Port Security Grant Program: What FEMA Funds and Who Actually Qualifies
Featured image: a synthetic illustration created to depict the scenario described here. It is not a real detection capture.
Most facility operators assume the Port Security Grant Program is money for ports, meaning the big public port authorities with their own police departments. That reading costs private terminal operators, ferry lines, barge fleeters and inland river facilities a real shot at federal security funding every year. Eligibility does not turn on whether you call yourself a port. It turns on one question: are you subject to an Area Maritime Security Plan?
The port security grant program made $95 million available in fiscal year 2026 across an expected 200 awards, with individual awards ranging from $18,000 to $3.5 million. The FY2026 application window closed on July 24, 2026, so this is a preparation cycle rather than an application cycle. That is useful, because almost everything that decides a PSGP outcome happens well before the notice of funding opportunity posts.
What the port security grant program actually funds
PSGP is a competitive federal grant that pays for physical and cyber security improvements at maritime facilities that fall under an Area Maritime Security Plan. It is administered by FEMA's Grant Programs Directorate under Assistance Listing 97.056, and it sits alongside three other DHS transportation security grant programs aimed at protecting critical infrastructure from terrorism.
The FY2026 notice of funding opportunity, DHS-26-GPD-056-00-99, organizes eligible work around national priority areas. The one that matters most for detection and surveillance investment is "Enhancing the Protection of Soft Targets and Crowded Places," whose listed core capabilities include screening, search, and detection; access control and identity verification; and physical protective measures. Security cameras appear by name in the example project types, along with landside fencing, gates, barriers, marine barriers, and physical security enhancements at cruise and ferry terminals.
The eligibility test in one sentence
Per the FY2026 NOFO, all entities subject to an Area Maritime Security Plan, as defined by 46 U.S.C. 70103(b), may apply. That includes port authorities, facility operators, and state, local and territorial government agencies. A facility operator is anyone who owns, leases or operates a structure in, on, under or adjacent to waters under United States jurisdiction, and facility operators must be verified by the Captain of the Port.
If you have a Coast Guard-approved Facility Security Plan, you are almost certainly inside this definition. Confirm your status with your COTP before you invest time in an application.
The cash match is the part that sinks applications
PSGP requires a cash match, and applicants must commit to it at the time of application rather than sorting it out after an award. The FY2026 NOFO is specific about the split: public sector and nonprofit recipients provide a 25 percent cost share, and private sector recipients provide 50 percent. On a $100,000 project, a private terminal operator is funding half the job out of pocket.
Three details in the cost share rules catch applicants who have never run a FEMA grant before.
First, the match must be cash, described in the NOFO as a hard match. Second, funds from other federal grants cannot be used to meet it, which rules out the common instinct to stack two awards.
Third, the cost share is calculated on the total PSGP funds awarded to an entity within a single port area for the fiscal year, so if you submit several projects under the same Unique Entity Identifier in the same port area and the combined total exceeds $25,000, a match is required even when each individual project sits below the threshold. Entities with multiple components, such as a port authority plus a facility operator plus a local government, are expected to coordinate so the calculation comes out right.
Cost share waivers exist but are narrow. Per the NOFO, a waiver requested at the time of application, or one not based on new circumstances, will not be considered. FEMA's Information Bulletin 376 governs the process.
What PSGP will not pay for, including your pilot
The FY2026 NOFO's list of unallowable costs is short, blunt, and the single most useful page in the document. Reading it first will save a scoping cycle.
Proof-of-concept projects are not fundable. Neither is technology development work, including studies of cargo supply chain security technology such as electronic seals, smart containers or container intrusion detection devices. Projects that duplicate capabilities the federal government already provides, such as vessel traffic systems, are out. So are Transportation Worker Identification Credential card fees, reimbursement of pre-award security expenses, and equipment that provides convenience rather than a direct security benefit. Business operating expenses are excluded, although the NOFO notes that certain security-related operational and maintenance costs are allowable.
The proof-of-concept exclusion deserves attention because it runs against how most facilities like to buy technology. You cannot use PSGP to try something on two cameras and see how it goes. The capability has to be a defined, justified security investment at the time you apply. That is an argument for validating a detection approach on your own budget first, then scoping the funded deployment around a capability you have already proven works on your cameras.
Scoring rewards alignment, and it rewards it mathematically
PSGP applications move through a three-part review: an initial screening, a field review, and a national review. Two multipliers sit on top of the scoring, and both are large enough to change an outcome.
Projects that sufficiently address one or more of the national priority areas have their final review scores increased by a multiplier of 20 percent. Separately, projects submitted by a public sector applicant, or projects certified by the Coast Guard Captain of the Port as having a port-wide benefit, have their final scores increased by a multiplier of 10 percent. A private terminal operator whose project demonstrably helps the whole port area, and who can get that certified, is recovering ground that the applicant type otherwise costs.
The practical read: write the investment justification against the national priority area language, not against your internal project name. If the capability you are funding is detection, say detection, and map it to the core capability the NOFO lists.
The requirement your facility security plan already carries
Federal regulation already obligates MTSA-regulated facilities to monitor continuously, and most operators satisfy that obligation with a combination that has a known weak point. Under 33 CFR 105.275, a facility owner or operator must be able to continuously monitor the facility and its approaches on land and water, restricted areas within the facility, and vessels at the facility and the areas around them. The regulation lets you do that through lighting, security guards, waterborne patrols, automatic intrusion-detection devices, or surveillance equipment, as specified in the approved Facility Security Plan.
Two things in that sentence matter for anyone scoping a grant-funded project. The regulation explicitly contemplates automatic intrusion-detection devices as a compliant means of continuous monitoring, and at MARSEC Level 1 it requires those devices to activate an audible or visual alarm, or both. Automated detection is not a workaround for the monitoring requirement. It is one of the ways the rule tells you to meet it.
| What 33 CFR 105.275 requires | How most facilities cover it today | Where it breaks down |
|---|---|---|
| Continuous monitoring of the facility and its approaches, on land and water | Fixed cameras plus a guard watching a video wall | Coverage is continuous, attention is not. A recorded view is not a monitored view. |
| Monitoring of restricted areas inside the facility | Access control at the gate, cameras inside the fence | Credentials verify who came through a door, not what someone does after it closes behind them. |
| Monitoring during darkness and periods of limited visibility | Mast lighting and infrared cameras | Night is when the yard is emptiest and the watch is thinnest. |
| Automatic intrusion-detection devices that trigger an audible or visual alarm | Fence sensors and contact alarms | Point sensors fire on weather and wildlife, and the nuisance rate trains staff to dismiss them. |
| Increased surveillance coverage and intensity at MARSEC Level 2 | Additional patrols and overtime | Escalation is bought with labor hours the facility may not have. |
Continuous monitoring is a staffing problem, not a camera problem
The gap at most MTSA-regulated facilities is not camera coverage, it is the human capacity to watch what the cameras already see. A container yard, a tank farm approach, a ferry berth and a truck gate can all be in frame around the clock while nobody is actually looking at any of them at 3 a.m. That is the condition 105.275 is written against, and it is the condition a PSGP-funded investment should be aimed at closing.
AI video analytics addresses it by layering onto the cameras a facility already owns. IntelliSee runs on existing camera infrastructure with no hardware replacement, watching every stream at once and sending an alert within seconds when it sees unauthorized access at a fence line or restricted area, a vehicle where one should not be, loitering near a restricted berth, or smoke and fire.
It does not use facial recognition, which matters at facilities already managing TWIC credentialing and the privacy expectations that come with a mixed workforce of employees, drayage drivers and vessel crews.
In-body image: a synthetic illustration created to depict the scenario described here. It is not a real detection capture.
That framing also scopes cleanly against the NOFO. A detection layer on existing cameras is a physical protective measure and a screening, search and detection capability, both of which are named core capabilities under the FY2026 priority area. It is a defined security investment rather than a study or a pilot, which keeps it clear of the proof-of-concept exclusion.
Facilities working through the same math on the landside should also read our analysis of why cargo theft keeps climbing at facilities that already have cameras, and the broader case for AI perimeter security where fences record breaches instead of stopping them.
How to be ready when the FY2027 cycle opens
The FY2026 window ran from June 24 to July 24, 2026, which is a 30-day sprint for a competitive federal application. Facilities that do well have most of the work finished before the notice posts.
- Confirm your eligibility in writing. Verify with your Captain of the Port that your facility is subject to the Area Maritime Security Plan. Do this once, and do it now, not during a 30-day window.
- Pull the gaps out of your Facility Security Assessment. Your FSA and approved FSP already document vulnerabilities. Those documents are the evidence base for an investment justification, and they are the reason a reviewer believes your project addresses real risk.
- Identify your cash match and get it committed. Public and nonprofit applicants need 25 percent, private sector applicants need 50 percent, in cash, from non-federal sources. Budget approval takes longer than the application window.
- Map the project to the national priority area language. The 20 percent scoring multiplier is not a rounding error. Write the justification against the NOFO's core capability terms.
- Ask whether your project has a port-wide benefit. If it does, start the conversation with your COTP about certification early enough to matter, since that carries its own 10 percent multiplier.
- Prove the capability before you scope it. Because proof-of-concept work is unallowable, validate detection performance on your own cameras first, then write the funded project around a capability you have already seen work in your environment.
Where PSGP sits among the other federal options
PSGP is one of four DHS transportation security grant programs, and it is not the only route to funded detection. Facilities and agencies outside the maritime definition should look at the Homeland Security Grant Program, rural operators at the USDA Community Facilities program, and everyone at our overview of security camera grants and how to fund AI video analytics. Our grant funding resource hub tracks the programs that fund this category.
Frequently asked questions about the port security grant program
Who is eligible for the Port Security Grant Program?
All entities subject to an Area Maritime Security Plan as defined by 46 U.S.C. 70103(b) are eligible, including port authorities, facility operators, and state, local and territorial government agencies. Facility operators must be verified by the Captain of the Port. Eligibility determinations rest with FEMA and the Coast Guard, so confirm your status with your COTP.
What is the PSGP cost share?
Public sector and nonprofit recipients provide a 25 percent cash cost share, and private sector recipients provide 50 percent, per the FY2026 notice of funding opportunity. The match must be cash, must be committed at the time of application, and cannot be met with funds from another federal grant.
Does PSGP fund security cameras and video analytics?
Security cameras appear by name in the FY2026 example project types, and the priority area's core capabilities include screening, search, and detection, access control and identity verification, and physical protective measures. Allowability is determined case by case by FEMA, and the NOFO excludes proof-of-concept projects and technology development work.
When does the next Port Security Grant Program cycle open?
As of September 2026, FEMA has not announced an FY2027 cycle. The FY2026 notice of funding opportunity posted on June 24, 2026 and closed on July 24, 2026, with awards anticipated no later than September 30, 2026. Watch Grants.gov and FEMA's Port Security Grant Program page for the next announcement.
How long do you have to spend a PSGP award?
The FY2026 projected period of performance runs from September 1, 2026 through August 31, 2029, a 36-month window.
Funding follows a defined capability
The regulation already tells MTSA-regulated facilities to monitor continuously, and it already names automatic detection as a way to do it. The grant program already names detection as a priority capability and cameras as an example project. What stands between those two facts and a funded deployment is usually preparation: a confirmed eligibility status, a documented vulnerability, a committed cash match, and a capability you can describe as proven rather than proposed.
IntelliSee exists to turn passive cameras into proactive protectors, on the infrastructure a facility already owns. If you are scoping a maritime security project for the next funding cycle and want to know what your current cameras could already be detecting, talk with our team, or start with the programs tracked on our grant funding hub.
Program figures in this article reflect the FY2026 Port Security Grant Program notice of funding opportunity (DHS-26-GPD-056-00-99) and are accurate as of September 2026. Grant terms change between cycles. Verify all requirements against the current NOFO on Grants.gov and FEMA's Port Security Grant Program page before applying. This article is general information, not legal or grant-compliance advice.
Your people. Your spaces.
See it on the cameras you already have.
Bring one priority event and one camera view. We will walk through how IntelliSee turns it into an alert your team can act on.