computer attacks? — The investment in advanced security checkpoint technology enhances the defense of national aviation infrastructure.
- Demographic And Interest Groups
- Would people in cities be better off under this? — Enhanced aviation security benefits the traveling public which includes significant urban populations utilizing commercial air travel.
A committee approved it and sent it to the floor
What changed from Introduced in Senate
The newer version of the bill updates the short title year to 2026, alters funding amounts and timelines for aviation security funds through fiscal year 2036, and removes the congressional sense of purpose section. It adjusts the deposit amount for the Aviation Security Capital Fund from $500,000,000 down to $400,000,000 for fiscal years 2026 through 2036, and adds requirements for specific technology definitions, congressional reports, briefings, and biennial Inspector General audits.
Each change
- Section 1 updates the short title of the Act from the SAFEGUARDS Act of 2025 to the SAFEGUARDS Act of 2026.
- Section 2 removes the Sense of Congress provisions regarding the 9/11 Security Fee.
- Section 2 changes the timeline for the Aviation Security Capital Fund, limiting the $400,000,000 annual deposit requirement to fiscal years 2026 through 2036, down from an open-ended requirement of $500,000,000 annually starting in fiscal year 2026.
- Section 3 adds specific technology definitions for the Aviation Security Checkpoint Technology Fund, listing items such as computed tomography scanners and credential authentication technology machines, while removing a provision allowing retroactive approval of grant funds for projects implemented on or after January 1, 2023.
- Section 3 adds technical and conforming amendments regarding section 44940(i) of title 49, United States Code.
- Section 4 adds requirements for an initial report and briefing to specific congressional committees prior to fiscal year 2026 disbursements, as well as subsequent annual reports and briefings.
- Section 5 adds a requirement for the Inspector General of the Department of Homeland Security to conduct biennial audits beginning two years after enactment through fiscal year 2036, along with associated congressional briefings.
Written by an AI model from a comparison of this version’s text with the one before it, not by a person. .
- 11/9/2026
- Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation. Reported by Senator Cruz with an amendment in the nature of a substitute. With written report No. 119-157.
- Placed on Senate Legislative Calendar under General Orders. Calendar No. 690.
- 4/14/2026
- Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation. Ordered to be reported with an amendment in the nature of a substitute favorably.
- 3/12/2026
- 1 Cosponsor added.
- 1/8/2026
- 1 Cosponsor added.
- 12/17/2025
- 1 Cosponsor added.
- 11/3/2025
- 1 Cosponsor added.
- 10/28/2025
- 1 Cosponsor added.
- 10/14/2025
- 2 Cosponsors added.
- 10/7/2025
- 1 Cosponsor added.
- 9/30/2025
- 1 Cosponsor added.
- 7/22/2025
- Read twice and referred to the Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation.
- 3 Cosponsors added.
- Introduced in Senate
John BoozmanRepublican · Arkansas
Michael BennetDemocrat · Colorado
Mike CrapoRepublican · Idaho
Shelley CapitoRepublican · West Virginia
Steve DainesRepublican · Montana
John HickenlooperDemocrat · Colorado
Cindy Hyde-SmithRepublican · Mississippi
James RischRepublican · Idaho
Jacky RosenDemocrat · Nevada
Tim SheehyRepublican · Montana
Chris Van HollenDemocrat · Maryland
Todd YoungRepublican · Indiana