Technical corrections only. The diff between v6 and v7 primarily involves the addition of statutory annotations (e.g., `<<NOTE: ...>>` tags) and page number markers for official publication. No substantive policy changes were made between the two versions.
Homeland Security and Further Additional Continuing Appropriations Act, 2026.
- Sponsor
- Rep. Cole, Tom [R-OK-4]
- Committees
- Appropriations Committee (primary)
- Last action
- Apr 30, 2026
Bottom line
This consolidated appropriations act funds the Department of Homeland Security for fiscal year 2026 and extends continuing appropriations for other government functions, incorporating numerous policy riders and administrative directives.
What it actually does
This Act provides consolidated appropriations for the fiscal year ending September 30, 2026, primarily for the Department of Homeland Security (Division A) and includes further additional continuing appropriations (Division B). It allocates significant funding across various DHS components like CBP, TSA, Coast Guard, Secret Service, CISA, and FEMA, while also imposing specific policy directives, reporting requirements, and limitations on fund usage. Division B extends a previous continuing resolution and addresses a lapse in appropriations.
Proponents argue
Proponents would argue that this bill is essential to ensure the continued operation and security functions of the Department of Homeland Security, providing critical funding for border security, transportation security, emergency management, and law enforcement. They would emphasize its role in maintaining national security, responding to disasters, and supporting vital government services, especially after a lapse in appropriations.
Opponents contend
Opponents might criticize the bill for its use of an omnibus structure, which bundles numerous unrelated policy provisions (riders) into a must-pass spending bill, limiting debate and transparency. They might also raise concerns about specific funding allocations, policy directives, or the overall level of spending, particularly regarding border security operations or limitations on certain agency activities, and the reliance on an external explanatory statement for critical details.
The bill is 38 pages long and highly detailed, requiring significant time to fully understand its numerous provisions and their implications, especially given the consolidated nature of the appropriations and references to external documents.
Division A, Title I
Departmental Management and Oversight Appropriations
This section appropriates funds for the Department of Homeland Security's central management, intelligence, and oversight functions. It allocates $316,295,000 for the Office of the Secretary, $1,690,380,000 for the Management Directorate, $340,819,000 for Intelligence and Analysis, and $257,599,000 for the Office of Inspector General. It also includes specific directives for reporting on non-competitive contracts and monthly budget and staffing levels.
Supporters argue
Supporters argue that these appropriations are crucial for effective departmental administration, intelligence gathering, and robust oversight, ensuring accountability and efficient use of taxpayer dollars across DHS.
Critics contend
Critics may argue that certain administrative costs are excessive or that specific reporting requirements could create undue bureaucratic burdens, potentially diverting resources from mission-critical operations.
Tradeoffs
The bill balances the need for robust administrative and oversight functions with concerns about bureaucratic overhead and the desire to direct more funds to frontline operations.
Division A, Title I, Sec. 107
Restrictions on Office of Intelligence and Analysis Activities
This provision prohibits the Office of Intelligence and Analysis (I&A) within DHS from conducting 'covered activities' as defined by a separate intelligence authorization act (Public Law 118-159). However, it clarifies that this does not limit I&A's authority to share or receive intelligence information with other government entities or the private sector, nor does it limit oversight of I&A's intelligence activities.
Division A, Title II
U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP) Appropriations and Directives
This title appropriates $11,083,012,000 for CBP's operations and support, and $222,886,000 for procurement, construction, and improvements. It specifies funding for transportation of unaccompanied alien minors, air and marine support, and vehicle purchases. Notably, it prohibits new border crossing fees (Sec. 204) and the use of non-autonomous surveillance systems (Sec. 207), and mandates a policy for pregnant women in CBP custody (Sec. 208).
Division A, Title II, Sec. 227
Personal Importation of Prescription Drugs from Canada
This provision prohibits U.S. Customs and Border Protection from preventing individuals (not in the business of importing drugs) from importing a personal-use quantity (up to a 90-day supply) of prescription drugs from Canada, provided they comply with the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act. This allowance specifically excludes controlled substances and biological products.
Division A, Title II
Coast Guard Appropriations and MQ-9 Aircraft Procurement
This title appropriates significant funds for the Coast Guard: $11,272,401,000 for operations and support, $991,872,000 for procurement, construction, and improvements, $6,763,000 for research and development, and $1,249,000,000 for retired pay. It includes an additional $98,000,000 for the procurement and acquisition of MQ-9 aircraft and associated equipment, but explicitly prohibits equipping any long-range unmanned aircraft with kinetic capabilities (Sec. 219).
Division A, Title III
Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) Federal Assistance
This section allocates $3,836,748,513 for various FEMA federal assistance programs. Key allocations include $494M for State Homeland Security Grants, $584.25M for Urban Area Security Initiative, $300M for Nonprofit Security Grants, $95M for Port Security Grants, $684M for Firefighter Grants (AFG/SAFER), $337.25M for Emergency Management Performance Grants, and $297.113M for Flood Hazard Mapping. It also includes $26,367,000,000 for the Disaster Relief Fund.
Division A, Title III, Sec. 313
FEMA Interactive Dashboard for Reimbursement Requests
This provision mandates that the FEMA Administrator post an interactive dashboard on its public website detailing reimbursement requests for individual and public assistance related to emergency or major disaster declarations. This information must be posted within 90 days of receipt by FEMA and within 60 days of being under final review by DHS, including specific details like state, amount, and type of assistance.
Division A, Title IV
Research, Development, Training, and Services Appropriations
This title funds various DHS components involved in research, development, training, and immigration services. It appropriates $122,941,000 for U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS), $379,837,000 for Federal Law Enforcement Training Centers (FLETC) operations, and $352,802,000 for the Science and Technology Directorate's operations, along with $426,904,000 for its research and development. It also includes provisions prohibiting A-76 competitions for certain USCIS employees (Sec. 402) and classifying FLETC instructor staff as inherently governmental (Sec. 407).
Division A, Title V, Sec. 527
Restrictions on Restraints for Pregnant Women in DHS Custody
This provision generally prohibits the use of restraints on pregnant women in DHS custody (including during transport, detention, or at medical facilities) or those in post-delivery recuperation. Exceptions are made for individualized determinations of serious flight risk or immediate threat to self/others, or if a medical professional deems therapeutic restraints appropriate for medical safety. When restraints are used, they must be the safest and least restrictive, with specific prohibitions on certain types and positions.
Division A, Title V, Sec. 536
Prohibition on Transfer of Guantanamo Detainees to U.S.
This provision prohibits the use of any funds appropriated in this or any other Act to transfer, release, or assist in the transfer or release to or within the United States, its territories, or possessions, Khalid Sheikh Mohammed or any other detainee who is not a U.S. citizen or member of the Armed Forces and was held at Guantanamo Bay on or after June 24, 2009.
Division A, Title V, Sec. 537 & 538
Monthly Estimates for Migrant Arrivals, Detention, and Removal
These sections mandate that the Secretary of Homeland Security develop monthly estimates of migrant arrivals at the southwest border and estimates of individuals anticipated to be detained and removed from the U.S. These estimates must cover the current and following fiscal year, include demographic breakouts, undergo independent validation, and inform policy planning and budgeting. Failure to provide these estimates results in the suspension of reprogramming and transfer authority.
Division B
Further Additional Continuing Appropriations Act, 2026
This division extends the Continuing Appropriations Act, 2026 (Public Law 119-37) by substituting the date of enactment of this Act for a previous expiration date, effectively continuing funding for government operations not covered by Division A. It also explicitly covers a lapse in appropriations that occurred around February 14, 2026, authorizing and ratifying pay, benefits, and obligations incurred during that period.
The explanatory statement regarding this Act, printed in the House section of the Congressional Record, shall have the same effect as a joint explanatory statement, EXCEPT that the contents under 'U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement' and 'Border Security Operations' under 'U.S. Customs and Border Protection' shall have no force or effect, and amounts specified in the 'Final Bill' column for these sub-headings shall all be $0.
Sec. 4
Why it matters:This is a highly consequential policy directive that effectively zeroes out specific funding lines for politically sensitive border security and immigration enforcement operations, despite the overall appropriations for CBP and ICE. Placing it within an explanatory statement reference, and then modifying that reference, allows for a specific policy outcome without direct legislative language in the bill itself, potentially to avoid direct votes on these specific cuts.
Case for: Proponents might argue this is a necessary measure to redirect resources or to signal a shift in enforcement priorities, reflecting a legislative intent to curb certain activities within these agencies.
Case against: Opponents would contend that this method is opaque and undermines the regular appropriations process, effectively defunding critical operations through an indirect and less transparent mechanism, potentially impacting national security and border management.
Estimated impact: This provision effectively sets specific funding for certain CBP and ICE operations to $0, potentially impacting billions of dollars in planned expenditures for these categories, as detailed in the referenced explanatory statement.
Prohibits the Office of Intelligence and Analysis (I&A) from conducting a 'covered activity' as defined by section 6303 of the Intelligence Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2025 (division F of Public Law 118-159).
Division A, Title I, Sec. 107
Why it matters:This is a common legislative practice to avoid reprinting lengthy definitions or provisions, but it can make the immediate impact of the bill less transparent to a casual reader. In this case, it ties DHS intelligence activities to broader intelligence community oversight frameworks.
Case for: Proponents argue that referencing existing law ensures consistency across federal intelligence activities and avoids redundancy, while maintaining necessary safeguards for civil liberties.
Case against: Critics might argue that requiring external research to understand a core prohibition makes the bill less accessible and transparent, potentially obscuring the full implications of the restriction.
Estimated impact: Limits the types of intelligence activities I&A can conduct, potentially affecting its operational scope and methods, particularly concerning domestic intelligence gathering.
None of the funds made available for Border Security Assets and Infrastructure under 'U.S. Customs and Border Protection--Procurement, Construction, and Improvements' shall be used for the procurement or deployment of surveillance systems that are not autonomous, as such term is defined in section 90004 of Public Law 119-21.
Division A, Title II, Sec. 207
Why it matters:This is a technical legislative shortcut to avoid reprinting definitions. However, for a policy-significant term like 'autonomous surveillance systems,' it places a burden on the reader to understand the exact type of technology being restricted, potentially obscuring the policy's full impact.
Case for: Proponents argue this ensures CBP invests in advanced, efficient, and potentially less labor-intensive surveillance technologies, aligning with modern technological trends and potentially reducing human error or bias.
Case against: Opponents might contend that restricting non-autonomous systems could limit CBP's flexibility in deploying appropriate technology for diverse border environments or that the definition of 'autonomous' in the referenced law might be too narrow or broad, leading to unintended consequences.
Estimated impact: Directs CBP's procurement of border surveillance technology towards autonomous systems, potentially impacting hundreds of millions in procurement funds and the types of surveillance capabilities deployed along the border.
No Federal funds made available to the Department of Homeland Security may be used to enter into a procurement contract, memorandum of understanding, or cooperative agreement with, or make a grant to, or provide a loan or guarantee to, any entity identified under section 1260H of the William M. (Mac) Thornberry National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2021 (Public Law 116-283) or any subsidiary of such entity.
Division A, Title V, Sec. 535
Why it matters:This is a common legislative technique to incorporate existing policy by reference, especially when the referenced list is extensive or subject to updates. However, it makes the immediate impact of the restriction opaque to a reader who does not have immediate access to the referenced law.
Case for: Proponents argue this measure is vital for national security, preventing federal funds from supporting entities deemed a threat or linked to adversarial governments, thereby protecting critical infrastructure and supply chains.
Case against: Critics might argue that such broad prohibitions, especially when defined by external references, can create administrative complexities, limit procurement options, or inadvertently affect legitimate businesses without sufficient transparency.
Estimated impact: Potentially restricts DHS from contracting with a wide range of entities, particularly those linked to the Chinese military or other foreign adversaries, impacting procurement and partnership opportunities across the department.
Notwithstanding section 503(c) of this Act, no amounts may be transferred to 'U.S. Customs and Border Protection--Operations and Support' for Border Security Operations in the 'Department of Homeland Security Appropriations Act, 2026' table of the explanatory statement regarding this Act, as defined in section 4.
Division A, Title V, Sec. 549
Why it matters:This is a highly specific and politically charged restriction on funding flexibility for border security. By placing it in a general provision and linking it to the explanatory statement, it ensures that funds cannot be easily shifted to 'Border Security Operations,' reflecting a deliberate policy choice that might face direct opposition if more prominently featured or debated.
Case for: Proponents might argue this prevents the Executive Branch from unilaterally reallocating funds to specific border security activities that Congress may not support, ensuring legislative control over spending priorities.
Case against: Opponents would contend that this restriction limits DHS's operational flexibility to respond to evolving border challenges, potentially hindering effective management and resource deployment in critical areas.
Estimated impact: Significantly restricts the ability of DHS to transfer funds into the 'Border Security Operations' line item for CBP, potentially impacting the funding available for these activities beyond the initial appropriation.