Department of State, Foreign Operations, and Related Programs: FY2021 Budget and Appropriations

Changes from October 1, 2020 to January 17, 2021

This page shows textual changes in the document between the two versions indicated in the dates above. Textual matter removed in the later version is indicated with ~~red strikethrough~~ and textual matter added in the later version is indicated with blue.

Department of State, Foreign Operations, and
~~October 1, 2020~~January 17, 2021
Related Programs: FY2021 Budget and
Cory R. Gill
Appropriations
Analyst in Foreign Affairs Analyst in Foreign Affairs

Each year, Congress considers 12 distinct appropriations measures to fund federal Each year, Congress considers 12 distinct appropriations measures to fund federal
Marian L. Lawson
programs and activities. One of these is the Department of State, Foreign Operations, programs and activities. One of these is the Department of State, Foreign Operations,
Section Research Manager Section Research Manager
and Related Programs (SFOPS) bill, which includes funding for U.S. diplomatic and Related Programs (SFOPS) bill, which includes funding for U.S. diplomatic

activities, cultural exchanges, development and security assistance, and participation in activities, cultural exchanges, development and security assistance, and participation in
Emily M. Morgenstern
multilateral organizations, among other international activities. On February 10, 2020, multilateral organizations, among other international activities. On February 10, 2020,
Analyst in Foreign Analyst in Foreign
the Trump Administration submitted to Congress its SFOPS budget proposal for the Trump Administration submitted to Congress its SFOPS budget proposal for
Assistance and Foreign Assistance and Foreign
FY2021, totaling $44.12 billion (including $158.90 million in mandatory State FY2021, totaling $44.12 billion (including $158.90 million in mandatory State
Policy Policy
Department retirement funds). None of the requested SFOPS funds were designated as Department retirement funds). None of the requested SFOPS funds were designated as

Overseas Contingency Operations (OCO) funds. Overseas Contingency Operations (OCO) funds.

The Administration’s FY2021 request The Administration’s FY2021 request iswas about 3% higher than its FY2020 request for about 3% higher than its FY2020 request for
SFOPS accounts but nearly 24% below the FY2020 SFOPS funding level enacted by Congress (including SFOPS accounts but nearly 24% below the FY2020 SFOPS funding level enacted by Congress (including
COVID-19 supplemental funds, which were enacted after the FY2021 request was submitted). Within these totals, COVID-19 supplemental funds, which were enacted after the FY2021 request was submitted). Within these totals,
funding funding iswas divided among two main components: divided among two main components:
  Department of State and Related Agency accounts. These funds, provided in Title I of the accounts. These funds, provided in Title I of the
SFOPS appropriation, primarily support Department of State diplomatic and security activities SFOPS appropriation, primarily support Department of State diplomatic and security activities
and would and would behave been reduced by 18.9% from FY2020-enacted levels. Noteworthy cuts reduced by 18.9% from FY2020-enacted levels. Noteworthy cuts ~~are~~ were proposed for proposed for
the Educational and Cultural Exchange Programs (-57.6%), International Organizations (-31.8%) the Educational and Cultural Exchange Programs (-57.6%), International Organizations (-31.8%)
accounts, and the Diplomatic Programs account (-12.6%), which funds many of the State accounts, and the Diplomatic Programs account (-12.6%), which funds many of the State
Department’s day-to-day operations. Department’s day-to-day operations.
 The  The Foreign Operations accounts, funded in Titles II-VI of the SFOPS bill, fund most foreign accounts, funded in Titles II-VI of the SFOPS bill, fund most foreign
assistance activities. These accounts would assistance activities. These accounts would ~~see~~have seen a total reduction of 25.7%, with particularly steep a total reduction of 25.7%, with particularly steep
cuts proposed for global health programs (-37.5%), peacekeeping operations (PKO, -36.6%), cuts proposed for global health programs (-37.5%), peacekeeping operations (PKO, -36.6%),
multilateral aid (-28.9%), and humanitarian assistance (-28.3%, not including food aid programs multilateral aid (-28.9%), and humanitarian assistance (-28.3%, not including food aid programs
funded through the agriculture appropriation). funded through the agriculture appropriation).
~~An account-by-account comparison of the~~The House passed an FY2021 SFOPS bill, H.R. 7608, Division A, on July 24, 2020. The bill would have provided a total of $66.03 billion in net budget authority for SFOPS accounts ($66.10 billion prerescissions). No FY2021 FY2021 SFOPS legislation was introduced in the Senate. On December 21, both chambers passed the Omnibus and COVID Relief and Response Act, H.R. 133, which included SFOPS appropriations in Division K. The enacted legislation included a net total of $60.98 billion ($61.51 billion prerescission) for SFOPS accounts, 38.2% more than the Administration’s request and 6.6% more than FY2020 funding. Of these funds, $8.25 billion were designated as OCO. President Trump signed the bill into law (P.L. 116-260) on December 27, 2020. An account-by-account comparison of the FY2021 SFOPS request, FY2021 SFOPS legislation, and FY2020 SFOPS funding is presented in Appendix A~~SFOPS request and enacted FY2020 SFOPS appropriations is~~
~~presented in Appendix A, which will be updated to include House and Senate-passed FY2021 funding bills as~~
~~they are approved~~.. Appendix B provides a similar comparison, focused specifically on the International Affairs provides a similar comparison, focused specifically on the International Affairs
budget.budget. Appendix B depicts the organization of the SFOPS appropriation. depicts the organization of the SFOPS appropriation.
This report is designed to track SFOPS appropriations, This report is designed to track SFOPS appropriations, ~~with a focus on~~ comparing funding levels for accounts and comparing funding levels for accounts and
purposes across enacted FY2020 SFOPS appropriations, FY2021 Administration requests, and FY2021 SFOPS purposes across enacted FY2020 SFOPS appropriations, FY2021 Administration requests, and FY2021 SFOPS
~~legislation as it moves through the legislative process~~legislation. It does not provide significant analysis of international . It does not provide significant analysis of international
affairs policy issues. For in-depth analysis and contextual information on international affairs issues, affairs policy issues. For in-depth analysis and contextual information on international affairs issues, ~~please~~
consult the wide range of CRS reports on specific subjects, such as global health, diplomatic security, and U.S. consult the wide range of CRS reports on specific subjects, such as global health, diplomatic security, and U.S.
~~participation in the United Nations.~~

~~The House passed a FY2021 SFOPS bil , H.R. 7608, Division A, on July 24, 2020. The bil would provide a total of $66.10 bil ion in~~
~~budget authority for SFOPS accounts ($66.03 bil ion after rescissions).~~

~~Senate SFOPS legislation for FY2021 has yet to be introduced.~~

participation in the United Nations. Congressional Research Service Congressional Research Service

link to page 5 link to page link to page 5 link to page 3337

SFOPS: FY2021 Budget and Appropriations

Overview
On February 10, 2020, the Trump Administration proposed its FY2021 budget for the Department On February 10, 2020, the Trump Administration proposed its FY2021 budget for the Department
of State, Foreign Operations, and Related Programs (SFOPS) accounts, totaling $44.12 billion of State, Foreign Operations, and Related Programs (SFOPS) accounts, totaling $44.12 billion
(including $158.90 million in mandatory retirement funds).1 SFOPS funding typically represents (including $158.90 million in mandatory retirement funds).1 SFOPS funding typically represents
about 1% of the annual federal budget and supports a wide range of U.S. activities around the about 1% of the annual federal budget and supports a wide range of U.S. activities around the
world, including the operations of U.S. embassiesworld, including the operations of U.S. embassies,; diplomatic activities diplomatic activities,; educational and cultural educational and cultural
exchanges, exchanges, international development, security, and humanitarian assistancedevelopment, security, and humanitarian assistance,; and U.S. participation in and U.S. participation in
multilateral multilateral ~~organizations~~organizations. Figure 1 shows funding for different SFOPS components based on shows funding for different SFOPS components based on
FY2020 budget authority estimates, relative to each other and to the broader federal budget. FY2020 budget authority estimates, relative to each other and to the broader federal budget.
Figure 1. SFOPS as a Portion of the Federal Budget, FY2020 Est.

Sources: FY2021 Budget; Historic Table 5.1; FY2020 SFOPS appropriations legislation; CRS calculations. FY2021 Budget; Historic Table 5.1; FY2020 SFOPS appropriations legislation; CRS calculations.
Note: Reflects estimated budget authority, FY2020, except for International Affairs detail figures, which reflect Reflects estimated budget authority, FY2020, except for International Affairs detail figures, which reflect
enacted appropriations for FY2020. enacted appropriations for FY2020.
The Administration’s request The Administration’s request iswas about 3% higher than the FY2020 request for SFOPS accounts about 3% higher than the FY2020 request for SFOPS accounts
but nearly 24% below the FY2020 SFOPS funding level enacted by Congress, including but nearly 24% below the FY2020 SFOPS funding level enacted by Congress, including
supplemental funds to help combat the supplemental funds to help combat the Coronavirus Disease 2019 (COVID-19)~~COVID-19~~ epidemic epidemic ~~globally~~globally, which were enacted after which were enacted after
the FY2021 request was submitted.2 The Trump Administration the FY2021 request was submitted.2 The Trump Administration ~~has~~ consistently requested far less consistently requested far less
SFOPS funding than Congress SFOPS funding than Congress ~~has~~ appropriated. This is appropriated. This is ~~a reversal from the Obama~~

1 The payment covers the U.S. government’s contribution to the Foreign Service Retirement and Disability System and 1 The payment covers the U.S. government’s contribution to the Foreign Service Retirement and Disability System and
the Foreign Service Pension System for USAID and the Department of State. It is the only mandatory spending in the the Foreign Service Pension System for USAID and the Department of State. It is the only mandatory spending in the
SFOPS appropriation. SFOPS appropriation.
The SFOPS budget aligns closely but not exactly with Function 150 (International Affairs) of the federal budget. The The SFOPS budget aligns closely but not exactly with Function 150 (International Affairs) of the federal budget. The
primary exception is funding for international food aid programs, which are part of Function 150 but funded through primary exception is funding for international food aid programs, which are part of Function 150 but funded through
the agriculture appropriation. SFOPS also includes funding for international commissions in the Function 300 budget the agriculture appropriation. SFOPS also includes funding for international commissions in the Function 300 budget
(see(see Appendix B).
2 For more information on international affairs funding for COVID-19 response, see CRS In Focus IF11496, 2 For more information on international affairs funding for COVID-19 response, see CRS In Focus IF11496, COVID-
19 and Foreign Assistance: Issues for Congress, by Nick M. Brown, Marian L. Lawson, and Emily M. Morgenstern, , by Nick M. Brown, Marian L. Lawson, and Emily M. Morgenstern,
and CRS Report R46319, and CRS Report R46319, Novel Coronavirus 2019 (COVID-19): Q&A on Global Implications and Responses, ,
coordinated by Tiaji Salaam-Blyther. coordinated by Tiaji Salaam-Blyther.
Congressional Research Service Congressional Research Service
1 1

link to page 6 link to page 6 link to page 6 link to page 6

SFOPS: FY2021 Budget and Appropriations

a reversal from the Obama Administration, when Congress typically provided less total SFOPS funding than was requested, Administration, when Congress typically provided less total SFOPS funding than was requested,
though the gap narrowed over time during Obama’s terms though the gap narrowed over time during Obama’s terms (Table 1).
Table 1. SFOPS Requests and Actual Funding, FY2013-FY2021
(In billions of current U.S. dollars) (In billions of current U.S. dollars)

FY2013 FY2014 FY2015 FY2016 FY2017 FY2018 FY2019 FY2020 FY2021
Request Request
56.41 56.41
51.96 51.96
55.01 55.01
54.83 54.83
60.21 60.21
40.21 40.21
41.66 41.66
43.10 43.10
44.12 44.12
Actual Actual
51.91 51.91
50.89 50.89
54.39 54.39
54.52 54.52
59.78 59.78
54.18 54.18
54.38 54.38
57.21 57.21
~~n/a~~60.98
Difference Difference
-8.0% -8.0%
-2.1% -2.1%
-1.1% -1.1%
-0.6% -0.6%
-0.7% -0.7%
+34.7% +34.7%
+30.5% +30.5%
+32.7% +32.7%
~~n/a~~+38.2%
Sources: Annual SFOPS Congressional Budget Justifications (CBJs) prepared by the Department of State and Annual SFOPS Congressional Budget Justifications (CBJs) prepared by the Department of State and
U.S. Agency of International Development; P.L. 116-6; P.L. 116-94; P.L. 116-123; P.L. 116-136. U.S. Agency of International Development; P.L. 116-6; P.L. 116-94; P.L. 116-123; P.L. 116-136.
Note: FY2020 actuals represent the enacted appropriation, including the coronavirus supplemental. FY2020 actuals represent the enacted appropriation, including the coronavirus supplemental.
If enacted, the requested SFOPS funding level would If enacted, the requested SFOPS funding level would behave been the lowest in over a the lowest in over a ~~decad~~e decade (Figure 2).
Figure 2. SFOPS Funding, FY2010-FY2021 ~~Request~~
(In billions of U.S. dollars) (In billions of U.S. dollars)
706560555045403530 Total, Current $ Total, Constant 2020$
Sources: Annual SFOPS CBJs; P.L. 116-94; P.L. 116-123; P.L. 116-136 Annual SFOPS CBJs; P.L. 116-94; P.L. 116-123; P.L. 116-136; P.L. 116-260; CRS calculations. ; CRS calculations.
The Budget Control Act, OCO, and COVID-19 Funds
Since FY2012, the appropriations process has been shaped by the discretionary spending caps put Since FY2012, the appropriations process has been shaped by the discretionary spending caps put
in place by the Budget Control Act of 2011 (BCA; P.L. 112-25). FY2021 is the last year covered in place by the Budget Control Act of 2011 (BCA; P.L. 112-25). FY2021 is the last year covered
by the Act. Congress has managed the constraints imposed by the BCA in part by repeatedly by the Act. Congress has managed the constraints imposed by the BCA in part by repeatedly
amending the BCA to raise the caps, most recently with the Bipartisan Budget Act of 2019 (BBA amending the BCA to raise the caps, most recently with the Bipartisan Budget Act of 2019 (BBA
2019; P.L. 116-37). The BBA 2019 raised discretionary spending limits set by the BCA for 2019; P.L. 116-37). The BBA 2019 raised discretionary spending limits set by the BCA for
FY2020 and FY2021, the final two years the BCA caps are in effect.3 FY2020 and FY2021, the final two years the BCA caps are in effect.3
~~In addition to raising the caps, Congress has worked around the BCA limits by designating a~~
~~portion of annual SFOPS appropriations as “Overseas Contingency Operations (OCO)” or~~

3 For more information on BBA 2019, see CRS Insight IN11148, 3 For more information on BBA 2019, see CRS Insight IN11148, The Bipartisan Budget Act of 2019: Changes to the
BCA and Debt Limit, by Grant A. Driessen and Megan S. Lynch. , by Grant A. Driessen and Megan S. Lynch.
Congressional Research Service Congressional Research Service
2 2

SFOPS: FY2021 Budget and Appropriations

In addition to raising the caps, Congress has worked around the BCA limits by designating a portion of annual SFOPS appropriations as “Overseas Contingency Operations (OCO)” or “emergency” funding, both of which are excluded from BCA discretionary budget limits. “emergency” funding, both of which are excluded from BCA discretionary budget limits.
Congress began appropriating OCO in the SFOPS budget in FY2012, having previously provided Congress began appropriating OCO in the SFOPS budget in FY2012, having previously provided
OCO funds for the Department of Defense (DOD). Originally used to support shorter-term, OCO funds for the Department of Defense (DOD). Originally used to support shorter-term,
contingency-related programming in Afghanistan, Iraq, and Pakistan that was not considered part contingency-related programming in Afghanistan, Iraq, and Pakistan that was not considered part
of the “base” or “core” budget, OCO’s use expanded considerably in level and scope between of the “base” or “core” budget, OCO’s use expanded considerably in level and scope between
FY2012 and FY2017. Global SFOPS OCO funding peaked at $20.80 billion in FY2017 (nearly FY2012 and FY2017. Global SFOPS OCO funding peaked at $20.80 billion in FY2017 (nearly
35% of SFOPS funds that year), at which point it was used to support 18 different SFOPS 35% of SFOPS funds that year), at which point it was used to support 18 different SFOPS
accounts, ranging from USAID operating expenses and the Office of Inspector General to accounts, ranging from USAID operating expenses and the Office of Inspector General to
International Disaster Assistance and Foreign Military Financing. This broad use has led many International Disaster Assistance and Foreign Military Financing. This broad use has led many
observers to question whether the OCO designation makes a meaningful distinction between core observers to question whether the OCO designation makes a meaningful distinction between core
and contingency activities, with some describing OCO (in both SFOPS and Defense and contingency activities, with some describing OCO (in both SFOPS and Defense
appropriations) as a slush fund.4 appropriations) as a slush fund.4
The The ~~Administration has not~~Trump Administration last requested OCO funds for SFOPS requested OCO funds for SFOPS ~~since~~for FY2018, though it FY2018, though it ~~has~~
~~continued~~ continued to request OCO funds in the DOD budget. Nevertheless, Congress designated $8.00 to request OCO funds in the DOD budget. Nevertheless, Congress designated $8.00
billion of enacted SFOPS funding in both FY2019 and FY2020 as OCObillion of enacted SFOPS funding in both FY2019 and FY2020 as OCO~~, continuing a downward~~
~~trend in the use of OCO since the FY2017 peak~~. .
In addition to OCO funds, Congress has periodically used funding designated as “emergency” to In addition to OCO funds, Congress has periodically used funding designated as “emergency” to
address a range of unanticipated needs, including response to Ebola and Zika virus outbreaks, and address a range of unanticipated needs, including response to Ebola and Zika virus outbreaks, and
countering a surge in ISIS activity. In FY2020, Congress appropriated $2.37 billion in countering a surge in ISIS activity. In FY2020, Congress appropriated $2.37 billion in
supplemental emergency SFOPS funding to address needs related to the Coronavirus Disease supplemental emergency SFOPS funding to address needs related to the Coronavirus Disease
2019 (COVID-19) pandemic abroad. Like OCO-designated funding, emergency-designated 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic abroad. Like OCO-designated funding, emergency-designated
funding does not count toward the BCA discretionary spending caps and may therefore be used as funding does not count toward the BCA discretionary spending caps and may therefore be used as
an alternative to the OCO designation. Before the use of OCO in SFOPS, supplemental an alternative to the OCO designation. Before the use of OCO in SFOPS, supplemental
emergency appropriations were the primary mechanism for funding contingency activities. emergency appropriations were the primary mechanism for funding contingency activities.
Both categories of BCA-exempt funding were used by Congress in the FY2020 SFOPS bill, Both categories of BCA-exempt funding were used by Congress in the FY2020 SFOPS bill,
though neither were requested by the though neither were requested by the Trump Administration. The House-passed FY2021 Administration. The House-passed FY2021 ~~legislation~~
~~would continue~~legislation continued this practice, this practice, ~~as it includes~~including $8.00 billion in OCO funds and an additional $10.02 $8.00 billion in OCO funds and an additional $10.02
billion designated as emergency funding. billion designated as emergency funding.
The enacted FY2021 appropriation, P.L. 116-206, included $8.25 billion designated as OCO and an additional $5.27 billion in designated emergency funding for Consular and Border Security Programs, Sudan, Global Health Programs, the Economic Support Fund, and Debt Restructuring. Congressional Action on FY2021 SFOPS Legislation
Congressional action on SFOPS and other FY2021 appropriations was delayed by disruption of Congressional action on SFOPS and other FY2021 appropriations was delayed by disruption of
congressional activity related to the COVID-19 pandemic. Congress held some hearings on the congressional activity related to the COVID-19 pandemic. Congress held some hearings on the
FY2021 budget request before most hearings were postponed in March 2020. House FY2021 budget request before most hearings were postponed in March 2020. House
appropriators resumed work in July, approving a FY2021 SFOPS bill on July 9, 2020, which was appropriators resumed work in July, approving a FY2021 SFOPS bill on July 9, 2020, which was
approved by the full House on July 24, 2020 as part of a 4-bill appropriations package (H.R. approved by the full House on July 24, 2020 as part of a 4-bill appropriations package (H.R.
7608, Division A). The Senate SFOPS Subcommittee 7608, Division A). The Senate SFOPS Subcommittee ~~has yet to~~did not consider FY2021 legislation. consider FY2021 legislation.
Having enacted no FY2021 appropriations by the start of the new fiscal year on October 1, 2020, Having enacted no FY2021 appropriations by the start of the new fiscal year on October 1, 2020,
Congress enacted a Congress enacted a ~~continuing resolution (CR; H.R. 8337) to fund government agencies at the~~
~~FY2020 level through December 11, 2020. This includes all SFOPS accounts. The President~~
~~signed the CR into law (P.L. 116-159) on October 1, 2020.~~series of continuing resolutions to continue funding government agencies at

4 For more information on the use of OCO in the international affairs budget, see CRS In Focus IF10143, 4 For more information on the use of OCO in the international affairs budget, see CRS In Focus IF10143, Foreign
Affairs Overseas Contingency Operations (OCO) Funding: Background and Current Status, by Emily M. Morgenstern. , by Emily M. Morgenstern.
Congressional Research Service Congressional Research Service
3 3

SFOPS: FY2021 Budget and Appropriations

the FY2020 level until P.L. 116-260, the Omnibus and COVID Relief and Response Act (which include SFOPS appropriations as Division K) was signed into law on December 27, 2020.5 Table 2. Status of FY2021 SFOPS Appropriations
(In billions of U.S. dollars) (In billions of U.S. dollars)
302(b)
Committee

Allocations
Action
Floor Action
Conference Agreement
Chamber
House
Senate
House
Senate
House
Senate
House
Senate
Final
Date
7/9/20 7/9/20

7/9/20 7/9/20

7/24/20 7/24/20

12/21 12/21 12/27 Total $
$48.01 $48.01

$66.03 $66.03

$66.03 $66.03

$60.98 $60.98 $60.98 Source: H.R. 7608; House 302(b) allocation table, available at: H.R. 7608; House 302(b) allocation table, available at:
https://appropriations.house.gov/sites/democrats.appropriations.house.gov/files/Alloc1.pdfhttps://appropriations.house.gov/sites/democrats.appropriations.house.gov/files/Alloc1.pdf; P.L. 116-260. .
Notes: The 302(b) allocation of budget authority does not include emergency or OCO funds. Funding totals The 302(b) allocation of budget authority does not include emergency or OCO funds. Funding totals
account for rescissions. account for rescissions.
House Legislation. The House-passed bill, H.R. 7608, Division A, would . The House-passed bill, H.R. 7608, Division A, would ~~provide~~have provided a total of a total of
$66.10 billion in total new budget authority for SFOPS accounts ($66.03 billion net after $66.10 billion in total new budget authority for SFOPS accounts ($66.03 billion net after
rescissions), nearly 50% more than the rescissions), nearly 50% more than the Trump Administration’s total request and 15% more than the Administration’s total request and 15% more than the
enacted FY2020 appropriation (including supplementals). Of that amount, $18.02 billion (27%) enacted FY2020 appropriation (including supplementals). Of that amount, $18.02 billion (27%)
was designated as emergency or OCO funding, including $10.02 billion in emergency funding was designated as emergency or OCO funding, including $10.02 billion in emergency funding
~~related to COVID-19.~~
related to COVID-19. P.L. 116-260. The omnibus FY2021 appropriations legislation passed by both the House and Senate on December 21, 2020, and signed into law on December 27, 2020, included SFOPS appropriations in Division K. The bill provided $61.59 billion in new budget authority ($60.98 billion after rescission), including $17.29 billion for State Department Operations and related accounts, and $44.22 billion for Foreign Operations accounts. State Department Operations and Related
Agency Highlights
The FY2021 request would The FY2021 request would have cut funding for the Department of State and Related Agency cut funding for the Department of State and Related Agency
appropriations accounts to $14.03 billion, down 18.9% from an enacted FY2020 level of $17.31 appropriations accounts to $14.03 billion, down 18.9% from an enacted FY2020 level of $17.31
billion (including $588 million in COVID-19 supplemental funds).billion (including $588 million in COVID-19 supplemental funds).56 The The Trump Administration’s Administration’s ~~request~~
~~does~~request, submitted before COVID-19 was declared a global pandemic, did not include funds to support the State Department’s response to the not include funds to support the State Department’s response to the ~~COVID-19~~ pandemic. pandemic.
To date, Congress has provided all State Department operations funding for COVID-19-related To date, Congress has provided all State Department operations funding for COVID-19-related
matters through two FY2020 supplemental appropriations acts (P.L. 116-123 and P.L. 116-136)matters through two FY2020 supplemental appropriations acts (P.L. 116-123 and P.L. 116-136).
~~The~~ and Title IX of the FY2021 SFOPS appropriations law (Division K of P.L. 116-260). 5 The continuing resolutions were P.L. 116-159, P.L. 116-215, P.L. 116-225, and P.L. 116-226, and P.L. 116-246. 6 Congress provided $264 million in COVID-19 supplemental funds the Diplomatic Programs account pursuant to P.L. 116-123, the Coronavirus Preparedness and Response Supplemental Appropriations Act, 2020. Subsequently, Congress provided an additional $324 million COVID-19 supplemental funds for the same account pursuant to the Coronavirus Aid, Relief, and Economic Security (CARES) Act (P.L. 116-136). Congressional Research Service 4 link to page 9 link to page 10 SFOPS: FY2021 Budget and Appropriations The Trump Administration’s stated priorities for funding provided via Department of State and Related Administration’s stated priorities for funding provided via Department of State and Related
Agency accounts in FY2021 Agency accounts in FY2021 ~~include~~included
 supporting the Indo-Pacific Strategy;  supporting the Indo-Pacific Strategy;
 countering Chinese, Russian, and Iranian malign influence;  countering Chinese, Russian, and Iranian malign influence;
 protecting U.S. government personnel, facilities, and data assets; and  protecting U.S. government personnel, facilities, and data assets; and
 maintaining American leadership in international organizations while asking  maintaining American leadership in international organizations while asking
other nations to increase their support. other nations to increase their support.67
H.R. 7608, the House legislation, would H.R. 7608, the House legislation, would ~~provide~~have provided about $17.56 billion for the State Department about $17.56 billion for the State Department
and Related Agency accounts. This and Related Agency accounts. This ~~marks~~would have marked an increase of 1.4% from the FY2020 enacted level an increase of 1.4% from the FY2020 enacted level
and a 25.2% increase from the and a 25.2% increase from the Trump Administration’s request. Of the Administration’s request. Of the funds provided in the House legislation, $959.40 million would have comprised additional funding for State Department operations related to COVID-19. The omnibus appropriations law, P.L. 116-260, included $17.29 billion for the Department of State and Related Agency accounts. While this funding total constituted a -0.1% decline from the FY2020 enacted level and a 1.6% cut relative to the House bill, it exceeded the Trump Administration’s FY2021 request by 23.2%. Some of this funding increase relative to the Administration’s request was due to emergency funding for State Department operations provided in Title IX of the SFOPS appropriation. Such funding was provided for consular operations to offset losses of consular fee and surcharge revenues resulting from the COVID-19 pandemic (see the “COVID-19 and State Department Operations” text box) and, separately, to compensate victims of the 1998 bombings of the U.S. embassies in Kenya and Tanzania. Table 3 provides a comparative breakout of the Trump ~~funds provided in the House~~

~~5 Congress provided $264 million in COVID-19 supplemental funds the Diplomatic Programs account pursuant to P.L.~~
~~116-123, the Coronavirus Preparedness and Response Supplemental Appropriations Act, 2020. Subsequently, Congress~~
~~provided an additional $324 million COVID-19 supplemental funds for the same account pursuant to the Coronavirus~~
~~Aid, Relief, and Economic Security (CARES) Act (P.L. 116-136).~~
~~6 Letter transmitted from Secretary of State Michael R. Pompeo to Congress, February 10, 2020.~~
~~Congressional Research Service~~
4

~~link to page 9 link to page 9~~ ~~SFOPS: FY2021 Budget and Appropriations~~

~~legislation, $959.40 million would comprise additional funding for State Department operations~~
~~related to COVID-19.~~
~~Table 3~~ ~~provides a comparative breakout of the~~ Administration’s State Department and Related Administration’s State Department and Related
Agency request, by Agency request, by ~~account~~selected accounts. .
Table 3. State Department and Related Agency: Selected Accounts
(In billions of current U.S. dollars; includes OCO funds) (In billions of current U.S. dollars; includes OCO funds)
% % change, change, FY20 FY20
~~% change,~~
~~FY20~~ enacted

enacted FY2019
FY2020
FY2021
to FY21
FY2021 FY2021 to FY21
Account
Actual
Enacted
Request
request
House
Enacted enacted Diplomatic Programs
9.25 9.25
9.71 9.71
8.49 8.49
-12.6% -12.6%
10.14 10.14
9.32 -4.1% Worldwide Security ~~Protection~~
4.10
4.10
3.70
-9.8% -9.8%
4.10
4.12 0.6% Protection Embassy Security,
1.98 1.98
1.98 1.98
1.68 1.68
-14.8% -14.8%
1.98 1.98
1.95 -1.3% Construction & Maintenance
Educational and ~~Cultural~~
0.70 0.70
0.73 0.73
0.31 0.31
-57.6% -57.6%
0.74 0.74
0.74 1.3% Cultural Exchange Programs
International ~~Organizations~~a
~~2.91~~
~~3.00~~
~~2.05~~
~~-31.8%~~
~~2.96~~
~~U.S. Agency for Global~~
2.91 3.00 2.05 -31.8% 2.96 2.96 -1.3% Organizationsa 7 Letter transmitted from Secretary of State Michael R. Pompeo to Congress, February 10, 2020. Congressional Research Service 5 SFOPS: FY2021 Budget and Appropriations % % change, change, FY20 FY20 enacted enacted FY2019 FY2020 FY2021 to FY21 FY2021 FY2021 to FY21 Account Actual Enacted Request request House Enacted enacted U.S. Agency for 0.81 0.81
0.81 0.81
0.64 0.64
-21.4% -21.4%
0.64 0.64
0.80 -0.9% Global Media
State and Related ~~Agency~~
16.54
17.31
14.03
-18.9%
17.56
17.29 -0.1% Agency Total
(includes Function 300 funding
and other commissions)
Sources: FY2020 and FY2021 SFOPS CBJs P.L. 116-6; P.L. 116-94; P.L. 116-123; P.L. 116-136; H.R. 7608; FY2020 and FY2021 SFOPS CBJs P.L. 116-6; P.L. 116-94; P.L. 116-123; P.L. 116-136; H.R. 7608; P.L. 116-260; CRS CRS
calculations. calculations.
Notes: Percentage changes may not reflect numbers included in this table due to rounding. State and Related Percentage changes may not reflect numbers included in this table due to rounding. State and Related
Agency totals include additional funding for accounts not listed above. Agency totals include additional funding for accounts not listed above.
FY2020 enacted includes funds from the first and third supplemental appropriations for the novel coronavirus FY2020 enacted includes funds from the first and third supplemental appropriations for the novel coronavirus
(P.L. 116-123 and P.L. 116-136, respectively). (P.L. 116-123 and P.L. 116-136, respectively).
FY2021 House legislation figures for the Diplomatic Programs account and the State and Related Agency Total FY2021 House legislation figures for the Diplomatic Programs account and the State and Related Agency Total
includes funding designated for the novel coronavirus in Title VIII of H.R. 7608. includes funding designated for the novel coronavirus in Title VIII of H.R. 7608.
The aggregate FY2021 enacted figure includes funds designated in Title IX for the Consular and Border Security Programs account and for Sudan claims (the Sudan claims figure of $150 mil ion is also reflected in the Diplomatic Programs total) a. Includes Contributions to International Organizations and Contributions for International Peacekeeping a. Includes Contributions to International Organizations and Contributions for International Peacekeeping
Activities accounts, the main funding vehicles for assessed obligations (dues) to the many international Activities accounts, the main funding vehicles for assessed obligations (dues) to the many international
organizations and peacekeeping efforts that the United States supports. Excludes voluntary contributions to organizations and peacekeeping efforts that the United States supports. Excludes voluntary contributions to
multilateral organizations, which are usually provided through multilateral organizations, which are usually provided through ~~the title~~Title V of annual SFOPS appropriations laws pertaining to multilateral assistance (in P.L. 116-260). COVID-19 and State Department Operations Since the outbreak of COVID-19, the Department of State has coordinated the evacuations of thousands of U.S. personnel and private citizens abroad and taken measures intended to protect its personnel around the world. The Coronavirus Preparedness and Response Supplemental Appropriations Act, 2020 (P.L. 116-123) appropriated an additional $264 mil ion to the Diplomatic Programs account, to remain available through FY2022, for purposes that included maintaining consular operations, reimbursing evacuation expenses, and emergency preparedness. This law also amended P.L. 116-94 to allow the State Department to transfer an additional $90 mil ion in previously appropriated funds for emergency evacuations. The CARES Act (P.L. 116-136) appropriated an additional $324 mil ion to the Diplomatic Programs account for similar purposes stipulated in P.L. 116-123, while providing additional transfer authorities to fund evacuations. The FY2021 SFOPS appropriations law included $300 mil ion appropriated through Title IX for consular operations, including the adjudication of passport and visa applications and services for American citizens abroad. The law also authorized the State Department to transfer funds appropriated elsewhere to fund consular operations, fol owing consultation with Congress.8 While such consular operations are usually funded through consular fees and surcharges, including passport and visa fees, these revenues have declined considerably amid global travel restrictions imposed during the COVID-19 pandemic. Selected Programs and Priorities Consistent with its previous requests, the majority of the funding the Trump Administration requested for the Department of State and Related Agency appropriations accounts was for 8 See Section 7069(c) of P.L. 116-260. Congressional Research Service 6 SFOPS: FY2021 Budget and Appropriations diplomatic programs, diplomatic security and embassy construction, and contributions to international organizations and international peacekeeping activities. For FY2021, such programs comprised approximately 87.1% of the Trump Administration’s request and 82.3% of the enacted appropriations Congress provided for these accounts. Some of the Trump Administration’s priorities within these areas, as identified by the Department of State in its Congressional Budget Justification, are detailed below. Diplomatic Programs The Diplomatic Programs account is the State Department’s principal operating appropriation and serves as the source of funding for several key functions. These include  most domestic and overseas State Department personnel salaries;  foreign policy programs administered by State Department regional bureaus, the Bureau of Conflict and Stabilization Operations, and others;  public diplomacy programs; and  the operations of the department’s strategic and managerial units, including the Bureaus of Administration, Budget and Planning, and Legislative Affairs as well as the Office of the Chief of Protocol.9 The Trump Administration’s FY2021 request for Diplomatic Programs totaled $8.49 billion, ~~of annual SFOPS appropriations laws~~
~~pertaining to multilateral assistance (in P.L. 116-6, Title V).~~
~~Selected Programs and Priorities~~
~~Consistent with its previous requests, the majority (87.1%) of the funding the Administration is~~
~~requesting for the Department of State and Related Agency appropriations accounts is for~~
~~diplomatic programs, diplomatic security and embassy construction, and contributions to~~
~~international organizations and international peacekeeping activities. For FY2020, such programs~~
~~composed approximately 88.1% of the Administration’s request and 84.8% of the enacted~~
~~appropriations Congress provided for these accounts. Some of the Administration’s priorities~~
~~within these areas, as identified by the Department of State in its Congressional Budget~~
~~Justification, are detailed below.~~
~~Congressional Research Service~~
5

~~SFOPS: FY2021 Budget and Appropriations~~

~~Diplomatic Programs~~
~~COVID-19 and State~~
~~The Diplomatic Programs account is the State~~
~~Department Operations~~
~~Department’s principal operating~~
~~Since the outbreak of COVID-19, the Department of~~
~~appropriation and serves as the source of~~
~~State has coordinated the evacuations of thousands of~~
~~funding for several key functions. These~~
~~U.S. personnel and private citizens abroad and taken~~
~~measures intended to protect its personnel both in the~~
~~include~~
~~United States and those remaining deployed at~~

~~overseas posts. In the past, Congress has provided~~
~~most domestic and overseas State~~
~~budget authority for such activities primarily through~~
~~Department personnel salaries;~~
~~the Diplomatic Programs and Emergencies in the~~

~~Diplomatic and Consular Service (EDCS) accounts.~~
~~foreign policy programs administered~~
~~by State Department regional bureaus,~~
~~The Coronavirus Preparedness and Response~~
~~the Bureau of Conflict and~~
~~Supplemental Appropriations Act, 2020 (P.L. 116-123)~~
~~appropriated an additional $264 mil ion to the~~
~~Stabilization Operations, and others;~~
~~Diplomatic Programs account, to remain available~~
~~ public diplomacy programs; and~~
~~through FY2022, for purposes that include maintaining~~
~~consular operations, reimbursing evacuation expenses,~~
~~ the operations of the department’s~~
~~and emergency preparedness. This law also amended~~
~~strategic and managerial units,~~
~~P.L. 116-94 to increase the amount of FY2020~~
~~including the Bureaus of~~
~~Diplomatic Programs funding the State Department is~~
~~Administration, Budget and Planning,~~
~~authorized to transfer to the EDCS account for~~
~~emergency evacuations from $10 mil ion to $100~~
~~and Legislative Affairs as well as the~~
~~mil ion. The CARES Act (P.L. 116-136) appropriated an~~
~~Office of the Chief of Protocol.7~~
~~additional $324 mil ion to the Diplomatic Programs~~
~~account for these purposes. This law also amended P.L.~~
~~The Administration’s FY2021 request for~~
~~116-94 to increase the amount of funds the State~~
~~Diplomatic Programs totals $8.49 billion,~~
~~Department is authorized to transfer from the EDCS~~
~~around 12.6% less than the $9.71 billion~~
~~account to the Repatriations Loans Program Account~~
~~Congress provided for this account in FY2020~~
~~(which pays for costs associated with loans provided to~~
~~destitute U.S. citizens abroad who have no other~~
~~(this amount includes~~around 12.6% less than the $9.71 billion Congress provided for this account in FY2020 (this amount included $588 million Congress provided for Diplomatic Programs in FY2020 supplemental COVID-19 funds; see text box on the previous page ~~$588 million Congress~~
~~source of funds to return to the United States); the~~
~~provided for Diplomatic Programs in FY2020~~
~~increase was from $1 mil ion to $5 mil ion. Among~~
~~supplemental COVID-19 funds; see text box~~
~~other provisions, this law also authorizes the State~~
for more detail). The for more detail). The Administration’s request sought $138 million for the Global Engagement Center (GEC), which is responsible for leading interagency efforts to recognize, ~~Administration’s request~~
~~Department to grant additional paid leave to address~~
~~seeks $138 million for the Global Engagement~~
~~employee hardships resulting from COVID-19 and to~~
~~provide, on a reimbursable basis to the extent feasible,~~
~~Center (GEC), which is responsible for~~
~~medical services for private U.S. citizens, nationals, and~~
~~leading interagency efforts to recognize,~~
~~permanent resident aliens abroad who are otherwise~~
understand, expose, and counter foreign understand, expose, and counter foreign state ~~state~~
~~unable to obtain such services.~~
and non-state propaganda and disinformation and non-state propaganda and disinformation
efforts aimed at undermining U.S. interests, including those carried out from Russia, China, and efforts aimed at undermining U.S. interests, including those carried out from Russia, China, and
Iran.Iran.810 The Administration The Administration ~~maintains~~maintained that that this request, which would have significantly increased funding for the GEC from recent year levels that ranged from around $60-75 million, would have allowed the GEC to meet “the growing challenge of countering foreign propaganda and disinformation.”11 The Trump Administration’s request also included an intended realignment of personnel and funding from the Bureau of Global Talent Management (formerly the Bureau of Human Resources); the Bureau of Arms Control, Verification, and Compliance; and the Office of the Coordinator for Cyber Issues to establish a new Bureau for Cyber Security and Emerging Technologies (CSET). The State Department first notified Congress of its intent to create this new bureau in June 2019. It was intended to be responsible for supporting “foreign policies and initiatives to promote U.S. cyber and emerging technology policies and deter adversaries from malicious and destabilizing behavior in their use and application of such technologies.”12 Some 9~~this request, which would constitute a $76 million~~
~~increase in annual funding for the GEC provided through SFOPS, would alleviate the need for~~
~~DOD to transfer funds for GEC operations. Some Members of Congress and other observers have~~
~~expressed concern regarding past DOD transfers, arguing that DOD has not transferred funding to~~
~~the State Department in an expeditious manner or at funding levels that reflect congressional~~
~~intent.9~~

7 U.S. Department of State, U.S. Department of State, Congressional Budget Justification: Department of State, Foreign Operations, and Related
Programs, Fiscal Year ~~20201~~2021, February 10, 2020, pp. 10-18. , February 10, 2020, pp. 10-18.
810 U.S. Department of State, “Global Engagement Center,” https://www.state.gov/bureaus-offices/under-secretary-for- U.S. Department of State, “Global Engagement Center,” https://www.state.gov/bureaus-offices/under-secretary-for-
public-diplomacy-and-public-affairs/global-engagement-center/. public-diplomacy-and-public-affairs/global-engagement-center/.
~~9 For example, see Senator Robert Menendez, “Menendez Calls for Swift Action on Countering Kremlin Propaganda~~
~~With Congressionally Authorized Funds,” March 5, 2018, https://www.menendez.senate.gov/news-and-events/press/~~
~~menendez-calls-for-swift-action-on-countering-kremlin-propaganda-with-congressionally-authorized-funds; and~~
~~Congressional Research Service~~
6

~~link to page 11~~ ~~SFOPS: FY2021 Budget and Appropriations~~

~~The Administration’s request also includes a realignment of personnel and funding from the~~
~~Bureau of Global Talent Management (formerly the Bureau of Human Resources); the Bureau of~~
~~Arms Control, Verification, and Compliance; and the Office of the Coordinator for Cyber Issues~~
~~to establish a new Bureau for Cyber Security and Emerging Technologies (CSET). The State~~
~~Department first notified Congress of its intent to create this new bureau in June 2019. It will be~~
~~responsible for supporting “foreign policies and initiatives to promote U.S. cyber and emerging~~
~~technology policies and deter adversaries from malicious and destabilizing behavior in their use~~
~~and application of such technologies.”10 Some observers have expressed criticism over~~11 Testimony of Special Envoy & Coordinator for the Global Engagement Center Lea Gabrielle before the Senate Foreign Relations Subcommittee on State Department and USAID Management, International Operations, and Bilateral International Development, March 5, 2020, https://www.foreign.senate.gov/imo/media/doc/030520_Gabrielle_Testimony.pdf. 12 U.S. Department of State, Congressional Budget Justification, p. 11. Congressional Research Service 7 link to page 13 SFOPS: FY2021 Budget and Appropriations observers, including some Members of Congress, criticized elements elements
of the State Department’s plan for CSET, arguing that additional cyber-related matters such as of the State Department’s plan for CSET, arguing that additional cyber-related matters such as
~~global internet governance should be included in the bureau’s remit. However, it appears that this~~
~~issue and related matters will instead remain under the purview of the Bureau of Economic and~~
~~Business Affairs.11~~global internet governance and digital economy issues should have been included in the bureau’s remit.13
The House legislation, H.R. 7608, The House legislation, H.R. 7608, ~~includes~~included $10.14 billion for Diplomatic Programs, $955 million $10.14 billion for Diplomatic Programs, $955 million
of which of which iswas designated “to prevent, prepare for, and respond to coronavirus,” including with designated “to prevent, prepare for, and respond to coronavirus,” including with
regard to evacuation expenses, emergency preparedness, and maintaining consular operations. regard to evacuation expenses, emergency preparedness, and maintaining consular operations.
This figure This figure ~~totals~~would have totaled 4.4% more than the FY2020 enacted level for this account and 19.4% more than 4.4% more than the FY2020 enacted level for this account and 19.4% more than
the Administration’s request. The report accompanying this legislation (H.Rept. 116-444) the Administration’s request. The report accompanying this legislation (H.Rept. 116-444) ~~notes~~
noted support for the GEC’s work and support for the GEC’s work and ~~states~~stated that the GEC’s operating plan submitted to Congress that the GEC’s operating plan submitted to Congress
should describe its coordination with DOD regarding the proposed use of all FY2021 should describe its coordination with DOD regarding the proposed use of all FY2021 funding.14 The House bill did not directly address the CSET bureau. The enacted omnibus appropriation included $9.32 billion for Diplomatic Programs. This figure marked a decline of 4.1% relative to the FY2020 enacted level yet totaled 9.8% more than the Trump Administration’s FY2021 request. It also amounted to 8.1% less than what would have been provided had the House bill been enacted. The joint explanatory statement accompanying P.L. 116-260 stated that the law provided funding up to the FY2020 level for the GEC.15 This language indicates that Congress rejected the State Department’s request to increase GEC funding from the FY2020 level of $62 million. Like the House bill, the final appropriations law did not include any specific language regarding the use of appropriated funds to stand up the new CSET bureau. While former Secretary of State Mike Pompeo formally approved the creation of CSET on January 7, 2021, despite ongoing congressional concerns described above, the Biden Administration may choose to review the CSET bureau’s mission and scope of responsibility.16 Diplomatic Security For FY2021, the Trump Administration requested around $5.38 billion for the State Department’s key diplomatic security accounts: $3.70 billion for the Worldwide Security Protection (WSP) allocation within the Diplomatic Programs account and $1.68 billion for the Embassy Security, Construction, and Maintenance (ESCM) account. The Administration’s request represented a decrease of 11.4% from the FY2020 enacted funding level (see Table 4). 13~~funding.12~~
~~Diplomatic Security~~
~~For FY2021, the Administration requests around $5.38 billion for the State Department’s key~~
~~diplomatic security accounts: $3.70 billion for the Worldwide Security Protection (WSP)~~
~~allocation within the Diplomatic Programs account and $1.68 billion for the Embassy Security,~~
~~Construction, and Maintenance (ESCM) account. The Administration’s request represents a~~
~~decrease of 11.4% from the FY2020 enacted funding level (see Table 4).~~
~~Table 4. Diplomatic Security Annual Appropriations, FY2019-FY2021 Request~~
~~(In millions of current U.S. dollars, includes OCO funds)~~
~~% change,~~
~~FY20~~
~~enacted to~~
~~FY2019~~
~~FY2020~~
~~FY2021~~
~~FY21~~
~~FY2021~~
~~Account~~
~~Actual~~
~~Enacted~~
~~Request~~
~~request~~
~~House~~
~~Worldwide Security~~
~~4.10~~
~~4.10~~
~~3.70~~
~~-9.8%~~
~~4.10~~
~~Protection~~

~~Senator Rob Portman, “At Senate Foreign Relations Committee Hearing, Portman Questions Secretary Pompeo on~~
~~Global Engagement Center, Continuing Aid for Ukraine, and Expanding Sanctions on Russia,” April 10, 2019, at~~
~~https://www.portman.senate.gov/newsroom/press-releases/senate-foreign-relations-committee-hearing-portman-~~
~~questions-secretary.~~
~~10 U.S. Department of State, Congressional Budget Justification, p. 11.~~
11 Sean Lyngaas, “State Department proposes new $20.8 million cybersecurity bureau,” Sean Lyngaas, “State Department proposes new $20.8 million cybersecurity bureau,” Cyberscoop, June 5, 2019, at , June 5, 2019, at
https://www.cyberscoop.com/state-department-proposes-new-20-8-million-cybersecurity-bureau/. https://www.cyberscoop.com/state-department-proposes-new-20-8-million-cybersecurity-bureau/.
1214 U.S. Congress, House Committee on Appropriations, U.S. Congress, House Committee on Appropriations, State Foreign Operations, and Related Programs
Appropriations Bill, 2021, report to accompany H.R. 7608, 116th Cong., 1nd sess., H.Rept. 116-444, (Washington, DC: , report to accompany H.R. 7608, 116th Cong., 1nd sess., H.Rept. 116-444, (Washington, DC:
GPO, 2020). pp. 14-15GPO, 2020). pp. 14-15. 15 Joint Explanatory Statement Accompanying Division K of P.L. 116-260, p. 8. 16 U.S. Department of State, “Secretary Pompeo Approves New Cyberspace Security and Emerging Technologies Bureau,” January 7, 2021, https://2017-2021.state.gov/secretary-pompeo-approves-new-cyberspace-security-and-emerging-technologies-bureau//index.html. Congressional Research Service 8 link to page 10 .
~~Congressional Research Service~~
7

SFOPS: FY2021 Budget and Appropriations

~~% change,~~
~~FY20~~
~~enacted to~~
~~FY2019~~
~~FY2020~~
~~FY2021~~
~~FY21~~
~~FY2021~~Table 4. Diplomatic Security Annual Appropriations, FY2019-FY2021 (In millions of current U.S. dollars, includes OCO funds) % % change, change, FY20 FY20 enacted enacted FY2019 FY2020 FY2021 to FY21 FY2021 FY2021 to FY21
Account
Actual
Enacted
Request
request
House
Enacted enacted Worldwide Security 4.10 4.10 3.70 -9.8% 4.10 4.12 0.6% Protection Embassy Security, Embassy Security,
1.98 1.98
1.98 1.98
1.68 1.68
-14.8% -14.8%
1.98 1.98
1.95 -1.3% Construction, and Construction, and
Maintenance Maintenance
Diplomatic ~~Security~~
6.08
6.08
5.38
-11.4%
6.08
6.07 0%a Security (total)
Sources: FY2021 SFOPS CBJ; P.L. 116-94; H.R. 7608; FY2021 SFOPS CBJ; P.L. 116-94; H.R. 7608; P.L. 116-260; CRS calculations. CRS calculations.
Notes: Percentage changes may not reflect numbers included in this table due to rounding. Annual Percentage changes may not reflect numbers included in this table due to rounding. Annual
appropriations data do not reflect available carryover funds.appropriations data do not reflect available carryover funds.13
~~The Administration is proposing~~17 a. Aggregate funding appropriated to the diplomatic security accounts in both FY2020 and FY2021 totaled $6,071,348,000. However, rounding the disaggregated funding levels for the WSP allocation and the ESCM account, which slightly differed across these two fiscal years, made it appear that the aggregate funding levels were not identical. The Trump Administration proposed that Congress decouple WSP from Diplomatic Programs and that Congress decouple WSP from Diplomatic Programs and
establish a standalone WSP account (see text box). WSP funds the Bureau of Diplomatic Security establish a standalone WSP account (see text box). WSP funds the Bureau of Diplomatic Security
(DS), which is responsible for implementing the department’s security programs to protect U.S. (DS), which is responsible for implementing the department’s security programs to protect U.S.
embassies and other overseas posts, diplomatic residences, and domestic State Department embassies and other overseas posts, diplomatic residences, and domestic State Department
offices. In addition, WSP supports many of the State Department’s security and emergency offices. In addition, WSP supports many of the State Department’s security and emergency
response programs, including those pertaining to operational medicine and security and crisis response programs, including those pertaining to operational medicine and security and crisis
management training.management training.1418 The ESCM account funds the Bureau of Overseas Building Operations The ESCM account funds the Bureau of Overseas Building Operations
(OBO), which is responsible for providing U.S. diplomatic and consular missions overseas with (OBO), which is responsible for providing U.S. diplomatic and consular missions overseas with
secure, functional, and resilient facilities and managing nonmilitary U.S. government property secure, functional, and resilient facilities and managing nonmilitary U.S. government property
abroad.abroad.1519
The The Trump Administration’s WSP-funded priorities Administration’s WSP-funded priorities
~~Proposed Standalone WSP Account~~
~~for FY2021 include~~for FY2021 included the hiring of an the hiring of an additional 110 special agents at DS, which the Administration maintained was necessary to address critical overseas vacancies. In addition, the Administration sought funding to deploy High ~~additional~~
~~The Worldwide Security Protection (WSP) subaccount~~
~~110 special agents at DS, which the~~
~~within the Diplomatic Programs account has been used~~
~~Administration maintains is necessary to~~
~~to fund programs that the State Department’s Bureau~~
~~address critical overseas vacancies. In~~
~~of Diplomatic Security (DS) and other bureaus~~
~~implement to protect the department’s staff, property,~~
~~addition, the Administration intends to deploy~~
~~and information. Similar to the FY2020 request, the~~
~~High Definition Secure Video Systems~~
~~FY2021 proposal requests that Congress create a new~~
~~(HDSVS) at overseas posts worldwide. The~~
~~WSP standalone account and authorize the transfer of~~
~~Administration has stated these systems will~~
~~all unobligated WSP funds into this account by no later~~
~~provide enhanced monitoring capabilities at~~
~~than the onset of FY2022 (October 1, 2021). The~~
~~Administration maintains that creating this account wil~~
~~overseas posts, including greater video~~
~~increase the transparency of WSP expenditures by~~
~~resolution and enhanced nighttime visibility.16~~
~~more clearly disaggregating funding for diplomatic~~
~~At the same time, the Administration has~~
~~programs from that for security-related activities.~~
~~proposed a cut of $109 million for DS~~
~~operations in Afghanistan, which it says is consistent with the consolidation of DS-managed~~
Definition Secure Video Systems (HDSVS) at overseas posts worldwide. The Administration stated these systems would provide enhanced monitoring capabilities, including greater video resolution and enhanced nighttime visibility.20
1317 Over the past several years, Congress provided no-year appropriations for both WSP and ESCM, thereby authorizing Over the past several years, Congress provided no-year appropriations for both WSP and ESCM, thereby authorizing
the State Department to indefinitely retain appropriated funds beyond the fiscal year for which they were appropriated. the State Department to indefinitely retain appropriated funds beyond the fiscal year for which they were appropriated.
As a result, the department has carried over large balances of unexpired, unobligated WSP and ESCM funds each year As a result, the department has carried over large balances of unexpired, unobligated WSP and ESCM funds each year
that it is authorized to obligate for purposes including multiyear construction projects and unexpected security that it is authorized to obligate for purposes including multiyear construction projects and unexpected security
contingencies. contingencies.
1418 U.S. Department of State, U.S. Department of State, Congressional Budget Justification, p. 14. , p. 14.
1519 U.S. Department of State, U.S. Department of State, Congressional Budget Justification, Appendix 1: Department of State Diplomatic
Engagement, Fiscal Year 2021, February 10, 2020, p. 328. , February 10, 2020, p. 328.
1620 U.S. Department of State, U.S. Department of State, Congressional Budget Justification, p. 14. , p. 14.
Congressional Research Service Congressional Research Service
8

~~link to page 15~~ 9 SFOPS: FY2021 Budget and Appropriations

~~locations in the country and a corresponding reduction in costs for guard services and logistical~~
~~support.17~~
~~The Administration’s ESCM request includes~~The Trump Administration’s ESCM request Proposed Standalone WSP Account included $866.67 million for the State Department’s share of $866.67 million for the State Department’s share of
the Capital Security the Capital Security ~~Cost Sharing and Maintenance Cost Sharing Programs, which are the sources~~
~~of funding for the planning, design, construction, and maintenance of the United States’ overseas~~
~~diplomatic posts. The Administration maintains that this request, when combined with funds~~
~~contributed by other agencies with personnel at overseas posts and visa fee revenues, will fund~~
~~these programs at the $2.20 billion level recommended by the Benghazi~~ The Worldwide Security Protection (WSP) subaccount within the Diplomatic Programs account has been used Cost Sharing and Maintenance Cost Sharing to fund programs that the State Department’s Bureau Programs (CSCS/MCS), which fund the of Diplomatic Security (DS) and other bureaus planning, design, construction, and implement to protect the department’s staff, property, maintenance of the United States’ overseas and information. Similar to the FY2020 request, the diplomatic posts. The Administration FY2021 proposal requested that Congress create a new WSP standalone account and authorize the maintained that this request, when combined transfer of all unobligated WSP funds into this account with funds contributed by other agencies with by no later than the onset of FY2022 (October 1, overseas personnel and visa fee revenues, 2021). The Trump Administration maintained that would fund these programs at the $2.20 billion creating this account wil increase the transparency of level recommended by the Benghazi WSP expenditures by more clearly disaggregating funding for diplomatic programs from that for security- Accountability Review Accountability Review
Board.Board.1821 Construction related activities. Congress refrained from ~~Construction~~ projects the Administration projects the Administration ~~is seeking~~sought to fund implementing the Administration’s request in the ~~to fund~~ through this request through this request ~~include~~
included a new embassy FY2021 SFOPS appropriations law. ~~a new embassy~~ compound in Riyadh, Saudi Arabia, and new consulate compounds in Adana, compound in Riyadh, Saudi Arabia, and new consulate compounds in Adana,
Turkey, and Rio de Janeiro, Brazil.Turkey, and Rio de Janeiro, Brazil.1922
The House legislation (H.R. 7608) The House legislation (H.R. 7608) ~~includes~~, if enacted, would have provided a total of $6.08 billion for the State Department’s a total of $6.08 billion for the State Department’s
diplomatic security accounts. This figure diplomatic security accounts. This figure iswas equal to the FY2020 enacted level for these accounts equal to the FY2020 enacted level for these accounts
~~and totals~~and totaled 13.0% more than the 13.0% more than the Trump Administration’s request (see Administration’s request (see Table 4).).2023 H.Rept. 116-444 H.Rept. 116-444 ~~states~~
stated that this funding that this funding ~~includes~~included resources to deploy HDSVS at overseas posts worldwide and hire 110 resources to deploy HDSVS at overseas posts worldwide and hire 110
new DS agents, as requested by the Administration.new DS agents, as requested by the Administration.2124 The House legislation The House legislation ~~does~~did not seek to not seek to
implement the Administration’s request for a standalone WSP account.implement the Administration’s request for a standalone WSP account.
~~Assessed Contributions to International Organizations and~~
~~Peacekeeping Missions~~
~~The Contributions to International Organizations (CIO) account is the funding vehicle for the~~
~~United States’ payments of its assessed contributions (membership dues) to over 40 organizations.~~
~~These include the United Nations (U.N.) and its specialized agencies (among them, the World~~
~~Health Organization, or WHO), inter-American organizations such as the Organization of~~
~~American States, and the North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO), among others.22 U.S.~~
~~funding to international organizations is also provided through the various SFOPS multilateral~~
~~assistance accounts, as described in the “Foreign Operations Highlights” section of this report.~~
~~Separately, the United States pays its assessed contributions to most U.N. peacekeeping missions~~
~~through the Contributions for International Peacekeeping Operations (CIPA) account.23~~

~~17 U.S. Department of State, Congressional Budget Justification, p. 15.~~
18 The enacted FY2021 appropriations law provided $4.12 billion for WSP and $1.95 billion for ESCM, for a total of approximately $6.07 billion in diplomatic security funding. This aggregate funding level exceeded the Trump Administration’s request by about 12.9% and was equal to both the funding level that would have been provided in the House bill and the FY2020 appropriation. While the aggregate funding levels were equal, the FY2021 enacted appropriation provided more funding for WSP and less funding for ESCM than the House bill and the FY2020 appropriation. Like the House bill, the enacted appropriation did not provide for the creation of a standalone WSP account, as requested by the Administration. The joint explanatory statement accompanying this law maintained the language provided in H.Rept. 116-444 regarding funding for the deployment of HDSVS and the hiring of additional DS agents. The joint explanatory statement also recommended a State Department contribution of $1.07 billion to the CSCS and MCS programs, which totaled 23.0% more than the intended contribution included in the Administration’s request.25 However, as in previous years, the Department of State and other 21 U.S. Department of State, U.S. Department of State, Congressional Budget Justification, Appendix 1: Department of State Diplomatic
Engagement, pp. 1-2. pp. 1-2.
1922 U.S. Department of State, U.S. Department of State, Congressional Budget Justification, Appendix 1: Department of State Diplomatic
Engagement, p. 331. p. 331.
2023 While H.R. 7608 and P.L. 116-94 provide identical overall funding levels for the diplomatic security accounts, H.R. While H.R. 7608 and P.L. 116-94 provide identical overall funding levels for the diplomatic security accounts, H.R.
7608 provides $200,000 more in OCO funding for ESCM, with a corresponding $200,000 decrease in ESCM base 7608 provides $200,000 more in OCO funding for ESCM, with a corresponding $200,000 decrease in ESCM base
budget funding. budget funding.
2124 House Committee on Appropriations, House Committee on Appropriations, State Foreign Operations, and Related Programs Appropriations Bill, 2021, p. , p.
13. 13.
~~22 U.S. Department of State, Congressional Budget Justification, pp. 40-41. On April 14, 2020, President Donald~~
~~Trump announced that the United States would suspend funding to the World Health Organization (WHO), pending a~~
~~60- to 90-day review, because of WHO’s “role in severely mismanaging and covering up the spread of the~~
~~coronavirus.” For more information, see CRS Insight IN11369,~~ ~~U.S. Funding to~~25 Joint Explanatory Statement Accompanying Division K of P.L. 116-260, p. 16. Congressional Research Service 10 link to page 17 link to page 15 SFOPS: FY2021 Budget and Appropriations stakeholders were authorized to determine the annual funding level and contributions for all agencies.26 Assessed Contributions to International Organizations and Peacekeeping Missions The Contributions to International Organizations (CIO) account is the funding vehicle for the United States’ payments of its assessed contributions (membership dues) to over 40 organizations. These include the United Nations (U.N.) and its specialized agencies (among them, the World Health Organization
(, or WHO)~~, by Luisa Blanchfield and Tiaji Salaam-Blyther.~~
~~23 Successive Administrations have also requested funds for the U.N. Support office in Somalia (UNSOS) under the~~
~~Contributions for International Peacekeeping Activities (CIPA) account. However, Congress generally has appropriated~~
~~funds for UNSOS through the Peacekeeping Operations (PKO) account.~~
~~Congressional Research Service~~
9

~~link to page 14~~ ~~SFOPS: FY2021 Budget and Appropriations~~

~~For FY2021, the Administration is requesting~~, inter-American organizations such as the Organization of American States, and the North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO), among others.27 U.S. funding to international organizations is also provided through the various SFOPS multilateral assistance accounts, as described in the “Foreign Operations Highlights” section of this report. Separately, the United States pays its assessed contributions to most U.N. peacekeeping missions through the Contributions for International Peacekeeping Operations (CIPA) account.28 For FY2021, the Trump Administration requested a combined $2.05 billion for these accounts. If a combined $2.05 billion for these accounts. If
enacted, this funding level would enacted, this funding level would ~~mark~~have marked a 31.8% cut from that provided by Congress for a 31.8% cut from that provided by Congress for ~~FY2020~~FY2020. .
Table 5 shows recent funding levels for each account. shows recent funding levels for each account.
Table 5. U.S. Payments of Assessments to International Organizations and
Peacekeeping Missions, FY2019-FY2021 ~~Request~~
~~(In millions~~ (In billions of current U.S. dollars; includes OCO funds) of current U.S. dollars; includes OCO funds)
% ~~change,~~
~~FY20~~
~~enacted to~~ % change, change, FY20 FY20 enacted FY2021 enacted
FY2019
FY2020
FY2021
to FY21
FY2021 Enacted to FY21
Account
Actual
Enacted
Request
request
House
enacted Contributions to Contributions to
1.36 1.36
1.47 1.47
0.97 0.97
-34.4% -34.4%
1.51 1.51
1.51 2.2% International Organizations International Organizations
Contributions for Contributions for
1.55 1.55
1.53 1.53
1.08 1.08
-29.3% -29.3%
1.46 1.46 1.46 -4.6%
International Peacekeeping International Peacekeeping
Activities Activities
Total
2.91
3.00
2.05
-31.8%
2.97 2.97 -1.3%
Sources: FY2021 SFOPS CBJ; P.L. 116-94; H.R. 7608; FY2021 SFOPS CBJ; P.L. 116-94; H.R. 7608; P.L. 116-260; CRS calculations Note: Percentage changes may not reflect numbers included in this table due to rounding. 26 For example, see Section 7004(b) of P.L. 116-260. The State Department submits its planned contributions to the CSCS and MCS programs, and the total funding levels for these programs, as part of the annual Embassy Security, Construction, and Maintenance account operating plans that it is required by law to provide to Congress pursuant to annual appropriations laws. For example, see Sec. 7061 of P.L. 116-260. 27 U.S. Department of State, Congressional Budget Justification, pp. 40-41. On April 14, 2020, President Donald Trump announced that the United States would suspend funding to the World Health Organization (WHO), pending a 60- to 90-day review, because of WHO’s “role in severely mismanaging and covering up the spread of the coronavirus.” For more information, see CRS Insight IN11369, U.S. Funding to the World Health Organization (WHO), by Luisa Blanchfield and Tiaji Salaam-Blyther. 28 Successive Administrations have also requested funds for the U.N. Support office in Somalia (UNSOS) under the Contributions for International Peacekeeping Activities (CIPA) account. However, Congress generally has appropriated funds for UNSOS through the Peacekeeping Operations (PKO) account. Congressional Research Service 11 SFOPS: FY2021 Budget and Appropriations ~~CRS calculations~~
Note: Percentage changes may not reflect numbers included in this table due to rounding.
Similar to previous budget requests, the Similar to previous budget requests, the Trump Administration’s CIO request Administration’s CIO request ~~prioritizes~~prioritized paying paying
assessments to international organizations “whose missions substantially advance U.S. foreign assessments to international organizations “whose missions substantially advance U.S. foreign
policy interests” while proposing funding cuts to those organizations whose work it policy interests” while proposing funding cuts to those organizations whose work it ~~says~~said either either
~~does~~did not directly affect U.S. national security interests or not directly affect U.S. national security interests or ~~renders~~rendered unclear results. unclear results.2429 With these With these
intentions in mind, the Administration proposed to intentions in mind, the Administration proposed to ~~eliminate funding to the Organization of~~
~~Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD), while decreasing~~decrease payments to the U.N. regular budget and U.N. regular budget and
specialized agency funding by specialized agency funding by ~~more than~~around one-third. one-third.2530 The request The request ~~intends~~intended to maintain near-recent- to maintain near-recent-
year levels of U.S. funding for other organizations, including the International Atomic Energy year levels of U.S. funding for other organizations, including the International Atomic Energy
Agency (IAEA).Agency (IAEA).2631
For CIPA, the For CIPA, the Trump Administration’s FY2021 request Administration’s FY2021 request ~~reflects its ongoing~~ reflected its commitment to reduce costs commitment to reduce costs
for U.N. peacekeeping missions by reevaluating their respective mandates, design, and for U.N. peacekeeping missions by reevaluating their respective mandates, design, and
implementation. The Administration implementation. The Administration ~~has~~ stated that its request, when combined with the stated that its request, when combined with the
application of U.N. peacekeeping credits (excess funds from previous U.N. peacekeeping application of U.N. peacekeeping credits (excess funds from previous U.N. peacekeeping
missions), would missions), would ~~allow~~have allowed the United States to provide 25% of all assessed global funding for U.N. the United States to provide 25% of all assessed global funding for U.N.
peacekeeping missions, which is equal to the statutory cap established by Congress.peacekeeping missions, which is equal to the statutory cap established by Congress.2732 However, However,
the current U.S. assessment for U.N. peacekeeping (last negotiated in 2018) is 27.9%, meaning the current U.S. assessment for U.N. peacekeeping (last negotiated in 2018) is 27.9%, meaning
that around $345 million of anticipated U.S. assessed funding would that around $345 million of anticipated U.S. assessed funding would behave been carried over into carried over into
arrears.arrears.2833 This practice has resulted in the accumulation of over $ This practice has resulted in the accumulation of over $~~900 million~~1 billion in U.S. in U.S.
peacekeeping arrearages since FY2017.peacekeeping arrearages since FY2017.29

~~24 U.S. Department of State, Congressional Budget Justification, p. 40.~~
~~25 U.S. Department of State, Congressional Budget Justification, p. 41.~~
~~26 U.S. Department of State, Congressional Budget Justification, p. 41.~~
~~27 See Section 404 of P.L. 103-236.~~
~~28 U.S. Department of State, Congressional Budget Justification, p. 43.~~
~~29 Over the years, the gap between the actual U.S. peacekeeping assessment and the 25% statutory cap led to funding~~
~~Congressional Research Service~~
10

~~SFOPS: FY2021 Budget and Appropriations~~

~~The House legislation includes $2.97 billion for CIO and CIPA, a decrease of 1.0% from the~~
~~FY2020 enacted figure and an increase of 44.9% from the Administration’s request (see Table 5).~~
~~For CIO, this bill provides that not less than $118.95 million shall be made available to the World~~
~~Health Organization (WHO) and not less than $53.91 million shall be made available to NATO.~~
~~While the Trump Administration has notified Congress of its intent to withdraw from the WHO,~~
~~the House legislation would prevent the use of any funds made available by the act for this~~
~~purpose.30 With regard to CIPA, the House legislation includes authority to allow the Secretary of~~
~~State to exceed the 25% statutory cap with respect to payment of U.S. assessed contributions to~~
~~peacekeeping missions. This is intended to limit the further accumulation of arrears, which~~
~~H.Rept. 116-444 states are projected to exceed $1 billion for FY2017 through FY2020.31~~34 If enacted, the House legislation would have provided $2.97 billion for CIO and CIPA, a decrease of 1.0% from the FY2020 enacted figure and an increase of 44.9% from the Trump Administration’s request (see Table 5). For CIO, it sought to ensure that not less than $118.95 million was made available to the World Health Organization (WHO) and not less than $53.91 million was made available to NATO. While the Trump Administration notified Congress of its intent to withdraw from the WHO, the House legislation would have prevented the use of any funds made available by the act for this purpose.35 With regard to CIPA, the House legislation included authority to allow the Secretary of State to exceed the 25% statutory cap with respect to payment of U.S. assessed contributions to peacekeeping missions. This was intended to limit the further accumulation of arrears.36 The FY2021 appropriations law provided a combined total of $2.96 billion for CIO and CIPA, which is 44.8% more than the Trump Administration's request and identical to the amount in the House proposal. The enacted law did not include the aforementioned House bill provisions providing line item funding to the WHO and NATO and prohibiting the use of appropriated funds 29 U.S. Department of State, Congressional Budget Justification, p. 40. 30 U.S. Department of State, Congressional Budget Justification, p. 41. 31 U.S. Department of State, Congressional Budget Justification, p. 41. 32 See Section 404 of P.L. 103-236. 33 U.S. Department of State, Congressional Budget Justification, p. 43. 34 Over the years, the gap between the actual U.S. peacekeeping assessment and the 25% statutory cap led to funding shortfalls. The State Department and Congress often covered these shortfalls by raising the cap for limited periods and allowing for the application of U.N. peacekeeping credits to fund outstanding U.S. balances. For several years, these actions allowed the United States to pay its peacekeeping assessments in full. However, since FY2017 Congress has declined to raise the cap, and in mid-2017, the Trump Administration began the ongoing practice of allowing the application of peacekeeping credits up to, but not beyond, the 25% cap. For more information, see CRS In Focus IF10597, United Nations Issues: U.S. Funding of U.N. Peacekeeping, by Luisa Blanchfield. 35 See Section 9015 of H.R. 7608. 36 House Committee on Appropriations, State Foreign Operations, and Related Programs Appropriations Bill, 2021, p. 31. Congressional Research Service 12 SFOPS: FY2021 Budget and Appropriations to withdraw the United States from the WHO. This may owe in part to then-President-elect Biden’s pledge to retract the United States’ intent to withdraw from the WHO.37 The law also provided the funding necessary to pay the full U.S. assessment to the U.N. regular budget.38 For CIPA, the joint explanatory statement noted that sufficient funds were provided for United States contributions to peacekeeping missions at the 25% statutory cap.39 The law permitted the payment of peacekeeping arrears with appropriated funds, provided that the State Department consult with Congress prior to using appropriated funds for this purpose.
Foreign Operations Highlights
The foreign operations accounts in the SFOPS appropriation compose the majority of U.S. The foreign operations accounts in the SFOPS appropriation compose the majority of U.S.
foreign assistance included in the international affairs budget; the remainder is enacted in the foreign assistance included in the international affairs budget; the remainder is enacted in the
agriculture appropriation, which provides funding for the Food for Peace Act, Title II and agriculture appropriation, which provides funding for the Food for Peace Act, Title II and
McGovern-Dole International Food for Education and Child Nutrition programs.McGovern-Dole International Food for Education and Child Nutrition programs.3240 The The
Trump Administration’s FY2021 foreign operations request Administration’s FY2021 foreign operations request ~~totals~~totaled $30.09 billion, representing a 3.7% $30.09 billion, representing a 3.7%
increase from the Administration’s FY2020 request and a 25.7% decrease from FY2020-enacted increase from the Administration’s FY2020 request and a 25.7% decrease from FY2020-enacted
levels. Total foreign assistance requested for FY2021, including the food assistance funds levels. Total foreign assistance requested for FY2021, including the food assistance funds
provided in the agriculture appropriation, would provided in the agriculture appropriation, would ~~represent~~have represented a 29.1% reduction from FY2020- a 29.1% reduction from FY2020-
enacted levels. enacted levels.
The The Trump Administration’s budget request Administration’s budget request ~~articulates~~articulated five primary goals for U.S. foreign assistance that five primary goals for U.S. foreign assistance that
~~are~~were meant to align with meant to align with ~~both~~ the National Security Strategy and the State-USAID Joint Strategic the National Security Strategy and the State-USAID Joint Strategic
Plan: Plan:
 prioritize global strategic challenges, including countering Chinese, Russian, and  prioritize global strategic challenges, including countering Chinese, Russian, and
Iranian influence; Iranian influence;
 support strategic partners and allies, including Israel, Egypt, Jordan, Colombia,  support strategic partners and allies, including Israel, Egypt, Jordan, Colombia,
and Venezuela; and Venezuela;3341
 enhance commitment to long-term development;  enhance commitment to long-term development;

~~shortfalls. The State Department and Congress often covered these shortfalls by raising the cap for limited periods and~~
~~allowing for the application of U.N. peacekeeping credits to fund outstanding U.S. balances. For several years, these~~
~~actions allowed the United States to pay its peacekeeping assessments in full. However, since FY2017 Congress has~~
~~declined to raise the cap, and in mid-2017, the Trump Administration began the ongoing practice of allowing the~~
~~application of peacekeeping credits up to, but not beyond, the 25% cap. For more information, see CRS In Focus~~
~~IF10597, United Nations Issues: U.S. Funding of U.N. Peacekeeping, by Luisa Blanchfield.~~
~~30 See Section 9015 of H.R. 7608.~~
~~31 House Committee on Appropriations, State Foreign Operations, and Related Programs Appropriations Bill, 2021, p.~~
~~31.~~
32 strengthen key areas of U.S. leadership, to include global health and humanitarian assistance; and  advance U.S. national security and economic interests.42 37 After his inauguration, President Biden implemented this pledge. See letter from President Joseph R. Biden, Jr. to Mr. António Guterres, Secretary-General of the United Nations, January 20, 2021, https://www.whitehouse.gov/briefing-room/statements-releases/2021/01/20/letter-his-excellency-antonio-guterres/. See also Jamey Keaten, “Biden’s US revives support for WHO, reversing Trump retreat,” Associated Press, January 21, 2021. 38 Joint Explanatory Statement Accompanying Division K of P.L. 116-260, p. 18. 39 Joint Explanatory Statement Accompanying Division K of P.L. 116-260, p. 10. 40 For more information on international food assistance programs, see CRS Report R45422, For more information on international food assistance programs, see CRS Report R45422, U.S. International Food
Assistance: An Overview, by Alyssa R. Casey. , by Alyssa R. Casey.
3341 According to the According to the Trump Administration, support for Venezuela would include “bilateral democracy and health assistance for Administration, support for Venezuela would include “bilateral democracy and health assistance for
Venezuelans, as well as assistance for Venezuelans fleeing their country and for the communities hosting them.” Venezuelans, as well as assistance for Venezuelans fleeing their country and for the communities hosting them.”
Further, the Administration Further, the Administration ~~maintains~~maintained that it includes flexibility in programming to “support a democratic transition and that it includes flexibility in programming to “support a democratic transition and
related needs in Venezuela should circumstances warrant.” U.S. Department of State, related needs in Venezuela should circumstances warrant.” U.S. Department of State, Congressional Budget
Justification, p. 75. , p. 75.
42 Documents provided by the State Department at budget roll-out briefings, February 10, 2020. Congressional Research Service Congressional Research Service
1113

link to page link to page ~~24 link to page 16~~27 link to page link to page 1618 SFOPS: FY2021 Budget and Appropriations

~~ strengthen key areas of U.S. leadership, to include global health and~~
~~humanitarian assistance; and~~
~~ advance U.S. national security and economic interests.34~~
~~These goals are~~These goals were also meant to guide the also meant to guide the Trump Administration’s regional thematic priorities (see Administration’s regional thematic priorities (see
“Country and Regional Assistance”), as well as how funds ), as well as how funds ~~are~~would be allocated across assistance types. allocated across assistance types.
The Administration’s FY2021 budget request The Administration’s FY2021 budget request ~~proposes~~proposed cuts in nearly all assistance types cuts in nearly all assistance types (Table
6). The only exception . The only exception iswas export promotion assistance, which would export promotion assistance, which would ~~see~~have seen a significant increase a significant increase.
~~This increase is~~, largely due to proposed funding for the new U.S. largely due to proposed funding for the new U.S. International Development Finance Development Finance
~~Corporation (DFC), which the Administration states represents an “expansion of the role of~~
~~development finance in advancing U.S. interests around the world,”~~Corporation (DFC), and an estimated increase in and an estimated increase in
offsetting collections from the Export-Import Bank.offsetting collections from the Export-Import Bank.3543
The House legislation, H.R. 7608, The House legislation, H.R. 7608, ~~includes~~included a total of $48.64 billion for foreign operations, an a total of $48.64 billion for foreign operations, an
increase of 19.5% from FY2020 enacted levels and a 61.7% increase from the increase of 19.5% from FY2020 enacted levels and a 61.7% increase from the Trump Administration’s Administration’s
request. This steep increase over FY2020 funding request. This steep increase over FY2020 funding ~~can~~could largely be attributed to the $9.06 billion in largely be attributed to the $9.06 billion in
emergency funding appropriated to “prevent, prepare for, and respond to coronavirus” abroad.emergency funding appropriated to “prevent, prepare for, and respond to coronavirus” abroad.36
44 The omnibus appropriation, P.L. 116-260, provided $44.22 billion for foreign operations, an 8.7% increase from FY2020 enacted levels and a 47.0% increase from the Trump Administration’s FY2021 request. Some of the increase may be attributed to emergency funding appropriated in Title IX of SFOPS, which was designated for COVID-19 response, including for vaccine procurement and distribution, and assistance to Sudan. Table 6. Foreign Operations, by Type, FY2019-FY2021
(In billions of U.S. dollars) (In billions of U.S. dollars)
% ~~change, FY20~~ % change, change, FY20 FY20 enacted enacted
FY2019
FY2020
FY2021
~~enacted~~ to FY21
FY2021 FY2021 to FY21
Type
Actual
Enacted
Request
request
House
Enacted enacted USAID Administration
1.67 1.67
1.76 1.76
1.59 1.59
-9.5% -9.5%
1.79 1.79
1.71 -2.71% Global Health Programs
8.87 8.87
9.53 9.53
6.00 6.00
-37.1% -37.1%
11.66 11.66
13.20 38.50% Non-Health Development Assistance
(includes Treasury TA, 8.10 8.10
8.13 8.13
6.15 6.15
-24.3% -24.3%
11.47 11.47
~~(includes Treasury TA,~~ 8.89 9.35% excludes ind. agencies) excludes ind. agencies)
Humanitarian Assistance
7.82 7.82
8.74 8.74
6.27 6.27
-28.3% -28.3%
10.08 10.08
7.83 -10.39% Independent Agencies
1.37 1.37
1.47 1.47
1.21 1.21
-17.9% -17.9%
1.41 1.41
1.39 -5.46% Security Assistance
9.15 9.15
9.01 9.01
7.73 7.73
-14.2% -14.2%
9.02 9.02
9.00 -0.11% Multilateral Assistance
1.85 1.85
2.08 2.08
1.48 1.48
-28.9% -28.9%
3.32 3.32
2.04 -1.99% Export Promotion
-0.16 -0.16
-0.02 -0.02
-0.34 -0.34
1379.3% 1379.3%
-1.00 -1.00
0.16 -797.37% Foreign Operations Total
40.39
40.70
30.09
-26.1%
48.64
Sources: H.R. 760844.22 8.67% Sources: P.L. 116-260; H.R. 7608; FY2021 SFOPS CBJ; P.L. 116-94; P.L. 116-123; P.L. 116-136; CRS calculations. FY2021 SFOPS CBJ; P.L. 116-94; P.L. 116-123; P.L. 116-136; CRS calculations.
Note: FY2020-enacted includes funds from the first and third supplemental appropriations for the novel FY2020-enacted includes funds from the first and third supplemental appropriations for the novel
coronavirus (P.L. 116-123 andcoronavirus (P.L. 116-123 and ~~P.L. 116-136~~, respectively). Export promotion totals are negative because , respectively). Export promotion totals are negative because
offsetting col ections from the Export-Import Bank and the Development Finance Corporation are anticipated to offsetting col ections from the Export-Import Bank and the Development Finance Corporation are anticipated to
exceed appropriations, as they have in past years, resulting in a net budget gain. exceed appropriations, as they have in past years, resulting in a net budget gain.

~~34 Documents provided by the State Department at budget roll-out briefings, February 10, 2020.~~
3543 U.S. Department of State, U.S. Department of State, Congressional Budget Justification, p. 108. , p. 108.
3644 H.R. 7608. H.R. 7608.
Congressional Research Service Congressional Research Service
1214

link to page link to page ~~17 link to page 17~~19 link to page link to page 1719 link to page link to page ~~18 link to page 18~~20

SFOPS: FY2021 Budget and Appropriations

Key Sectors
Consistent with prior year funding and the FY2020 enacted levels, proposed funding for global Consistent with prior year funding and the FY2020 enacted levels, proposed funding for global
health programs, humanitarian assistance, and security assistance health programs, humanitarian assistance, and security assistance ~~comprises~~comprised approximately two- approximately two-
thirds of the $30.09 billion FY2021 foreign operations budget requestthirds of the $30.09 billion FY2021 foreign operations budget request (Figure 3).
Global Health Programs
Figure 3. Foreign Operations, by Type,
The total FY2021 request for the Global The total FY2021 request for the Global
FY2021 Request
Health Programs (GHP) account Health Programs (GHP) account iswas nearly nearly
$6.00 billion, representing a 5.4% reduction $6.00 billion, representing a 5.4% reduction
from the FY2020 budget request and a 37.5% from the FY2020 budget request and a 37.5%
reduction from the FY2020-enacted level, reduction from the FY2020-enacted level,
including supplemental appropriations. When including supplemental appropriations. When
compared with FY2020-enacted levels before compared with FY2020-enacted levels before
enactment of supplemental funding for enactment of supplemental funding for
COVID-19, all but one GHP subaccount COVID-19, all but one GHP subaccount
would would behave been reduced under the budget proposal reduced under the budget proposal
(Table 7).

Source: FY2021 SFOPS CBJ.

Requested cuts to GHP subaccounts ranged from 8.0% for malaria programs to 100% for USAID’s HIV/AIDS and vulnerable children subaccounts. The Trump Administration asserted that despite its proposed reduction to Source: FY2021 SFOPS CBJ. HIV/AIDS funding, the requested level would have been sufficient to maintain treatment for all current recipients. The proposal also reflected the Administration’s effort to limit U.S. contributions to the Global Fund—an international financing mechanism for efforts to combat AIDS, tuberculosis, and malaria—to 25% of all donations, rather than the 33% limit that the United States has provided since the George W. Bush Administration. Table 7. Global Health Programs, by Subaccount, FY2019-FY2021
(In millions of U.S. dollars) (In millions of U.S. dollars)
% ~~change,~~
~~FY20~~ % change, change, FY20 FY20 enacted enacted
FY2019
FY2020
FY2021
to FY21
FY2021 FY2021 to FY21
Subaccount
Actual
Enacted
Request
request
House
Enacted enacted State HIV/AIDS
4,370.0 4,370.0
4,370.0 4,370.0
3,180.3 3,180.3
-27.2% -27.2%
4,370.0 4,370.0 4,370.0 0.0%
Global Fund
1,350.0 1,350.0
1,560.0 1,560.0
657.7 657.7
-57.8% -57.8%
1,560.0 1,560.0 1,560.0 0.0%
USAID HIV/AIDS
330.0 330.0
330.0 330.0
0.0 0.0
-100.0% -100.0%
330.0 330.0 330.0 0.0%
USAID Malaria
755.0 755.0
770.0 770.0
708.5 708.5
-8.0% -8.0%
755.0 755.0 770.0 0.0%
USAID Maternal and ~~Child~~
~~Health~~
835.0 835.0
851.0 851.0
659.6 659.6
-22.5% -22.5%
850.0 850.0
855.5 0.5% Child Health USAID Family Planning/
556.5 556.5
524.0 524.0
237.0 237.0
-54.8% -54.8%
585.5 585.5
524.0 0.0% Reproductive Healtha
USAID Nutrition
145.0 145.0
150.0 150.0
90.0 90.0
-40.0% -40.0%
145.0 145.0 150.0 0.0%
USAID Tuberculosis
302.0 302.0
310.0 310.0
275.0 275.0
-11.3% -11.3%
310.0 310.0
Pandemic Influenza/Otherb
~~100.0~~
~~535.0~~319.0 2.9% Congressional Research Service 15 link to page 20 link to page 20 link to page 20 SFOPS: FY2021 Budget and Appropriations % % change, change, FY20 FY20 enacted enacted FY2019 FY2020 FY2021 to FY21 FY2021 FY2021 to FY21 Subaccount Actual Enacted Request request House Enacted enacted Pandemic Influenza/Otherb 535.0 [of which 100.0 [435.0] 115.0 -78.5% 125.0 190.0 -64.5% supplemental]
~~115.0~~
~~-78.5%~~
~~125.0~~
~~[of which supplemental]~~
~~[435.0]~~
Neglected Tropical Diseases
102.5 102.5
102.5 102.5
75.0 75.0
-26.8% -26.8%
102.5 102.5
102.5 0.0% Vulnerable Children
24.0 24.0
25.0 25.0
0.0 0.0
-100.0% -100.0%
24.0 24.0
COVID-19c
-
-
-
-
~~2,500.0~~25.0 0.0% COVID-19 — — — — 2,500.0c 4,000.0d —
GHP Total
8,870.0
9,527.5
5,998.1
-37.5%
11,657.0
~~Source:~~13,196.0 38.5% Source: P.L. 116-260; H.R. 7608; FY2021 SFOPS CBJ; P.L. 116-94; P.L. 116-123; CRS calculations. H.R. 7608; FY2021 SFOPS CBJ; P.L. 116-94; P.L. 116-123; CRS calculations.
a. FY2019 actual reflects a $32.5 mil ion transfer from the International Organizations and Programs (IO&P) a. FY2019 actual reflects a $32.5 mil ion transfer from the International Organizations and Programs (IO&P)
account. account.
~~Congressional Research Service~~
13

~~link to page 19 link to page 19~~ ~~SFOPS: FY2021 Budget and Appropriations~~

~~b. FY2020-~~b. FY2020 enacted includes funds from the first supplemental appropriation for the novel coronavirus (P.L. enacted includes funds from the first supplemental appropriation for the novel coronavirus (P.L.
116-123). 116-123).
c. The FY2021 House measure includes $2.50 bil ion in c. The FY2021 House measure includes $2.50 bil ion in emergency GHP funding to “prevent, prepare for, and GHP funding to “prevent, prepare for, and respond to respond to
coronavirus.” These funds would be administered by USAID. Of the appropriated funds, Congress coronavirus.” These funds would be administered by USAID. Of the appropriated funds, Congress
designated $150.0 mil ion for the Emergency Response Fund, $750.0 mil ion for GAVI, and $800.0 mil ion designated $150.0 mil ion for the Emergency Response Fund, $750.0 mil ion for GAVI, and $800.0 mil ion
for the Global Fundfor the Global Fund.
~~P.L. 116-123Requested cuts to GHP subaccounts range from 8.0% for malaria programs to 100%~~
~~for USAID’s HIV/AIDS and vulnerable children subaccounts. The Administration asserts that~~
~~despite its proposed reduction to HIV/AIDS funding, the requested level would be sufficient to~~
~~maintain treatment for all current recipients. The proposal also reflects the Administration’s effort~~
~~to limit U.S. contributions to the Global Fund—an international financing mechanism for efforts~~
~~to combat AIDS, tuberculosis, and malaria—to 25% of all donations, rather than the 33% limit~~
~~that the United States has provided since the George W. Bush Administration.~~
~~As noted above, the Administration’s FY2021 request does~~ (P.L. 116-123). d. FY2021 enacted includes $4.00 bil ion in emergency GHP funding to “prevent, prepare for, and respond to coronavirus, including for vaccine procurement and delivery.” As noted above, the Trump Administration’s FY2021 request did not include funds for COVID-19, not include funds for COVID-19,
because the request was prepared prior to the outbreak. Congress enacted, and the President because the request was prepared prior to the outbreak. Congress enacted, and the President
signed into law, one supplemental appropriations act that included global health funding for signed into law, one supplemental appropriations act that included global health funding for
COVID-19 preparedness and response in MarchCOVID-19 preparedness and response in March 2020 (P.L. 116-123). (P.L. 116-123). ~~As of this report’s publishing, the~~
~~Administration has not submitted~~The Trump Administration did not submit a request for additional FY2021 funds to combat the virus. a request for additional FY2021 funds to combat the virus.3745
The House legislation, H.R. 7608, would The House legislation, H.R. 7608, would ~~represent~~have represented a 22.4% increase over FY2020 enacted levels a 22.4% increase over FY2020 enacted levels
and nearly and nearly ~~doubles the~~ doubled the Trump Administration’s proposed global health funding level. However, much Administration’s proposed global health funding level. However, much
like the overall funding for foreign operations, this steep increase over FY2020 funding like the overall funding for foreign operations, this steep increase over FY2020 funding iswas largely largely
a result of the House’s $2.5 billion in emergency GHP funds to a result of the House’s $2.5 billion in emergency GHP funds to address COVID-19 abroad. The final FY2021 GHP levels represented a 38.5% increase over FY2020 enacted levels. Most GHP subaccounts maintained or saw modest increases from FY2020 enacted levels. The overall increase is therefore primarily a result of $4 billion in emergency funding for COVID-19 that was not allocated by subaccount and is largely directed for vaccine procurement and distribution~~address COVID-19 abroad~~. .
Humanitarian Assistance
The FY2021 budget request for humanitarian assistance The FY2021 budget request for humanitarian assistance iswas nearly $6.27 billion, roughly nearly $6.27 billion, roughly
equivalent to the FY2020 request but down 40.1% from the FY2020-enacted level of $10.46 equivalent to the FY2020 request but down 40.1% from the FY2020-enacted level of $10.46
45 For more information on the U.S. response to COVID-19, see CRS In Focus IF11421, COVID-19: Global Implications and Responses, by Sara M. Tharakan et al. Congressional Research Service 16 link to page 21 SFOPS: FY2021 Budget and Appropriations billion.46~~billion.38~~ In successive years, the In successive years, the ~~Administration has~~Trump Administration requested levels of humanitarian assistance requested levels of humanitarian assistance
far lower than those enacted the prior year, at times reflecting the fact that humanitarian far lower than those enacted the prior year, at times reflecting the fact that humanitarian
assistance funds may be carried over from year to year and unobligated balances from prior years assistance funds may be carried over from year to year and unobligated balances from prior years
may still be available. On a bipartisan basis, for many years, Congress may still be available. On a bipartisan basis, for many years, Congress ~~has~~ consistently supported consistently supported
global humanitarian efforts through appropriation levels well above the budget requestglobal humanitarian efforts through appropriation levels well above the budget request (Figure
4).

~~37 For more information on the U.S. response to COVID-19, see CRS In Focus IF11421,~~ ~~COVID-19: Global~~
~~Implications and Responses, by Sara M. Tharakan et al.~~
~~38 Total FY2020-enacted funding includes supplemental funds enacted in two COVID-19 supplemental appropriations~~
~~and Food for Peace Act, Title II funds, which are part of the Agriculture appropriation.~~
~~Congressional Research Service~~
14

~~SFOPS: FY2021 Budget and Appropriations~~

4). Figure 4. Humanitarian Assistance Budget Requests and Enacted Funding, by
Account, FY2013-FY2021
(In (In ~~millions~~billions of current U.S. dollars) of current U.S. dollars)

Sources: P.L. 116-260; FY2021 SFOPS CBJ; P.L. 116-94; P.L. 116-123; P.L. 116-136; CRS calculations. FY2021 SFOPS CBJ; P.L. 116-94; P.L. 116-123; P.L. 116-136; CRS calculations.
Notes: “Request” and “Actual” totals sourced from the most recent U.S. Department of State Congressional “Request” and “Actual” totals sourced from the most recent U.S. Department of State Congressional
Budget Justification in which they appeared. This figure includes Food for Peace Act, Title II funds, which are part Budget Justification in which they appeared. This figure includes Food for Peace Act, Title II funds, which are part
of the agriculture appropriation, to il ustrate the ful scope of humanitarian assistance. of the agriculture appropriation, to il ustrate the ful scope of humanitarian assistance.
Accounts: MRA = Migration and Refugee Assistance, IDA = International Disaster Assistance, ERMA = Accounts: MRA = Migration and Refugee Assistance, IDA = International Disaster Assistance, ERMA =
Emergency Refugee and Migration Assistance, FFP = Food for Peace Act, Title II, and IHA = International Emergency Refugee and Migration Assistance, FFP = Food for Peace Act, Title II, and IHA = International
Humanitarian Assistance. Humanitarian Assistance.
In addition to the proposed $6.27 billion in new funding for humanitarian assistance, the In addition to the proposed $6.27 billion in new funding for humanitarian assistance, the
Trump Administration’s request Administration’s request ~~assumes~~assumed $2.80 billion in carryover funding from past-year humanitarian $2.80 billion in carryover funding from past-year humanitarian
assistance. The Administration assistance. The Administration ~~asserts~~asserted that the FY2021 request, combined with the estimated that the FY2021 request, combined with the estimated
carryover, carryover, ~~totals~~totaled close to $9.00 billion, which would allow the United States “to program well close to $9.00 billion, which would allow the United States “to program well
above the second highest level ever, and is sufficient to address the needs for Syria, Yemen, and above the second highest level ever, and is sufficient to address the needs for Syria, Yemen, and
other crisis areas.”other crisis areas.”39
~~The House legislation includes~~47 46 Total FY2020-enacted funding includes supplemental funds enacted in two COVID-19 supplemental appropriations and Food for Peace Act, Title II funds, which are part of the Agriculture appropriation. 47 FY2021 SFOPS CBJ, p. 80. Congressional Research Service 17 SFOPS: FY2021 Budget and Appropriations The House legislation included $11.85 billion in humanitarian assistance, including $2.25 billion $11.85 billion in humanitarian assistance, including $2.25 billion
in emergency funding to address COVID-19 in humanitarian contexts and $1.78 billion in Food in emergency funding to address COVID-19 in humanitarian contexts and $1.78 billion in Food
for Peace Act, Title II funds. This level for Peace Act, Title II funds. This level ~~represents~~represented a 13% increase from FY2020 enacted levels a 13% increase from FY2020 enacted levels
and an 89.0% increase from the and an 89.0% increase from the Trump Administration’s proposal. The omnibus legislation included $9.57 billion in humanitarian assistance, including $1.74 billion in Food for Peace Act, Title II funds. This level represents a modest increase (0.2%) over FY2020 enacted levels, not including supplemental funds that had been enacted to address COVID-19 abroad.~~Administration’s proposal.~~

~~39 FY2021 SFOPS CBJ, p. 80.~~
~~Congressional Research Service~~
15

~~SFOPS: FY2021 Budget and Appropriations~~

Proposed Humanitarian Account Consolidation
For FY2021, as in FY2020, the Trump Administration For FY2021, as in FY2020, the Trump Administration ~~proposes~~proposed to fund all humanitarian to fund all humanitarian
assistance through a single International Humanitarian Assistance (IHA) account managed assistance through a single International Humanitarian Assistance (IHA) account managed
through USAID’s new Bureau for Humanitarian Assistance (BHA). The Administration through USAID’s new Bureau for Humanitarian Assistance (BHA). The Administration ~~has~~
~~justified~~ justified the restructuring as necessary “to optimize humanitarian assistance, prioritize funding, the restructuring as necessary “to optimize humanitarian assistance, prioritize funding,
and use funding as effectively and efficiently as possible.”and use funding as effectively and efficiently as possible.”4048 The proposal would effectively The proposal would effectively ~~move~~have moved
the administration of overseas refugee and migration assistance funding—currently funded the administration of overseas refugee and migration assistance funding—currently funded
through the Migration and Refugee Assistance (MRA) and Emergency Refugee and Migration through the Migration and Refugee Assistance (MRA) and Emergency Refugee and Migration
Assistance (ERMA) accounts—from the State Department to USAID.Assistance (ERMA) accounts—from the State Department to USAID.4149 In FY2020, enacted In FY2020, enacted
funding for these accounts totaled $3.78 billion. The budget request would funding for these accounts totaled $3.78 billion. The budget request would ~~eliminate~~have eliminated the ERMA the ERMA
account and significantly account and significantly ~~reduce~~reduced funding to MRA, with none for overseas needs. Within USAID, funding to MRA, with none for overseas needs. Within USAID,
the BHA is in the process of combining the functions of the Offices of U.S. Foreign Disaster the BHA is in the process of combining the functions of the Offices of U.S. Foreign Disaster
Assistance and Food for Peace. The budget request would Assistance and Food for Peace. The budget request would ~~eliminate~~have eliminated the International Disaster the International Disaster
Assistance (IDA) account (FY2020-enacted funding totaled $4.95 billion), as well as Food for Assistance (IDA) account (FY2020-enacted funding totaled $4.95 billion), as well as Food for
Peace Act, Title II emergency food assistance funding, the latter of which is currently Peace Act, Title II emergency food assistance funding, the latter of which is currently
appropriated through the agriculture appropriation but administered by USAID (FY2020-enacted appropriated through the agriculture appropriation but administered by USAID (FY2020-enacted
funding totaled $1.73 billion). Funds previously requested in these accounts would funding totaled $1.73 billion). Funds previously requested in these accounts would be
have been consolidated into the IHA account. consolidated into the IHA account.
The House legislation The House legislation ~~does~~did not adopt the not adopt the Trump Administration’s IHA proposal. The accompanying Administration’s IHA proposal. The accompanying
report, H.Rept. 116-444, report, H.Rept. 116-444, ~~notes~~noted that the “Committee does not support the consolidation of all that the “Committee does not support the consolidation of all
overseas humanitarian assistance into a single account.” Instead, the bill overseas humanitarian assistance into a single account.” Instead, the bill ~~appropriates~~would have appropriated funds in the funds in the
traditional account structure. traditional account structure.

4048 In FY2020, the In FY2020, the Trump Administration proposed a “senior dual-hat leader” under the authority of the Secretary of State but Administration proposed a “senior dual-hat leader” under the authority of the Secretary of State but
reporting to both the Secretary of State and the USAID Administrator, which appears to have been replaced by reporting to both the Secretary of State and the USAID Administrator, which appears to have been replaced by
“leveraging the comparative strengths of the Department of State and USAID under the authority of the Secretary of “leveraging the comparative strengths of the Department of State and USAID under the authority of the Secretary of
State.” FY2021 SFOPS CBJ, p. 80. State.” FY2021 SFOPS CBJ, p. 80.
4149 There There ~~is no request~~was no funding requested in the Migration in the Migration and Refugee Assistance (MRA) account for overseas humanitarian needs. However, Refugee Assistance (MRA) account for overseas humanitarian needs. However,
the State Department’s Bureau of Population, Refugees, and Migration (PRM) would the State Department’s Bureau of Population, Refugees, and Migration (PRM) would ~~retain~~ have retained $299.21 million in MRA $299.21 million in MRA
funding to support U.S. refugee admissions, Humanitarian Migrants to Israel, and PRM administrative expenses, as funding to support U.S. refugee admissions, Humanitarian Migrants to Israel, and PRM administrative expenses, as
well as other activities such as policy oversight and diplomatic engagement. Transfer authority would reportedly well as other activities such as policy oversight and diplomatic engagement. Transfer authority would reportedly ~~allow~~
have allowed funding to move from IHA to MRA should the MRA funds be insufficient. funding to move from IHA to MRA should the MRA funds be insufficient.
Congressional Research Service Congressional Research Service
1618

link to page link to page ~~21 link to page 22~~23

SFOPS: FY2021 Budget and Appropriations

Security Assistance
Sources: FY2021 SFOPS CBJ; P.L. 116-94; CRS
~~calculations.~~
~~Figure 5. Security Assistance, by Account,~~
~~The Administration is requesting $7.73 billion~~
~~FY2019-FY2021 Request~~
Notes: FMF = Foreign Military Financing; IMET =
~~in international security assistance for~~
~~Inter (~~
~~n In~~
~~ati b~~
~~o il~~
~~n li~~
~~al on~~
~~Mi s~~
~~li of~~
~~tar c~~
~~y u~~
~~E rr~~
~~du ent~~
~~cati U.S. d~~
~~on and olla~~
~~Trairns)~~
~~in g; PKO =~~
~~Peacekeeping Operations; NADR = Nonproliferation~~The Trump Administration requested $7.73 billion in international security assistance for Figure 5. Security Assistance, by Account, ,
FY2021, an increase of 4.3% from the FY2021, an increase of 4.3% from the
~~Anti-terrorism, Demining and Related Programs;~~FY2019-FY2021
FY2020 request and 14.3% below the FY2020 request and 14.3% below the
~~INCLE = International Narcotics Control and Law~~(In billions of current U.S. dollars)
FY2020-enacted level. The greatest cuts to FY2020-enacted level. The greatest cuts to
~~Enforcement.~~
security assistance accounts would security assistance accounts would ~~be to~~
have been to Peacekeeping Operations (PKO, -36.6%) and Peacekeeping Operations (PKO, -36.6%) and
International Military Education and Training International Military Education and Training
(IMET, -27.4%)(IMET, -27.4%) (Figure 5).4250
Consistent with prior year requests and Consistent with prior year requests and
appropriations, the majority of security appropriations, the majority of security
assistance ($5.19 billion) would assistance ($5.19 billion) would behave been for for
Foreign Military Financing (FMF) to the Foreign Military Financing (FMF) to the
Middle East, including $3.30 billion in grants Middle East, including $3.30 billion in grants
to Israel. As in the Trump Administration’s to Israel. As in the Trump Administration’s
past three budget proposals, the FY2021 past three budget proposals, the FY2021
request request ~~seeks~~sought flexibility to provide FMF flexibility to provide FMF

assistance through a combination of grants and loans, including loan guarantees, rather assistance through a combination of grants and loans, including loan guarantees, rather than the than the
current use of FMF on an almost current use of FMF on an almost Sources: P.L. 116-260; H.R. 7608 FY2021 SFOPS CBJ; P.L. 116-94; CRS calculations. exclusive grant basis. The Administration exclusive grant basis. The Administration ~~asserts~~asserted that this that this
authority would both authority would both ~~“expand the tools available to the United~~ Notes: FMF = Foreign Military Financing; IMET = International Military Education and Training; PKO = “expand the tools available to the United Peacekeeping Operations; NADR = Nonproliferation, States to help NATO and Major-States to help NATO and Major-
~~Non NATO allies43 purchase more American-made~~ Non NATO Anti-terrorism, Demining and Related Programs; allies51 purchase more American-made INCLE = International Narcotics Control and Law defense equipment and related services” and defense equipment and related services” and
Enforcement. “increase burden sharing by asking these partners to contribute more national funds to foreign “increase burden sharing by asking these partners to contribute more national funds to foreign
military sales cases.”military sales cases.”4452
The House legislation The House legislation ~~provides~~included $9.02 billion in security assistance, which $9.02 billion in security assistance, which iswas essentially level with essentially level with
FY2020 enacted funding but FY2020 enacted funding but ~~represents~~represented a 16.6% increase from the a 16.6% increase from the Trump Administration’s Administration’s proposal. The enacted omnibus legislation provided $9.00 billion in security assistance, a slight decrease from FY2020 enacted funding but a 10.9% increase from the Administration’s request. ~~proposal.~~
Development Assistance and Export Promotion
The remaining third of the FY2021 foreign operations request The remaining third of the FY2021 foreign operations request ~~proposes~~proposed to allocate funds to non- to allocate funds to non-
health development sectors as well as to independent agencies, multilateral assistance, and export health development sectors as well as to independent agencies, multilateral assistance, and export
promotion agencies. promotion agencies.
~~Development Assistance~~
~~The FY2021 budget request would reduce funding from FY2020-enacted levels in a number of~~
~~development sectors (Table 8). Environment-focused aid, for example, would be cut by 86.3%,~~
~~while funding for education and water and sanitation would fall by 61.2%. As with the FY2020~~
~~request, the FY2021 request includes a significant increase from prior year-enacted levels to~~

42 50 FY2021 PKO request figures include funds for the U.N. Support office in Somalia (UNSOS), which successive FY2021 PKO request figures include funds for the U.N. Support office in Somalia (UNSOS), which successive
Administrations have requested under the Contributions for International Peacekeeping Activities (CIPA) account, but Administrations have requested under the Contributions for International Peacekeeping Activities (CIPA) account, but
Congress generally has appropriated through the Peacekeeping Operations (PKO) account. Congress generally has appropriated through the Peacekeeping Operations (PKO) account.
4351 Major non-NATO allies are designated by the President, in accordance with 22 U.S.C. §2321k. Major non-NATO allies are designated by the President, in accordance with 22 U.S.C. §2321k.
4452 FY2021 SFOPS CBJ, p. 99. FY2021 SFOPS CBJ, p. 99.
Congressional Research Service Congressional Research Service
1719

link to page 24 link to page 24 SFOPS: FY2021 Budget and Appropriations

~~programming that seeks to promote women in developing economies~~Development Assistance The FY2021 budget request would have reduced funding from FY2020-enacted levels in a number of development sectors (Table 8). Environment-focused aid, for example, would have been cut by 86.3%, while funding for education and water and sanitation would have declined by 61.2%. As with the FY2020 request, the FY2021 request included a significant increase from prior year-enacted funding levels for women’s economic empowerment programming, largely due to a proposed , largely due to a proposed
$200.00 million for the Women’s Global Development and Prosperity Initiative (W-GDP).$200.00 million for the Women’s Global Development and Prosperity Initiative (W-GDP).4553
The House legislation, H.R. 7608, The House legislation, H.R. 7608, ~~would keep level or increase~~if enacted, would have kept level or increased all development sectors when all development sectors when
compared to FY2020 enacted levels and would compared to FY2020 enacted levels and would ~~represent~~have represented an increase in all sectors when an increase in all sectors when
compared to the compared to the Trump Administration’s request, with the exception of gender-related and trafficking in Administration’s request, with the exception of gender-related and trafficking in
persons programs. When compared to FY2020 enacted levels, the greatest increases in funding persons programs. When compared to FY2020 enacted levels, the greatest increases in funding
would would behave been to environmental and gender programming. The omnibus legislation, P.L. 116-260, kept level or increased funding for all development sectors when compared to FY2020 enacted appropriations. The largest increases were to gender and trafficking in persons programs, which saw 69.5% and 47.8% increases, respectively, from FY2020 enacted levels ~~to environmental and gender programming~~ ( (Table 8)). Within the funds designated for gender programs, Congress fulfilled the Trump Administration’s request for $200.00 million for W-GDP.54 .
Table 8. Select Development Sectors, FY2019-FY2021
(In millions of current U.S. dollars) (In millions of current U.S. dollars)
% ~~change,~~
~~FY20~~ % change, change, FY20 FY20 enacted to enacted
FY2019
FY2020
FY2021
to FY21
FY2021 FY2021 to FY21
Sector
Actual
Enacted
Request
request
House
Enacted enacted Democracy Programs (excluding Democracy Programs (excluding
NED) 2,400.0 2,400.0
2,400.0 2,400.0
1,551.4 1,551.4
-35.4% -35.4%
2,400.5 2,400.5
~~NED)~~2,417.0 0.7%
Education (basic and higher) Education (basic and higher)
1,035.0 1,035.0
1,110.0 1,110.0
430.5 430.5
-61.2% -61.2%
1,210.0 1,210.0 1,185.0 6.7%
Food Security Food Security
1,000.6 1,000.6
1,005.6 1,005.6
506.1 506.1
-49.7% -49.7%
1,005.6 1,005.6
1,010.6 0.5% Environment Environment
500.7 500.7
906.7 906.7
124.6 124.6
-86.3% -86.3%
1,306.0 1,306.0 986.7 8.8%
Economic Growth Economic Growth
n.a. n.a.
n.a. n.a.
2,194.0 2,194.0
n.a. n.a.
— — n.a. n.a.
Water and Sanitation Water and Sanitation
435.0 435.0
450.0 450.0
174.5 174.5
-61.2% -61.2%
450.0 450.0
450.0 0.0% Gender Gender
215.0 215.0
~~230~~330.0 .0
525.7 525.7
~~128.6~~59.3% %
460.0 460.0
560.0 69.7% Trafficking in Persons 67.0 67.0 77.4 15.5% 67.0 99.0 47.8% 53 The Trump Administration launched the W-GDP Initiative in February 2019. The Initiative aims to “reach 50 million women in the developing world by 2025 through U.S. government activities, private-public partnerships, and a new, innovative fund” (https://www.whitehouse.gov/wgdp/). 54 Congress designated FY2020 and FY2021 funds for W-GDP using a ceiling: in FY2021 Congress designated “up to” $200 million for this purpose, in contrast with the “no less than” directive used for the other allocations noted in Table 8. This language offers administering agencies the flexibility to determine (in consultation with the Appropriations Committees) the actual amount of funding as long as it does not exceed adheres to the funding ceiling. In practice, this also means that the FY2021 actual level for W-GDP could end up being less than the actual amount provided in FY2020. Congressional Research Service 20 SFOPS: FY2021 Budget and Appropriations % % change, change, FY20 FY20 enacted to enacted FY2019 FY2020 FY2021 FY21 FY2021 FY2021 to FY21 Sector Actual Enacted Request request House Enacted enacted ~~Trafficking in Persons~~
~~67.0~~
~~67.0~~
~~77.4~~
~~15.5%~~
~~67.0~~
Micro and Small Enterprise Micro and Small Enterprise
265.0 265.0
265.0 265.0
144.2 144.2
-45.6% -45.6%
265.0 265.0
265.0 0.0% Diplomatic Progress Fund Diplomatic Progress Fund
n.a. n.a.
n.a. n.a.
200.0 200.0
n.a. n.a.
-
~~Sources:~~ — — n.a. Sources: P.L. 116-260; H.R. 7608H.R. 7608; FY2021 SFOPS CBJ; P.L. 116-94; CRS calculations. FY2021 SFOPS CBJ; P.L. 116-94; CRS calculations.
Proposed Economic Support and Development Fund
Under the FY2021 request, most development accounts—Development Assistance (DA); Under the FY2021 request, most development accounts—Development Assistance (DA);
Economic Support Fund (ESF); Assistance to Europe, Eurasia and Central Asia (AEECA); and Economic Support Fund (ESF); Assistance to Europe, Eurasia and Central Asia (AEECA); and
the Democracy Fund (DF)—would the Democracy Fund (DF)—would behave been combined into a single new Economic Support and combined into a single new Economic Support and
Development Fund (ESDF). The Development Fund (ESDF). The Trump Administration Administration ~~asserts~~asserted that this consolidated account would that this consolidated account would
streamline the deployment of resources, increasing efficiency in foreign assistance. Because the streamline the deployment of resources, increasing efficiency in foreign assistance. Because the
consolidated account would consolidated account would ~~incorporate what are now~~have incorporated both core and shared USAID accounts, it both core and shared USAID accounts, it
~~remains~~was unclear what portion of the new account USAID would manage or implement. The unclear what portion of the new account USAID would manage or implement. The
Administration made a similar request in the FY2018, FY2019, and FY2020 budget requests, but Administration made a similar request in the FY2018, FY2019, and FY2020 budget requests, but
~~Congress did not enact the proposals.~~

~~45 The Administration launched the W-GDP Initiative in February 2019. The Initiative aims to “reach 50 million~~
~~women in the developing world by 2025 through U.S. government activities, private-public partnerships, and a new,~~
~~innovative fund” (https://www.whitehouse.gov/wgdp/). In its FY2020 request, the Administration requested $100~~
~~million for the initiative; consistent with that request, in final FY2020 appropriations (P.L. 116-94), Congress~~
~~designated that “up to $100 million may be made available for a Women’s Global Development and Prosperity Fund.”~~
~~Congressional Research Service~~
18

~~SFOPS: FY2021 Budget and Appropriations~~

Congress did not enact the proposals. The FY2021 budget request The FY2021 budget request ~~nestles~~nestled the Relief and Recovery Fund (RRF) and a proposed new the Relief and Recovery Fund (RRF) and a proposed new
Diplomatic Progress Fund (DPF)—both previously requested as separate budget items—under Diplomatic Progress Fund (DPF)—both previously requested as separate budget items—under
the proposed ESDF account. According to the justification, the DPF would “allow the State the proposed ESDF account. According to the justification, the DPF would “allow the State
Department and USAID to respond to new opportunities arising from progress in diplomatic and Department and USAID to respond to new opportunities arising from progress in diplomatic and
peace efforts around the world.”peace efforts around the world.”4655 While Congress provided funds for the RRF in previous fiscal While Congress provided funds for the RRF in previous fiscal
years, Congress years, Congress ~~has not accepted the~~ did not accept the Trump Administration’s proposal for the DPF. Administration’s proposal for the DPF.
The House legislation The House legislation ~~does~~did not include ESDF, but rather not include ESDF, but rather ~~continues~~continued the use of DA, ESF, AEECA, the use of DA, ESF, AEECA,
and DF. In addition, pursuant to the Global Fragility Act (Title V, Division J, P.L. 116-94) the and DF. In addition, pursuant to the Global Fragility Act (Title V, Division J, P.L. 116-94) the
House House ~~replaces~~replaced the RRF with a new Prevention and Stabilization Fund (PSF). However, the the RRF with a new Prevention and Stabilization Fund (PSF). However, the
funding level for the new PSF funding level for the new PSF iswas $100 $100.00 million, half of what was appropriated in FY2020 for the million, half of what was appropriated in FY2020 for the
RRF. The House RRF. The House ~~prohibits~~prohibited funding for the funding for the Trump Administration’s proposed DPF. As with the House legislation, the omnibus appropriation did not include ESDF and included $100.00 million for the PSF. Further, there was no mention of the Trump Administration’s proposed DPF in the final legislation. ~~Administration’s proposed DPF.~~
Independent Agencies
The The Trump Administration’s FY2021 request would Administration’s FY2021 request would ~~reduce~~have reduced funding to the Peace Corps (-19.5%) and the funding to the Peace Corps (-19.5%) and the
Millennium Challenge Corporation (-11.6%). The request also Millennium Challenge Corporation (-11.6%). The request also ~~proposes~~ proposed eliminating the Inter-eliminating the Inter-
American Foundation (IAF) and the U.S African Development Foundation (USADF), and American Foundation (IAF) and the U.S African Development Foundation (USADF), and
incorporating staff and small grant activities of the two foundations into USAID’s new Bureau for incorporating staff and small grant activities of the two foundations into USAID’s new Bureau for
Development, Democracy, and Innovation.Development, Democracy, and Innovation.~~47 The Administration maintains that~~ 56 The Administration maintained that 55 FY2021 SFOPS CBJ, p. 77. 56 The Trump Administration was not the first to propose elimination of the Inter-American Foundation. In 1999, Congress passed legislation (P.L. 106-113, later amended by P.L. 106-429) that authorized the President during Congressional Research Service 21 SFOPS: FY2021 Budget and Appropriations this consolidation this consolidation
would allow USAID to “capitalize on the existing expertise, capacity, relationships, and tools that would allow USAID to “capitalize on the existing expertise, capacity, relationships, and tools that
USADF and IAF provide, including their regional and market segment emphases, in order to USADF and IAF provide, including their regional and market segment emphases, in order to
reinforce U.S. government bilateral development efforts.”reinforce U.S. government bilateral development efforts.”4857 To implement the shuttering of the To implement the shuttering of the
IAF and USADF, the Administration IAF and USADF, the Administration ~~requests~~requested $3.85 million and $4.66 million, respectively. $3.85 million and $4.66 million, respectively.
The House legislation The House legislation ~~provides~~would have provided level or increased funding for all independent agencies when level or increased funding for all independent agencies when
compared to FY2020 enacted funding before FY2020 supplemental funding was passed for compared to FY2020 enacted funding before FY2020 supplemental funding was passed for
COVID-19.COVID-19.4958 The legislation also The legislation also ~~does~~did not adopt the not adopt the Trump Administration’s proposal to eliminate the Administration’s proposal to eliminate the
IAF and USADF. Rather, the House IAF and USADF. Rather, the House ~~provides~~provided increased funding for the two agencies, including increased funding for the two agencies, including
$10.00 million in emergency COVID-19 funding for each agency$10.00 million in emergency COVID-19 funding for each agency. The omnibus appropriation provided level or increased funding for independent agencies when comparing to FY2020 enacted levels before supplemental appropriations were passed.59 Congress also appropriated increased and level funds for the IAF and USADF, respectively. .
Multilateral Assistance
SFOPS multilateral assistance accounts provide for U.S. payments to multilateral development SFOPS multilateral assistance accounts provide for U.S. payments to multilateral development
banks and international organizations that pool funding from multiple donors to finance banks and international organizations that pool funding from multiple donors to finance
development activities.development activities.5060 The The Trump Administration’s FY2021 request would Administration’s FY2021 request would ~~reduce~~have reduced these accounts by these accounts by
28.9% from FY2020-enacted levels. As in the Trump Administration’s three previous requests, 28.9% from FY2020-enacted levels. As in the Trump Administration’s three previous requests,
the proposal would the proposal would ~~eliminate~~have eliminated funding for the International Organizations and Programs (IO&P) funding for the International Organizations and Programs (IO&P)
account, which funds U.S. voluntary contributions to international organizations, primarily account, which funds U.S. voluntary contributions to international organizations, primarily
United Nations entities such as UNICEF. Congress appropriated $390.50 United Nations entities such as UNICEF. Congress appropriated $390.50 million for IO&P in FY2020. The Administration also proposed eliminating funds for the Global Environment Facility (GEF) and the International Fund for Agricultural Development (IFAD). For the GEF, the Administration asserted that carryover funds from FY2019 and FY2020 appropriations were sufficient to meet the U.S. pledge to the GEF’s seventh replenishment.61 The House legislation, if enacted, would have provided a total of $3.32 billion in multilateral assistance accounts, representing a 59.6% increase compared to FY2020 enacted levels and a 124.3% increase from the Trump Administration’s request. This increase is largely due to the inclusion of $1.28 billion in emergency COVID-19 funding for the IO&P account. The omnibus appropriation provided a total of $2.04 billion in multilateral assistance accounts, representing a 2.0% decrease from FY2020-enacted levels. The largest decrease was to funds for the International Development Association, which saw an 8.8% decrease from its FY2020 enacted appropriation. All other accounts were kept level or experienced a slight decrease with the exception of the International Fund for Agricultural Development, which saw an 8.3% increase from its FY2020 enacted funding. ~~million for IO&P in~~

~~46 FY2021 SFOPS CBJ, p. 77.~~
~~47 The Trump Administration was not the first to propose elimination of the Inter-American Foundation. In 1999,~~
~~Congress passed legislation (P.L. 106-113, later amended by P.L. 106-429) that authorized the President during~~
FY2000-FY2001 to abolish the Inter-American Foundation. However, the President did not exercise the authority FY2000-FY2001 to abolish the Inter-American Foundation. However, the President did not exercise the authority
during FY2000-FY2001. during FY2000-FY2001.
4857 FY2021 SFOPS CBJ, pp. 85-86. FY2021 SFOPS CBJ, pp. 85-86.
4958 The Peace Corps received $88 million in FY2020 supplemental appropriations (P.L. 116-136) to address COVID-19 The Peace Corps received $88 million in FY2020 supplemental appropriations (P.L. 116-136) to address COVID-19
abroad. abroad.
5059 Ibid. 60 For more information on U.S. payments to multilateral development banks, see CRS Report RS20792, For more information on U.S. payments to multilateral development banks, see CRS Report RS20792, Multilateral
Development Banks: U.S. Contributions FY2000-FY2020, by Rebecca M. Nelson. , by Rebecca M. Nelson.
61 FY2021 SFOPS CBJ, p. 104. Congressional Research Service Congressional Research Service
1922

link to page link to page 2528 link to page link to page 1517 SFOPS: FY2021 Budget and Appropriations Export Promotion The FY2021 request included ~~SFOPS: FY2021 Budget and Appropriations~~

~~FY2020. The Administration also proposes eliminating funds for the Global Environment Facility~~
~~(GEF) and the International Fund for Agricultural Development (IFAD). For the GEF, the~~
~~Administration asserts that carryover funds from FY2019 and FY2020 appropriations are~~
~~sufficient to meet the U.S. pledge to the GEF’s seventh replenishment.51~~
~~The House legislation provides a total of $3.32 billion in multilateral assistance accounts,~~
~~representing a 59.6% increase compared to FY2020 enacted levels and a 124.3% increase from~~
~~the Administration’s request. This increase is largely due to the inclusion of $1.28 billion in~~
~~emergency COVID-19 funding for the IO&P account.~~
~~Export Promotion~~
~~The FY2021 request includes~~ an increased investment in the U.S. Development Finance an increased investment in the U.S. Development Finance
Corporation (DFC), established in 2019 to implement the BUILD Act.Corporation (DFC), established in 2019 to implement the BUILD Act.5262 However, the However, the
Trump Administration Administration ~~would eliminate~~proposed eliminating funding for the U.S. Trade and Development Agency funding for the U.S. Trade and Development Agency
(USTDA)—the request (USTDA)—the request ~~includes~~included $12.11 million for the agency’s “orderly closeout”—and an $12.11 million for the agency’s “orderly closeout”—and an
8.3% reduction from FY2020-enacted levels for the Export-Import Bank of the United States’ 8.3% reduction from FY2020-enacted levels for the Export-Import Bank of the United States’
Operations account.Operations account.5363 As in previous years, the Administration As in previous years, the Administration ~~assumes~~assumed that all export promotion that all export promotion
expenditures would be offset by collections. In the FY2021 request, the Administration expenditures would be offset by collections. In the FY2021 request, the Administration ~~assumes~~assumed
$711.20 million and $496.00 million in offsetting collections from the Export-Import Bank and $711.20 million and $496.00 million in offsetting collections from the Export-Import Bank and
the DFC, respectively. the DFC, respectively.
The House legislation The House legislation ~~provides~~would have provided level or increased funding for export promotion accounts when level or increased funding for export promotion accounts when
compared to both FY2020 enacted levels and the compared to both FY2020 enacted levels and the Trump Administration’s request. The only exception Administration’s request. The only exception is
was the DFC corporate capital account’s administrative expenses subaccount, which would the DFC corporate capital account’s administrative expenses subaccount, which would ~~receive a~~
have received a 10.1% increase in funding when compared to FY2020 enacted levels but a 2.0% decrease when 10.1% increase in funding when compared to FY2020 enacted levels but a 2.0% decrease when
compared to the Administration’s proposal. As in previous years, the House compared to the Administration’s proposal. As in previous years, the House ~~assumes~~assumed that all that all
export promotion expenditures would be offset by collections. The House legislation also export promotion expenditures would be offset by collections. The House legislation also ~~does~~
did not accept the Administration’s proposal to shutter USTDA, and instead not accept the Administration’s proposal to shutter USTDA, and instead ~~funds~~funded the agency at the the agency at the
~~same level as FY2020.~~
~~Country and Regional Assistance~~
~~The Administration organizes~~same level as FY2020. The enacted omnibus appropriation provided level funding for the Export-Import Bank’s administrative expenses when compared to the FY2020 enacted level and increased funding for the Bank’s Office of Inspector General. The legislation assumed that the Bank’s expenditures would be offset by collections and would return $113.5 million to the Treasury. The legislation also provided increased funding for the DFC, particularly within its Corporate Capital Account, and assumed only some offsetting collections. As with the House legislation, the omnibus funded USTDA at the same level as FY2020. Country and Regional Assistance The Trump Administration organized much of its country and regional assistance into six thematic much of its country and regional assistance into six thematic
~~priorities~~ priorities (Figure 6). These priorities . These priorities ~~are~~were also meant to reflect the broader foreign operations also meant to reflect the broader foreign operations
goals outlined in goals outlined in “Foreign Operations Highlights.” ”

~~51 FY2021 SFOPS CBJ, p. 104.~~
5262 For more on the DFC’s structure and operations, see CRS In Focus IF11436, For more on the DFC’s structure and operations, see CRS In Focus IF11436, U.S. International Development
Finance Corporation (DFC), by Shayerah Ilias Akhtar and Nick M. Brown. , by Shayerah Ilias Akhtar and Nick M. Brown.
5363 FY2021 SFOPS CBJ, p. 106. FY2021 SFOPS CBJ, p. 106.
Congressional Research Service Congressional Research Service
2023

link to page link to page 2629 link to page link to page 2629

SFOPS: FY2021 Budget and Appropriations

Figure 6. Regional Thematic Priorities, FY2021 Request

Source: Created by CRS usingCreated by CRS using the Trump Administration’s FY2021 budget rol out documents presented on February 10, Administration’s FY2021 budget rol out documents presented on February 10,
2020. 2020.
Note: This map does not capture all bilateral assistance included in the FY2021 request. Other countries would This map does not capture all bilateral assistance included in the FY2021 request. Other countries would
receive assistance but are not in the receive assistance but are not in the Trump Administration’s calculations for these thematic priorities. Administration’s calculations for these thematic priorities.
Top country recipients under the FY2021 request Top country recipients under the FY2021 request ~~remain~~remained consistent with prior year funding consistent with prior year funding
allocations. Israel, Egypt, and Jordan would allocations. Israel, Egypt, and Jordan would ~~remain~~have remained the top three recipients of foreign the top three recipients of foreign
assistance—though Egypt would move ahead of Jordan when compared with FY2019 actual assistance—though Egypt would move ahead of Jordan when compared with FY2019 actual
funding—largely due to the proposed levels of military aid for those three countries. Other funding—largely due to the proposed levels of military aid for those three countries. Other
countries that the countries that the Trump Administration Administration ~~maintains are~~maintained were strategically significant, including Afghanistan strategically significant, including Afghanistan
and Ukraine, also and Ukraine, also ~~remain~~remained top country recipients in the FY2021 request, as top country recipients in the FY2021 request, as do did several African several African
countries that would countries that would ~~receive~~have received high levels of global health and development aid high levels of global health and development aid (Table 9). .
Regionally, the Middle East and Africa would Regionally, the Middle East and Africa would ~~receive~~have received the largest shares of aid in the FY2021 the largest shares of aid in the FY2021
request—together comprising about 71.5% of total aid allocated by country or region—consistent request—together comprising about 71.5% of total aid allocated by country or region—consistent
with FY2019 year actualswith FY2019 year actuals (Figure 7). Proposed funding for Europe and Eurasia and, separately, Proposed funding for Europe and Eurasia and, separately,
the Indo-Pacific, come to 3.9% and 9.2%, respectively. Notably, the distribution of assistance the Indo-Pacific, come to 3.9% and 9.2%, respectively. Notably, the distribution of assistance
within regions within regions ~~vary~~varied significantly. For example, Africa significantly. For example, Africa ~~receives~~received a majority of GHP funding (58.1% a majority of GHP funding (58.1%
in FY2019 and a proposed 66.7% for FY2021), but in FY2019 and a proposed 66.7% for FY2021), but ~~accounts~~accounted for a small proportion of INCLE for a small proportion of INCLE
funding (5.2% in FY2019 and a proposed 4.1% for FY2021). In comparison, the Western funding (5.2% in FY2019 and a proposed 4.1% for FY2021). In comparison, the Western
Hemisphere region Hemisphere region ~~accounts~~accounted for a small percentage of GHP (2.5% in FY2019 and a proposed for a small percentage of GHP (2.5% in FY2019 and a proposed
2.2% for FY2021) and a large proportion of INCLE funds (37.7% in FY2019 and a proposed 2.2% for FY2021) and a large proportion of INCLE funds (37.7% in FY2019 and a proposed
44.8% for FY2021). 44.8% for FY2021).
Congressional Research Service Congressional Research Service
2124

SFOPS: FY2021 Budget and Appropriations

Table 9. Top Aid Recipients by Country,
Figure 7. Proportional Aid, by Region,
FY2019 Actual and FY2021 Request
FY2019 Actual and FY2021 Request
(In millions of current U.S. dollars) (In millions of current U.S. dollars)
(In billions of current U.S. dollars) (In billions of current U.S. dollars)
FY2019 Actual
FY2021 Request
Israel Israel
$3,300.0 Israel $3,300.0 Israel
$3,300.0 $3,300.0
Jordan Jordan
$1,525.0 Egypt $1,525.0 Egypt
$1,400.0 $1,400.0
Egypt Egypt
$1,419.3 Jordan $1,419.3 Jordan
$1,300.0 $1,300.0
South Africa South Africa
$735.0 Nigeria $735.0 Nigeria
$472.1 $472.1
Nigeria Nigeria
$658.5 Mozambique $658.5 Mozambique
$456.5 $456.5
Uganda Uganda
$487.4 Colombia $487.4 Colombia
$412.9 $412.9
Afghanistan Afghanistan
$476.5 Afghanistan $476.5 Afghanistan
$371.8 $371.8
Iraq Iraq
$451.5 Kenya $451.5 Kenya
$330.4 $330.4
Ukraine Ukraine
$445.7 Tanzania $445.7 Tanzania
$328.7 $328.7
Zambia Zambia
$442.9 Ukraine $442.9 Ukraine
$316.9 $316.9
Sources: FY2021 SFOPS CBJ; FY2019 653(a) FY2021 SFOPS CBJ; FY2019 653(a)
allocation charts provided by the State allocation charts provided by the State
Department. Department.

Notes: This reflects only assistance that is This reflects only assistance that is
Source: FY2021 SFOPS CBJ. FY2021 SFOPS CBJ.
requested at the country or regional level, not requested at the country or regional level, not
funds for global activities or humanitarian funds. funds for global activities or humanitarian funds.
The House legislation and report (H.R. 7608/H.Rept. 116-444) The House legislation and report (H.R. 7608/H.Rept. 116-444) dodid not provide comprehensive not provide comprehensive
regional allocations, but regional allocations, but dodid specify assistance levels for several countries and regions. These specify assistance levels for several countries and regions. These
~~include~~included $3.31 billion for Israel, $1.53 billion for Jordan, $1.43 billion for Egypt, and $519.89 $3.31 billion for Israel, $1.53 billion for Jordan, $1.43 billion for Egypt, and $519.89
million for the Central America region, of which $420.79 million million for the Central America region, of which $420.79 million iswould have been directed to be used for the directed to be used for the
Northern Triangle countries (El Salvador, Guatemala, and Honduras). The legislation Northern Triangle countries (El Salvador, Guatemala, and Honduras). The legislation also included~~also~~
~~includes~~ $457.25 million for Colombia, $453.00 million for Ukraine, and $290.00 million for the $457.25 million for Colombia, $453.00 million for Ukraine, and $290.00 million for the
Countering Russian Influence Fund. The House Countering Russian Influence Fund. The House ~~maintains~~bill would have maintained the use of a Countering Chinese the use of a Countering Chinese
Influence Fund but Influence Fund but ~~does~~did not specify a funding level. As with the House legislation, the omnibus and its joint explanatory statement did not provide comprehensive regional allocations. However, allocations were specified for some countries and regions. These included $3.31 billion for Israel, $1.65 billion for Jordan, $1.43 billion for Egypt, and $505.93 million for the Central America region. The legislation also designated $461.38 million for Colombia, $453.00 million for Ukraine, $290.00 million for the Countering Russian Influence Fund, and $300.00 million for the Countering Chinese Influence Fund. Finally, the legislation also made available monies for two new funds—a Global Community Engagement and Resilience Fund and a People-to-People Partnership for Peace Fund—but did not specify funding levels for either ~~not specify a funding level~~. .

Congressional Research Service Congressional Research Service
2225

link to page link to page 3236 link to page 36 link to page 36 link to page link to page 3236 link to page link to page 3236 link to page link to page 3236
Appendix A. SFOPS Funding, by Account
Table A-1. Department of State, Foreign Operations, and Related Agencies Appropriations, FY2019 Actual, FY2020 Enacted,
and FY2021 Request, House-passed bill, and Enacted
(In millions of U.S. dollars; (In millions of U.S. dollars; ~~number~~numbers in parentheses are the portion of the account totals designated as OCO or emergency funds) in parentheses are the portion of the account totals designated as OCO or emergency funds)
FY2020 ~~Enacted~~
~~% Change,~~
~~(P.L. 116-94, P.L.~~
~~FY2020 Enacted~~
~~116-123, P.L.~~
~~vs. FY2021~~
~~FY2021 House~~

~~FY2019 Actual~~
~~116-136)~~
~~FY2021 Request~~
~~Request~~
~~(H.R. 7608)~~
~~Title I. State, Broadcasting & Related Agencies,~~
% Change, % Change, Enacted FY2020 FY2020 (P.L. 116-94, Enacted vs. FY2021 Enacted vs. FY2019 P.L. 116-123, FY2021 FY2021 House (H.R. FY2021 FY2021 Actual P.L. 116-136) Request Request 7608) Enacted Enacted Title I. State, Broadcasting & Related 16,536.59 16,536.59
17,312.18 17,312.18
14,034.56 14,034.56
-18.93% -18.93%
17,562.65 17,562.65
17,290.19 -0.13% Agencies, TOTAL
(4,064.57) (4,064.57)
(4,778.01) (4,778.01)
(4,866.94 (4,866.94) (4,357.54) )
Administration of Foreign Affairs, Subtotal Administration of Foreign Affairs, Subtotal
12,408.55 12,408.55
12,943.96 12,943.96
11,110.21 11,110.21
-14.17% -14.17%
13,389.08 13,389.08
12,948.79 4.80% (2,979.67) (2,979.67)
(3,693.11) (3,693.11)
(4,064.71) (4,064.71)
(3,555.31) Diplomatic Programs Diplomatic Programs
9,253.95 9,253.95
9,713.69 9,713.69
8,489.89 8,489.89
-12.60% -12.60%
10,143.20 10,143.20
9,320.01 -4.05% (2,942.77) (2,942.77)
(3,214.12 (3,214.12)ab
(3,581.12 (3,581.12)c
( (2,376.12)d (of which Worldwide Security Protection) of which Worldwide Security Protection)
[4,095.90] [4,095.90]
[4,095.90] [4,095.90]
[3,695.41] [3,695.41]
-9.78% -9.78%
[4,095.90] [4,095.90]
[4,120.90] 0.61% (2,626.12) (2,626.12)
(2,626.12) (2,626.12)
(2,626.12) (2,626.12)
(2,226.12) Consular and Border Security Programs — — — — — 300.00d — Capital Investment Fund Capital Investment Fund
92.77 92.77
139.50 139.50
256.70 256.70
84.01% 84.01%
137.50 137.50
250.00 79.21% Office of Inspector General Office of Inspector General
145.73 145.73
145.73 145.73
141.42 141.42
-2.96% -2.96%
150.13 150.13
145.73 0.00% (54.90) (54.90)
(54.90) (54.90)
(59. (59.~~30)c~~
30)c (54.90) Ed. & Cultural Exchanges Ed. & Cultural Exchanges
700.95 700.95
730.70 730.70
310.00 310.00
-57.57% -57.57%
741.70 741.70
740.30 1.31% Representation Expenses Representation Expenses
8.03 8.03
7.21 7.21
7.41 7.41
2.79% 2.79%
7.42 7.42
7.42 2.81% Protection of Foreign Missions & Officials Protection of Foreign Missions & Officials
30.89 30.89
30.89 30.89
25.90 25.90
-16.15% -16.15%
30.89 30.89
30.89 0.00% Embassy Security, Construction & Embassy Security, Construction & ~~Maintenance~~
1,975.45 1,975.45
1,975.45 1,975.45
1,683.76 1,683.76
-14.78% -14.78%
1,975.45 1,975.45
1,950.45 -1.27% Maintenance (424.09) (824.29) (~~(424.09)~~
(of which Worldwide Security Upgrades) of which Worldwide Security Upgrades)
[1,198.25] [1,198.25]
[1,205.65] [1,205.65]
[941.66] [941.66]
-21.90% -21.90%
[1,205.65] [1,205.65]
[1,181.40] -2.01% (424.09) (424.09)
(424.29) (424.29)
(824.49) Emergency-Diplomatic & Consular Services Emergency-Diplomatic & Consular Services
7.89 7.89
7.89 7.89
7.89 7.89
—0.00% 7.89 7.89 0.00% CRS-26 FY2020 % Change, % Change, Enacted FY2020 FY2020 (P.L. 116-94, Enacted vs. FY2021 Enacted vs. FY2019 P.L. 116-123, FY2021 FY2021 House (H.R. FY2021 FY2021 Actual P.L. 116-136) Request Request 7608) Enacted Enacted Repatriation Loans 1.30 1.30 1.30 0.00% 1.30 2.50 92.31%
~~7.89~~
~~Repatriation Loans~~
~~1.30~~
~~1.30~~
~~1.30~~
—
~~1.30~~
~~CRS-23~~

link to page link to page 3236 link to page link to page 3236 link to page link to page 3236 link to page link to page 3236 link to page link to page 3236 link to page link to page 3236 link to page link to page 3236
FY2020 ~~Enacted~~
~~% Change,~~
~~(P.L. 116-94, P.L.~~
~~FY2020 Enacted~~
~~116-123, P.L.~~
~~vs. FY2021~~
~~FY2021 House~~

~~FY2019 Actual~~
~~116-136)~~
~~FY2021 Request~~
~~Request~~
~~(H.R. 7608)~~ % Change, % Change, Enacted FY2020 FY2020 (P.L. 116-94, Enacted vs. FY2021 Enacted vs. FY2019 P.L. 116-123, FY2021 FY2021 House (H.R. FY2021 FY2021 Actual P.L. 116-136) Request Request 7608) Enacted Enacted Israeli-Arab Scholarship Program 0.07 0.12 0.12 -4.03% 0.12 0.12 -4.03% East-West Center 16.70 16.70 — -100.00% 19.70 19.70 17.96%
Nat’l Endowment for Democracy Nat’l Endowment for Democracy
180.00 180.00
300.00 300.00
67.28 67.28
-77.58% -77.58%
300.00 300.00
300.00 0.00% Other Commissions, Subtotal Other Commissions, Subtotal
14.75 14.75
13.50 13.50
13.97 13.97
-3.46% -3.46%
14.30 14.30
14.30 5.89% Preservation of America’s Heritage Abroad Preservation of America’s Heritage Abroad
0.68 0.68
0.68 0.68
0.64 0.64
-4.89% -4.89%
0.64 0.64
0.64 -4.89% Int’l Religious Freedom Int’l Religious Freedom
4.50 4.50
4.50 4.50
4.50 4.50
— —
4.50 4.50 4.50 0.00%
Security & Cooperation in Europe Security & Cooperation in Europe
2.58 2.58
2.58 2.58
2.58 2.58
— —
2.91 2.91 2.91 12.76%
Cong.-Exec. Commission on People’s Cong.-Exec. Commission on People’s ~~Republic of China~~
2.00 2.00
2.25 2.25
2.25 2.25
— —
2.25 2.25
2.25 0.00% Republic of China U.S.-China Economic and Security Review U.S.-China Economic and Security Review
3.50 3.50
3.50 3.50
4.00 4.00
14.29% 14.29%
4.00 4.00
4.00 14.29% Western Hem. Drug Policy Commission Western Hem. Drug Policy Commission
1.50 1.50
0.00 0.00
— —
— —
— —
— — Foreign Operations, TOTAL
38,463.96
40,475.46
30,088.86
-25.66%
48,639.81
44,224.25 9.26% (3,935.43)
(5,869.46)
(13,151.61) (9337.58)
Title II. Admin of Foreign Assistance Title II. Admin of Foreign Assistance
1,674.48 1,674.48
1,759.05 1,759.05
1,591.75 1,591.75
-9.51% -9.51%
1,786.03 1,786.03
1,711.45 -2.71% (158.07) (158.07)
(96.00) (96.00)
(108.00) (108.00)
USAID Operating Expenses USAID Operating Expenses
1,372.88 1,372.88
1,472.25 1,472.25
1,311.87 1,311.87
-10.89% -10.89%
1,469.53 1,469.53 1,377.75 -6.42%
(158.07) (158.07)
(95.00 (95.00)b
(105.00 (105.00)c
USAID Capital Investment Fund USAID Capital Investment Fund
225.00 225.00
210.30 210.30
205.00 205.00
-2.52% -2.52%
238.00 238.00 258.20 22.78%
USAID Inspector General USAID Inspector General
76.60 76.60
76.50 76.50
74.88 74.88
-2.12% -2.12%
78.50 78.50 75.50 -1.13%
(1.00 (1.00)a
(3.00 (3.00)c
Title III: Bilateral Economic Assistance Title III: Bilateral Economic Assistance
25,948.70 25,948.70
27,642.99 27,642.99
19,623.49 19,623.49
-29.01% -29.01%
34,615.92 34,615.92 31,308.95 13.26%
(3,222.78) (3,222.78)
(4,936.34) (4,936.34)
(10,925.34 (10,925.34) (8,435.46) )
Global Health Programs (GHP), State + Global Health Programs (GHP), State + ~~USAID~~
8,869.95 8,869.95
9,527.45 9,527.45
5,998.00 5,998.00
-37.05% -37.05%
11,656.98 11,656.98
~~(435.00)a~~
~~(2,500.00)c~~
~~(of which USAID)~~
~~[3,149.95]~~
~~[3,597.45]~~
~~[2,160.10]~~
~~-39.95%~~
~~[3,226.98]~~
~~(2,500.00)c~~
~~(of which State)~~
~~[5,720.00]~~
~~[5,930.00]~~
~~[3,837.87]~~
~~-35.28%~~
~~[5,930.00]~~
~~CRS-25~~

~~link to page 32 link to page 32 link to page 32 link to page 32 link to page 32 link to page 32 link to page 32 link to page 32 link to page 32 link to page 32 link to page 32~~
~~FY2020 Enacted~~
~~% Change,~~
~~(P.L. 116-94, P.L.~~
~~FY2020 Enacted~~
~~116-123, P.L.~~
~~vs. FY2021~~
~~FY2021 House~~

~~FY2019 Actual~~
~~116-136)~~
~~FY2021 Request~~
~~Request~~
~~(H.R. 7608)~~
~~Development Assistance~~
~~3,000.00~~
~~3,400.00~~
—
~~n.a.~~
~~4,700.00~~13,195.95 38.50% USAID (435.00)a (2,500.00)c (4,000.00)d CRS-28 link to page 36 link to page 36 link to page 36 link to page 36 link to page 36 link to page 36 link to page 36 link to page 36 link to page 36 link to page 36 link to page 36 link to page 36 FY2020 % Change, % Change, Enacted FY2020 FY2020 (P.L. 116-94, Enacted vs. FY2021 Enacted vs. FY2019 P.L. 116-123, FY2021 FY2021 House (H.R. FY2021 FY2021 Actual P.L. 116-136) Request Request 7608) Enacted Enacted (of which USAID) [3,149.95] [3,597.45] [2,160.10] -39.95% [3,226.98] [7,265.95] 129.76% (2,500.00)c (4,000.00)d (of which State) [5,720.00] [5,930.00] [3,837.87] -35.28% [5,930.00] [5,930.00] 0.00% Development Assistance 3,000.00 3,400.00 — n.a. 4,700.00 3,500.00 2.94%
(900.00 (900.00)c
International Disaster Assistance International Disaster Assistance
4,385.31 4,385.31
4,953.36 4,953.36
— —
n.a. n.a.
5,520.36 5,520.36
4,395.36 -11.27% (584.27) (584.27)
(2,291.98 (2,291.98)ab
(2,858.98 (2,858.98)c
(1,914.04) Transition Initiatives Transition Initiatives
92.04 92.04
92.04 92.04
112.00 112.00
21.68% 21.68%
92.04 92.04
92.04 0.00% (62.04) (62.04)
Complex Crises Fund Complex Crises Fund
30.00 30.00
30.00 30.00
— —
-100.00% -100.00%
30.00 30.00 30.00 0.00%
Development Credit Authority—Admin Development Credit Authority—Admin
10.00 10.00 — —
— —
— —
— —
— —
Development Credit Authority Subsidy Development Credit Authority Subsidy
[55.00] [55.00]
— —
— —
— —
— —
— — Economic Support Fund Economic Support Fund
3,692.86 3,692.86
3,295.00 3,295.00
— —
n.a. n.a.
4,944.41 4,944.41
3,851.96 16.90% (1,172.34) (1,172.34)
(250.00 (250.00)a
(1,500.00 (1,500.00)c
(700.00)d Economic Support and Development Fund Economic Support and Development Fund
— —
— —
5,925.60 5,925.60
n.a. n.a.
— —
— n.a. Democracy Fund Democracy Fund
227.20 227.20
273.70 273.70
— —
n.a. n.a.
323.70 323.70
290.70 6.21% Assistance for Europe, Eurasia and Central Assistance for Europe, Eurasia and Central ~~Asia~~
760.33 760.33
770.33 770.33
— —
n.a. n.a.
1,270.33 1,270.33
770.33 0.00% Asia (500.00(500.00)c
Migration & Refugee Assistance Migration & Refugee Assistance
3,432.00 3,432.00
3,782.00 3,782.00
299.21 299.21
-92.09% -92.09%
4,557.00 4,557.00 3,432.00 -9.25%
(1,404.12) (1,404.12)
(1,871.36 (1,871.36)b
(2,646.36 (2,646.36)c
(1,701.42) International Humanitarian Assistance International Humanitarian Assistance
— —
— —
5,968.00 5,968.00
n.a. n.a.
— —
— n.a. Emergency Refugee and MigrationEmergency Refugee and Migration ~~Assistance~~
1.00 1.00
0.10 0.10
— —
n.a. n.a.
0.10 0.10
0.10 0.00% Assistance Independent Agencies, Subtotal Independent Agencies, Subtotal
1,368.00 1,368.00
1,474.00 1,474.00
1,209.71 1,209.71
-17.93% -17.93%
1,410.00 1,410.00
~~(88.00)~~
~~(20.00)~~
~~Peace Corps~~
~~410.50~~
~~498.50~~
~~401.20~~
~~-19.52%~~
~~410.50~~
~~(88.00)b~~
~~Mil ennium Challenge Corporation~~
~~905.00~~
~~905.00~~
~~800.00~~
~~-11.60%~~
~~905.00~~
~~Inter-American Foundation~~
~~22.50~~
~~37.50~~
~~3.85~~
~~-89.73%~~
~~51.50~~
~~(10.00)c~~
~~CRS-26~~

~~link to page 32 link to page 32~~
~~FY2020 Enacted~~
~~% Change,~~
~~(P.L. 116-94, P.L.~~
~~FY2020 Enacted~~
~~116-123, P.L.~~
~~vs. FY2021~~
~~FY2021 House~~

~~FY2019 Actual~~
~~116-136)~~
~~FY2021 Request~~
~~Request~~
~~(H.R. 7608)~~
~~U.S. African Development Foundation~~
~~30.00~~
~~33.00~~
~~4.66~~
~~-85.88%~~
~~43.00~~1,393.50 -5.46% (88.00) (20.00) CRS-29 link to page 36 link to page 36 link to page 36 link to page 36 FY2020 % Change, % Change, Enacted FY2020 FY2020 (P.L. 116-94, Enacted vs. FY2021 Enacted vs. FY2019 P.L. 116-123, FY2021 FY2021 House (H.R. FY2021 FY2021 Actual P.L. 116-136) Request Request 7608) Enacted Enacted Peace Corps 410.50 498.50 401.20 -19.52% 410.50 410.50 -17.65% (88.00)b Mil ennium Challenge Corporation 905.00 905.00 800.00 -11.60% 905.00 912.00 0.77% Inter-American Foundation 22.50 37.50 3.85 -89.73% 51.50 38.00 1.33% (10.00)c U.S. African Development Foundation 30.00 33.00 4.66 -85.88% 43.00 33.00 0.00%
(10.00 (10.00)c
Department of the Treasury, Subtotal Department of the Treasury, Subtotal
30.00 30.00
45.00 45.00
111.00 111.00
146.67% 146.67%
111.00 111.00 357.00 693.00% (120.00)
Department of the Treasury Technical Department of the Treasury Technical ~~Assistance~~
30.00 30.00
30.00 30.00
33.00 33.00
10.00% 10.00%
33.00 33.00
33.00 10.00% Assistance Debt Restructuring Debt Restructuring
— —
15.00 15.00
78.00 78.00
420.00% 420.00%
78.00 78.00 324.00 2060.00% (120.00)d
Title IV. Int’l Security Assistance Title IV. Int’l Security Assistance
9,153.08 9,153.08
9,013.95 9,013.95
7,729.66 7,729.66
-14.25% -14.25%
9,015.20 9,015.20
9,004.03 -.011% (554.59) (554.59)
(837.12) (837.12)
(837.12) (837.12)
(902.12) International Narcotics Control & Law International Narcotics Control & Law ~~Enforcement~~
1,497.47 1,497.47
1,391.00 1,391.00
1,010.28 1,010.28
-27.37% -27.37%
1,391.00 1,391.00 1,385.57 -0.39% Enforcement
Nonproliferation, Anti-Terrorism, Nonproliferation, Anti-Terrorism, ~~Demining~~
864.55 864.55
895.75 895.75
753.55 753.55
-15.87% -15.87%
897.00 897.00 889.25 -0.73% Demining
Peacekeeping Operations Peacekeeping Operations
488.67 488.67
457.35 457.35
290.00 290.00
-36.59% -36.59%
457.35 457.35
440.76 -3.63% (325.21) (325.21) (325.21)
(325.21) (325.21)
(325.21) (325.21)
International Military Education & Training International Military Education & Training
110.78 110.78
112.93 112.93
104.93 104.93
-7.08% -7.08%
112.93 112.93
112.93 0.00% Foreign Military Financing Foreign Military Financing
6,191.61 6,191.61
6,156.92 6,156.92
5,570.90 5,570.90
-9.52% -9.52%
6,156.92 6,156.92 6,175.52 0.30%
(229.37) (229.37)
(511.91) (511.91)
(511.91 (511.91) (576.91) )
Title V. Multilateral Assistance Title V. Multilateral Assistance
1,849.20 1,849.20
2,082.28 2,082.28
1,481.24 1,481.24
-28.86% -28.86%
3,322.47 3,322.47
~~(1,281.15)~~2,040.82 -1.99% (1,281.15) CRS-30 link to page 36 FY2020 % Change, % Change, Enacted FY2020 FY2020 (P.L. 116-94, Enacted vs. FY2021 Enacted vs. FY2019 P.L. 116-123, FY2021 FY2021 House (H.R. FY2021 FY2021 Actual P.L. 116-136) Request Request 7608) Enacted Enacted
International Organizations & Programs International Organizations & Programs
331.50 331.50
390.50 390.50
— —
-100.00% -100.00%
1,671.65 1,671.65
387.50 -0.77% (1,281.15(1,281.15)c
Int’l Bank for Reconstruction and Int’l Bank for Reconstruction and ~~Development~~
— —
206.50 206.50
206.50 206.50
—
~~206.50~~0.00% 206.50 206.50 0.00% Development
World Bank: Global Environment Facility World Bank: Global Environment Facility
139.58 139.58
139.58 139.58
— —
-100.00% -100.00%
139.58 139.58
139.58 0.00% World Bank: Int’l Development World Bank: Int’l Development ~~Association~~
1,097.01 1,097.01
1,097.01 1,097.01
1,001.40 1,001.40
-8.72% -8.72%
1,001.40 1,001.40
1,001.40 -8.72% Association Asian Development Fund Asian Development Fund
47.40 47.40
47.40 47.40
47.40 47.40
—0.00%
47.40 47.40
47.40 0.00% African Development Bank-Capital African Development Bank-Capital
32.42 32.42
— —
54.65 54.65
n.a. n.a.
54.65 54.65
54.65 n.a. African Development Fund African Development Fund
171. 171.330
171.30 171.30
171.30 171.30
—0.00%
171.30 171.30
171.30 0.00% International Fund for AgriculturalInternational Fund for Agricultural ~~Development~~
30.00 30.00
30.00 30.00
— —
-100.00% -100.00%
30.00 30.00
~~CRS-27~~

~~FY2020 Enacted~~
~~% Change,~~
~~(P.L. 116-94, P.L.~~
~~FY2020 Enacted~~
~~116-123, P.L.~~
~~vs. FY2021~~
~~FY2021 House~~

~~FY2019 Actual~~
~~116-136)~~
~~FY2021 Request~~
~~Request~~
~~(H.R. 7608)~~32.50 8.33% Development
Title VI. Export Assistance Title VI. Export Assistance
-161.49 -161.49
-22.80 -22.80
-337.27 -337.27
1,379.26% 1,379.26%
-99.80 -99.80 159.00 -797.37%
Export-Import Bank (net) Export-Import Bank (net)
100.05 100.05
-34.30 -34.30
-689.05 -689.05
1908.90% 1908.90%
-114.30 -114.30
-113.50 230.90% Overseas Private Investment Corporation Overseas Private Investment Corporation
-341.04 -341.04
— —
— —
— —
— — — —
Development Finance Corporation Development Finance Corporation
— —
-68.00 -68.00
339.68 339.68
599.53% 599.53%
-65.00 -65.00
193.00 -383.82% Trade & Development Agency Trade & Development Agency
79.50 79.50
79.50 79.50
12.11 12.11
-84.77% -84.77%
79.50 79.50 79.50 0.00%
State, Foreign Operations & Related ~~Programs,~~
55,000.55
57,787.64
44,123.42
-23.65%
66,102.45
61,514.43 6.45% Programs, TOTAL
(8,000.00)
(10,647.46)
(18,018.55)
(13.695.12) Ad Ons/Rescissions, net Ad Ons/Rescissions, net
-324.62 -324.62
-578.74 -578.74
— —
— —
-75.00 -75.00
~~(-282.46~~-530.12 -8.40% (-282.46) (-425.12) )
State, Foreign Operations & Related ~~Programs,~~
54,675.93
57,208.90
44,123.42
-22.87%
66,027.45
60,984.31 6.60% Programs, Net of Rescissions
(8,000.00)
(10,365.00)
(18,018.55) (13,270.00)
Sources: FY2019 Actuals and the FY2021 request are from the FY2021 SFOPS CBJ; FY2020 enacted data are from P.L. 116-94, Division G, P.L. 116-123, and P.L. 116-FY2019 Actuals and the FY2021 request are from the FY2021 SFOPS CBJ; FY2020 enacted data are from P.L. 116-94, Division G, P.L. 116-123, and P.L. 116-
136. 136.
CRS-31 Notes: Figures in brackets are subsumed in the larger account above and are not counted against the total. Figures in parentheses are amount designated as Overseas Figures in brackets are subsumed in the larger account above and are not counted against the total. Figures in parentheses are amount designated as Overseas
Contingency Operations (OCO) or supplemental emergency funding and are subsumed in the larger account number above them. “Enduring” funding is also sometimes Contingency Operations (OCO) or supplemental emergency funding and are subsumed in the larger account number above them. “Enduring” funding is also sometimes
referred to as “base” or “ongoing” funding in budget documents. Numbers may not add due to rounding. “n.a.” = not applicable. referred to as “base” or “ongoing” funding in budget documents. Numbers may not add due to rounding. “n.a.” = not applicable.
a. Includes funding for the first novel coronavirus (COVID-19) supplemental appropriation, P.L. 116-123. That legislation appropriated $264 mil ion for Diplomatic a. Includes funding for the first novel coronavirus (COVID-19) supplemental appropriation, P.L. 116-123. That legislation appropriated $264 mil ion for Diplomatic
Programs, $1 mil ion for the USAID Inspector General, $435 mil ion for Global Health Programs-USAID, $300 mil ion for International Disaster Assistance, and Programs, $1 mil ion for the USAID Inspector General, $435 mil ion for Global Health Programs-USAID, $300 mil ion for International Disaster Assistance, and
$250 mil ion for the Economic Support Fund. All of these funds were designated as being for an emergency requirement. As such, like OCO funds, they do not $250 mil ion for the Economic Support Fund. All of these funds were designated as being for an emergency requirement. As such, like OCO funds, they do not
count against BCA discretionary spending caps. count against BCA discretionary spending caps.
b. Includes funding for the third novel coronavirus supplemental appropriations, P.L. 116-136. That legislation included $324 mil ion for Diplomatic Programs, $95 b. Includes funding for the third novel coronavirus supplemental appropriations, P.L. 116-136. That legislation included $324 mil ion for Diplomatic Programs, $95
mil ion for USAID Operating Expenses, $258 mil ion for International Disaster Assistance, $250 mil ion for Migration and Refugee Assistance, and $88 mil ion for the mil ion for USAID Operating Expenses, $258 mil ion for International Disaster Assistance, $250 mil ion for Migration and Refugee Assistance, and $88 mil ion for the
Peace Corps. Peace Corps.
c. Includes c. Includes ~~supplemental~~emergency funding designated for the novel coronavirus in Title VIII of H.R. 7608. d. Includes emergency funding designated for the novel coronavirus, section 7 of the Sudan Claims Resolution Act, and payment to the International Monetary Fund for Heavily Indebted Poor Countries debt relief for Sudan in Title IX of the final appropriation. e. The Consular and Border Security Programs account is typically funded through fees and surcharges pursuant to Section 7081 of P.L. 115-31, rather than annual appropriations. However, col ections derived from such fees and surcharges declined considerably due to the COVID-19 pandemic, prompting Congress to provide a direct appropriation for this account. CRS-32 link to page 37 ~~funding designated for the novel coronavirus in Title VIII of H.R. 7608.~~

~~CRS-28~~

~~link to page 33~~ SFOPS: FY2021 Budget and Appropriations

Appendix B. International Affairs Budget
The International Affairs budget, or Function 150, includes funding that is not in the Department The International Affairs budget, or Function 150, includes funding that is not in the Department
of State, Foreign Operations, and Related Programs (SFOPS) appropriation; in particular, of State, Foreign Operations, and Related Programs (SFOPS) appropriation; in particular,
international food assistance programs (Food for Peace Act (FFPA), Title II and McGovern-Dole international food assistance programs (Food for Peace Act (FFPA), Title II and McGovern-Dole
International Food for Education and Child Nutrition programs) are in the Agriculture International Food for Education and Child Nutrition programs) are in the Agriculture
Appropriations, and the Foreign Claim Settlement Commission and the International Trade Appropriations, and the Foreign Claim Settlement Commission and the International Trade
Commission are in the Commerce, Justice, Science appropriations. In addition, the Department of Commission are in the Commerce, Justice, Science appropriations. In addition, the Department of
State, Foreign Operations, and Related Programs appropriation measure includes funding for State, Foreign Operations, and Related Programs appropriation measure includes funding for
certain international commissions that are not part of the International Affairs Function 150 certain international commissions that are not part of the International Affairs Function 150
account. account.
Table B-1. International Affairs Budget, FY2019 Actual, FY2020 Enacted,
and FY2021 Request, House-passed bill, and Enacted
(In millions of U.S. dollars) (In millions of U.S. dollars)
FY2020
Enacted
% Change, % Change
(P.L. 116-93,
FY2020
FY2021
FY2020 P.L. 116-94,
Enacted vs.
House
Enacted vs. FY2019
P.L. 116-
FY2021
FY2021
(H.R. 7608,
FY2021 FY2021
Actual
136)
Request
Request
H.R. 7667
) Enacted Enacted State-Foreign
54,534.49
56,946.10
43,979.32
-22.77%
65,852.95
60,668.11 6.35% Operations, excluding
commissionsa
Commerce-Justice-
99.48
101.74
107.37
5.53%
107.37
105.37 3.57% Science
Foreign Claims Foreign Claims
2.41 2.41
2.34 2.34
2.37 2.37
1.33% 1.33%
2.37 2.37
2.37 1.33% Settlement Commission Settlement Commission
Int’l Trade Commission Int’l Trade Commission
97.08 97.08
99.40 99.40
105.00 105.00
5.63% 5.63%
105.00 105.00 103.00 3.62%
Agriculture
1,926.26
1,945.00
— —
n.a.
2,010.00
1,970.00 1.29% FFPA Title II FFPA Title II
1,716.00 1,716.00
1,725.00 1,725.00
— —
n.a. n.a.
1,775.00 1,775.00 1,740.00 0.87%
McGovern-Dole McGovern-Dole
210.26 210.26
220.00 220.00
— —
n.a. n.a.
235.00 235.00
230.00 4.55% Total International
56,560.23
58,992.84
44,086.68
-25.27%
67,970.32
62,743.48 6.18% Affairs (150)
Sources: FY2019 Actuals and the FY2021 request are from the FY2021 SFOPS CBJ, FY2021 Foreign Claims FY2019 Actuals and the FY2021 request are from the FY2021 SFOPS CBJ, FY2021 Foreign Claims
Settlement Commission CBJ, and FY2021 U.S. International Trade Commission CBJ; FY2020 enacted data are Settlement Commission CBJ, and FY2021 U.S. International Trade Commission CBJ; FY2020 enacted data are
from P.L. 116-93, Division B, P.L. 116-94, Divisions B and G, P.L. 116-123, and P.L. 116-136. from P.L. 116-93, Division B, P.L. 116-94, Divisions B and G, P.L. 116-123, and P.L. 116-136.
a. Includes mandatory spending from the Foreign Service retirement account, and does not align with budget a. Includes mandatory spending from the Foreign Service retirement account, and does not align with budget
justification figures that count only discretionary spending. Funding for certain international commissions justification figures that count only discretionary spending. Funding for certain international commissions
appropriated in the SFOPS bil are excluded here because they fall under function 300 of the budget appropriated in the SFOPS bil are excluded here because they fall under function 300 of the budget
(Natural Resources and Environment), not function 150 (International Affairs). (Natural Resources and Environment), not function 150 (International Affairs).

Congressional Research Service Congressional Research Service
2933

SFOPS: FY2021 Budget and Appropriations

Appendix C. SFOPS Organization Chart

Source: Created by CRS from annual SFOPS legislation. Created by CRS from annual SFOPS legislation.

Author Information

Cory R. Gill Cory R. Gill
Emily M. Morgenstern Emily M. Morgenstern
Analyst in Foreign Affairs Analyst in Foreign Affairs
Analyst in Foreign Assistance and Foreign Policy Analyst in Foreign Assistance and Foreign Policy

Marian L. Lawson Marian L. Lawson

Section Research Manager Section Research Manager

~~Congressional Research Service~~
30

~~SFOPS: FY2021 Budget and Appropriations~~

Disclaimer
This document was prepared by the Congressional Research Service (CRS). CRS serves as nonpartisan This document was prepared by the Congressional Research Service (CRS). CRS serves as nonpartisan
shared staff to congressional committees and Members of Congress. It operates solely at the behest of and shared staff to congressional committees and Members of Congress. It operates solely at the behest of and
under the direction of Congress. Information in a CRS Report should not be relied upon for purposes other under the direction of Congress. Information in a CRS Report should not be relied upon for purposes other
than public understanding of information that has been provided by CRS to Members of Congress in than public understanding of information that has been provided by CRS to Members of Congress in
connection with CRS’s institutional role. CRS Reports, as a work of the United States Government, are not connection with CRS’s institutional role. CRS Reports, as a work of the United States Government, are not
subject to copyright protection in the United States. Any CRS Report may be reproduced and distributed in subject to copyright protection in the United States. Any CRS Report may be reproduced and distributed in
its entirety without permission from CRS. However, as a CRS Report may include copyrighted images or its entirety without permission from CRS. However, as a CRS Report may include copyrighted images or
material from a third party, you may need to obtain the permission of the copyright holder if you wish to material from a third party, you may need to obtain the permission of the copyright holder if you wish to
copy or otherwise use copyrighted material. copy or otherwise use copyrighted material.

Congressional Research Service Congressional Research Service
R46367 R46367 · VERSION 46 · UPDATED
3134