Department of Homeland Security Appropriations Act, 2027
- Sponsor
- Rep. Amodei, Mark E. [R-NV-2]
- Committees
- Appropriations Committee
- Last action
- Jun 12, 2026
Bottom line
The bill provides substantial funding for DHS while embedding significant policy directives and restrictions on immigration, border security, and agency conduct.
What it actually does
This bill appropriates funds for the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) for fiscal year 2027, allocating billions across its various agencies including Customs and Border Protection, Immigration and Customs Enforcement, the Transportation Security Administration, the Coast Guard, and the Federal Emergency Management Agency. Beyond funding, it includes numerous administrative provisions and policy riders that dictate how these funds can be used, impose new requirements, and alter existing laws, particularly concerning immigration enforcement, border security, 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, and respond to disasters, reflecting a commitment to national security and public safety. They would highlight the increased funding for border security, law enforcement operations, and disaster preparedness as critical investments to address current challenges and protect American communities.
Opponents contend
Opponents contend that the bill includes controversial policy riders unrelated to appropriations, particularly those that restrict immigration pathways, limit agency discretion, and impose ideological mandates. They would argue that some provisions could undermine humanitarian protections, hinder effective agency operations, or politicize the appropriations process by attaching contentious policy to a must-pass funding measure.
Given its length and the density of its administrative and policy provisions, the bill requires significant time for a thorough review. The inclusion of numerous policy riders makes it challenging for a casual reader to grasp its full implications within a short timeframe.
Title I, Office of the Secretary and Executive Management
Funding for Departmental Management and Body-Worn Cameras
This section appropriates $290,321,000 for the Office of the Secretary and Executive Management for operations and support, with an additional $9,000,000 for procurement, construction, and improvements. It also includes an additional $40,000,000 specifically for the procurement, deployment, and operations of body-worn cameras for DHS law enforcement personnel performing enforcement activities, requiring a spend plan within 30 days of enactment.
Supporters argue
Supporters argue that this funding is crucial for effective departmental leadership and oversight, ensuring efficient operations. The allocation for body-worn cameras is seen as a vital step towards enhancing transparency, accountability, and public trust in law enforcement, while also protecting officers.
Critics contend
Critics might argue that while body cameras are beneficial, the overall management funding could be scrutinized for efficiency. Some might raise concerns about the implementation details of body camera usage, such as data storage, privacy, and policies for public access to footage.
Tradeoffs
The provision balances the need for departmental administrative funding with a specific investment in law enforcement accountability tools. The tension lies in ensuring the body camera program is implemented effectively and fairly, balancing privacy concerns with transparency goals.
Title II, U.S. Customs and Border Protection
Border Security Operations and Infrastructure Funding
This section provides $17,424,823,000 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 $513,818,000 is allocated for procurement, construction, and improvements, with funds for border security assets and infrastructure remaining available until September 30, 2029, and construction funds until September 30, 2031. It also includes $31,000,000 for additional operations and support, to be offset by fee collections.
Title II, U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement
Immigration Enforcement and Detention Funding
This section appropriates $10,060,995,000 for U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) operations and support. It includes specific allocations for Homeland Security Investigations (HSI), such as $6,000,000 for forced child labor enforcement, $5,000,000 for child-rescue corps apprenticeships, and $15,000,000 for intellectual property rights investigations. For Enforcement and Removal Operations (ERO), it allocates funds for care, maintenance, and repatriation of smuggled aliens. The bill also mandates prioritizing detention to maintain full capacity and enrolling all non-detained aliens into the Alternatives to Detention Program with mandatory GPS monitoring.
Title II, Transportation Security Administration
Aviation Security Funding and Equipment Modernization
The bill appropriates $10,361,634,000 for the Transportation Security Administration (TSA) operations and support, with $250,000,000 remaining available until September 30, 2028. It also provides $286,910,000 for procurement, construction, and improvements, and $14,000,000 for research and development. Security service fees are credited as offsetting collections for aviation security. The bill also allows funds from the Aviation Security Capital Fund to be used for procurement and installation of explosives detection systems and other transaction agreements.
Title II, Coast Guard
Coast Guard Operations, Procurement, and Retired Pay
This section provides $12,170,631,000 for Coast Guard operations and support, including defense-related activities and environmental compliance. It allocates $1,061,670,000 for procurement, construction, and improvements (vessels, aircraft, facilities), available until September 30, 2031. Additionally, $6,763,000 is for research and development, and $913,000,000 is for retired pay, available until expended. A significant portion of O&S ($400,000,000) is specifically for depot level maintenance.
Title II, United States Secret Service
Protective and Investigative Mission Funding
This section appropriates $3,253,270,000 for the United States Secret Service (USSS) operations and support, including protective functions, behavioral research, and a $6,000,000 grant for investigations of missing and exploited children. It also allows up to $35,000,000 for calendar year 2026 premium pay for protective services. An additional $76,888,000 is provided for procurement, construction, and improvements, with varying availability dates.
Title III, Cybersecurity and Infrastructure Security Agency
Cybersecurity and Infrastructure Protection Funding
This section appropriates $1,955,910,000 for the Cybersecurity and Infrastructure Security Agency (CISA) operations and support, with funds for Risk Management Operations and the National Infrastructure Simulation Analysis Center remaining available until September 30, 2028. It also provides $396,464,000 for procurement, construction, and improvements. Additionally, $99,750,000 is transferred from unobligated balances of the Cybersecurity Response and Recovery Fund (Public Law 117-58) to CISA's operations and support.
Title III, Federal Emergency Management Agency
Disaster Relief, Preparedness, and Assistance Programs
This section provides $1,758,454,000 for FEMA operations and support, $158,200,000 for procurement, construction, and improvements, and $3,801,548,000 for Federal assistance programs. Key assistance grants include $506,500,000 for State Homeland Security, $599,000,000 for Urban Area Security, $355,000,000 for Nonprofit Security, $702,000,000 for Firefighter Grants, and $346,000,000 for Emergency Management Performance Grants. It also appropriates $28,389,000,000 for the Disaster Relief Fund and $199,840,000 for the National Flood Insurance Fund. Section 315 amends the Stafford Act to make predisaster mitigation grants mandatory and adjust funding percentages.
Title IV, U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services
E-Verify Program Funding and Immigration Policy Restrictions
This section appropriates $112,995,000 for U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS) specifically for the operations and support of the E-Verify Program. It also includes several administrative provisions that restrict USCIS operations, such as prohibiting the issuance of employment authorization to aliens whose asylum applications have been denied or who have been convicted of a crime while their application is pending (Sec. 404). It also sets stricter standards for credible fear determinations and asylum eligibility, particularly for aliens transiting through safe third countries (Sec. 407, 408).
Title V, Sec. 503
Reprogramming and Transfer Limitations
This section sets strict limits on the Department of Homeland Security's ability to reprogram or transfer funds between appropriations accounts. It prohibits reprogramming that creates or eliminates programs, contracts out federal functions, augments funding by more than $5,000,000 or 10%, or reduces funding/personnel by 10% or more, without 30-day advance notification to Congress. It also prohibits reprogramming based on initial notification after June 15, to increase/decrease grant funding, or to create new programs not approved by Congress.
Title V, Sec. 542
Prohibition on Misinformation/Disinformation Activities and Censorship
This section prohibits the use of funds to classify or facilitate the classification of any communications by a United States person as mis-, dis-, or mal-information. It also prohibits partnering with or funding organizations that pressure or recommend private companies to censor lawful and constitutionally protected speech of United States persons, including content on social media platforms. Any federal officer or employee whose salary is funded by this Act and who conducts such activities shall be removed from federal service.
Title V, Sec. 545
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.
Prohibits the Office of Intelligence and Analysis (OIA) from conducting 'covered activities' as defined by section 6303 of the Intelligence Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2025 (Public Law 118-159), but clarifies that sharing intelligence with other entities is allowed.
Sec. 107, Title I
Why it matters:This is a common legislative practice to avoid reprinting lengthy definitions or to ensure consistency with prior legislation. However, it can also serve to obscure the full impact of a provision by requiring external research.
Case for: Proponents argue that this ensures OIA's activities remain within congressionally defined boundaries, preventing potential overreach into domestic intelligence gathering on U.S. persons. The cross-reference ensures consistency with broader intelligence community oversight.
Case against: Critics might argue that relying on external definitions makes oversight more difficult for the public and potentially for Congress itself, as the full scope of the restriction is not immediately apparent within the bill. The prohibition itself could be seen as limiting OIA's ability to fulfill its mission.
Estimated impact: Significantly restricts the domestic intelligence activities of the DHS Office of Intelligence and Analysis, particularly regarding U.S. persons, potentially re-scoping its mission.
Prohibits federal funds from being used for the procurement or deployment of surveillance tower systems that are not 'autonomous,' as defined in section 90004 of Public Law 119-21. It defines 'surveillance tower system' as any tower used for identification and classification of items of interest along the U.S. border.
Sec. 211, Title II
Why it matters:This is a common legislative technique to maintain consistency with previous acts and avoid redundancy. However, it can obscure the specific technical and operational implications of the provision for those without immediate access to the referenced statute.
Case for: Proponents argue that this ensures border surveillance technology meets specific, modern standards for autonomy, potentially improving efficiency, reducing human error, or aligning with strategic technology goals previously established by Congress.
Case against: Critics might argue that tying funding to a definition in a separate, potentially technical, statute could limit flexibility in deploying effective border security technologies or could inadvertently exclude useful systems that don't perfectly fit the 'autonomous' definition.
Estimated impact: Directs future investments in border surveillance technology towards autonomous systems, potentially impacting procurement strategies and the types of technology deployed along the border.
Amends Section 203 of the Robert T. Stafford Disaster Relief and Emergency Assistance Act (42 U.S.C. 5133) to make predisaster mitigation grants mandatory ('shall' instead of 'may'), require that measures are related to a major disaster declaration in the previous 5 years, reduce the period for which states can apply for assistance from 7 to 5 years, and change 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.
Sec. 315, Title III
Why it matters:This is standard legislative practice for amending existing law. However, the substantive changes to a major disaster relief program are significant and could be easily overlooked by a reader focused on direct appropriations.
Case for: Proponents argue these amendments strengthen predisaster mitigation efforts by making grants mandatory, focusing resources on areas with recent disaster experience, and providing more flexibility in the set-aside amount. This could lead to more effective and targeted mitigation, reducing future disaster costs.
Case against: Critics might argue that limiting eligibility to areas with a recent disaster declaration could disadvantage communities that are at high risk but have not yet experienced a major disaster. Changing the set-aside percentage could also be contentious, depending on the specific impact on funding availability.
Estimated impact: Significantly alters the eligibility and funding mechanisms for federal predisaster mitigation grants, potentially shifting where and how mitigation funds are allocated across states and communities.
Sec. 407 establishes stricter criteria for 'credible fear of persecution' determinations, requiring officers to consider the alien's credibility and that it is 'more likely than not' they could establish asylum eligibility. Sec. 408 prohibits granting credible fear or asylum to aliens who transited through at least one country outside their own without seeking protection there, with limited exceptions (trafficking victims, countries not party to refugee conventions).
Sec. 407 & 408, Title IV
Why it matters:These are policy riders attached to an appropriations bill, a common tactic to enact substantive policy changes that might face greater scrutiny or difficulty passing as standalone legislation. Their placement within administrative provisions can make them less visible.
Case for: Proponents argue these provisions are necessary to streamline the asylum process, deter fraudulent claims, and reduce the burden on the U.S. immigration system. They contend that individuals should seek protection in the first safe country they reach, and that stricter credible fear standards ensure only legitimate claims proceed.
Case against: Critics argue these provisions undermine international and domestic asylum laws, making it significantly harder for vulnerable individuals to seek protection. They contend that the 'more likely than not' standard is too high for an initial screening and that the transit ban effectively closes off asylum for many, potentially forcing them back into dangerous situations.
Estimated impact: Dramatically alters the U.S. asylum system, significantly reducing the number of individuals who will pass initial credible fear screenings and qualify for asylum, particularly those who have traveled through multiple countries.