Financial Services and General Government Appropriations Act, 2026
- Sponsor
- Sen. Hagerty, Bill [R-TN]
- Committees
- Appropriations Committee (primary)
- Last action
- Dec 1, 2025
Bottom line
This bill funds essential government operations across financial services, general government, and the judiciary for fiscal year 2026, while also embedding specific policy directives and limitations on federal agencies and the District of Columbia.
What it actually does
This bill, the "Financial Services and General Government Appropriations Act, 2026," provides appropriations for various federal departments, agencies, and the District of Columbia for the fiscal year ending September 30, 2026. It allocates funds for the Department of the Treasury, the Executive Office of the President, the Judiciary, and numerous independent agencies, while also including general provisions that impose policy directives and restrictions on federal spending and agency actions. Key areas of funding include tax administration, cybersecurity, financial crime enforcement, small business development, and District of Columbia services.
Proponents argue
Proponents argue that the bill provides necessary funding to maintain critical government functions, ensure national security through financial intelligence and cybersecurity, support economic growth through small business and community development initiatives, and uphold the rule of law through the judiciary. They would emphasize the importance of stable funding for agencies like the IRS to provide taxpayer services and enforce tax laws, and for the CDFI Fund to support underserved communities.
Opponents contend
Opponents might criticize specific spending levels, arguing they are either too high or too low for certain programs, or that they reflect misplaced priorities. They may also object to the inclusion of various policy riders and general provisions, contending that such measures should be debated and passed as standalone legislation rather than being attached to a must-pass appropriations bill, potentially limiting transparency and accountability.
The bill is lengthy and contains highly detailed appropriations language and numerous general provisions. A thorough understanding requires significant time, which may be challenging given the typical compressed timelines for appropriations bill review.
Title I, Department of the Treasury
Departmental Offices Salaries and Expenses
This provision appropriates $292,476,000 for the general operations of the Department of the Treasury's Departmental Offices. These funds cover executive direction, international affairs, economic and tax policy activities, and Treasury-wide management. It also sets aside specific amounts for official reception, confidential emergencies, and long-term availability for financial statement audits, IT modernization, Gulf Coast Restoration Trust Fund oversight, cybersecurity, facilities, and international operations.
Supporters argue
Supporters argue this funding is essential for the Treasury to effectively manage the nation's finances, conduct international economic policy, and ensure the smooth operation of its core functions, including critical cybersecurity enhancements.
Critics contend
Critics might argue that some allocated amounts, such as for reception expenses, could be reduced, or that specific programs within the Departmental Offices should receive different levels of funding based on perceived priorities or efficiency concerns.
Tradeoffs
The provision balances the need for robust operational funding for a critical federal department with calls for fiscal restraint and efficient use of taxpayer dollars.
Title I, Office of Terrorism and Financial Intelligence
Office of Terrorism and Financial Intelligence Salaries and Expenses
This provision allocates $237,662,000 for the Office of Terrorism and Financial Intelligence (TFI) to combat illicit financial activities and national security threats. A minimum of $3,000,000 is specifically designated for addressing human rights violations and corruption, including activities under the Global Magnitsky Human Rights Accountability Act. Up to $16,000,000 of the total remains available until September 30, 2027.
Title I, Internal Revenue Service
Internal Revenue Service Appropriations
This section provides substantial appropriations for the Internal Revenue Service (IRS) across three main categories: Taxpayer Services ($3,207,000,000), Enforcement ($5,437,622,000), and Technology and Operations Support ($3,193,000,000). It includes specific allocations for low-income taxpayer clinics, volunteer tax assistance, criminal investigations, and IT modernization. It also sets limits on fund transfers and includes administrative provisions regarding employee conduct, taxpayer rights, and IT project reporting.
Title I, Community Development Financial Institutions Fund
Community Development Financial Institutions Fund Appropriations
This provision appropriates $324,000,000 for the Community Development Financial Institutions (CDFI) Fund. It allocates funds for financial and technical assistance, with specific amounts for Small and/or Emerging CDFIs, Native American/Hawaiian/Alaska Native communities, the Bank Enterprise Award program, a Healthy Food Financing Initiative, and small dollar loan programs. It also includes $35,000,000 for administrative expenses and prioritizes investments in high-poverty or rural areas and persistent poverty counties.
Title II, Executive Office of the President
Executive Office of the President Appropriations
This title provides funding for various components of the Executive Office of the President (EOP), including the White House ($80,000,000), Executive Residence ($16,100,000 plus reimbursable expenses and $2,475,000 for repair), Council of Economic Advisers ($4,854,000), National Security Council and Homeland Security Council ($18,000,000), Office of Administration ($114,308,000 plus $10,000,000 for security), Office of Management and Budget ($129,000,000), Office of the National Cyber Director ($20,000,000), Office of National Drug Control Policy ($21,785,000 plus $298,579,000 for HIDTA and $136,150,000 for other programs), Unanticipated Needs ($990,000), Information Technology Oversight and Reform ($8,000,000), Special Assistance to the President ($6,015,000), and Official Residence of the Vice President ($318,000). It also includes administrative provisions for fund transfers and budgetary impact statements for Executive Orders.
Title III, The Judiciary
The Judiciary Appropriations
This title appropriates funds for the Supreme Court ($163,127,000 plus $11,388,000 for building care), U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit ($38,622,000), U.S. Court of International Trade ($22,375,000), Courts of Appeals, District Courts, and Other Judicial Services ($6,127,055,000 plus $12,042,000 from the Vaccine Injury Compensation Trust Fund), Defender Services ($1,600,000,000), Fees of Jurors and Commissioners ($19,108,000), Court Security ($892,032,000), Administrative Office of the U.S. Courts ($102,673,000), Federal Judicial Center ($34,929,000), and U.S. Sentencing Commission ($21,641,000). It also includes administrative provisions for fund transfers and official reception expenses.
Title IV, District of Columbia
District of Columbia Federal and Local Funds
This title provides both federal payments and authorizes the expenditure of local funds for the District of Columbia. Federal payments include $40,000,000 for resident tuition support, $50,000,000 for emergency planning and security, $273,977,000 for DC Courts, $46,005,000 for defender services (with a $12,000,000 rescission), $277,004,000 for the Court Services and Offender Supervision Agency, $53,629,000 for the Public Defender Service, $2,450,000 for the Criminal Justice Coordinating Council, $630,000 for judicial commissions, $52,500,000 for school improvement (opportunity scholarships), $600,000 for the National Guard, $4,000,000 for HIV/AIDS testing/treatment, and $6,000,000 for the Water and Sewer Authority. It also authorizes local funds and includes numerous administrative provisions, some of which impose policy restrictions on the DC government.
Title V, Consumer Product Safety Commission
Prohibition on ROV Standard and Gas Stove Ban
This provision includes two specific prohibitions related to the Consumer Product Safety Commission (CPSC). Section 501 prevents the CPSC from finalizing or implementing its Safety Standard for Recreational Off-Highway Vehicles (ROV) until a study by the National Academy of Sciences is completed and reported to Congress. Section 502 prohibits the CPSC from promulgating, implementing, administering, or enforcing any regulation to ban gas stoves as a class of products.
Title V, Election Assistance Commission
Election Security Grants
This provision appropriates $25,000,000 to the Election Assistance Commission (EAC) for payments to States to improve election administration and enhance election technology and security. It modifies certain provisions of the Help America Vote Act of 2002 for the application of these funds, including treating the Commonwealth of the Northern Mariana Islands as a State and adjusting minimum grant amounts. States are required to provide a 20 percent match within two years and submit quarterly financial and annual progress reports.
Title V, Federal Communications Commission
Federal Communications Commission Appropriations and Offsetting Collections
This provision appropriates $416,112,000 for the Federal Communications Commission (FCC), available until September 30, 2029. This amount is entirely offset by collections assessed pursuant to section 9 of title I of the Communications Act of 1934, resulting in an estimated $0 appropriation from the general fund. It also limits proceeds from competitive bidding systems that can be retained and made available for obligation to $132,681,000 and allocates not less than $13,500,000 for the Office of Inspector General.
Title V, General Services Administration
Federal Buildings Fund Limitations on Availability of Revenue
This provision sets limitations on the availability of revenue within the Federal Buildings Fund, totaling $9,835,915,000. It allocates funds for construction and acquisition ($165,661,000, including specific projects in Puerto Rico, Tennessee, and Washington, and environmental remediation), repairs and alterations ($1,082,707,000 for major, basic, and special emphasis programs), rental of space ($5,574,593,000), and building operations ($3,012,954,000). It includes provisos for exceeding cost limits with congressional approval and for emergency repairs.
Title V, National Archives and Records Administration
National Archives and Records Administration Appropriations
This provision appropriates funds for the National Archives and Records Administration (NARA), including $421,000,000 for operating expenses (with $20,000,000 for electronic records archives), $5,920,000 for the Office of Inspector General, $4,500,000 for repairs and restoration of facilities, and $5,000,000 for the National Historical Publications and Records Commission (NHPRC) grants program. An additional $14,344,000 is provided for NHPRC grants for specific initiatives.
Title V, Small Business Administration
Small Business Administration Appropriations
This title appropriates funds for the Small Business Administration (SBA), including $323,118,000 for salaries and expenses (with $12,000,000 for lender oversight and $30,000,000 for IT modernization), $316,800,000 for entrepreneurial development programs (including specific allocations for Small Business Development Centers, Women's Business Centers, veteran outreach, and microloan technical assistance), $46,000,000 for the Office of Inspector General, $14,109,000 for the Office of Advocacy, $3,000,000 for the cost of direct business loans (guaranteeing up to $16,500,000,000 in 503 loans and $35,500,000,000 in 7(a) loans), and $282,000,000 for disaster loans (including $75,000,000 for direct loan costs and $250,000,000 for major disasters).
Sec. 123, Title I
Prohibition on 501(c)(4) Regulation Changes
This provision prohibits the Department of the Treasury and the Internal Revenue Service from issuing, revising, or finalizing any regulation or guidance related to the standard for determining if an organization operates exclusively for social welfare purposes under section 501(c)(4) of the Internal Revenue Code. It specifically references proposed regulations from November 29, 2013, and mandates that the standards and definitions in effect on January 1, 2010, shall apply for determining 501(c)(4) status.
Sec. 610, Title VI
Prohibition on EOP Requests for Background/Tax Information
This provision prohibits the Executive Office of the President (EOP) from requesting official background investigation reports from the FBI or determinations of 501(c) tax-exempt status from the Treasury/IRS on any individual. Exceptions are made if the individual provides express written consent within six months and during the same presidential administration, or in extraordinary national security circumstances.
Sec. 632, Title VI
Prohibition on SEC Political Contributions Disclosure Rule
This provision prohibits the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) from finalizing, issuing, or implementing any rule, regulation, or order regarding the disclosure of political contributions, contributions to tax-exempt organizations, or dues paid to trade associations.
Sec. 747, Title VII
Executive Pay Freeze
This provision continues a pay freeze for the Vice President, employees in Executive Schedule positions, and certain noncareer Senior Executive Service appointees and political appointees whose pay is at or above Executive Schedule level IV. It specifies that their pay rates for calendar year 2026 will be the rates in effect on December 31, 2025, with limited exceptions for authorized movements to higher-level positions. This effectively extends previous pay freezes.
Sec. 809, Title VIII
Prohibition on DC Schedule I Substance Legalization
This provision prohibits the District of Columbia from using any federal funds to enact or carry out any law, rule, or regulation that would legalize or reduce penalties for the possession, use, or distribution of any Schedule I substance under the Controlled Substances Act, or any tetrahydrocannabinols (THC) derivative. Furthermore, it prohibits the use of *any* funds available to the DC government (including local funds) to legalize or reduce penalties for recreational Schedule I substances or THC derivatives.
This section limits the transfer of funds between Internal Revenue Service (IRS) appropriations, specifically prohibiting any funds from being transferred *into* the 'Enforcement' appropriation.
Sec. 101, Title I
Why it matters:This is standard legislative practice for appropriations bills, where specific limitations on fund transfers are common to ensure congressional intent for funding allocations is maintained. The 'into Enforcement' clause reflects a specific policy concern.
Case for: Proponents argue this prevents the IRS from unilaterally shifting funds to enforcement activities, ensuring that Congress maintains control over the balance between taxpayer services and enforcement, and preventing potential overreach in enforcement without explicit legislative approval.
Case against: Critics might argue that this restriction limits the IRS's flexibility to adapt to changing operational needs or emerging threats, potentially hindering its ability to respond effectively to new forms of tax evasion or to optimize resource allocation for maximum efficiency.
Estimated impact: Limits the IRS's ability to augment its enforcement budget beyond the initial appropriation through internal transfers, potentially impacting the scale of enforcement activities.
This section prevents the Department of the Treasury and the IRS from issuing new regulations or guidance concerning the definition of 'social welfare' organizations under section 501(c)(4) of the Internal Revenue Code, effectively locking in the standards that were in effect on January 1, 2010.
Sec. 123, Title I
Why it matters:This is a policy rider, often included in appropriations bills to achieve a substantive policy outcome (preventing regulatory changes) that might face more scrutiny or difficulty passing as standalone legislation.
Case for: Proponents argue it prevents the IRS from politically motivated rulemaking that could target or restrict certain non-profit advocacy groups, ensuring stability and protecting free speech. They believe the 2010 standards are sufficient.
Case against: Opponents argue it prevents the IRS from updating outdated regulations to address the rise of 'dark money' in politics, allowing organizations to engage in significant political activity while maintaining tax-exempt status intended for social welfare.
Estimated impact: Maintains the existing regulatory environment for 501(c)(4) organizations, impacting their permissible political activities and the transparency of political spending.
This section prohibits the Consumer Product Safety Commission (CPSC) from finalizing or implementing its Safety Standard for Recreational Off-Highway Vehicles (ROV) published in November 2014, until the National Academy of Sciences completes a study on its technical validity and impact, and that report is delivered to Congress.
Sec. 501, Title V
Why it matters:This is a policy rider designed to halt or delay a specific regulatory action by the CPSC, likely due to industry opposition or concerns about the scientific basis of the proposed rule. It's a common tactic to use appropriations bills to achieve such policy outcomes.
Case for: Proponents argue that the CPSC's proposed ROV standard may be technically flawed or overly burdensome, and that further scientific review is necessary to ensure any regulation is effective and justified, without unduly impacting the utility of ROVs, including military uses.
Case against: Opponents contend that delaying the ROV safety standard puts consumers at unnecessary risk, arguing that the CPSC has already conducted sufficient research and that further delays prioritize industry interests over public safety.
Estimated impact: Delays the implementation of new safety standards for Recreational Off-Highway Vehicles, potentially impacting consumer safety and industry compliance costs.
This section explicitly prohibits the Consumer Product Safety Commission (CPSC) from promulgating, implementing, administering, or enforcing any regulation to ban gas stoves as a class of products.
Sec. 502, Title V
Why it matters:This is a direct policy rider responding to public debate and concerns about potential CPSC action on gas stoves. It's included in an appropriations bill to ensure its passage, as standalone legislation on this specific issue might face a more difficult path.
Case for: Proponents argue that banning gas stoves would be an overreach of regulatory authority, infringe on consumer choice, and impose significant costs on households and businesses without sufficient justification, especially given the widespread use of these appliances.
Case against: Opponents contend that this prohibition prevents the CPSC from addressing potential public health concerns related to indoor air quality and emissions from gas stoves, arguing that the agency should be free to regulate products based on scientific evidence of harm.
Estimated impact: Prevents any federal ban on gas stoves, maintaining their availability in the market and potentially impacting public health discussions related to indoor air quality.
This section restricts the Executive Office of the President (EOP) from requesting official background investigation reports from the FBI or tax-exempt status determinations from the Treasury/IRS on individuals, unless specific conditions (like express written consent or national security emergencies) are met.
Sec. 610, Title VI
Why it matters:This is a policy rider aimed at preventing potential abuses of executive power, particularly concerning the use of federal agencies for political vetting or targeting. It's placed in a general provisions section to apply broadly and ensure its inclusion in a must-pass bill.
Case for: Proponents argue this protects individual privacy and prevents the weaponization of federal agencies like the FBI and IRS for political purposes, ensuring that sensitive information is only accessed under strict, justified conditions.
Case against: Critics might argue that such restrictions could impede the EOP's ability to conduct thorough and timely vetting of potential appointees or to quickly address legitimate national security concerns, potentially creating bureaucratic inefficiencies.
Estimated impact: Enhances privacy protections for individuals subject to EOP scrutiny and limits the EOP's ability to access certain sensitive information without explicit consent or national security justification.
This section prohibits the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) from finalizing, issuing, or implementing any rule, regulation, or order regarding the disclosure of political contributions, contributions to tax-exempt organizations, or dues paid to trade associations.
Sec. 632, Title VI
Why it matters:This is a policy rider aimed at preventing the SEC from moving forward with corporate political spending disclosure rules, a contentious issue. Its placement in an appropriations bill ensures it is considered alongside essential government funding.
Case for: Proponents argue that the SEC's mandate is financial regulation, not political speech, and that requiring disclosure of political contributions would be an overreach, potentially chilling free speech and imposing undue burdens on corporations.
Case against: Opponents argue that corporate political spending is material information for investors, and that the SEC has a duty to ensure transparency in this area to protect shareholders and market integrity. They contend this provision blocks important investor protections.
Estimated impact: Prevents new SEC rules that would require public companies to disclose their political spending, maintaining the current level of non-disclosure in this area.
This section prohibits federal agencies from requiring entities submitting offers for federal contracts to disclose their political contributions, expenditures, or disbursements for electioneering communications as a condition of submitting the offer.
Sec. 735, Title VII
Why it matters:This is a policy rider designed to prevent federal agencies from implementing disclosure requirements for political spending by contractors, a measure that has been a point of contention between those advocating for transparency and those concerned about free speech and undue burdens on businesses. It's placed in a general provisions section to apply broadly and ensure its inclusion in a must-pass bill.
Case for: Proponents argue that requiring disclosure of political contributions as a condition for federal contracts could be seen as a form of political coercion or an infringement on free speech rights, and that such requirements are irrelevant to a contractor's ability to perform the work.
Case against: Opponents contend that this provision prevents transparency in federal contracting, arguing that the public has a right to know if government contractors are using their funds for political influence, and that such disclosures could help prevent corruption or undue influence.
Estimated impact: Prevents federal agencies from implementing new requirements for contractors to disclose political spending, maintaining the current level of non-disclosure in this area for federal contracts.
This section prohibits the District of Columbia from using *any* funds (federal or local) to legalize or reduce penalties for recreational Schedule I substances (including THC derivatives), and prohibits the use of federal funds for any legalization or penalty reduction of Schedule I substances.
Sec. 809, Title VIII
Why it matters:This is a significant policy rider that directly overrides the District of Columbia's local legislative authority on drug policy, particularly cannabis. It's placed in the appropriations bill to leverage the federal government's control over DC's budget and ensure its passage despite local opposition.
Case for: Proponents argue that this provision maintains federal drug policy in the nation's capital, preventing the District from enacting laws that could be seen as conflicting with federal statutes or promoting drug use, which they believe is harmful to public health and safety.
Case against: Opponents contend that this is a direct and undemocratic infringement on the District's home rule, overriding the will of DC voters and elected officials who have sought to legalize or decriminalize cannabis. They argue it prevents the District from implementing its own public health and revenue policies.
Estimated impact: Prevents the District of Columbia from establishing a legal recreational cannabis market or reducing penalties for other Schedule I substances, despite local legislative efforts and voter initiatives.
This section prohibits the District of Columbia government from expending *any* funds (local or federal) for abortions, except in cases where the life of the mother is endangered, or the pregnancy is the result of rape or incest.
Sec. 810, Title VIII
Why it matters:This is a long-standing policy rider, commonly known as the Hyde Amendment, extended to the District of Columbia's local funds. Its inclusion in the appropriations bill is a tactical maneuver to impose federal policy on DC's local budget, as standalone legislation on this issue would be highly contentious.
Case for: Proponents argue this provision aligns DC's abortion funding policies with federal restrictions, reflecting a moral stance against the use of taxpayer funds for abortion, except in specific, limited circumstances.
Case against: Opponents contend that this provision is a direct infringement on the District's home rule and reproductive autonomy, preventing the local government from using its own funds to provide healthcare services to its residents based on local legislative decisions.
Estimated impact: Restricts the District of Columbia's ability to use its own local funds to cover abortion services for low-income residents, except in cases of rape, incest, or life endangerment.