v2 is a complete substitute amendment that significantly expands the bill's scope by adding a new division focused on voter eligibility and photo identification requirements for federal elections. Beyond this major addition, v2 also includes several internal budgetary adjustments and modifies conditions for foreign assistance to Nigeria and Mexico, while removing a provision related to assistance through nongovernmental organizations.
Making appropriations for national security, Department of State, and related programs for the fiscal year ending September 30, 2027, and for other purposes.
- Sponsor
- Rep. Diaz-Balart, Mario [R-FL-26]
- Committees
- Appropriations Committee
- Last action
- Jul 29, 2026
Bottom line
This omnibus bill combines extensive foreign aid appropriations with significant policy riders, including controversial changes to federal election law, for fiscal year 2027.
What it actually does
H.R. 8595 is an omnibus bill for fiscal year 2027. Division A appropriates funds for national security, Department of State, and related foreign operations, including significant allocations for global health, international security assistance, and various international organizations, while also imposing numerous policy restrictions and directives on foreign aid and diplomatic activities. Division B, titled the "Safeguard American Voter Eligibility Act" or "SAVE America Act," amends the National Voter Registration Act of 1993 to require documentary proof of United States citizenship for voter registration and photo identification for casting a ballot in federal elections.
Proponents argue
Supporters of Division A argue that it provides essential funding for U.S. national security interests, supports diplomatic engagement, promotes global health, and counters the influence of adversaries, while ensuring accountability and aligning foreign policy with American values. Proponents of Division B contend that it is necessary to safeguard the integrity of federal elections by preventing non-citizens from voting and reducing voter fraud, thereby enhancing public confidence in election outcomes.
Opponents contend
Critics of Division A may argue that some of the policy riders are extraneous to appropriations, overly restrictive on diplomatic flexibility, or reflect a shift in foreign policy priorities that could undermine international cooperation. Opponents of Division B assert that its requirements for documentary proof of citizenship and photo identification could disenfranchise eligible voters, particularly minority groups, the elderly, and low-income individuals, and that such measures are often based on unsubstantiated claims of widespread voter fraud.
The bill is highly complex and lengthy, requiring several hours for a comprehensive review. Given its omnibus nature, the time typically allotted for legislative review may be insufficient for thorough public and congressional scrutiny of all its diverse provisions.
Division A, Title I, Diplomatic Programs
Department of State Diplomatic Programs Funding
This provision appropriates $9,761,523,000 for the Department of State's diplomatic programs. These funds are allocated across human resources, overseas programs, diplomatic policy and support, and security programs, with a significant portion dedicated to Worldwide Security Protection. It also includes a reprogramming authority within these categories, subject to notification procedures.
Supporters argue
Supporters argue that this funding is crucial for maintaining U.S. diplomatic presence globally, protecting personnel, and effectively executing foreign policy objectives, especially in an increasingly complex international environment.
Critics contend
Critics may argue that some allocations could be more efficiently spent or that the balance between administrative costs and direct programmatic impact needs re-evaluation.
Tradeoffs
The tension lies between maintaining a robust global diplomatic footprint and ensuring cost-efficiency, particularly with significant allocations for security programs balancing against other diplomatic functions.
Division A, Title III, Global Health Programs
Global Health Programs Funding
This section appropriates $3,350,000,000 for general global health activities and an additional $5,533,800,000 for HIV/AIDS prevention, treatment, and control, including a $1,250,000,000 contribution to the Global Fund to Fight AIDS, Tuberculosis and Malaria. It includes prohibitions against funding organizations involved in coercive abortion or involuntary sterilization, and sets conditions for voluntary family planning projects.
Division A, Title IV, Foreign Military Financing Program
Foreign Military Financing Program
This provision appropriates $6,752,500,000 for grants to foreign countries for the procurement of defense articles and services. It specifies that these funds are nonrepayable and can be used to expedite assistance. It also includes specific allocations, notably not less than $3,300,000,000 for Israel, to be disbursed within 30 days of enactment, and not less than $500,000,000 for Taiwan, with a priority on delivery.
Division A, Title VII, Sec. 7031(c)
Anti-Kleptocracy and Human Rights Ineligibility for Entry
This provision makes foreign government officials and their immediate family members ineligible for entry into the United States if the Secretary of State has credible information of their involvement in significant corruption or gross human rights violations, including wrongful detention of U.S. personnel or citizens. The Secretary is also required to refer such matters to the Office of Foreign Assets Control for potential sanctions and to publicly or privately designate these individuals.
Division A, Title VII, Sec. 7041(g)
West Bank and Gaza Assistance Limitations and Oversight
This section imposes several limitations on assistance for the West Bank and Gaza. Funds are prohibited if Palestinians obtain state standing at the UN outside a negotiated agreement or initiate an ICC investigation against Israeli nationals. It also prohibits funding for the Office of Palestinian Affairs. Extensive oversight requirements are established for assistance to Gaza, including certifications on preventing diversion to Hamas, third-party monitoring, and regular reports on fund usage and potential misuse.
Division A, Title VII, Sec. 7043(b)(2)
Countering PRC Influence Fund
This provision allocates not less than $400,000,000 for a Countering PRC Influence Fund, drawn from various security and development assistance accounts. The fund aims to counter the global influence of the Government of the People's Republic of China and the Chinese Communist Party. Up to 10 percent of these funds are to be held in reserve for unanticipated opportunities to counter PRC influence.
Division A, Title VII, Sec. 7048(e)
Prohibition on Funding for United Nations Relief and Works Agency (UNRWA)
This provision explicitly prohibits any funds appropriated or otherwise made available by this Act or prior Acts from being provided as a contribution, grant, or other payment to the United Nations Relief and Works Agency (UNRWA). It also prohibits soliciting or encouraging funds for UNRWA from other donors and sources.
Division A, Title VII, Sec. 7067(e)
Prohibition on Funding for Programs Promoting Sex Change Surgeries or Transgenderism for Minors
This provision prohibits the use or transfer of funds from this Act to any federal agency, board, commission, or non-governmental organization (NGO) that offers counseling, promotes, conducts, or subsidizes sex change surgeries, promotes the use of medications to halt puberty or sexual development of minors, or otherwise promotes transgenderism. This applies to both domestic and international NGOs.
Division A, Title VII, Sec. 7069
Limitation on Use of Funds for Online Speech-Related Activities
This provision prohibits funds from being used, directly or indirectly, to deplatform, deboost, demonetize, suppress, or otherwise penalize lawful online speech, news outlets, or social media account activity that would be protected by the First Amendment in the U.S. It also prohibits inducing or assisting social media companies, foreign governments, or other entities to engage in such activities, or funding programs like 'platform accountability' or 'disinformation' initiatives if their purpose or foreseeable effect is to impose costs on U.S.-based technology companies for hosting protected speech.
Division B, Sec. 102
Ensuring Only Citizens Are Registered to Vote in Federal Elections
This section amends the National Voter Registration Act of 1993 to require applicants for voter registration in federal elections to present 'documentary proof of United States citizenship' with their application. It defines acceptable forms of proof, such as a REAL ID-compliant ID indicating citizenship, a valid U.S. passport, or a birth certificate alongside a photo ID. States are required to establish processes for verifying citizenship and removing non-citizens from voter rolls, including using the SAVE system and other data sources. It also creates criminal penalties for election officials who register applicants without documentary proof of citizenship.
Division B, Sec. 103
Requiring Voters to Provide Photo Identification
This section amends the Help America Vote Act of 2002 to require individuals voting in person in federal elections to present a valid physical photo identification. Voters without photo ID may cast a provisional ballot, but it will only be counted if they present the required ID within 3 days or submit an affidavit attesting to a religious objection to being photographed. For individuals voting other than in person (e.g., absentee), they must submit a copy of a valid photo ID or the last four digits of their Social Security number along with an affidavit of inability to obtain a copy. Exceptions are made for absent uniformed services voters and certain disabled voters.
Division A, Title VII, Sec. 7068
Rescissions of Unobligated Balances
This section permanently rescinds significant unobligated balances from prior appropriations acts. Specifically, it rescinds $458,100,000 from "Consular and Border Security Programs," $1,000,000,000 from "International Disaster Assistance," and $385,000,000 from "Millennium Challenge Corporation." It includes a restriction that no amounts previously designated as an emergency requirement may be rescinded.
Allows the waiver of notification and consultation requirements for the Committees on Appropriations if failure to do so would pose a substantial risk to human health or welfare. In such cases, notification must be provided as early as practicable, but no later than 3 days after the action, with an explanation of the emergency.
Division A, Title VII, Sec. 7015(e)
Why it matters:While standard for emergencies, the specific conditions and short notification window for waivers are important for understanding executive flexibility. It's a common legislative practice to include such waivers in appropriations bills to ensure rapid response capabilities.
Case for: Proponents argue that this waiver is essential for the executive branch to respond swiftly and effectively to unforeseen crises, such as natural disasters, security threats, or public health emergencies, where delays due to notification could cost lives or worsen situations.
Case against: Critics might argue that even in emergencies, a 3-day post-action notification could still limit meaningful congressional oversight, especially if the 'substantial risk' threshold is interpreted broadly, potentially allowing for actions without adequate legislative input.
Estimated impact: Enables rapid deployment of up to $200,000,000 for infectious disease outbreaks (Sec. 7058(c)(2)) and other emergency responses, bypassing standard 15-day notification.
Prohibits funds from being used to support any Special Envoy, Special Representative, Special Coordinator, or similar position unless expressly authorized by statute or confirmed by the Senate. This limitation also applies to the office personnel and bureau-managed funds of such positions.
Division A, Title VII, Sec. 7064(c)(4)
Why it matters:This is a policy rider that restricts executive branch appointments and could be seen as an assertion of congressional authority over diplomatic roles. It's a tactical maneuver to limit the executive's ability to create and fund special diplomatic positions without explicit legislative approval or Senate confirmation.
Case for: Proponents argue this ensures greater accountability and transparency for high-level diplomatic positions, preventing the executive from bypassing the Senate's advice and consent role and ensuring that such roles have clear statutory mandates.
Case against: Critics might argue that this restricts the executive's flexibility to appoint specialized envoys to address rapidly evolving foreign policy challenges without the delays of the legislative process, potentially hindering diplomatic responsiveness.
Estimated impact: Could affect the creation and funding of numerous special diplomatic positions, potentially shifting the balance of power in foreign policy appointments.
Amends the Passport Act of June 4, 1920, to authorize public libraries (organized as NGOs, non-profits, charitable organizations, or trusts) to serve as passport acceptance facilities and collect and retain the execution fee for passport applications, provided they comply with State Department regulations.
Division A, Title VII, Sec. 7064(c)(5)
Why it matters:This is a minor but potentially impactful policy change that expands access to passport services and provides a new revenue stream for public libraries. It's likely included in an omnibus bill to pass without extensive standalone debate, as it's not a high-profile or controversial item.
Case for: Proponents argue this improves public access to passport services, especially in underserved areas, and provides a modest financial benefit to local public libraries, leveraging existing community infrastructure.
Case against: No significant opposition is typically raised against this provision, as it is generally seen as a beneficial administrative change. Potential concerns might revolve around ensuring adequate training and security for new acceptance facilities.
Estimated impact: Expands the network of passport acceptance facilities, potentially increasing convenience for citizens and generating additional revenue for participating libraries.
Prohibits any discriminatory action by the Federal Government against a person (including altering tax treatment, denying grants/contracts, or denying benefits) based on that person speaking or acting 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.
Division A, Title VII, Sec. 7067(i)
Why it matters:This is a significant social policy rider that seeks to protect religious freedom in the context of marriage definitions, potentially overriding other anti-discrimination policies. Its placement in an omnibus appropriations bill, particularly at the end of a long general provisions title, allows it to pass without standalone debate on this specific, often contentious, issue.
Case for: Proponents argue this provision 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: Critics contend that this provision could enable discrimination against LGBTQ+ individuals by allowing federally funded entities to deny services or benefits based on religious objections to same-sex marriage, potentially undermining broader anti-discrimination efforts.
Estimated impact: Could affect federal funding decisions and anti-discrimination policies across various agencies and programs, potentially impacting the rights and treatment of LGBTQ+ individuals.