House Passes Financial Services and National Security Appropriations Act, 2026, After Rejecting Amendments to Defund Specific Judges' Staff and the National Endowment for Democracy
The House convened for a major legislative day, primarily focused on the consideration and passage of H.R. 7006, the Financial Services and General Government and National Security, Department of State, and Related Programs Appropriations Act, 2026. This bipartisan, bicameral package funds various federal agencies, including the Department of the Treasury, the Executive Office of the President, the Judiciary, the District of Columbia, and independent agencies, as well as the Department of State and international assistance programs. The day's proceedings included a structured rule debate, consideration of two amendments, and floor speeches on various topics.
This chamber-day is significant as it marks the passage of a crucial appropriations package, representing eight of the twelve annual funding bills for fiscal year 2026. The bill includes notable spending reductions, particularly a 16 percent cut to foreign aid, while prioritizing national security, economic growth, and specific domestic programs. The debates and votes on amendments, particularly one challenging judicial independence and another targeting a democracy promotion organization, highlighted key ideological divisions within the House, even as the main appropriations bill passed with broad bipartisan support.
Amendment to H.R. 7006 Regarding D.C. Courts and Judges' Staff
H.R. 7006Question before the chamber
Consideration of an amendment to H.R. 7006 to reduce the budgets of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit and the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia by 20 percent, and to prohibit funds for the salary and expenses of the staff of Judge James E. Boasberg and Judge Deborah L. Boardman.
The case for
Mr. Roy of Texas, the proponent, argued that the amendment addresses judicial overreach and activism, specifically citing Judges Boasberg and Boardman for allegedly putting personal preferences ahead of their duty and for actions like issuing nationwide injunctions and surveillance subpoenas against Members of Congress. Mr. Biggs of Arizona supported this, stating Judge Boasberg has repeatedly displayed bias and partisanship, including complaining to Chief Justice Roberts about President Trump's compliance with judicial orders and ordering a removal flight to turn around in midair. Mr. Clyde of Georgia added that these judges have used deeply flawed legal grounds against administration orders and that taxpayers should not fund judicial activism.
The case against
Mr. Hoyer of Maryland, in opposition, argued that the amendment is clearly unconstitutional, as the Founders intended an independent judiciary free from monetary penalties for judgments with which Congress disagreed. He stated that the amendment attempts to indirectly do what the Constitution prohibits directly, by targeting individual judges for their decisions through financial retribution. He emphasized that such actions would undermine the rule of law and the sanctity of a justice system independent of political threats.
Disposition
Rejected · recorded vote
The amendment failed to be adopted.
163-257, with 1 answered "present"
Who is affected
- Federal Judiciary (D.C. Circuit and District Courts): Would have faced a 20 percent budget reduction and specific staffing cuts, potentially impacting operations and judicial independence.
- Staff of Judges James E. Boasberg and Deborah L. Boardman: Would have had their salaries and expenses defunded.
- Taxpayers: Proponents argued the amendment would prevent taxpayer dollars from funding judicial activism.
Amendment to H.R. 7006 Regarding the National Endowment for Democracy
H.R. 7006Question before the chamber
Consideration of an amendment to H.R. 7006 to strike funding for the National Endowment for Democracy (NED) and related democracy programs.
The case for
Mr. Crane of Arizona, the proponent, argued that the NED's mission has drifted from its Cold War origins, engaging in global censorship, domestic propaganda, and regime-change politics, and working against U.S. national interests. Mr. Burlison of Missouri stated that the NED has become a 'foreign slush fund' and that Americans should not finance political outcomes in other countries. Mrs. Luna of Florida criticized NED as the 'National Endowment for Censorship,' alleging it deplatformed President Trump and that its political donations overwhelmingly favor the Democratic Party. Mr. Perry of Pennsylvania claimed NED pressured advertisers to suppress American political speech and that 98 percent of its political donations go to the Democrat Party, calling it a waste of taxpayer dollars.
The case against
Ms. Lois Frankel of Florida, in opposition, argued that defunding NED would be a serious mistake and a dangerous retreat from American values. She stated that NED supports free and fair elections, independent journalism, and civic participation, helping societies resolve disputes without violence. She highlighted NED's work in documenting Russian war crimes in Ukraine, fighting corruption in the Democratic Republic of Congo, and promoting religious tolerance in Pakistan. Mr. Diaz-Balart of Florida emphasized NED's historical role, envisioned by President Ronald Reagan, in fighting communism and supporting democracy, particularly in repressive regimes like Iran, China, Cuba, and Venezuela. Ms. DeLauro of Connecticut added that NED's work is crucial in documenting brutality and that pulling back support only benefits dictators and despots.
Disposition
Rejected · recorded vote
The amendment failed to be adopted.
127-291
Who is affected
- National Endowment for Democracy (NED): Would have lost all federal funding, impacting its operations and programs globally.
- Democracy advocates and civil society organizations globally: Would lose critical support for promoting human rights, free elections, and independent media in repressive countries.
- U.S. foreign policy and national security interests: Opponents argued defunding NED would weaken U.S. leadership and cede influence to authoritarian adversaries.
- Taxpayers: Proponents argued defunding NED would prevent taxpayer resources from funding an organization they believe works against U.S. interests and is ideologically biased.
House Passes Consolidated Appropriations Bill for Financial Services and National Security
highThe House successfully passed H.R. 7006, the Financial Services and General Government and National Security, Department of State, and Related Programs Appropriations Act, 2026, by a recorded vote of 341 yeas to 79 nays. This bill funds critical government operations and foreign policy initiatives, reflecting a bipartisan, bicameral agreement to advance full-year appropriations and avoid a government shutdown.
Amendment to Defund Specific Judges' Staff and Reduce D.C. Court Budgets Rejected
highAn amendment offered by Mr. Roy of Texas, which sought to reduce the budgets of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit and the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia by 20 percent and eliminate funding for the staff of Judges James E. Boasberg and Deborah L. Boardman, was rejected by a recorded vote of 163 ayes to 257 noes, with 1 answered 'present'. Opponents argued the amendment was unconstitutional and an attempt to penalize judges for their decisions.
Amendment to Defund the National Endowment for Democracy Rejected
highAn amendment offered by Mr. Crane of Arizona to strike funding for the National Endowment for Democracy (NED) and related democracy programs was rejected by a recorded vote of 127 ayes to 291 noes. Proponents criticized NED for alleged global censorship and regime-change politics, while opponents defended its role in promoting democracy, human rights, and U.S. national security interests abroad.
Appropriations Process Continues with Bipartisan, Bicameral Agreement
mediumThe passage of H.R. 7006 marks the eighth of twelve appropriations bills advanced through a bipartisan and bicameral process. Members from both sides of the aisle, including Appropriations Committee Chair Mr. Cole and Ranking Member Ms. DeLauro, highlighted the collaborative effort to fund the government responsibly, reduce spending, and avoid a continuing resolution or shutdown.