Remix.run Logo
otterley 2 days ago

I don’t even understand why this is an issue, because TSA screening is funded through user fees. There’s a line item of $5.60 per one-way ticket for exactly this that’s separate from airfare and other fees. (https://www.tsa.gov/for-industry/security-fees)

If this is so, why does Congress have to fund the program? Why not pass the funds through directly to the agency?

Someone1234 2 days ago | parent | next [-]

The question itself feels like it calls for "Schoolhouse Rock" level basics about how the federal government works.

The federal government does not work like a private escrow account where a fee collected for X automatically goes to Y. Tax revenue comes in to the Treasury, and Congress decides what agencies are allowed to spend. So even if TSA screening is funded in part by a per-ticket user fee, TSA still does not get to just collect that money and use it directly. Congress has to authorize and appropriate it.

On a practical level, imagine the chaos if every federal department acted as its own tax collector and then set its own spending priorities. That is basically an argument for gutting Congress's oversight of TSA and treating it like an independent agency, just because Congress and the executive branch invented the modern shutdown in the 1980s.

Keep in mind shutdowns are a fairly new concept, that nearly no other country has. The US also didn't have it for most of its history. Congress could stop at any time it wanted.

advisedwang 2 days ago | parent | next [-]

Many government services do directly use fees to pay for operating the service. Those services can operate with no government appropriation, and the funds never leave the specific agencies' own accounts.

Examples:

* USCIS (source: https://www.aila.org/library/practice-alert-what-happens-if-...)

* 1,823/7,001 Fish and Wildlife service staff (https://www.doi.gov/sites/default/files/documents/2025-09/do...)

* 38,252/74,210 of the FDA (https://www.hhs.gov/about/budget/fy-2026-hhs-contingency-sta...)

* USPS (although as a government owned corporation the separation of funding is more obvious)

* Customs (the actual folks that process tariffs are paid for by the tariffs, unlike border patrol)

seanmcdirmid 2 days ago | parent | prev | next [-]

SFO doesn’t use TSA for security and works like this with whatever contractor it hire. I wish all airports would just use private security funded via usage fees, then we would never be held hostage because some whacko wanted to use masked thugs to beat up and shoot Americans.

brunoborges 2 days ago | parent [-]

Where did you get the information that SFO doesn't use TSA?

jhfdbkofdchk 2 days ago | parent | next [-]

From like the way it is and has been for many years?

From their website:

Covenant Aviation Security, a private company under contract with the Transportation Security Administration (TSA), provides passenger and baggage screening at SFO.

Visit Covenant Aviation Security to learn more about security screening at SFO.

https://www.flysfo.com/about/airport-operations/safety-secur...

More coverage here: https://www.npr.org/2026/03/26/nx-s1-5759273/not-all-airport...

seanmcdirmid 2 days ago | parent | prev | next [-]

I thought it was common knowledge, but anyone who has been through SFO in the last decade should know that they aren’t using TSA for the checks to get to gates. Always seems fast.

natebc 2 days ago | parent | prev [-]

https://www.tsa.gov/for-industry/screening-partnerships

> The Screening Partnership Program contracts security screening services at commercial airports to qualified private companies.

otterley 2 days ago | parent | prev | next [-]

You’re right that that’s the default state. However, Congress could have set things up such that the fees would pass through to TSA’s budget (i.e. earmarked) but chose not to.

cheschire 2 days ago | parent | prev | next [-]

https://www.gao.gov/products/b-167710-o.m.

"Nonappropriated fund activities" are a thing though?

2 days ago | parent | prev | next [-]
[deleted]
ivewonyoung 2 days ago | parent | prev | next [-]

Many are run by user fees, such as USCIS that keeps operating during shutdowns.

gos9 2 days ago | parent | prev [-]

Money is fungible.

icegreentea2 2 days ago | parent | prev | next [-]

If you scroll down on the page, it'll show that the user fees only offset ~20% of the overall security expenses.

In addition, most fees (including most of the TSA fee) collected by the US Federal government isn't earmarked - it just goes into the general fund.

More breakdown here: https://www.cnn.com/2026/03/23/us/tsa-funding-security-fees-...

otterley 2 days ago | parent [-]

Thanks!

mikkupikku 2 days ago | parent | prev | next [-]

AFAIC there's no good reason for airport security to be a federal jobs program in the first place. The airports and/or their contractors are perfectly capable of operating x-ray machines and metal detectors on their own, and from what I understand are even still permitted to but all choose to let the government do it and pay for it.

What the fuck is the TSA even supposed to be doing? The 9/11 guys supposedly used box cutters. Does anybody seriously think you can't get a little blade like that onto an airplane in your carry on luggage? I bring double sided razor blades with every time I fly and they have never flagged it. And more importantly, does anybody actually believe you could still hijack a plane with a pocket knife? All the other passengers now know the score, they all die unless they throw themselves on you which they will and have done many times since. What's more, you won't get into the locked cockpit anyway. Airport security is solved. Basic bitch scanning for guns is all you need and we had that solved in the 90s which is the reason the hijackers used pocket knives, which no longer works. Disband the TSA.

m348e912 2 days ago | parent [-]

I'm not the first to suggest this, but I think "fly at your own risk" airlines would be popular with some people. Keep the cockpit door reinforced, and maintain a gentleman's agreement among travellers on what to do if a passenger threatens a flight. Airport security is now reduced to 10 seconds.

daveoc64 2 days ago | parent [-]

As noted elsewhere, that approach doesn't stop someone flying the plane into a building.

m348e912 2 days ago | parent [-]

My understanding is that flight security protocols and cockpit hardening introduced after 9/11 made it significantly harder to replicate what happened that day.

gruez 2 days ago | parent | prev | next [-]

The same article you linked has a chart that shows that actual expenses are around 4x the fees that are collected.

m348e912 2 days ago | parent | prev | next [-]

I'm going to go out on a limb and say the 5.60 per person per flight doesn't cover the cost of TSA airport security operations leaving congress responsible for the gap.

If you are wondering how that could happen, it starts with no-bid contracts and ends with inefficiency and has been heavily influenced by a guy whose name sounds a lot like Schmical Schmertoff.

jermaustin1 2 days ago | parent | prev [-]

Because the fee revenue was created by congress, so the money goes 1/3 to Treasury to help pay national debt (doesn't really make a dent), about $1.6B goes to the government general fund. But FY24 collected $4.5B in fees, but the budget was almost $9.5B.

So even if all the money went to TSA, less than half their budget is covered. There is inherently bloat in that, but that is for a different discussion.

But bigger still, if Congress didn't reappropriate that money from TSA, they'd either have to spend less (less likely), raise taxes (not likely), or go deeper in debt (very likely) in order to cover whatever they are currently covering with their 70% share of the fee.