Department of Homeland Security Appropriations Act, 2026
- Sponsor
- Rep. Amodei, Mark E. [R-NV-2]
- Committees
- Appropriations Committee
- Last action
- Jun 26, 2025
Bottom line
The bill funds the Department of Homeland Security for FY2026, while also enacting significant policy changes related to immigration, border security, and federal agency operations.
What it actually does
This bill appropriates funds for the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) for the fiscal year ending September 30, 2026. It allocates billions across various DHS components, including Customs and Border Protection (CBP), Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE), Transportation Security Administration (TSA), Coast Guard, Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA), and Cybersecurity and Infrastructure Security Agency (CISA). Beyond funding, the bill includes numerous administrative provisions and policy riders addressing immigration enforcement, border security, disaster relief, and agency operations.
Proponents argue
Proponents argue that the bill provides essential funding to secure the nation's borders, enforce immigration laws, protect critical infrastructure, respond to disasters, and ensure the safety of air travel. They emphasize the importance of robust funding for law enforcement agencies and the need for clear policy directives to address current challenges, particularly at the southern border. Supporters highlight investments in technology, personnel, and infrastructure as crucial for national security.
Opponents contend
Opponents contend that the bill includes contentious policy riders that are unrelated to appropriations and could undermine humanitarian principles, civil liberties, and effective governance. Critics may raise concerns about specific immigration enforcement provisions, such as the credible fear standard changes or limitations on gender-affirming care, arguing they are overly restrictive. Some may also argue that certain funding allocations are insufficient for critical areas or that the bill's approach to border security is ineffective or inhumane.
This is a moderately complex appropriations bill of 27 pages, requiring a dedicated reading time of 45-60 minutes. Given the typical compressed timelines for reviewing omnibus spending bills, the time available for thorough public and legislative scrutiny may be limited.
Title I, Office of the Secretary and Executive Management
Departmental Management and Oversight Funding
This section provides $246,230,000 for the operations and support of the Office of the Secretary and executive management, with $26,050,000 available until September 30, 2027. It also includes $8,113,000 for procurement, construction, and improvements. A proviso withholds $5,000,000 until the Secretary submits responses to all questions for the record for the FY2027 budget hearings.
Supporters argue
Proponents argue that this funding is essential for the efficient functioning and executive leadership of the Department of Homeland Security, ensuring effective management and strategic direction across its numerous components. The condition on QFRs ensures accountability to Congress.
Critics contend
Critics might argue that the executive management budget is too high or that the condition on QFRs, while promoting accountability, could delay critical departmental operations if not met promptly.
Tradeoffs
The provision balances the need for robust departmental leadership funding with congressional demands for transparency and accountability regarding budget justifications.
Title II, U.S. Customs and Border Protection
Border Security and Enforcement Funding
This section allocates $18,088,596,000 for U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP) operations and support, including funds for transportation of unaccompanied alien minors, air and marine support, and vehicle procurement. An additional $898,118,000 is provided for procurement, construction, and improvements, specifically broken down for border security technologies, trade/travel infrastructure, integrated operations, mission support, and radiological detection systems.
Title II, U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement
Immigration Enforcement and Detention Funding
This section appropriates $10,967,045,000 for U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) operations and support, with a significant portion ($6,402,677,000) specifically for enforcement, detention, and removal operations, including transportation of unaccompanied alien minors. It also includes funds for combating forced child labor, intellectual property rights violations, and care for smuggled aliens. An additional $35,000,000 is provided for procurement, construction, and improvements.
Title II, Sec. 224
ICE Enforcement Priorities and Mandatory GPS Monitoring
This administrative provision mandates that the Secretary of Homeland Security allocate ICE funds to prioritize the apprehension, detention, and removal of aliens linked to terrorist organizations, criminal histories (especially violent criminals), organized crime, or those who pose a threat to public safety. It also requires maintaining the average daily detainee population at full capacity in all funded detention facilities and enrolling every alien on the non-detained docket into the Alternatives to Detention Program with mandatory GPS monitoring throughout their immigration proceedings and until removal.
Title III, Federal Emergency Management Agency
Disaster Relief and Federal Assistance Funding
This section provides $26,474,000,000 for the Disaster Relief Fund (DRF), designated as emergency spending, to remain available until expended for major disasters. Additionally, $3,756,676,000 is allocated for various federal assistance programs, including State Homeland Security Grants ($520M), Urban Area Security Initiative ($615M), Nonprofit Security Grants ($335M), Assistance to Firefighter Grants ($360M), Staffing for Adequate Fire and Emergency Response Grants ($360M), and Flood Hazard Mapping and Risk Analysis ($312.75M).
Title III, Sec. 312
Amendments to the Robert T. Stafford Disaster Relief and Emergency Assistance Act
This section amends Section 203 of the Stafford Act, changing the word 'may' to 'shall' in several instances, making certain predisaster mitigation measures mandatory rather than discretionary. It also inserts a requirement that predisaster mitigation measures be 'related to a major disaster declaration in the previous 4 years'. Furthermore, it reduces the timeframe for certain considerations from '7 years' to '4 years' and changes the set-aside for the National Predisaster Mitigation Fund from 'equal to' to 'not less than 3 percent and not more than' a certain amount.
Title IV, U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services
E-Verify Program Funding
This section provides $112,551,000 for the operations and support of the E-Verify Program within U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS). These funds are explicitly stated to be in addition to any other amounts made available for such purposes and are not to be construed to require any reduction of fees collected under section 286(m) of the Immigration and Nationality Act.
Title IV, Sec. 411 and Sec. 412
Changes to Credible Fear Standard and Asylum Eligibility
Section 411 prohibits funds from being used to determine credible fear unless the alien's statements are credible, and it is 'more likely than not' they could establish asylum eligibility and their statements are true. Section 412 prohibits funds from being used to determine credible fear or grant asylum if an alien transited through at least one country outside their own en route to the U.S., unless they applied for protection in each country and were denied, were a victim of severe trafficking, or transited only through countries not party to certain international refugee conventions.
Title V, Sec. 546
Prohibition on Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion (DEI) and Critical Race Theory (CRT) Initiatives
This section prohibits the use of any appropriated funds for diversity, equity, and inclusion (DEI) initiatives, training, programs, offices, officers, policies, or any program, project, or activity that promotes or advances Critical Race Theory (CRT), or any concept associated with CRT.
Title V, Sec. 547
Prohibition on Procuring Technology from PRC-Owned Entities
This section prohibits the use of appropriated funds to procure, whether directly or through a third party, computers, printers, or videoconferencing services where the manufacturer, bidder, offeror, or any subsidiary or parent entity has any ownership stake by the People's Republic of China (PRC).
Amends Section 203 of the Robert T. Stafford Disaster Relief and Emergency Assistance Act by changing 'may' to 'shall' for certain predisaster mitigation measures, requiring them to be 'related to a major disaster declaration in the previous 4 years', reducing the relevant timeframe from 7 to 4 years, and adjusting the National Predisaster Mitigation Fund set-aside to 'not less than 3 percent and not more than' a certain amount.
Sec. 312, Title III
Why it matters:While amending existing law through appropriations bills is a common legislative practice, the detailed nature of these changes and their placement within a general administrative section could lead a casual reader to overlook their substantive impact on disaster mitigation policy and funding priorities.
Case for: Supporters would argue that making mitigation efforts mandatory and focusing them on recently impacted areas ensures that resources are directed where they are most urgently needed and where the benefits of resilience are most apparent. The adjusted funding percentage aims to optimize resource allocation.
Case against: Critics might contend that these changes limit FEMA's flexibility, potentially neglecting proactive mitigation in high-risk areas that haven't recently experienced a major disaster. The shift from 'may' to 'shall' could also create unfunded mandates or operational rigidities for state and local governments.
Estimated impact: Potentially billions of dollars in predisaster mitigation funding would be reallocated or prioritized differently, impacting the long-term resilience strategies of states and communities across the U.S.
Section 411 raises the credible fear standard for asylum seekers to 'more likely than not' establish eligibility and truthfulness of statements. Section 412 establishes a transit ban, making aliens ineligible for asylum if they transited through a third country without seeking and being denied protection there, with limited exceptions for severe trafficking victims or transit through non-signatory countries to refugee conventions.
Sec. 411 and Sec. 412, Title IV
Why it matters:These provisions represent significant shifts in immigration policy that would likely face substantial public and legislative scrutiny if proposed as standalone bills. Their inclusion in an appropriations bill may be a tactical maneuver to expedite their enactment.
Case for: Proponents argue these measures are necessary to curb what they perceive as abuse of the asylum system, deter illegal border crossings, and encourage asylum seekers to apply for protection in the first safe country they encounter, thereby reducing pressure on U.S. resources.
Case against: Opponents contend that these provisions effectively dismantle the U.S. asylum system, making it nearly impossible for vulnerable individuals fleeing persecution to find safety. They argue the 'more likely than not' standard is an unrealistic burden and the transit ban violates international refugee law and humanitarian principles.
Estimated impact: These changes could drastically reduce the number of asylum grants and credible fear findings, leading to a significant increase in deportations and potentially stranding thousands of asylum seekers in dangerous conditions outside the U.S.
Amends the Immigration and Nationality Act to create a new P-visa category (P-IV) for individuals performing functions integral and essential to the operation of mobile entertainment providers (carnivals, circuses, and related concessions). It subjects these providers to the same program requirements as H-2B non-immigrants and defines 'integral and essential functions'.
Sec. 416, Title IV
Why it matters:This is a targeted carve-out for a specific industry that might not garner broad support or attention if debated as standalone legislation. Including it in an appropriations bill allows it to pass with less individual scrutiny.
Case for: Proponents argue that this provision addresses a critical labor shortage for the mobile entertainment industry, which relies on temporary foreign workers for specialized roles. They contend it ensures the continued operation of carnivals and circuses, which are important cultural and economic activities in many communities.
Case against: Critics might argue that creating new visa categories through appropriations bills bypasses regular legislative processes for immigration reform. They could also raise concerns about potential impacts on domestic labor or the exploitation of foreign workers if oversight is insufficient.
Estimated impact: Provides a dedicated visa pathway for an estimated few thousand temporary workers annually, ensuring the operational continuity of mobile entertainment providers across the U.S.
Prohibits discriminatory action by the Federal Government against any person, wholly or partially, on the basis that such person speaks or acts in accordance with a sincerely held religious belief or moral conviction that marriage is, or should be recognized as, a union of one man and one woman. Defines 'discriminatory action' broadly to include tax treatment, grants, contracts, employment, benefits, and access to federal property.
Sec. 544, Title V
Why it matters:This provision addresses a highly contentious social issue that would likely face significant opposition and debate if introduced as standalone legislation. Its inclusion in a must-pass appropriations bill is a tactic to enact policy without direct, isolated votes on the issue.
Case for: Proponents argue this protects religious freedom and ensures that individuals and organizations are not penalized by the government for holding traditional beliefs about marriage, upholding First Amendment rights.
Case against: Opponents contend that such a provision could enable discrimination against LGBTQ+ individuals by federally funded entities, undermining efforts to promote equality and inclusion within federal programs and services.
Estimated impact: Could impact federal agencies' ability to enforce non-discrimination policies in grants, contracts, and employment, potentially affecting millions of dollars in federal funding and the rights of various groups.
Prohibits obligating or awarding funds to a political subdivision of a State that has in effect any law, policy, or procedure that contravenes or substantially limits compliance with 8 U.S.C. 1373 (prohibiting restrictions on communication with federal immigration authorities) or hinders the federal government from enforcing immigration laws.
Sec. 545, Title V
Why it matters:This is a highly politicized issue. Placing it in general provisions of an appropriations bill allows it to be enacted without a direct, standalone vote on 'sanctuary city' policies, which often face strong opposition.
Case for: Proponents argue this ensures cooperation between local and federal law enforcement, enhancing national security and immigration enforcement. They contend that local policies hindering federal immigration laws create dangerous loopholes and undermine the rule of law.
Case against: Opponents argue that such provisions coerce local governments into acting as federal immigration agents, eroding trust between immigrant communities and local police, and potentially leading to racial profiling. They contend that local policies are designed to protect community safety and focus local resources on local crimes.
Estimated impact: Could impact billions of dollars in federal funding for state and local governments, forcing them to choose between local policies and federal funds, potentially leading to legal challenges and shifts in local law enforcement practices.