Technical corrections only. The later version (v3) includes the name of the Clerk in the attestation line at the end of the bill, which is a procedural update. No substantive policy changes were made between v2 and v3.
Department of Homeland Security Appropriations Act, 2026
- Sponsor
- Rep. Cole, Tom [R-OK-4]
- Committees
- Appropriations Committee (primary)
- Last action
- Mar 9, 2026
Bottom line
The bill funds the Department of Homeland Security for FY2026, with significant allocations for border security, immigration enforcement, cybersecurity, and disaster response, alongside specific policy directives and financial oversight mechanisms.
What it actually does
This bill provides appropriations for the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) for the fiscal year ending September 30, 2026, allocating funds across various agencies including Customs and Border Protection (CBP), Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE), Transportation Security Administration (TSA), Coast Guard, Secret Service, Cybersecurity and Infrastructure Security Agency (CISA), and Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA). It also includes numerous administrative provisions, policy riders, and rescissions of prior year funds, and ratifies obligations incurred during a recent lapse in appropriations.
Proponents argue
Proponents argue that this bill ensures the continued operation of critical national security and public safety functions, providing necessary resources for border protection, cybersecurity defense, disaster preparedness, and law enforcement. They emphasize the importance of fully funding agencies like CBP and ICE to manage migration flows and combat illicit activities, while also supporting vital services like the Coast Guard and FEMA. The inclusion of oversight mechanisms and specific policy directives is seen as enhancing accountability and addressing key priorities.
Opponents contend
Opponents might contend that the bill includes controversial policy riders unrelated to appropriations, potentially limiting debate on significant issues. Concerns could be raised about the level of funding for certain enforcement agencies, the conditions placed on agency operations, or the use of an omnibus vehicle to push through provisions that might not pass as standalone legislation. The reliance on an explanatory statement for detailed spending could also be criticized as reducing transparency.
The bill is extensive and highly detailed, requiring significant time for a thorough review. Given the typical expedited process for omnibus appropriations bills, the time available for public and even congressional scrutiny is likely very limited compared to its complexity.
Title I, Office of the Secretary and Executive Management
Departmental Management and Oversight Funding
This provision appropriates $316,295,000 for the operations and support of the Office of the Secretary and executive management, with an additional $8,911,000 for procurement, construction, and improvements. It includes a proviso to withhold $5,000,000 from obligation until the Secretary submits responses to all questions for the record regarding the fiscal year 2027 budget submission.
Supporters argue
Supporters argue this funding is essential for the effective leadership and administration of the Department, ensuring strategic direction and efficient operations. The condition on fund release promotes accountability and responsiveness from DHS leadership to congressional inquiries.
Critics contend
Critics might argue that withholding funds could impede critical departmental functions if responses are delayed, potentially politicizing administrative processes. However, no specific opposition to this general funding or oversight mechanism is typically raised.
Tradeoffs
The provision balances the need for departmental funding with congressional oversight, creating a tension between executive autonomy and legislative accountability. The condition aims to ensure transparency in budget planning.
Title I, Sec. 109
Body-Worn Cameras for Enforcement Agents
This section provides an additional $20,000,000 for the Office of the Secretary and Executive Management to procure, deploy, and operate body-worn cameras for agents and officers performing enforcement activities under immigration law. A spend plan for these funds is required within 30 days of enactment.
Title II, U.S. Customs and Border Protection
CBP Operations and Enforcement Funding
This section appropriates $17,727,974,000 for U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP) operations and support, including transportation of unaccompanied alien minors, air and marine support, and vehicle purchases. An additional $222,886,000 is provided for procurement, construction, and improvements, with funds remaining available until FY2028 or FY2030 depending on the purpose.
Title II, Sec. 210
Prohibition on Non-Autonomous Surveillance Systems
This section prohibits the use of funds for Border Security Assets and Infrastructure under CBP for the procurement or deployment of surveillance systems that are not autonomous, as defined in a prior public law (PL 119-21).
Title II, U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement
ICE Operations and Enforcement Funding
This section appropriates $10,036,362,000 for U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) operations and support. This includes specific allocations for enforcing laws against forced child labor ($6,000,000), investigating intellectual property rights violations ($15,000,000), and special operations. An additional $5,000,000 is provided for procurement, construction, and improvements.
Title II, Sec. 217
ICE Monthly Obligation Plan and Reporting
This section mandates that the Director of ICE submit a detailed monthly obligation plan for all funding, including prior acts and carryover balances, within 30 days of enactment. Subsequent monthly updates are required, detailing actual obligations, carryover, resource projections, and operational rates for key programs. A penalty of $100,000 per month is imposed on Executive Leadership and Oversight funds if reporting requirements are not met.
Title II, Transportation Security Administration
TSA Operations and Security Funding
This section appropriates $10,635,434,000 for the Transportation Security Administration (TSA) for operations and support, with $300,000,000 remaining available until September 30, 2027. An additional $330,230,000 is provided for procurement, construction, and improvements, and $24,000,000 for research and development. The general fund appropriation is reduced by security service fees collected.
Title II, Coast Guard
Coast Guard Operations and Modernization Funding
This section appropriates $11,272,401,000 for Coast Guard operations and support, including defense-related activities and environmental compliance. It provides $991,872,000 for procurement, construction, and improvements (P,C,I), and $6,763,000 for research and development (R&D), with P,C,I funds available until FY2030. An additional $1,249,000,000 is for retired pay.
Title II, Sec. 230(b)
Prohibition on Kinetic Capabilities for Unmanned Aircraft
This section prohibits the use of any funds made available to DHS in this or prior acts to procure or acquire long-range unmanned aircraft with kinetic capabilities or to equip any such aircraft with kinetic capabilities.
Title II, United States Secret Service
Secret Service Operations and Protection Funding
This section appropriates $3,128,304,000 for the United States Secret Service for operations and support, including vehicle purchases, protective functions, and behavioral research. It also provides $118,517,000 for procurement, construction, and improvements, and $3,250,000 for research and development. Specific funds are allocated for a grant related to missing and exploited children and for premium pay for protective services.
Title III, Cybersecurity and Infrastructure Security Agency
CISA Cybersecurity and Infrastructure Protection Funding
This section appropriates $2,218,634,000 for the Cybersecurity and Infrastructure Security Agency (CISA) for operations and support, with some funds available until September 30, 2027. An additional $386,464,000 is provided for procurement, construction, and improvements. A significant portion of the operations and support funding ($99,750,000) is derived from a transfer from the Cybersecurity Response and Recovery Fund.
Title III, Federal Emergency Management Agency
FEMA Federal Assistance Programs
This section allocates $3,836,748,513 for various FEMA Federal Assistance programs. Key allocations include $494,000,000 for State Homeland Security Grants, $584,250,000 for Urban Area Security Initiative, $300,000,000 for Nonprofit Security Grants, $684,000,000 for Assistance to Firefighter Grants and SAFER grants, and $272,671,513 for Community Project Funding/Congressionally Directed Spending grants for emergency operations centers and pre-disaster mitigation.
Title III, Disaster Relief Fund
Disaster Relief Fund Appropriation
This section appropriates $26,367,000,000 for the Disaster Relief Fund, to remain available until expended. This amount is designated by Congress for disaster relief for major disasters declared under the Robert T. Stafford Disaster Relief and Emergency Assistance Act.
Title IV, U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services
USCIS Operations and E-Verify Funding
This section appropriates $122,941,000 for U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS) for operations and support, including the E-Verify Program. These funds are in addition to other amounts available and are not intended to reduce fees collected under the Immigration and Nationality Act.
Title IV, Federal Law Enforcement Training Centers
FLETC Training and Infrastructure Funding
This section appropriates $379,837,000 for the Federal Law Enforcement Training Centers (FLETC) for operations and support, with some funds available until September 30, 2027. An additional $18,300,000 is provided for procurement, construction, and improvements, available until September 30, 2030, for facilities and related expenses.
Title V, Sec. 503
Reprogramming and Transfer Limitations
This section establishes strict limitations on the reprogramming and transfer of funds within DHS. It prohibits changes that create or eliminate programs, contract out federal functions, augment funding by more than $5,000,000 or 10%, or reduce funding/personnel by 10% or more, without 30 days advance notification to the Appropriations Committees. It also restricts transfers after June 15, for grant programs, or to create new programs not approved by Congress.
Title V, Sec. 527
Restrictions on Restraints for Pregnant Women in Custody
This section generally prohibits the use of restraints on pregnant women in DHS custody (including during transport, detention, or medical care) or those in post-delivery recuperation. Exceptions are allowed for serious flight risk or immediate threat to self/others, determined individually by an official, or for medical safety by a professional. If restraints are used, they must be the safest and least restrictive, never during active labor/delivery, face-down, on the back, or constricting the pregnancy area.
Title V, Sec. 535
Prohibition on Contracts with Certain Entities
This section prohibits any federal funds made available to DHS from being used to enter into procurement contracts, MOUs, cooperative agreements, grants, loans, or guarantees with any entity identified under section 1260H of the William M. (Mac) Thornberry National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2021 (PL 116-283), or any subsidiary of such entity. Section 1260H identifies entities determined to be Chinese military companies.
Title V, Sec. 537 and 538
Mandatory Monthly Migrant and Detention Estimates
These sections require the Secretary of Homeland Security to develop monthly estimates of migrant arrivals at the southwest border and individuals anticipated to be detained and removed from the U.S. These estimates must cover the current and following fiscal years, include demographic breakouts, undergo independent validation, and inform policy/budgeting. Failure to provide these estimates results in the suspension of DHS's reprogramming and transfer authority.
Title V, Sec. 548
Additional Appropriation for Supreme Court of the United States
This section appropriates an additional $30,000,000 for 'The Judiciary--Supreme Court of the United States--Salaries and Expenses,' to remain available until September 30, 2028. These funds are subject to the same authorities and conditions as if provided under the Financial Services and General Government Appropriations Act, 2026.
Title V, Sec. 549
Additional Appropriation for Federal Aviation Administration Operations
This section appropriates an additional $140,000,000 for 'Department of Transportation-Federal Aviation Administration-Operations' for air traffic organization activities, to remain available until September 30, 2027. These funds are specifically for a 3.8% pay increase for air traffic controllers and supervisors for calendar year 2026, contingent on the Administrator's determination of improvements in workforce scheduling, staffing utilization, or other operational efficiencies.
Title V, Sec. 551, 552, 553
Rescissions of Unobligated Balances
These sections rescind a total of $202,335,000 from various unobligated balances across different DHS accounts from prior fiscal years. This includes funds from Management Directorate, CBP, CISA, Office of the Secretary, ICE, TSA, Secret Service, FEMA, USCIS, S&T Directorate, Countering Weapons of Mass Destruction Office, and the DHS Nonrecurring Expenses Fund.
Division B
Further Additional Continuing Appropriations Act, 2026
This division clarifies that the Continuing Appropriations Act, 2026, covers a period during which a lapse in appropriations occurred (on or about February 13, 2026). It also makes funds available for personnel pay, allowances, and benefits during this lapse, and ratifies all obligations incurred in anticipation of appropriations to maintain essential government functions and protect life and property.
Directs that an external 'explanatory statement' from the House Appropriations Committee Chair, printed in the Congressional Record, shall have the same effect as a joint explanatory statement of a committee of conference for the allocation of funds and implementation of this Act.
Sec. 4
Why it matters:This is standard legislative practice for appropriations bills, allowing appropriators to include highly detailed spending instructions and policy guidance that would be impractical to include directly in the bill text. It centralizes detailed directives in a single, authoritative document.
Case for: Supporters argue it provides necessary granular detail for agencies to implement the appropriations, often reflecting extensive negotiations and agreements that cannot be fully captured in statutory language. It ensures clarity in congressional intent.
Case against: Critics contend that this practice reduces transparency and accountability, as the explanatory statement is not subject to the same legislative process (votes, amendments) as the bill itself. It makes it harder for the public and even many members of Congress to understand the full scope of the bill's directives.
Estimated impact: Significantly influences the allocation and implementation of billions of dollars across DHS, as it contains the specific programmatic breakdowns and directives for many appropriations.
Establishes strict documentation and reporting requirements for any new pilot or demonstration program within DHS that uses more than 10 full-time equivalents or obligates $5,000,000 or more. It requires documented objectives, an assessment methodology, and an implementation plan before funds can be obligated, and a post-completion report.
Sec. 106
Why it matters:This is a common legislative tactic to increase oversight and accountability for new agency initiatives, preventing agencies from launching costly or ill-defined programs without clear objectives or assessment plans. It's a response to past concerns about 'pilot programs' that become permanent without proper evaluation.
Case for: Proponents argue it ensures fiscal prudence, strategic planning, and evidence-based decision-making for new programs. It prevents waste and ensures that new initiatives are properly evaluated before scaling up.
Case against: Agencies might argue that such stringent requirements can stifle innovation, create excessive bureaucratic hurdles, and delay the implementation of potentially beneficial new approaches, especially in rapidly evolving fields like technology or security.
Estimated impact: Significantly impacts DHS's ability to launch new, large-scale pilot programs, potentially delaying or preventing initiatives that do not meet strict planning and reporting standards. It could save millions by preventing poorly conceived programs.
Prohibits the use of CBP funds to prevent individuals from importing a personal-use quantity (up to a 90-day supply) of prescription drugs from Canada that comply with the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act, provided they are not controlled substances or biological products.
Sec. 205
Why it matters:This provision addresses a long-standing consumer advocacy issue regarding the high cost of prescription drugs in the U.S. and the practice of importing cheaper drugs from Canada. Placing it in an appropriations bill ensures its passage as part of a must-pass vehicle, rather than facing potential roadblocks as standalone health legislation.
Case for: Proponents argue it provides relief to consumers facing high prescription drug costs, allowing them to access more affordable medications. It's seen as a practical step to address a public health and economic burden.
Case against: Opponents, often pharmaceutical companies and some regulatory bodies, raise concerns about drug safety, quality control, and the integrity of the supply chain when drugs are imported outside of established regulatory channels. They argue it could expose consumers to counterfeit or substandard medications.
Estimated impact: Potentially saves millions of dollars for individual consumers who import prescription drugs from Canada, while creating a specific exemption to general import regulations enforced by CBP.
Requires the FEMA Administrator to post an interactive dashboard on its public-facing website, within 90 days of receipt and 60 days of final review, detailing all requests for reimbursement for covered expenses related to individual or public assistance for emergency or major disaster declarations, delineated by state and amount.
Sec. 313
Why it matters:This provision is a response to long-standing criticisms regarding the lack of transparency and slow processing of disaster relief funds. It aims to provide real-time public accountability for FEMA's handling of disaster reimbursements. It's a policy directive to improve agency performance and public trust.
Case for: Proponents argue it significantly enhances transparency and accountability in disaster relief, allowing the public, affected communities, and oversight bodies to track the status of reimbursement requests. This can pressure FEMA to expedite processing and identify bottlenecks.
Case against: FEMA might argue that developing and maintaining such a detailed, real-time interactive dashboard imposes a significant administrative and technical burden, potentially diverting resources from core disaster response functions. Concerns about data privacy or the complexity of presenting nuanced information might also be raised.
Estimated impact: Significantly increases transparency for billions of dollars in disaster relief funds, potentially accelerating reimbursement processes and improving public confidence in FEMA's operations. It imposes a substantial data management and public reporting requirement on FEMA.
Mandates that the Secretary of Homeland Security develop monthly estimates of migrant arrivals at the southwest border and individuals anticipated to be detained and removed, covering the current and following fiscal years, with demographic breakouts and independent validation. These estimates must inform policy and budgeting, and failure to provide them results in the suspension of DHS's reprogramming and transfer authority.
Sec. 537 and 538
Why it matters:These provisions are a direct response to ongoing challenges in managing and funding border security and immigration enforcement, often characterized by rapidly changing conditions and insufficient data for planning. The suspension of transfer authority is a strong tactical maneuver to force agency compliance and provide Congress with better data for future appropriations.
Case for: Proponents argue that accurate, independently validated forecasts are essential for effective border management, resource allocation, and policy planning. They believe this data will enable Congress and DHS to make better decisions and respond proactively to evolving migration patterns, while the penalty ensures compliance.
Case against: Some might argue that accurate long-term forecasting of migration is inherently difficult and subject to many external factors, making the mandate overly burdensome or potentially leading to inaccurate budget assumptions. However, the need for data is generally accepted.
Estimated impact: Significantly impacts DHS's strategic planning and resource allocation for border security and immigration enforcement, potentially leading to more data-driven and responsive policies. The suspension of transfer authority is a major leverage point for Congress.