Senate Proposal to Modernize US Airport Security and Cut Wait Times

Senate Proposal Aims to Modernize U.S. Airports Security Amid Record Travel Volumes

With U.S. air travel reaching historic highs in 2025, a bipartisan group of senators has introduced legislation aimed at modernizing airport security and reducing checkpoint wait times. The proposal, spearheaded by Senators Jerry Moran (R-KS), Chris Van Hollen (D-MD), Michael Bennet (D-CO), and John Boozman (R-AR), seeks to redirect billions in previously diverted security fees toward updated screening technologies and infrastructure improvements.

The timing of the bill is critical. The Transportation Security Administration (TSA) reported screening nearly 3.1 million passengers on June 22, 2025, the busiest day in its 24-year history. With travel demand projected to continue rising, the senators argue that the current security infrastructure is underfunded and outdated, posing both logistical and security challenges.

At the heart of the proposal is a plan to end the diversion of security fees, over $13 billion since 2014, from non-security uses and reinvest them into the TSA’s operations. The bill has garnered bipartisan support and backing from aviation industry stakeholders who see it as a necessary step to prevent growing delays and potential vulnerabilities in the nation’s aviation system.

Historical Context: TSA and the Security Fee Diversion

The TSA was established in 2001 following the September 11 terrorist attacks, under the Aviation and Transportation Security Act (ATSA). The agency was tasked with overseeing all aspects of airport security, including passenger and baggage screening. To fund these operations, Congress introduced a passenger security fee, initially set at $2.50 per enplanement.

In 2013, the fee was increased to $5.60 per enplanement, but a significant portion of the revenue, approximately $15 billion over a ten-year span, was redirected to federal deficit reduction rather than TSA operations. By 2018, the total diversion had reached over $18 billion, raising concerns about the sustainability of aviation security funding.

These diverted funds were originally intended to support critical security measures, such as advanced screening technology, staff training, and infrastructure upgrades. Instead, the TSA has been operating under constrained budgets while passenger volumes have steadily increased, creating a mismatch between demand and capacity.

Impact of Fee Diversion on Security Infrastructure

The consequences of underfunding have become more apparent in recent years. Many U.S. airports still rely on baggage screening equipment installed over a decade ago. Maintenance costs for these aging systems have increased by approximately 15% annually since 2020, and replacement has been delayed due to budget constraints.

Moreover, TSA staffing levels have remained stagnant since 2018, despite a 28% increase in passenger traffic. With around 50,000 screening officers serving over 440 airports, the agency is stretched thin, especially during peak travel periods like holidays and summer vacations.

The lack of investment in modern screening technologies also affects operational efficiency. Legacy X-ray systems require frequent manual bag checks, slowing down the screening process and contributing to longer wait times at checkpoints.

“Passenger fees should fund security, not unrelated spending,” said Senator Jerry Moran, emphasizing the need to reallocate funds back into aviation security.

The 2025 Senate Proposal: Key Provisions and Objectives

The proposed legislation includes several major components designed to enhance airport security and streamline passenger processing. First and foremost, it would end the diversion of security fees and ensure that 100% of the revenue collected is used exclusively for aviation security operations.

Secondly, the bill allocates “hundreds of millions” of dollars to upgrade baggage screening systems. Specifically, it advocates for the deployment of computed tomography (CT) scanners, which provide 3D imaging and reduce the need for manual inspections by up to 40%.

Lastly, the bill supports the expansion of automated screening lanes and increased enrollment in TSA PreCheck. These measures aim to reduce peak wait times by up to 30% by 2027, improving the travel experience for millions of passengers annually.

Expert and Industry Endorsements

Keith Jeffries, former Federal Security Director at Los Angeles International Airport, noted that record travel volumes reflect broader economic trends. “People are traveling again, and that’s exciting to see,” he said, while also acknowledging the strain placed on existing infrastructure.

Acting TSA Administrator Ha Nguyen McNeill confirmed that the agency is working closely with industry partners to ensure checkpoints are fully staffed. However, she also acknowledged that infrastructure limitations remain a challenge during high-traffic periods.

Industry groups such as Airlines for America and the Association of Flight Attendants-CWA have also voiced support. Sara Nelson, president of the latter, stated: “Enough! Congress must stop raiding security fees. TSA needs these funds to prevent checkpoint chaos.”

Comparative Global Models

Other countries have adopted different approaches to aviation security funding. In Canada, for example, the Air Travel Security Charge fully funds the Canadian Air Transport Security Authority (CATSA), ensuring that all security-related expenses are covered by passenger fees.

European airports have also outpaced the U.S. in terms of screening efficiency. On average, they process 45% more passengers per screening lane, thanks in part to centralized investments in automated security lanes and advanced technologies.

These international models highlight the potential benefits of a fully funded and modernized security infrastructure, reinforcing the rationale behind the Senate’s proposal.

Challenges and Implementation Considerations

While the proposal has garnered bipartisan support, it faces several hurdles. Budgetary rules such as the Senate Byrd Rule could complicate efforts to reallocate security fees, particularly if the bill is attached to broader budget legislation.

There are also logistical challenges. TSA estimates that nationwide implementation of CT scanners could take between three to five years due to supply chain constraints and the complexity of retrofitting existing infrastructure.

Despite these obstacles, the senators argue that the long-term benefits, reduced wait times, improved security, and enhanced passenger experience, justify the investment and effort required to enact the legislation.

Conclusion

The bipartisan Senate proposal represents a significant step toward aligning aviation security funding with operational needs. By redirecting previously diverted fees back into TSA operations, the bill aims to address growing passenger volumes and outdated infrastructure with targeted investments in technology and staffing.

As air travel continues to grow, sustainable funding mechanisms will be essential to maintaining both security and efficiency. The success of this legislation could set a precedent for future reforms, ensuring that the U.S. aviation system remains both secure and competitive on the global stage.

FAQ

What is the main goal of the Senate proposal?
To redirect diverted passenger security fees back into TSA operations, modernize screening technologies, and reduce checkpoint wait times.

How much money has been diverted from security fees since 2014?
Over $13 billion, with estimates exceeding $18 billion when including additional diversions in 2018.

What technology upgrades are being proposed?
The bill supports the deployment of CT baggage scanners and expansion of automated screening lanes to improve efficiency and security.

How does the U.S. compare to other countries in airport security funding?
Unlike countries like Canada, where all security costs are covered by passenger fees, the U.S. has diverted a significant portion of these funds to other uses.

Sources

Yahoo News, TSA.gov, Reuters, Investing.com, USA Today, TravelPulse, Wikipedia, GAO.gov