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

Changes from March 18, 2021 to September 24, 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
~~March 18~~September 24, 2021 , 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
programs and Marian L. Lawson
~~programs and~~ activities. One of these is the Department of State, Foreign Operations, activities. One of these is the Department of State, Foreign Operations,
and Related Programs Section Research Manager Section Research Manager
~~and Related Programs~~ (SFOPS) bill, which includes funding for U.S. diplomatic (SFOPS) bill, which includes funding for U.S. diplomatic

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

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

The The Trump Administration’s FY2021 request was about 3% higher than its FY2020 request for Administration’s FY2021 request was 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 was divided among two main components: funding was 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 SFOPS appropriation, primarily support Department of State diplomatic and security activities appropriation, primarily support Department of State diplomatic and security activities
and would have been reduced by 18.9% from FY2020-enacted levels. Noteworthy cuts were and would have been reduced by 18.9% from FY2020-enacted levels. Noteworthy cuts were
proposed for the Educational and Cultural Exchange Programs (-57.6%), International proposed for the Educational and Cultural Exchange Programs (-57.6%), International
Organizations (-31.8%) accounts, and the Diplomatic Programs account (-12.6%), which funds Organizations (-31.8%) accounts, and the Diplomatic Programs account (-12.6%), which funds
many of the State Department’s day-to-day operations.many of the State 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 assistance activities. These accounts would have seen a total reduction of 25.7%, with particularly activities. These accounts would have seen a total reduction of 25.7%, with particularly
steep cuts proposed for global health programs (-37.5%), peacekeeping operations steep cuts proposed for global health programs (-37.5%), peacekeeping operations
(PKO, -36.6%), multilateral aid (-28.9%), and humanitarian assistance (-28.3%, not including (PKO, -36.6%), multilateral aid (-28.9%), and humanitarian assistance (-28.3%, not including
food aid programs funded through the agriculture appropriation). food aid programs funded through the agriculture appropriation).
The House passed an FY2021 SFOPS bill, H.R. 7608, Division A, on July 24, 2020. The bill would have provided The House passed an FY2021 SFOPS bill, H.R. 7608, Division A, on July 24, 2020. The bill would have provided
a total of $66.03a total of $66.03 billion in net budget authority for SFOPS accounts ($66.10 billion pre-rescissions). No FY2021 billion in net budget authority for SFOPS accounts ($66.10 billion pre-rescissions). No FY2021
SFOPS legislation was introduced in the Senate. 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 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 included SFOPS appropriations in Division K. The enacted legislation included a net total of $60.98 billion
($61.51($61.51 billion pre-rescission) for SFOPS accounts, 38.2% more than the Administration’s request and 6.6% more billion pre-rescission) 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 than FY2020 funding. Of these funds, $8.25 billion were designated as OCO. President Trump signed the bill into
law (P.L. 116-260)law (P.L. 116-260) on December 27, 2020. on December 27, 2020.
In March 2021, Congress enacted and President Biden signed into law the American Rescue Plan Act In March 2021, Congress enacted and President Biden signed into law the American Rescue Plan Act of 2021, , P.L. 117-2. P.L. 117-2.
Title X of the $1.9 Title X of the $1.9 ~~trillion legislation~~ tril ion legislation to prevent and respond to the impacts of COVID-19 included an to prevent and respond to the impacts of COVID-19 included an additional additional
~~$10 billion~~ $10 bil ion in FY2021 SFOPS emergency funding, though the account breakout of those funds is not entirely in FY2021 SFOPS emergency funding, though the account breakout of those funds is not entirely
clear. This legislationclear. This legislation brought the enacted FY2021 SFOPS funding total to $70.98 brought the enacted FY2021 SFOPS funding total to $70.98 ~~billion~~bil ion, after rescissions, a 24% , after rescissions, a 24%
~~increase over FY2020 funding.~~
increase over FY2020 funding. In late July 2021, Congress enacted and President Biden signed into law the Emergency Security Supplemental Appropriations Act, P.L. 117-31, which included $600 mil ion in SFOPS migration and refugee assistance. This legislation brought the FY2021 SFOPS enacted funding total to $71.58 bil ion ($72.11 bil ion pre-rescissions), a 25% increase over FY2020 total enacted funding. Congressional Research Service link to page 34 link to page 41 link to page 41 Department of State, Foreign Operations, and Related Programs An account-by-account comparison of the FY2021 SFOPS request, FY2021 SFOPS legislation, and FY2020 An account-by-account comparison of the FY2021 SFOPS request, FY2021 SFOPS legislation, and FY2020
SFOPS funding is presented SFOPS funding is presented inin Appendix A. Appendix B provides a similar comparison, focused specifically on provides a similar comparison, focused specifically on
the International Affairs the International Affairs ~~budget.~~budget. Appendix CB depicts the organization of the SFOPS appropriation. depicts the organization of the SFOPS appropriation.
~~Congressional Research Service~~

~~Department of State, Foreign Operations, and Related Programs~~

This report is designed to track SFOPS appropriations, comparing funding levels for accounts and purposes across This report is designed to track SFOPS appropriations, comparing funding levels for accounts and purposes across
enacted enacted ~~FY2020~~ FY2020 SFOPS appropriations, FY2021 Administration requests, and FY2021 SFOPS legislation. It does SFOPS appropriations, FY2021 Administration requests, and FY2021 SFOPS legislation. It does
not provide significant analysis of international affairs policy issues. For in-depth analysis and contextual not provide significant analysis of international affairs policy issues. For in-depth analysis and contextual
information on international affairs issues, consult the wide range of CRS reports on specific subjects, such as information on international affairs issues, consult the wide range of CRS reports on specific subjects, such as
global health, diplomatic security, and U.S. participation in the United Nations. global health, diplomatic security, and U.S. participation in the United Nations.
Congressional Research Service Congressional Research Service

link to page link to page 76 link to page link to page 40 41 Department of State, Foreign Operations, and Related Programs ~~Department of State, Foreign Operations, and Related Programs~~

~~Update Note~~
~~American Rescue Plan Act~~
~~In March 2021, Congress enacted and President Biden signed into law the American Rescue Plan Act (ARPA). The~~
~~$1.9 trillion legislation, which was developed by authorizing committees using the budget reconciliation process~~
~~rather than the appropriations process, included an additional $10 billion in FY2021 emergency-designated funding~~
~~for SFOPS activities intended to prevent, prepare for, or respond to COVID-19 (P.L. 117-2, Title X). Funding was~~
~~provided for several key purposes:~~

~~$204 million for Department of State Operations~~

~~$41 million for USAID Operations~~

~~$3,750 million for Department of State global health activities, including $3,500 million for the Global Fund to~~
~~Fight AIDS, Tuberculosis, and Malaria~~

~~$905 million for USAID global health activities, including a contribution to a multilateral vaccine development~~
~~partnership to support epidemic preparedness~~

~~$3,090 million for USAID activities related to international disaster relief, rehabilitation and reconstruction,~~
~~health, and emergency food security~~

~~$930 million to address economic and stabilization needs related to the virus~~

~~$500 million designated for humanitarian response~~

~~$580 million for multilateral assistance~~
~~It is not clear how all of these funds will be allocated by account.1 For this reason, total ARPA funding is added~~
~~into the Appendix A funding table at the end, and is not incorporated at the account level of that table or in the~~
~~other account-specific sections of this report. As more information becomes available, this report will be updated~~
~~to reflect these details.~~
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 of State, Foreign Operations, and Related Programs (SFOPS) accounts, totaling $44.12 ~~billion~~
bil ion (including $158.90 (including $158.90 ~~million~~mil ion in mandatory retirement funds). in mandatory retirement funds).21 SFOPS funding SFOPS funding ~~typically~~typical y represents 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. embassies; diplomatic activities; educational and cultural world, including the operations of U.S. embassies; diplomatic activities; educational and cultural
exchanges, international development, security, and humanitarian assistance; and U.S. exchanges, international development, security, and humanitarian assistance; and U.S.
participation in multilateralparticipation in multilateral ~~organizations~~ organizations. Figure 1 shows funding for different SFOPS shows funding for different SFOPS
components based on FY2020 budget authority estimates, relative to each other and to the components based on 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. Note: Reflects estimated budget authority, FY2020, except for International Affairs detail figures, which reflect enacted appropriations for FY2020. The Trump Administration’s request was about 3% higher than the FY2020 request for SFOPS accounts but nearly 24% below the FY2020 SFOPS funding level enacted by Congress, including supplemental funds to help combat the Coronavirus Disease 2019 (COVID-19) epidemic global y, which were enacted after the FY2021 request was submitted.2 The Trump Administration consistently requested far less SFOPS funding than Congress appropriated. This is 1 T he~~broader federal budget.~~

~~1 Funding provided through Title X of P.L. 117-2 was not listed by account. The majority of the funds, $8.675 billion,~~
~~were listed as global response funds in a section citing the Economic Support Fund section of the Foreign Assistance~~
~~Act of 1961 as the general authority. However, the ESF appropriations account is not typically used for the health and~~
~~disaster relief activities being provided for in the law, and it is not clear if these funds are intended to flow through that~~
~~account.~~
~~2 The~~ payment covers the U.S. government’s contribution to the Foreign Service Retirement and Disability System and payment covers the U.S. government’s contribution to the Foreign Service Retirement and Disability System and
the Foreign Servicethe Foreign Service Pension System for USAIDPension System for USAID and the Department of State. It is the only mandatory spending in the and the Department of State. It is the only mandatory spending in the
SFOPSSFOPS appropriation. appropriation.
~~The SFOPS budget~~ T he SFOPS budget aligns closely but not exactly with Function 150 (International Affairs) of the federal budget.aligns closely but not exactly with Function 150 (International Affairs) of the federal budget. ~~The~~ T he
primary exception is funding for international food aid programs, which are part of Function 150 but fundedprimary exception is funding for international food aid programs, which are part of Function 150 but funded through through
the agriculture appropriation. SFOPS also includesthe agriculture appropriation. SFOPS also includes funding for international commissions in the Function 300 budget (see Appe ndix B). 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 , and CRS Report R46319, Novel Coronavirus 2019 (COVID-19): Q&A on Global Im plications and Responses, coordinated by T iaji Salaam-Blyther. Congressional Research Service 1 link to page 7 link to page 34 Department of State, Foreign Operations, and Related Programs a reversal from the Obama Administration, when Congress typical y provided less total SFOPS funding than was requested, though the gap narrowed over time during Obama’s terms ~~funding for international commissions in the Function 300 budget~~
~~(see Appendix B).~~
~~Congressional Research Service~~

1

~~link to page 7 link to page 8~~

~~Department of State, Foreign Operations, and Related Programs~~

~~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.
Note: Reflects estimated budget authority, FY2020, except for International Affairs detail figures, which reflect
~~enacted appropriations for FY2020.~~
~~The Administration’s request was about 3% higher than the FY2020 request for SFOPS accounts~~
~~but nearly 24% below the FY2020 SFOPS funding level enacted by Congress, including~~
~~supplemental funds to help combat the Coronavirus Disease 2019 (COVID-19) epidemic~~
~~globally, which were enacted after the FY2021 request was submitted.3 The Trump~~
~~Administration consistently requested far less SFOPS funding than Congress appropriated. This is~~
~~a reversal from the Obama Administration, when Congress typically provided less total SFOPS~~
~~funding than was requested, though the gap narrowed over time during Obama’s terms~~ (Table 1).
Table 1. SFOPS Requests and Actual Funding, FY2013-FY2021
(In (In ~~billions~~bil ions of current U.S. of current U.S. ~~dollars~~dol ars) )

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
~~70.98~~71.58
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%
+ +~~60.9~~62.2% %
Sources: Annual SFOPS Congressional Annual SFOPS Congressional Budget Justifications (CBJs) prepared by the Department of State and 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; P.L. 116-260; P.L. U.S. Agency of International Development; P.L. 116-6; P.L. 116-94; P.L. 116-123; P.L. 116-136; P.L. 116-260; P.L.
117-2117-2; P.L. 117-31. .
Note: FY2020 actuals represent the enacted appropriation, including the coronavirus supplemental.FY2020 actuals represent the enacted appropriation, including the coronavirus supplemental. FY2021 total includes the ARPA, P.L. 117-2, and supplemental appropriations in P.L. 117-31. Emergency Supplemental Funding, FY2021 To date, two FY2021 emergency supplemental funding measures that included SFOPS funds have been enacted, adding to the funding provided in the Omnibus and COVID Relief Response Act. ARPA. In March 2021, Congress enacted and President Biden signed into law the American Rescue Plan Act of 2021 (ARPA, P.L. 117-2). The $1.9 tril ion legislation, which was developed by authorizing committees using the budget reconciliation process rather than the appropriations process, included an additional $10 bil ion in FY2021 emergency-designated funding for SFOPS activities intended to prevent, prepare for, or respond to COVID-19 (Title X). Funding was provided for several key purposes:  $204 mil ion for Department of State Operations  $41 mil ion for USAID Operations  $3,750 mil ion for Department of State global health activities, including $3,500 mil ion for the Global Fund to Fight AIDS, Tuberculosis, and Malaria  $905 mil ion for USAID global health activities, including a contribution to a multilateral vaccine development partnership to support epidemic preparedness  $3,090 mil ion for USAID activities related to international disaster relief, rehabilitation and reconstruction, health, and emergency food security  $930 mil ion to address economic and stabilization needs related to the virus  $500 mil ion designated for humanitarian response  $580 mil ion for multilateral assistance In addition, ARPA included $800 mil ion for emergency food assistance under the Food for Peace authority (aid appropriated through the Agriculture rather than SFOP appropriation). It is not clear how al of these funds wil be al ocated by account.3 For this reason, total ARPA funding is added into the funding table in Appendix A and is not incorporated at the account level of that table or in the other account-specific sections of this report. Emergency Security Supplemental Appropriations Act. 2021 (P.L. 117-31). Title IV of this legislation, signed into law on July 30, 2021, included $100 mil ion in Emergency Refugee and Migration Assistance to address humanitarian needs of Afghans and $500 mil ion in Migration and Refugee Assistance for unspecified purposes. Because the appropriations account al ocations were specified in this law, this funding is reflected in the account tables in this report. 3 Funding provided through T itle X of P.L. 117-2 was not listed by account. T he majority of the funds, $8.675 billion, were listed as global response funds in a section citing the Economic Support Fund (ESF) section of the Foreign Assistance Act of 1961 as the general authority. However, the ESF appropriations account is not typically used for the health and disaster relief activities being provided for in the law, and it is not clear if these funds are intended to flow through that account. Congressional Research Service 2 link to page 8 Department of State, Foreign Operations, and Related Programs If enacted, the requested FY2021 SFOPS funding level would have been the lowest in over a decade (Figure 2). Figure 2. SFOPS Funding, FY2010-FY2021 (In bil ions of U.S. dol ars) 8070605040302010 0 Total, Current $ Total, Constant 2020$ FY2021 Request~~FY2021~~
~~total includes the ARPA, P.L. 117-2.~~
~~If enacted, the requested SFOPS funding level would have been the lowest in over a decade~~
~~(Figure 2).~~

~~3 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,~~
~~and CRS Report R46319, Novel Coronavirus 2019 (COVID-19): Q&A on Global Implications and Responses,~~
~~coordinated by Tiaji Salaam-Blyther.~~
~~Congressional Research Service~~

2

~~Department of State, Foreign Operations, and Related Programs~~

~~Figure 2. SFOPS Funding, FY2010-FY2021~~
~~(In billions of U.S. dollars)~~

Sources: Annual SFOPS CBJs; P.L. 116-94; P.L. 116-123; P.L. 116-136; P.L. 116-260; P.L. 117-2; Annual SFOPS CBJs; P.L. 116-94; P.L. 116-123; P.L. 116-136; P.L. 116-260; P.L. 117-2; P.L. 117-31; 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;in place by the Budget Control Act of 2011 (BCA; P.L. 112-25). FY2021 is the last year covered P.L. 112-25). FY2021 is the last year covered
by the by the ~~Act~~act. Congress has managed the constraints imposed by the BCA in part by repeatedly . Congress has managed the constraints imposed by the BCA in part by repeatedly
amending the BCAamending the BCA to raise the caps, most recently with the Bipartisan Budget Act of 2019 (BBA 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 BCA2019; P.L. 116-37). The BBA 2019 raised discretionary spending limits set by the BCA for for
FY2020 and FY2021, the final two years the BCA caps are in effect.4FY2020 and FY2021, the final two years the BCA caps are in effect.4
In addition to raising the caps, Congress has worked around the BCA limits by designating a 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 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). OCO funds for the Department of Defense (DOD). ~~Originally~~Original y used to support shorter-term, 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. GlobalFY2012 and FY2017. Global SFOPS OCO funding peaked at $20.80 SFOPS OCO funding peaked at $20.80 ~~billion~~ bil ion in FY2017 (nearly 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~~
~~appropriations) as a slush fund.5~~

4 For more information on BBA 2019, see CRS4 For more information on BBA 2019, see CRS Insight IN11148, Insight IN11148, The Bipartisan Budget Act of 2019: Changes to the
BCA and Debt ~~Limit~~Lim it, by Grant A. Driessen and Megan S. Lynch . Congressional Research Service 3 Department of State, Foreign Operations, and Related Programs and contingency activities, with some describing OCO (in both SFOPS and Defense appropriations) as a slush fund.5~~, by Grant A. Driessen and Megan S. Lynch.~~
~~5 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.~~
~~Congressional Research Service~~

3

~~Department of State, Foreign Operations, and Related Programs~~

The Trump Administration last requested OCO funds for SFOPS for FY2018, though it continued The Trump Administration last requested OCO funds for SFOPS for FY2018, though it 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~~bil ion of of
enacted SFOPS funding in both FY2019 and FY2020 as OCO. enacted SFOPS funding in both FY2019 and FY2020 as OCO.
In addition to OCO funds, Congress has In addition to OCO funds, Congress has ~~periodically~~periodical y used funding designated as “emergency” to 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 countering a surge in ISIS activity. In FY2020, Congress appropriated $2.37 ~~billion~~bil ion in in
supplemental emergency SFOPS funding to address needs related to the supplemental emergency SFOPS funding to address needs related to the ~~Coronavirus Disease~~
~~2019 (COVID-19)~~COVID-19 pandemic pandemic abroad. ~~abroad. Similarly, the $10 billion in FY2021 SFOPS funds provided~~
~~through the ARPA budget reconciliation bill were designated as emergency funds.~~ Like OCO-Like OCO-
designated funding, emergency-designated funding does not count toward the designated funding, emergency-designated funding does not count toward the ~~BCA~~ BCA discretionary discretionary
spending caps and may therefore be used as an alternative to the OCO spending caps and may therefore be used as an alternative to the OCO designation. Before the use designation. Before the use
of OCO in SFOPS, supplemental emergency appropriations were the of OCO in SFOPS, supplemental emergency appropriations were the primary mechanism for primary mechanism for
funding contingency activities.funding contingency activities.
Both categories of BCA-exempt funding were used by Congress in the FY2020 SFOPS Both categories of BCA-exempt funding were used by Congress in the FY2020 SFOPS ~~bill,~~
bil , though neither were requested by the Trump Administration. The House-passed FY2021 though neither were requested by the Trump Administration. The House-passed FY2021
legislationlegislation continued this practice, including $8.00 continued this practice, including $8.00 ~~billion~~bil ion in OCO funds and an additional $10.02 in OCO funds and an additional $10.02
~~billion~~ bil ion designated as emergency funding. The enacted FY2021 designated as emergency funding. The enacted FY2021 omnibus appropriation, P.L. 116-206, appropriation, P.L. 116-206,
included $8.included $8.~~25 billion~~00 bil ion (net of rescissions) designated as OCO and an additional $5.27 designated as OCO and an additional $5.27 ~~billion~~ bil ion in designated in designated
emergency funding for Consular and Border Security Programs, Sudan, Global emergency funding for Consular and Border Security Programs, Sudan, Global Health Programs, Health Programs,
the Economic Support Fund, and Debt Restructuring.the Economic Support Fund, and Debt Restructuring.
An additional $10.6 bil ion in FY2021 emergency-designated SFOPS funds were provided through ARPA (P.L. 117-2) and the Emergency Security Supplemental Appropriations Act, 2021 (P.L. 117-31) (see text box above). 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 appropriators resumed work in July, approving a FY2021 SFOPS ~~bill~~ bil on July 9, 2020, which was on July 9, 2020, which was
approved by the full House on July 24, 2020 as part of a 4-approved by the full House on July 24, 2020 as part of a 4-~~bill~~ bil appropriations package (H.R. appropriations package (H.R.
7608, Division A). The Senate SFOPS Subcommittee did not consider FY2021 legislation. 7608, Division A). The Senate SFOPS Subcommittee did not 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 series of continuing resolutions to continue funding government agencies at Congress enacted a series of continuing resolutions to continue funding government agencies at
the FY2020 levelthe FY2020 level until P.L. 116-260, the Omnibus and COVID Relief and Response Act (which 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, 2020.6 include SFOPS appropriations as Division K) was signed into law on December 27, 2020.6
5 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. 6 T he 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. Congressional Research Service 4 Department of State, Foreign Operations, and Related Programs Table 2. Status of FY2021 SFOPS Appropriations (In bil ions of U.S. dol ars; excludes OCO and emergency funds ~~Table 2. Status of FY2021 SFOPS Appropriations~~
~~(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
12/21 12/21
12/27 12/27
Total $
$48.01 $48.01

$66.03 $66.03

$66.03 $66.03
$60.98 $60.98
$60.98 $60.98
$60.98 $60.98
Source: H.R. 7608; House 302(b) H.R. 7608; House 302(b) ~~allocation~~al ocation table, available at: table, available at: https://appropriations.house.gov/sites/https://appropriations.house.gov/sites/
democrats.appropriations.house.gov/files/democrats.appropriations.house.gov/files/~~Alloc1~~Al oc1.pdf;.pdf; P.L. 116-260. Notes: The 302(b) al ocation of budget authority does not include emergency ~~P.L. 116-260.~~

~~6 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.~~
~~Congressional Research Service~~

4

~~Department of State, Foreign Operations, and Related Programs~~

~~Notes:~~ ~~The 302(b) allocation of budget authority does not include emergency~~ or OCO funds. Funding totals or OCO funds. Funding totals
account for rescissions.account for rescissions. ~~Does~~ Does not include funding in the ARPAnot include funding in the ARPA~~, P.L. 117-2~~ (P.L. 117-2) or supplemental appropriations from P.L. 117-31. .
House Legislation. The House-passed . The House-passed ~~bill~~bil , H.R. 7608, Division A, would have provided a total , H.R. 7608, Division A, would have provided a total
of $66.10 of $66.10 ~~billion~~bil ion in total new budget authority for SFOPS accounts ($66.03 in total new budget authority for SFOPS accounts ($66.03 ~~billion~~bil ion net after net after
rescissions), nearly 50% more than the Trump Administration’s total request and 15% more than rescissions), nearly 50% more than the Trump Administration’s total request and 15% more than
the enacted FY2020 appropriation (including supplementals). Of that amount, $18.02 the enacted FY2020 appropriation (including supplementals). Of that amount, $18.02 ~~billion~~
bil ion (27%) was designated as emergency or OCO funding, including $10.02 (27%) was designated as emergency or OCO funding, including $10.02 ~~billion~~bil ion in emergency in emergency
funding related to COVID-19.funding related to COVID-19.
~~P.L. 116-260~~ Omnibus and COVID Relief and Response Act (P.L. 116-260). The omnibus FY2021 . The omnibus FY2021 appropriations legislationappropriations legislation passed by both the House and passed by both the House and
Senate on December 21, 2020, and signed into law on December 27, 2020, included SFOPS Senate on December 21, 2020, and signed into law on December 27, 2020, included SFOPS
appropriations in Division K. The appropriations in Division K. The ~~bill~~ bil provided $61.provided $61.~~59 billion~~ 51 bil ion in new budget authority ($60.98 in new budget authority ($60.98
~~billion~~bil ion after rescission), including $17.29 after rescission), including $17.29 ~~billion~~ bil ion for State Department Operations and related for State Department Operations and related
accounts, and $44.22 accounts, and $44.22 ~~billion~~bil ion for Foreign for Foreign Operations accounts. American Rescue Plan Act of 2021. The ARPA (P.L. 117-2), enacted by Congress and signed into law in March 2021, included an additional $10 bil ion in SFOPS funds, bringing the enacted SFOPS total to $71.51 bil ion. Emergency Security Supplemental Appropriation Act, 2021. This supplemental appropriation, signed into law as P.L. 117-31 on July 30, 2021, included an additional $600 mil ion in SFOPS migration and refugee assistance funds, bringing the enacted SFOPS total to $72.11 bil ion, or $71.58 bil ion after rescissions. ~~Operations accounts.~~
State Department Operations and Related
Agency Highlights
The FY2021 request would have cut funding for the Department of State and Related Agency The FY2021 request would have cut funding for the Department of State and Related Agency
appropriations accounts to $14.03 appropriations accounts to $14.03 ~~billion~~bil ion, down 18.9% from an enacted FY2020 level of $17.31 , down 18.9% from an enacted FY2020 level of $17.31
~~billion~~ bil ion (including $588 (including $588 ~~million~~ mil ion in COVID-19 supplemental funds).7 The Trump Administration’s in COVID-19 supplemental funds).7 The Trump Administration’s
request, submitted before COVID-19 was declared a global pandemic, did not include funds to request, submitted before COVID-19 was declared a global pandemic, did not include funds to
support the State Department’s response to the pandemic. To date, Congress has provided support the State Department’s response to the pandemic. To date, Congress has provided ~~all~~
al 7 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 5 link to page 11 Department of State, Foreign Operations, and Related Programs State Department operations funding for COVID-19-related matters through two FY2020 State Department operations funding for COVID-19-related matters through two FY2020
supplemental appropriations acts (P.L. 116-123 and P.L. 116-136), Title IX of the FY2021 SFOPS supplemental appropriations acts (P.L. 116-123 and P.L. 116-136), Title IX of the FY2021 SFOPS
appropriations law (Division K of P.L. 116-260), and Section 10001 of ARPA (P.L. 117-2; see appropriations law (Division K of P.L. 116-260), and Section 10001 of ARPA (P.L. 117-2; see
~~“American Rescue Plan Act” text box).~~
“Emergency Supplemental Funding, FY2021” text box). The Trump Administration’s stated priorities for funding provided via Department of State and The Trump Administration’s stated priorities for funding provided via Department of State and
Related Agency accounts in FY2021 included Related Agency accounts in FY2021 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.8 other nations to increase their support.8
H.R. 7608 H.R. 7608 (116th Congress), the House legislation, would have provided about $17.56 , the House legislation, would have provided about $17.56 ~~billion~~ bil ion for the State for the State
Department and Related Agency accounts. This would have marked an increase of 1.4% from the Department and Related Agency accounts. This would have marked an increase of 1.4% from the
FY2020 enacted level and a 25.2% increase from the Trump Administration’s request. Of the FY2020 enacted level and a 25.2% increase from the Trump Administration’s request. Of the
funds provided in the House legislation,funds provided in the House legislation, $959.40 $959.40 ~~million~~mil ion would have comprised additional would have comprised additional
funding for State Department operations related to COVID-19. funding for State Department operations related to COVID-19.
The omnibus appropriations law, P.L. 116-260, included $17.29 The omnibus appropriations law, P.L. 116-260, included $17.29 ~~billion~~bil ion for the Department of for the Department of
State and Related Agency accounts. While this funding total constituted a -0.1% decline from the State and Related Agency accounts. While this funding total constituted a -0.1% decline from the

~~7 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).~~
~~8 Letter transmitted from Secretary of State Michael R. Pompeo to Congress, February 10, 2020.~~
~~Congressional Research Service~~

5

~~link to page 11 link to page 12~~ ~~Department of State, Foreign Operations, and Related Programs~~

~~FY2020 enacted level and a 1.6% cut relative to the House bill~~FY2020 enacted level and a 1.6% cut relative to the House bil , it exceeded the Trump , it exceeded the Trump
Administration’s FY2021 request by 23.2%. Some of this funding increase relative to the 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 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 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 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 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. compensate victims of the 1998 bombings of the U.S. embassies in Kenya and Tanzania.
In March 2021 Congress appropriated an additional $204 In March 2021 Congress appropriated an additional $204 ~~million~~ mil ion for Department of State for Department of State
operations, to remain availableoperations, to remain available until the end of FY2022, through ARPA. Funds were not divided until the end of FY2022, through ARPA. Funds were not divided
among regular appropriations accounts. Instead, Congress made this funding available for the among regular appropriations accounts. Instead, Congress made this funding available for the
State Department to “prevent, prepare for, and respond to coronavirus State Department to “prevent, prepare for, and respond to coronavirus ~~domestically or~~
~~internationally, which shall~~ domestical y or international y, which shal include maintaining Department of State operations.”include maintaining Department of State operations.”99 Table 3
provides a comparative breakout of the Trump Administration’s State Department and Related provides a comparative breakout of the Trump Administration’s State Department and Related
Agency request, by selected accounts. Agency request, by selected accounts.
Table 3. State Department and Related Agency: Selected Accounts
(In (In ~~billions~~bil ions of current U.S. of current U.S. ~~dollars~~dol ars; includes OCO funds) ; 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
Diplomatic Programs
9.25 9.25
9.71 9.71
8.49 8.49
-12.6% -12.6%
10.14 10.14
9.32 9.32
-4.1% -4.1%
~~Worldwide~~ 8 Letter transmitted from then-Secretary of State Michael R. Pompeo to Congress, February 10, 2020. 9 See Section 10001 of P.L. 117-2. Congressional Research Service 6 link to page 12 Department of State, Foreign Operations, and Related Programs % % 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% -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 1.95
-1.3% -1.3%
Construction &
Maintenance
Educational and
0.70 0.70
0.73 0.73
0.31 0.31
-57.6% -57.6%
0.74 0.74
0.74 0.74
1.3% 1.3%
Cultural Exchange
Programs
International
2.91 2.91
3.00 3.00
2.05 2.05
-31.8% -31.8%
2.96 2.96
2.96 2.96
-1.3% -1.3%
Organizations0
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 0.80
-0.9% -0.9%
Global Media
State and Related
16.54
17.31
14.03
-18.9%
17.56
17.29
-0.1%
Agency Total, pre
ARPA
(includes Function 300
funding and other
commissions)
ARPA Emergency
-—
-—
-—
-—
-—
0.20 0.20
-—
Funds
State and Related
16.54
17.31
14.03
-18.9%
17.56
17.49
1.0%
Agency Total, with
ARPA

~~9 See Section 10001 of P.L. 117-2.~~
~~Congressional Research Service~~

6

~~Department of State, Foreign Operations, and Related Programs~~

Sources: FY2020 and FY2021 SFOPS CBJs P.L. 116-6; P.L. 116-94; P.L. 116-123; P.L. 116-136; P.L. 117-2; H.R. FY2020 and FY2021 SFOPS CBJs P.L. 116-6; P.L. 116-94; P.L. 116-123; P.L. 116-136; P.L. 117-2; H.R.
7608; P.L. 116-260; CRS calculations7608; P.L. 116-260; CRS calculations. P.L. 117-31 did not include any funding for accounts in this table. .
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 fromFY2020 enacted includes funds from the first and third supplemental appropriations for the novel coronavirus 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 DiplomaticFY2021 House legislation figures for the Diplomatic Programs account and the State and Related Agency Total 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 The aggregate FY2021 enacted figure includes funds designated in Title IX for the Consular and Border Security
ProgramsPrograms account and for Sudan claims (the Sudan claimsaccount and for Sudan claims (the Sudan claims figure of $150 millionfigure of $150 million is also reflected in the is also reflected in the
DiplomaticDiplomatic ~~Programs total)~~
Programs total) Includes Contributions to International Organizations and Contributions for International Peacekeeping Includes Contributions to International Organizations and Contributions for International Peacekeeping
ActivitiesActivities accounts, the main funding vehiclesaccounts, the main funding vehicles for assessed obligations (dues) to the many international 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
multilateralmultilateral organizations, which are organizations, which are ~~usually~~usual y provided through Title V of annual SFOPS appropriations laws provided through Title V of annual SFOPS appropriations laws
pertaining to multilateralpertaining to multilateral assistance (in P.L. 116-260). 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. 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 measurespersonnel and private citizens abroad and taken measures intended to protect its personnel around the world. intended to protect its personnel around the world.
The Coronavirus PreparednessThe Coronavirus Preparedness and Response Supplemental Appropriationsand Response Supplemental Appropriations Act, 2020 (Act, 2020 ( P.L. 116-123) appropriated P.L. 116-123) appropriated
Congressional Research Service 7 Department of State, Foreign Operations, and Related Programs an additional $264 mil ion ~~an additional $264 million~~ to the Diplomaticto the Diplomatic ~~Programs~~ Programs account, to remainaccount, to remain available through FY2022, for purposes available through FY2022, for purposes
that included maintaining consular operations, reimbursingthat included maintaining consular operations, reimbursing evacuation expenses, and emergency preparedness. evacuation expenses, and emergency preparedness.
This law also amended P.L.This law also amended P.L. 116-94 to 116-94 to ~~allow~~al ow the State Department to transfer an additional $90 the State Department to transfer an additional $90 ~~million~~ mil ion in in
previouslypreviously appropriated funds for emergencyappropriated funds for emergency evacuations. The CARES Act (P.L. 116-136) appropriated an evacuations. The CARES Act (P.L. 116-136) appropriated an
additional $324 additional $324 ~~million~~ mil ion to the Diplomaticto the Diplomatic Programs account for similarPrograms account for similar purposes stipulated in P.L. 116-123, while purposes stipulated in P.L. 116-123, while
providing additional transfer authorities to fund evacuations. The FY2021 SFOPS appropriations law included $300 providing additional transfer authorities to fund evacuations. The FY2021 SFOPS appropriations law included $300
~~million~~ mil ion appropriated through Title IX for consular operations, including the adjudication of passport and visa appropriated through Title IX for consular operations, including the adjudication of passport and visa
applications and servicesapplications and services for Americanfor American citizens abroad. The law also authorized the State Department to transfer citizens abroad. The law also authorized the State Department to transfer
funds appropriated elsewherefunds appropriated elsewhere to fund consular operations, to fund consular operations, ~~following~~fol owing consultation with Congress.10 consultation with Congress.10 ARPA (P.L. ARPA (P.L.
117-2) appropriated an additional $204 117-2) appropriated an additional $204 ~~million~~ mil ion for State Department operations for State Department operations ~~generally. While~~ general y. While consular consular
operations are operations are ~~usually~~usual y funded through consular fees and surcharges, funded through consular fees and surcharges, including passport and visa fees, these including passport and visa fees, these
revenues have declined considerably amid global travel restrictionsrevenues have declined considerably amid global travel restrictions imposed during the COVID-19 pandemic. imposed during the COVID-19 pandemic.
Selected Programs and Priorities
Consistent with its previous requests, the majority of the funding the Trump Administration 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 requested for the Department of State and Related Agency appropriations accounts was for
diplomatic programs, diplomatic security and embassy construction, and contributions to diplomatic programs, diplomatic security and embassy construction, and contributions to
international organizations and international peacekeeping activities. For FY2021, such programs 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 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 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 priorities within these areas, as identified by the Department of State in its Congressional Budget
Justification, are detailed below. Justification, are detailed below.
Diplomatic Programs
The Diplomatic Programs account is the State Department’s principal operating appropriation and 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 serves as the source of funding for several key functions. These include

~~10 See Section 7069(c) of P.L. 116-260.~~
~~Congressional Research Service~~

7

~~Department of State, Foreign Operations, and Related Programs~~

 most domestic and overseas State Department personnel salaries;  most domestic and overseas State Department personnel salaries;
 foreign policy programs administered by State Department regional bureaus, the  foreign policy programs administered by State Department regional bureaus, the
Bureau of Conflict and Stabilization Bureau of Conflict and Stabilization Operations, and others; Operations, and others;
 public diplomacy programs; and  public diplomacy programs; and
 the operations of the department’s strategic and managerial units, including the  the operations of the department’s strategic and managerial units, including the
Bureaus of Administration, Budget and Planning, and Legislative Affairs as Bureaus of Administration, Budget and Planning, and Legislative Affairs as ~~well~~
wel as the Office of the Chief of Protocol.11as the Office of the Chief of Protocol.11
The Trump Administration’s FY2021 request for Diplomatic Programs totaled $8.49 The Trump Administration’s FY2021 request for Diplomatic Programs totaled $8.49 ~~billion,~~
bil ion, around 12.6% less than the $9.71 around 12.6% less than the $9.71 ~~billion~~bil ion Congress provided for this account in FY2020 (this Congress provided for this account in FY2020 (this
amount included $588 amount included $588 ~~million~~ mil ion Congress provided for Diplomatic Programs in FY2020 Congress provided for Diplomatic Programs in FY2020
supplemental COVID-19 funds; see text box on the previous page for more detail). The supplemental COVID-19 funds; see text box on the previous page for more detail). The
Administration’s request sought $138 Administration’s request sought $138 ~~million~~mil ion for the Global Engagement Center (GEC), which is for the Global Engagement Center (GEC), which is
responsible for leading interagency efforts to recognize, understand, expose, and counter foreign responsible for leading interagency efforts to recognize, understand, expose, and counter foreign
state and state and ~~non-state~~nonstate propaganda and disinformation efforts aimed at undermining U.S. interests, propaganda and disinformation efforts aimed at undermining U.S. interests,
including those carried out from Russia, China, and Iran.12 The Administration maintained that including those carried out from Russia, China, and Iran.12 The Administration maintained that
10 See Section 7069(c) of P.L. 116-260. 11 U.S. Department of State, Congressional Budget Justification: Department of State, Foreign Operations, and Related Program s, Fiscal Year 2021, February 10, 2020, pp. 10-18. 12 U.S. Department of State, “ Global Engagement Center,” https://www.state.gov/bureaus-offices/under-secretary-for- Congressional Research Service 8 Department of State, Foreign Operations, and Related Programs this request, which would have significantly increased funding for the GEC from recent year this request, which would have significantly increased funding for the GEC from recent year
levels that ranged from around $60-75 levels that ranged from around $60-75 ~~million~~mil ion, would have , would have ~~allowed~~al owed the GEC to meet “the the GEC to meet “the
growing growing ~~challenge~~chal enge of countering foreign propaganda and disinformation.”13 of countering foreign propaganda and disinformation.”13
The Trump Administration’s request also included an intended realignment of personnel and 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 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 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 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 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 bureau in June 2019. It was intended to be responsible for supporting “foreign policies and
initiativesinitiatives to promote U.S. cyber and emerging technology policies and deter adversaries from to promote U.S. cyber and emerging technology policies and deter adversaries from
malicious and destabilizingmalicious and destabilizing behavior in their use and application of such technologies.”14 Some behavior in their use and application of such technologies.”14 Some
observers, including some Members of Congress, criticized elements of the State Department’s observers, including some Members of Congress, criticized elements of the State Department’s
plan for CSET, arguing that additional cyber-related matters such as global internet governance plan for CSET, arguing that additional cyber-related matters such as global internet governance
and digitaland digital economy issues should have been included in the bureau’s remit.15economy issues should have been included in the bureau’s remit.15
The House legislation, The House legislation, H.R. 7608H.R. 7608 (116th Congress), included $10.14 , included $10.14 ~~billion~~bil ion for Diplomatic Programs, $955 for Diplomatic Programs, $955 ~~million~~
mil ion of which was designated “to prevent, prepare for, and respond to of which was designated “to prevent, prepare for, and respond to coronavirus,” including with 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 would have totaled 4.4% more than the FY2020 enacted level for this account and This figure would have totaled 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. 19.4% more than the Administration’s request. The report accompanying this legislation (H.Rept.
116-444) noted support for the GEC’s work and stated 116-444) noted support for the GEC’s work and stated that the GEC’s operating plan submitted to ~~that the GEC’s operating plan submitted to~~

~~11 U.S. Department of State,~~ ~~Congressional Budget Justification: Department of State, Foreign Operations, and~~
~~Related Programs, Fiscal Year 2021, February 10, 2020, pp. 10-18.~~
~~12 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/.~~
~~13 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.~~
~~14 U.S. Department of State, Congressional Budget Justification, p. 11.~~
~~15 Sean Lyngaas, “State Department proposes new $20.8 million cybersecurity bureau,” Cyberscoop, June 5, 2019, at~~
~~https://www.cyberscoop.com/state-department-proposes-new-20-8-million-cybersecurity-bureau/.~~
~~Congressional Research Service~~

8

~~link to page 14 link to page 15~~ ~~Department of State, Foreign Operations, and Related Programs~~

Congress should describe its coordination with DOD regarding the proposed use of Congress should describe its coordination with DOD regarding the proposed use of ~~all~~ al FY2021 FY2021
funding.16 The House funding.16 The House ~~bill~~ bil did not directly address the did not directly address the CSET bureau. CSET bureau.
The enacted omnibus appropriation included $9.32 The enacted omnibus appropriation included $9.32 ~~billion~~ bil ion for Diplomatic Programs. This figure for Diplomatic Programs. This figure
marked a decline of 4.1% relative to the FY2020 enacted level yet totaled 9.8% more than the 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 Trump Administration’s FY2021 request. It also amounted to 8.1% less than what would have
been provided had the House been provided had the House ~~bill~~ bil been enacted. The joint explanatory statement accompanying 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.17 This P.L. 116-260 stated that the law provided funding up to the FY2020 level for the GEC.17 This
language indicates that Congress rejected the State Department’s request to increase GEC funding language indicates that Congress rejected the State Department’s request to increase GEC funding
from the FY2020 level of $62 from the FY2020 level of $62 ~~million.~~ mil ion. Like the House Like the House ~~bill~~bil , the final appropriations law did not , the final appropriations law did not
include any specific language regarding the use of appropriated funds to stand up the new CSET include any specific language regarding the use of appropriated funds to stand up the new CSET
bureau. While former Secretary of State Mike Pompeo bureau. While former Secretary of State Mike Pompeo ~~formally~~formal y approved the creation of CSET approved the creation of CSET
on January 7, 2021, despite ongoing congressional concerns described above, the Biden on January 7, 2021, despite ongoing congressional concerns described above, the Biden
Administration Administration ~~may choose to review~~is reviewing the CSET bureau’s mission and scope of responsibility.18 public-diplomacy-and-public-affairs/global-engagement -center/. 13 T estimony 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_T estimony.pdf . 14 U.S. Department of State, Congressional Budget Justification, p. 11. 15 Sean Lyngaas, “State Department proposes new $20.8 million cybersecurity bureau,” Cyberscoop, June 5, 2019, at https://www.cyberscoop.com/state-department-proposes-new-20-8-million-cybersecurity-bureau/. 16 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: GPO, 2020). pp. 14-15. 17 Joint Explanatory Statement Accompanying Division K of P.L. 116-260, p. 8. 18 Maggie Miller, “ New State Department cyber bureau stirs opposition,” T he Hill, January 31, 2010, at https://thehill.com/policy/cybersecurity/536579-new-state-department-cyber-bureau-stirs-opposition. Congressional Research Service 9 link to page 15 link to page 15 Department of State, Foreign Operations, and Related Programs ~~the CSET bureau’s mission and scope of responsibility.18~~
Diplomatic Security
For FY2021, the Trump Administration requested around $5.38 For FY2021, the Trump Administration requested around $5.38 ~~billion~~bil ion for the State Department’s for the State Department’s
key diplomatic security accounts: $3.70 key diplomatic security accounts: $3.70 ~~billion~~bil ion for the Worldwide Security Protection (WSP) for the Worldwide Security Protection (WSP)
~~allocation~~al ocation within the Diplomatic Programs account and $1.68 within the Diplomatic Programs account and $1.68 ~~billion~~bil ion for the Embassy Security, for the Embassy Security,
Construction, and Maintenance (ESCM) account. The Administration’s request represented a Construction, and Maintenance (ESCM) account. The Administration’s request represented a
decrease of 11.4% from the FY2020 enacted decrease of 11.4% from the FY2020 enacted ~~fundin~~gfunding level (~~see~~see Table 4). .
Table 4. Diplomatic Security Annual Appropriations, FY2019-FY2021
(In (In ~~millions~~mil ions of current U.S. of current U.S. ~~dollars~~dol ars, includes OCO funds) , 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 Worldwide Security Security
4.10 4.10
4.10 4.10
3.70 3.70
-9.8% -9.8%
4.10 4.10
4.12
0.6% 0.6%
Protection 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 1.95
-1.3% -1.3%
Construction, and Construction, and
MaintenanceMaintenance
Diplomatic
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; P.L. 116-260; CRS calculations. Does not include funds FY2021 SFOPS CBJ; P.L. 116-94; H.R. 7608; P.L. 116-260; CRS calculations. Does not include funds
provided in P.L. 117-2 (ARPA). provided in P.L. 117-2 (ARPA).

~~16 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:~~
~~GPO, 2020). pp. 14-15.~~
~~17 Joint Explanatory Statement Accompanying Division K of P.L. 116-260, p. 8.~~
~~18 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~~

9

~~Department of State, Foreign Operations, and Related Programs~~

P.L. 117-31 did not include any diplomatic security funding. 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.19 appropriations data do not reflect available carryover funds.19
a. Aggregate funding appropriated to the diplomatic security accounts in both FY2020 and FY2021 totaled a. Aggregate funding appropriated to the diplomatic security accounts in both FY2020 and FY2021 totaled
$6,071,348,000. However, $6,071,348,000. However, rounding the disaggregated funding levels for the WSP rounding the disaggregated funding levels for the WSP ~~allocation~~al ocation and the ESCM and the ESCM
account, which slightly differed across these two fiscal years,account, which slightly differed across these two fiscal years, made it appear that the aggregate funding made it appear that the aggregate funding
levelslevels ~~were~~ were not identical. not identical.
The Trump Administration proposed that Congress decouple WSP from Diplomatic Programs and The Trump Administration proposed 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.20 The ESCM account funds the Bureau of Overseas Building Operations management training.20 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.21 19 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. 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 contingencies. 20 U.S. Department of State, Congressional Budget Justification, p. 14. 21 U.S. Department of State, Congressional Budget Justification, Appendix 1: Department of State Diplomatic Congressional Research Service 10 link to page 15 Department of State, Foreign Operations, and Related Programs ~~abroad.21~~
The Trump Administration’s WSP-funded priorities for FY2021 included the hiring of an The Trump Administration’s WSP-funded priorities for FY2021 included the hiring of an
additional 110 special agents at DS, which the Administration maintained was necessary to 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 address critical overseas vacancies. In addition, the Administration sought funding to deploy High
Definition Secure Video Systems (HDSVS) at overseas posts worldwide. The Administration Definition Secure Video Systems (HDSVS) at overseas posts worldwide. The Administration
stated these systems would provide enhanced monitoring capabilities, including greater video stated these systems would provide enhanced monitoring capabilities, including greater video
resolution and enhanced nighttime visibility.22resolution and enhanced nighttime visibility.22
The Trump Administration’s ESCM request The Trump Administration’s ESCM request
Proposed Standalone WSP Account
included $866.67 included $866.67 ~~million~~mil ion for the State for the State
The Worldwide The Worldwide Security Protection (WSP) subaccount Security Protection (WSP) subaccount
Department’s share of the Capital Security Department’s share of the Capital Security
within the Diplomatic within the Diplomatic ~~Programs~~ Programs account has been used account has been used
Cost Sharing and Maintenance Cost Sharing Cost Sharing and Maintenance Cost Sharing
to fund programs that the State Department’s to fund programs that the State Department’s Bureau Bureau
Programs (CSCS/MCS), which fund the Programs (CSCS/MCS), which fund the
of Diplomatic of Diplomatic Security (DS) and other bureaus Security (DS) and other bureaus
implementimplement to protect the department’s staff, property, to protect the department’s staff, property,
planning, design, construction, and planning, design, construction, and
and information. and information. ~~Similar~~ Similar to the FY2020 request, the to the FY2020 request, the
maintenance of the United States’ overseas maintenance of the United States’ overseas
FY2021 proposal requested that Congress FY2021 proposal requested that Congress create a create a
diplomatic posts. The Administration diplomatic posts. The Administration
new WSP standalone account and authorize the new WSP standalone account and authorize the
maintained that this request, when combined maintained that this request, when combined
transfer of transfer of ~~all~~ al unobligated WSP funds into this account unobligated WSP funds into this account
with funds contributed by other agencies with with funds contributed by other agencies with
by no later than the onset of FY2022 (October 1, by no later than the onset of FY2022 (October 1,
2021). The Trump Administration2021). The Trump Administration maintained that maintained that
overseas personnel and visa fee revenues, overseas personnel and visa fee revenues,
creating this account creating this account ~~will increase~~ wil increase the transparency of the transparency of
would fund these programs at the $2.20 would fund these programs at the $2.20 ~~billion~~bil ion
WSP expenditures by more WSP expenditures by more clearly disaggregating clearly disaggregating
level recommended by the Benghazi level recommended by the Benghazi
funding for diplomatic funding for diplomatic programs from that for security-programs from that for security-
Accountability Review Board.23 Construction Accountability Review Board.23 Construction
related activities. related activities. Congress refrained from Congress refrained from
implementingimplementing the Administration’sthe Administration’s request in the request in the
projects the Administration sought to fund projects the Administration sought to fund
FY2021 SFOPS appropriations law. FY2021 SFOPS appropriations law.
through this request included a new embassy ~~through this request included a new embassy~~

~~19 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.~~
~~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~~
~~contingencies.~~
~~20 U.S. Department of State, Congressional Budget Justification, p. 14.~~
~~21 U.S. Department of State,~~ ~~Congressional Budget Justification, Appendix 1: Department of State Diplomatic~~
~~Engagement, Fiscal Year 2021, February 10, 2020, p. 328.~~
~~22 U.S. Department of State, Congressional Budget Justification, p. 14.~~
23 U.S. Department of State, Congressional Budget Justification, Appendix 1: Department of State Diplomatic
~~Congressional Research Service~~

10

~~Department of State, Foreign Operations, and Related Programs~~

~~compound in Riyadh, Saudi Arabia, and new~~ compound in Riyadh, Saudi Arabia, and new consulate compounds in Adana, Turkey, and Rio de consulate compounds in Adana, Turkey, and Rio de
Janeiro, Brazil.24 Janeiro, Brazil.24
The House legislation The House legislation (H.R. 7608(H.R. 7608, 116th Congress), if enacted, would have provided a total of $6.08 ), if enacted, would have provided a total of $6.08 ~~billion~~ bil ion for the for the
State Department’s diplomatic security accounts. This figure was equal to the FY2020 enacted State Department’s diplomatic security accounts. This figure was equal to the FY2020 enacted
level for these accounts and totaled 13.0% more than the Trump Administration’s request (level for these accounts and totaled 13.0% more than the Trump Administration’s request (~~see~~see
Table 4).25 H.Rept. 116-444 stated that this funding included resources to deploy HDSVS at ).25 H.Rept. 116-444 stated that this funding included resources to deploy HDSVS at
overseas posts worldwide and hire 110 new DS agents, as requested by the Administration.26 The overseas posts worldwide and hire 110 new DS agents, as requested by the Administration.26 The
House legislationHouse legislation did not seek to implement the did not seek to implement the Administration’s request for a standalone WSP Administration’s request for a standalone WSP
account. account.
The enacted FY2021 appropriations law provided $4.12 The enacted FY2021 appropriations law provided $4.12 ~~billion~~ bil ion for WSP and $1.95 for WSP and $1.95 ~~billion~~bil ion for for
ESCM, for a total of approximately $6.07 ESCM, for a total of approximately $6.07 ~~billion~~ bil ion in diplomatic security funding. This aggregate in diplomatic security funding. This aggregate
funding level exceeded the Trump Administration’s request by about 12.9% and was equal to 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 both the funding level that would have been provided in the House ~~bill~~ bil and the FY2020 and the FY2020
appropriation. While the aggregate funding levels were equal, the FY2021 enacted appropriation appropriation. While the aggregate funding levels were equal, the FY2021 enacted appropriation
Engagem ent, Fiscal Year 2021, February 10, 2020, p. 328. 22 U.S. Department of State, Congressional Budget Justification, p. 14. 23 U.S. Department of State, Congressional Budget Justification, Appendix 1: Department of State Diplomatic Engagem ent, pp. 1-2. 24 U.S. Department of State, Congressional Budget Justification, Appendix 1: Department of State Diplomatic Engagem ent, p. 331. 25 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 budget funding. 26 House Committee on Appropriations, State Foreign Operations, and Related Programs Appropriations Bill, 2021 , p. 13. Congressional Research Service 11 link to page 19 link to page 18 Department of State, Foreign Operations, and Related Programs provided more funding for WSP and less funding for ESCM than the House bil ~~provided more funding for WSP and less funding for ESCM than the House bill~~ and the FY2020 and the FY2020
appropriation. Like the House appropriation. Like the House ~~bill,~~ bil , the enacted appropriation did not provide for the creation of a the enacted appropriation did not provide for the creation of a
standalone WSP account, as requested by the Administration. The joint explanatory statement 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 accompanying this law maintained the language provided in H.Rept. 116-444 regarding funding
for the deployment of HDSVS and the hiring of additionalfor the deployment of HDSVS and the hiring of additional DS agents. The joint explanatory DS agents. The joint explanatory
statement also recommended a State Department contribution of $1.07 statement also recommended a State Department contribution of $1.07 ~~billion~~bil ion to the CSCS and to the CSCS and
MCS programs, which totaled 23.0% more than the intended contribution included in the MCS programs, which totaled 23.0% more than the intended contribution included in the
Administration’s request.27 However, as in previous years, the Department of State and other Administration’s request.27 However, as in previous years, the Department of State and other
stakeholders were authorized to determine the annual funding level and contributions for stakeholders were authorized to determine the annual funding level and contributions for ~~all~~
al agencies.28agencies.28
Assessed Contributions to International Organizations and
Peacekeeping Missions
The Contributions to International Organizations (CIO) account is the funding vehicle for the 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. 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 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 Health Organization, or WHO), inter-American organizations such as the Organization of
American States, and the North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO), among others.29 U.S. American States, and the North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO), among others.29 U.S.

Engagement, pp. 1-2.
~~24 U.S. Department of State,~~ ~~Congressional Budget Justification, Appendix 1: Department of State Diplomatic~~
~~Engagement,~~ ~~p. 331.~~
~~25 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~~
~~budget funding.~~
~~26 House Committee on Appropriations, State Foreign Operations, and Related Programs Appropriations Bill, 2021, p.~~
~~13.~~
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.30 For FY2021, the Trump Administration requested a combined $2.05 bil ion for these accounts. If enacted, this funding level would have marked a 31.8% cut from that provided by Congress for FY2020. Table 5 shows recent funding levels for each account. 27 Joint Explanatory Statement Accompanying Division K of P.L. 116-260, p. 16. 27 Joint Explanatory Statement Accompanying Division K of P.L. 116-260, p. 16.
28 For example, see Section 7004(b) of P.L. 116-260. 28 For example, see Section 7004(b) of P.L. 116-260. ~~The~~T he State Department submits its planned contributions to the State Department submits its planned contributions to the
CSCSCSCS and MCSand MCS programs, and the total funding levels for these programs, asprograms, and the total funding levels for these programs, as part of the annual Embassy Security, part of the annual Embassy Security,
Construction, and Maintenance account operating plans that it is requiredConstruction, and Maintenance account operating plans that it is required by lawby law to provide to Congress pursuant to to provide to Congress pursuant to
annual appropriations laws. For example, see Sec.annual appropriations laws. For example, see Sec. 7061 of P.L. 116-260. 7061 of P.L. 116-260.
29 U.S. 29 U.S. Department of State, Department of State, Congressional Budget Justification, pp. 40-41. On April 14, 2020, President Donald , pp. 40-41. On April 14, 2020, President Donald
~~Trump~~T rump announced that the United States would announced that the United States would ~~suspend funding~~ 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 T iaji Salaam-Blyther. 30 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 t he Peacekeeping Operations (PKO) account. Congressional Research Service 12 Department of State, Foreign Operations, and Related Programs ~~to the World Health Organization (WHO), pending a~~
~~Congressional Research Service~~

11

~~link to page 19 link to page 17~~ ~~Department of State, Foreign Operations, and Related Programs~~

~~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.30~~
~~For FY2021, the Trump Administration requested a combined $2.05 billion for these accounts. If~~
~~enacted, this funding level would have marked a 31.8% cut from that provided by Congress for~~
FY2020. Table 5 ~~shows recent funding levels for each account.~~
Table 5. U.S. Payments of Assessments to International Organizations and
Peacekeeping Missions, FY2019-FY2021
(In billions of current U.S. (In billions of current U.S. ~~dollars~~dol ars; includes OCO funds) ; 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
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 1.51
2.2% 2.2%
International International
Organizations 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 1.46
-4.6% -4.6%
International International
Peacekeeping 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; P.L. 116-260; CRS calculations. Does not include funds FY2021 SFOPS CBJ; P.L. 116-94; H.R. 7608; P.L. 116-260; CRS calculations. Does not include funds
provided in P.L. 117-2 (ARPA). provided in P.L. 117-2 (ARPA).
P.L. 117-31 did not include any funds for the CIO or CIPA accounts. Note: Percentage changes may not reflectPercentage changes may not reflect numbers included in this table due to rounding. numbers included in this table due to rounding.
Similar to previous budget requests, the Trump Administration’s CIO request prioritized paying Similar to previous budget requests, the Trump Administration’s CIO request prioritized paying
assessments to international organizations “whose missions assessments to international organizations “whose missions ~~substantially~~substantial y advance U.S. foreign advance U.S. foreign
policy interests” while proposing funding cuts to those organizations whose work it said either policy interests” while proposing funding cuts to those organizations whose work it said either
did not directly affect U.S. national security interests or rendered unclear results.31 With these did not directly affect U.S. national security interests or rendered unclear results.31 With these
intentions in mind, the Administration proposed to decrease payments to the U.N. regular budget intentions in mind, the Administration proposed to decrease payments to the U.N. regular budget
and specialized agency funding by around one-third.32 The request intended to maintain near-and specialized agency funding by around one-third.32 The request intended to maintain near-
recent-year levels of U.S. funding for other organizations, including the International Atomic recent-year levels of U.S. funding for other organizations, including the International Atomic
Energy Agency (IAEA).33 Energy Agency (IAEA).33
For CIPA, the Trump Administration’s FY2021 request reflected its commitment to reduce costs For CIPA, the Trump Administration’s FY2021 request reflected its 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 stated that its request, when combined with the application implementation. The Administration stated that its request, when combined with the application

~~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.~~
~~30 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.~~
~~31 U.S. Department of State, Congressional Budget Justification, p. 40.~~
~~32 U.S. Department of State, Congressional Budget Justification, p. 41.~~
~~33 U.S. Department of State, Congressional Budget Justification, p. 41.~~
~~Congressional Research Service~~

12

~~Department of State, Foreign Operations, and Related Programs~~

~~of U.N. peacekeeping credits (excess funds from previous U.N. peacekeeping missions), would~~
~~have allowed 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.34 However,~~
~~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 have been carried over into~~
~~arrears.35 This practice has resulted in the accumulation of over $1 billion in U.S. peacekeeping~~
~~arrearages since FY2017.36~~
~~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~~ of U.N. peacekeeping credits (excess funds from previous U.N. peacekeeping missions), would have al owed the United States to provide 25% of al assessed global funding for U.N. peacekeeping missions, which is equal to the statutory cap established by Congress.34 However, the current U.S. assessment for U.N. peacekeeping (last negotiated in 2018) is 27.9%, meaning that around $345 mil ion of anticipated U.S. assessed funding would have been carried over into arrears.35 This practice has resulted in the accumulation of over $1 bil ion in U.S. peacekeeping arrearages since FY2017.36 31 U.S. Department of State, Congressional Budget Justification, p. 40. 32 U.S. Department of State, Congressional Budget Justification, p. 41. 33 U.S. Department of State, Congressional Budget Justification, p. 41. 34 See Section 404 of P.L. 103-236. 35 U.S. Department of State, Congressional Budget Justification, p. 43. 36 Over the years, the gap between the actual U.S. peacekeeping assessment and the 25% statutory cap led to funding shortfalls. T he State Department and Congress often covered these shortfalls by raising the cap for limited peri ods 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 T rump Administration began the ongoing practice of allowing the Congressional Research Service 13 link to page 18 Department of State, Foreign Operations, and Related Programs If enacted, the House legislation would have provided $2.97 bil ion 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 mil ion was made available to the World Health Organization (WHO) and not less than $53.91 mil ion was made available to NATO. While the Trump Administration notified Congress of its 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 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.37 With regard to CIPA, the House legislation funds made available by the act for this purpose.37 With regard to CIPA, the House legislation
included authority to included authority to ~~allow~~al ow the Secretary of State to exceed the 25% statutory cap with respect to 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 payment of U.S. assessed contributions to peacekeeping missions. This was intended to limit the
further accumulation of arrears.38 further accumulation of arrears.38
The FY2021 appropriations law provided a combined total of $2.96 The FY2021 appropriations law provided a combined total of $2.96 ~~billion~~bil ion for CIO and CIPA, for CIO and CIPA,
which is 44.8% more than the Trump Administration's request and identical to the amount in the 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 House proposal. The enacted law did not include the aforementioned House ~~bill~~ bil provisions provisions
providing line item funding to the WHO and NATO and prohibiting the use of appropriated funds providing line item funding to the WHO and NATO and prohibiting the use of appropriated funds
to withdraw the United States from the WHO. This may owe in part to then-President-elect 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.39 The law also Biden’s pledge to retract the United States’ intent to withdraw from the WHO.39 The law also
provided the funding necessary to pay the full U.S. assessment to the U.N. regular budget.40 For provided the funding necessary to pay the full U.S. assessment to the U.N. regular budget.40 For
CIPA, the joint explanatory statement noted that sufficient funds were provided for United States CIPA, the joint explanatory statement noted that sufficient funds were provided for United States
contributions to peacekeeping missions at the 25% statutory cap.41 The law permitted the contributions to peacekeeping missions at the 25% statutory cap.41 The law permitted the
payment of peacekeeping arrears with appropriated funds, provided that the State Department 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. 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 McGovern-Dole International Food for Education and Child Nutrition programs.42 The Trump Administration’s FY2021 foreign operations request totaled $30.09 bil ion, representing a 3.7% 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 provided in the agriculture appropriation, would have represented a 29.1% reduction from FY2020-enacted levels. ~~consult with Congress prior to using appropriated funds for this purpose.~~

~~34 See Section 404 of P.L. 103-236.~~
~~35 U.S. Department of State, Congressional Budget Justification, p. 43.~~
~~36 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 CRSapplication of peacekeeping credits up to, but not beyond, the 25% cap. For more information, see CRS In Focus In Focus
IF10597, IF10597, United Nations Issues: U.S. Funding of U.N. Peacekeeping , by Luisa, by Luisa Blanchfield. Blanchfield.
37 See 37 See Section 9015 of H.R. 7608. Section 9015 of H.R. 7608.
38 House Committee on Appropriations, 38 House Committee on Appropriations, State Foreign Operations, and Related Programs Appropriations Bill, 2021 , ,
p. 31. p. 31.
39 After his inauguration, President Biden implemented this pledge. See 39 After his inauguration, President Biden implemented this pledge. See letter from President Joseph R. Bidenletter from President Joseph R. Biden, Jr. to Jr. to
Mr. António Guterres, Secretary-General of the United Nations, January 20, Mr. António Guterres, Secretary-General of the United Nations, January 20, ~~2021,~~
2 021, https://www.whitehouse.gov/briefing-room/statements-releases/2021/01/20/letter-his-excellency-antonio-guterres/. See https://www.whitehouse.gov/briefing-room/statements-releases/2021/01/20/letter-his-excellency-antonio-guterres/. See
also Jamey Keaten, “also Jamey Keaten, “ Biden’s US revives support for WHO, reversing Biden’s US revives support for WHO, reversing ~~Trump~~T rump retreat retreat ,” ,” Associated Press, January 21, , January 21,
2021. 2021.
40 Joint Explanatory Statement Accompanying Division K of P.L. 116-260, p. 18. 40 Joint Explanatory Statement Accompanying Division K of P.L. 116-260, p. 18.
41 Joint Explanatory Statement Accompanying Division K of P.L. 116-260, p. 10. 41 Joint Explanatory Statement Accompanying Division K of P.L. 116-260, p. 10.
~~Congressional Research Service~~

13

~~link to page 30 link to page 20~~ ~~Department of State, Foreign Operations, and Related Programs~~

~~Foreign Operations Highlights~~
~~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~~
~~agriculture appropriation, which provides funding for the Food for Peace Act, Title II and~~
~~McGovern-Dole International Food for Education and Child Nutrition programs.42 The Trump~~
~~Administration’s FY2021 foreign operations request totaled $30.09 billion, representing a 3.7%~~
~~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~~
~~provided in the agriculture appropriation, would have represented a 29.1% reduction from~~
~~FY2020-enacted levels.~~42 For more information on international food assistance programs, see CRS Report R45422, U.S. International Food Assistance: An Overview, by Alyssa R. Casey. Congressional Research Service 14 link to page 32 link to page 21 Department of State, Foreign Operations, and Related Programs
The Trump Administration’s budget request articulated five primary goals for U.S. foreign The Trump Administration’s budget request articulated five primary goals for U.S. foreign
assistance that were meant to align with the National Security Strategy and the State-USAID Joint assistance that were meant to align with the National Security Strategy and the State-USAID Joint
Strategic Plan: Strategic Plan:
 prioritize global strategic  prioritize global strategic ~~challenges~~chal enges, including countering Chinese, Russian, and , including countering Chinese, Russian, and
Iranian influence; Iranian influence;
 support strategic partners and  support strategic partners and ~~allies~~al ies, including Israel, Egypt, Jordan, Colombia, , including Israel, Egypt, Jordan, Colombia,
and Venezuela;43 and Venezuela;43
 enhance commitment to long-term development;  enhance commitment to long-term development;
 strengthen key areas of U.S. leadership, to include global health and  strengthen key areas of U.S. leadership, to include global health and
humanitarian assistance; and humanitarian assistance; and
 advance U.S. national security and economic interests.44  advance U.S. national security and economic interests.44
These goals were also meant to guide the Trump Administration’s regional thematic priorities These goals were also meant to guide the Trump Administration’s regional thematic priorities
(see (see “Country and Regional Assistance”), as ), as ~~well~~ wel as how funds would be as how funds would be ~~allocated~~al ocated across across
assistance types. The Administration’s FY2021 budget request proposed cuts in nearly assistance types. The Administration’s FY2021 budget request proposed cuts in nearly ~~all~~
al assistance typesassistance types (Table 6). The only exception was export promotion assistance, which would . The only exception was export promotion assistance, which would
have seen a significant increase, largely due to proposed funding for the new U.S. International have seen a significant increase, largely due to proposed funding for the new U.S. International
Development Finance Corporation (DFC), and an estimated increase in offsetting collections Development Finance Corporation (DFC), and an estimated increase in offsetting collections
from the Export-Import Bank.45from the Export-Import Bank.45
The House legislation, The House legislation, H.R. 7608H.R. 7608 (116th Congress), included a total of $48.64 , included a total of $48.64 ~~billion~~bil ion for foreign for foreign operations, an operations, an
increase of 19.5% from FY2020 enacted levels and a 61.7% increase from the Trump increase of 19.5% from FY2020 enacted levels and a 61.7% increase from the Trump
Administration’s request. This steep increase over FY2020 funding could largely be attributed to Administration’s request. This steep increase over FY2020 funding could largely be attributed to
the $9.06 the $9.06 ~~billion~~ bil ion in emergency funding appropriated to “prevent, prepare for, and in emergency funding appropriated to “prevent, prepare for, and respond to respond to
coronavirus” abroad.46 coronavirus” abroad.46
The omnibus appropriation, P.L. 116-260, provided $44.22 The omnibus appropriation, P.L. 116-260, provided $44.22 ~~billion~~bil ion for foreign operations, an 8.7% for foreign operations, an 8.7%
increase from FY2020 enacted levels and a 47.0% increase from the Trump Administration’s increase from FY2020 enacted levels and a 47.0% increase from the Trump Administration’s

~~42 For more information on international food assistance programs, see CRS Report R45422,~~ ~~U.S. International Food~~
~~Assistance: An Overview, by Alyssa R. Casey.~~
~~43 According to the Trump Administration, support for Venezuela would include “bilateral democracy and health~~
~~assistance for Venezuelans, as well as assistance for Venezuelans~~ 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. In March 2021, Congress provided an additional $9.80 bil ion in foreign operations funding through ARPA to address COVID-19 abroad. Funds were not divided among regular appropriations accounts; rather sections cited certain authorities in the Foreign Assistance Act of 1961, as amended and designated funds for a range of activities. According to the legislation, foreign operations funds are intended to support global health programs, international disaster relief, and contributions to multilateral COVID-19 responses, among others. In July 2021, Congress provided an additional $600 mil ion in emergency supplemental foreign operations funding through P.L. 117-31. The measure included $100 mil ion in Migration and 43 According to the T rump 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 fleeing their country and for the communities hosting
them.” Further, the Administration maintained that it includes flexibility in programming to “support a democratic them.” Further, the Administration maintained that it includes flexibility in programming to “support a democratic
transition and related needs in Venezuelatransition and related needs in Venezuela ~~should~~ should circumstances warrant.” U.S.circumstances warrant.” U.S. Department of State, Department of State, Congressional
Budget Justification, p. 75. , p. 75.
44 Documents provided by the State Department at budget roll-out briefings, February 10, 2020. 44 Documents provided by the State Department at budget roll-out briefings, February 10, 2020.
45 U.S.45 U.S. Department of State, Department of State, Congressional Budget Justification, p. 108. , p. 108.
46 H.R. 7608. 46 H.R. 7608.
Congressional Research Service Congressional Research Service

1415

link to page link to page 2122 Department of State, Foreign Operations, and Related Programs

~~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.~~
~~In March 2021, Congress provided an additional $9.80 billion in foreign operations funding~~
~~through ARPA to address COVID-19 abroad. Funds were not divided among regular~~
~~appropriations accounts; rather sections cited certain authorities in the Foreign Assistance Act of~~
~~1961, as amended and designated funds for a range of activities. According to the legislation,~~
~~foreign operations funds are intended to support global health programs, international disaster~~
~~relief, and contributions to multilateral COVID-19 responses, among others.~~
Refugee Assistance and $500 mil ion in Emergency Refugee and Migration Assistance funds to “address humanitarian needs in Afghanistan and to assist Afghan refugees.” Table 6. Foreign Operations, by Type, FY2019-FY2021
(In (In ~~billions~~bil ions of U.S. of U.S. ~~dollars~~dol ars) )
%
%
change,
change,
FY20
FY20
enacted
enacted
FY2019
FY2020
FY2021
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 1.71
-2.71% -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 13.20
38.50% 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
8.89 8.89
9.35% 9.35%
~~(includes Treasury TA,~~
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~~ 8.43 -3.54% (SFOPS only, excludes FFP) Independent Agencies
1.37 1.37
1.47 1.47
1.21 1.21
-17.9% -17.9%
1.41 1.41
1.39 1.39
-5.46% -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 9.00
-0.11% -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 2.04
-1.99% -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 0.16
-797.37% -797.37%
Foreign Operations Total,
pre ARPA
40.39
40.70
30.09
-26.1%
48.64
44.22
~~8.67~~82 10.12%
ARPA Emergency Funds ARPA Emergency Funds
- -
- -
- -
- -
- -
9.80 9.80
- -
Foreign Operations Total,
40.39
40.70
30.09
-26.1%
48.64
54.02
~~11.05~~62 34.20%
with ARPA
Sources: P.L. 116-260P.L. 116-260; H.R. 7608;H.R. 7608; FY2021 SFOPS CBJ; P.L.FY2021 SFOPS CBJ; P.L. 116-94; P.L. 116-123; P.L. 116-136; P.L. 117-2; 116-94; P.L. 116-123; P.L. 116-136; P.L. 117-2; P.L. 117-31; CRS CRS
calculations. calculations.
Notes: 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 and, respectively).coronavirus (P.L. 116-123 and, respectively). Export promotion totals are negative because offsetting Export promotion totals are negative because offsetting ~~collections~~col ections
from the Export-Import Bank and the Developmentfrom the Export-Import Bank and the Development Finance Corporation are anticipated to exceed Finance Corporation are anticipated to exceed
appropriations, as they have in past years, resulting in a net budget gain. appropriations, as they have in past years, resulting in a net budget gain.
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 comprised approximately two-health programs, humanitarian assistance, and security assistance comprised approximately two-
thirds of the $30.09 thirds of the $30.09 ~~billion~~bil ion FY2021 foreign operations budget FY2021 foreign operations budget ~~request~~request (Figure 3).
Congressional Research Service Congressional Research Service

1516

link to page link to page 2122

Department of State, Foreign Operations, and Related Programs

Figure 3. Foreign Operations, by Type, FY2021 Request

Source: FY2021 SFOPS CBJ. FY2021 SFOPS CBJ.
Global Health ~~Programs~~Programs47
The total FY2021 request for the Global Health Programs (GHP) account was nearly $6.00 The total FY2021 request for the Global Health Programs (GHP) account was nearly $6.00
~~billion,~~ bil ion, representing a 5.4% reduction from the FY2020 budget request and a 37.5% reduction representing a 5.4% reduction from the FY2020 budget request and a 37.5% reduction
from the FY2020-enacted level, including supplemental appropriations. When compared with from the FY2020-enacted level, including supplemental appropriations. When compared with
FY2020-enacted levels before enactment of supplemental funding for FY2020-enacted levels before enactment of supplemental funding for the COVID-19COVID-19, pandemic, all but one all but one
GHP subaccount would have been reduced under the budget GHP subaccount would have been reduced under the budget ~~propos~~alproposal (Table 7).
Requested cuts to GHP subaccounts ranged from 8.0% for malaria programs to 100% for 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 USAID’s HIV/AIDS and vulnerable children subaccounts. The Trump Administration asserted
that despite its proposed reduction to HIV/AIDS funding, the requested level would have been that despite its proposed reduction to HIV/AIDS funding, the requested level would have been
sufficient to maintain treatment for sufficient to maintain treatment for ~~all~~ al current recipients. The proposal also reflected the current recipients. The proposal also reflected the
Administration’s effort to limit U.S. contributions to the Global Fund—an international financing 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 mechanism for efforts to combat AIDS, tuberculosis, and malaria—to 25% of ~~all~~ al donations, rather donations, rather
than the 33% limit that the United States has provided since the George W. Bush Administration. 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 (In ~~millions~~mil ions of U.S. of U.S. ~~dollars~~dol ars) )
%
% 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 4,370.0
0.0% 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 1,560.0
0.0% 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
330.0 330.0
0.0% 0.0%
USAID Malaria
755.0 755.0
770.0 770.0
708.5 708.5
-8.0% -8.0%
755.0 755.0
770.0 770.0
0.0% 0.0%
~~USAID Maternal and~~
~~835.0~~
~~851.0~~
~~659.6~~
~~-22.5%~~
~~850.0~~
~~855.5~~
~~0.5%~~
~~Child Health~~ 47 T his section was prepared by T iaji Salaam-Blyther, Specialist in Global Health, and Sara T harakan, Analyst in Global Health and International Development.
Congressional Research Service Congressional Research Service

1617

link to page link to page 2223 link to page link to page 2223 link to page link to page 2223 link to page link to page 2223 Department of State, Foreign Operations, and Related Programs

%
% change,
change,
FY20
FY20
enacted
enacted
FY2019
FY2020
FY2021
to FY21
FY2021
FY2021
to FY21
Subaccount
Actual
Enacted
Request
request
House
Enacted
enacted
USAID Maternal and Child Health 835.0 851.0 659.6 -22.5% 850.0 855.5 0.5% USAID Family
Planning/
556.5 556.5
524.0 524.0
237.0 237.0
-54.8% -54.8%
585.5 585.5
524.0 524.0
0.0% 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
150.0 150.0
0.0% 0.0%
USAID Tuberculosis
302.0 302.0
310.0 310.0
275.0 275.0
-11.3% -11.3%
310.0 310.0
319.0 319.0
2.9% 2.9%
Pandemic
Influenza/~~Other~~Otherb
535.0 535.0
~~100.0~~[of which 100.0 [435.0]
115.0 115.0
-78.5% -78.5%
125.0 125.0
190.0 190.0
-64.5% -64.5%
~~[of which~~
~~[435.0]~~
supplemental]
Neglected Tropical
Diseases 102.5 102.5
102.5 102.5
75.0 75.0
-26.8% -26.8%
102.5 102.5
102.5 102.5
0.0% 0.0%
~~Diseases~~
Vulnerable Children
24.0 24.0
25.0 25.0
0.0 0.0
-100.0% -100.0%
24.0 24.0
25.0 25.0
0.0% 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
13,196.0
38.5%
Source: P.L. 116-260P.L. 116-260; H.R. 7608; FY2021 SFOPS CBJ; P.L.H.R. 7608; FY2021 SFOPS CBJ; P.L. 116-94; P.L. 116-123; CRS calculations. Does not 116-94; P.L. 116-123; CRS calculations. Does not
include funds provided in P.L.include funds provided in P.L. ~~117-2 (ARPA).~~
117-2 (ARPA). P.L. 117-31 did not include global health funds. a. FY2019 actual reflectsa. FY2019 actual reflects a $32.5 a $32.5 ~~million~~ mil ion transfer from the International Organizations and Programstransfer from the International Organizations and Programs (IO&P) (IO&P)
account. account.
b. FY2020 enacted includes funds from b. FY2020 enacted includes funds from the first supplemental appropriation for the novel coronavirus (the first supplemental appropriation for the novel coronavirus ( P.L. P.L.
116-123). 116-123).
c. The FY2021 House measure includes $2.50 c. The FY2021 House measure includes $2.50 ~~billion~~bil ion in emergency in emergency GHP funding to “prevent, prepare for, and GHP funding to “prevent, prepare for, and
respond to coronavirus.” These funds would be administered respond to coronavirus.” These funds would be administered by USAID. Of the appropriated funds, by USAID. Of the appropriated funds,
Congress designated $150.0 Congress designated $150.0 ~~million~~ mil ion for the Emergency Response Fund, $750.0 for the Emergency Response Fund, $750.0 ~~million~~ mil ion for GAVI, and $800.0 for GAVI, and $800.0
~~million~~ mil ion for the Global Fund (P.L. 116-123). for the Global Fund (P.L. 116-123).
d. FY2021 enacted includes $4.00 d. FY2021 enacted includes $4.00 ~~billion~~bil ion in emergency in emergency GHP funding to “prevent, prepare for, and respond to GHP funding to “prevent, prepare for, and respond to
coronavirus, coronavirus, including for vaccine procurementincluding for vaccine procurement and delivery.”and delivery.”
As noted above, the Trump Administration’s FY2021 request did not include funds for COVID- As noted above, the Trump Administration’s FY2021 request did not include funds for COVID-
19, because the request was prepared prior to the outbreak. Congress enacted, and the President 19, 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 March 2020 (P.L. 116-123). The Trump Administration COVID-19 preparedness and response in March 2020 (P.L. 116-123). The Trump Administration
did not submit a request for additional FY2021 funds to combat the virus.did not submit a request for additional FY2021 funds to combat the virus.47
48 The House legislation, The House legislation, H.R. 7608H.R. 7608 (116th Congress), would have represented a 22.4% increase over FY2020 , would have represented a 22.4% increase over FY2020
enacted levels and nearly doubled the Trump Administration’s proposed global health funding enacted levels and nearly doubled the Trump Administration’s proposed global health funding
level. However, much like the level. However, much like the ~~overall~~ overal funding for foreign operations, this steep increase over funding for foreign operations, this steep increase over
FY2020 funding was largely a result of the House’s $2.5 FY2020 funding was largely a result of the House’s $2.5 ~~billion~~bil ion in emergency GHP in emergency GHP funds to funds to
address COVID-19 abroad. address COVID-19 abroad.
The final FY2021 GHP levels represented a 38.5% increase over FY2020 enacted levels. Most 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 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.~~

47overal 48 For more information on the U.S. response to COVID-19, see CRS For more information on the U.S. response to COVID-19, see CRS In FocusIn Focus IF11421, IF11421, COVID-19: Global
~~Implications~~Im plications and Responses, by Sara, by Sara ~~M. Tharakan~~ M. T harakan et al. et al.
Congressional Research Service Congressional Research Service

1718

link to page link to page 2324

Department of State, Foreign Operations, and Related Programs
increase is therefore primarily a result of $4 bil ion in emergency funding for COVID-19 that was not al ocated by subaccount and is largely directed for vaccine procurement and distribution.
Through ARPA, Congress provided at least $4.66 Through ARPA, Congress provided at least $4.66 ~~billion~~ bil ion for global health activities, including a for global health activities, including a
contribution to the Global Fund. However, Congress provided these funds citing Economic contribution to the Global Fund. However, Congress provided these funds citing Economic
Support Fund (ESF) authorities. It is unclear if the funds Support Fund (ESF) authorities. It is unclear if the funds ~~will~~ wil be channeled through the ESF be channeled through the ESF
appropriations account or transferred to the GHP account prior to their obligation. appropriations account or transferred to the GHP account prior to their obligation.
Humanitarian ~~Assistance~~Assistance49
The FY2021 budget request for humanitarian assistance was nearly $6.27 The FY2021 budget request for humanitarian assistance was nearly $6.27 ~~billion~~bil ion, roughly , 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
~~billion.48~~ bil ion.50 In successive years, the Trump Administration requested levels of humanitarian In successive years, the Trump Administration requested levels of humanitarian
assistance far lower than those enacted the prior year, at times reflecting the fact that assistance 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 humanitarian assistance funds may be carried over from year to year and unobligated balances
from prior years may from prior years may ~~still~~ stil be available.be available. On a bipartisan basis, for many years, Congress On a bipartisan basis, for many years, Congress
consistently supported global humanitarian efforts through appropriation levels consistently supported global humanitarian efforts through appropriation levels ~~well~~ wel above the above the
budget budget ~~reques~~trequest (Figure 4).
Figure 4. Humanitarian Assistance Budget Requests and Enacted Funding, by
Account, FY2013-FY2021
(In (In ~~billions~~bil ions of current U.S. of current U.S. ~~dollars~~dol ars) )

Sources: P.L. 116-260;P.L. 116-260; FY2021 SFOPS CBJ; P.L. 116-94; P.L. 116-123; P.L. 116-136; FY2021 SFOPS CBJ; P.L. 116-94; P.L. 116-123; P.L. 116-136; P.L. 117-31. CRS calculations. Does not CRS calculations. Does not
include funds provided ininclude funds provided in P.L. 117-2 (ARPA). 49 T his section prepared by Rhoda Margesson, Specialist in International Humanitarian Policy. 50 T otal FY2020-enacted funding includes supplemental funds enacted in two COVID-19 supplemental appropriations and Food for Peace Act, T itle~~P.L. 117-2 (ARPA).~~
Notes: “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~~
~~of the agriculture appropriation, to illustrate the full scope of humanitarian assistance.~~

~~48 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. II funds, which are part of the Agriculture appropriation.
Congressional Research Service Congressional Research Service

1819

Department of State, Foreign Operations, and Related Programs
Notes: “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 of the agriculture appropriation, to il ustrate the ful scope of humanitarian assistance.
Accounts: MRA = Migration and Refugee Assistance,Accounts: MRA = Migration and Refugee Assistance, IDA = International DisasterIDA = International Disaster Assistance,Assistance, ERMA = ERMA =
Emergency Refugee and Migration Assistance,Emergency Refugee and Migration Assistance, FFP = Food for Peace Act, Title IIFFP = Food for Peace Act, Title II~~, and~~ . *IHA = International IHA = International
Humanitarian AssistanceHumanitarian Assistance.
, a consolidated humanitarian assistance account proposed by the Trump Administration that was never used in enacted SFOPS legislation. In addition to the proposed $6.27 In addition to the proposed $6.27 ~~billion~~bil ion in new funding for humanitarian assistance, the Trump in new funding for humanitarian assistance, the Trump
Administration’s request assumed $2.80 Administration’s request assumed $2.80 ~~billion~~bil ion in carryover funding from past-year humanitarian in carryover funding from past-year humanitarian
assistance. The Administration asserted that the FY2021 request, combined with the estimated assistance. The Administration asserted that the FY2021 request, combined with the estimated
carryover, totaled close to $9.00 carryover, totaled close to $9.00 ~~billion~~bil ion, which would , which would ~~allow~~al ow the United States “to program the United States “to program ~~well~~
wel 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.”49
51 The House legislation The House legislation included $11.85 included $11.85 ~~billion~~ bil ion in humanitarian assistance, including $2.25 in humanitarian assistance, including $2.25 ~~billion~~bil ion
in emergency funding to address COVID-19 in humanitarian contexts and $1.78 in emergency funding to address COVID-19 in humanitarian contexts and $1.78 ~~billion~~bil ion in Food in Food
for Peace Act, Title II funds. This level represented a 13% increase from FY2020 enacted levels for Peace Act, Title II funds. This level represented a 13% increase from FY2020 enacted levels
and an 89.0% increase from the Trump Administration’s proposal. and an 89.0% increase from the Trump Administration’s proposal.
The omnibus legislation included $9.57 The omnibus legislation included $9.57 ~~billion~~ bil ion in humanitarian assistance, including $1.74 in humanitarian assistance, including $1.74 ~~billion~~bil ion
in Food for Peace Act, Title II funds. This level represents a modest increase (0.2%) over FY2020 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 enacted levels, not including supplemental funds that had been enacted to address COVID-19
abroad. abroad.
ARPA included at least $4.39 ARPA included at least $4.39 ~~billion in humanitarian assistance, including $800 million~~ bil ion in foreign assistance that may be used for humanitarian purpose, including $800 mil ion for Food for Food
for Peace Act, Title II activities. Of those funds, Congress provided $3.09 for Peace Act, Title II activities. Of those funds, Congress provided $3.09 ~~billion~~bil ion using ESF using ESF
authorities but designated those funds for authorities but designated those funds for “international disaster relief, rehabilitation,“international disaster relief, rehabilitation, and and
reconstruction, for health activities, and to meet emergency food security needs.” It is unclear reconstruction, for health activities, and to meet emergency food security needs.” It is unclear
whether the funds whether the funds ~~will~~ wil be channeled through the ESF appropriations account or transferred to be channeled through the ESF appropriations account or transferred to
humanitarian accounts such as IDA prior to their humanitarian accounts such as IDA prior to their use. P.L. 117-31 provided an additional $600 mil ion in humanitarian assistance for FY2021, including $100 mil ion for Migration and Refugee Assistance and $500 mil ion for Emergency Refugee and Migration Assistance. Congress designated such funds to address humanitarian chal enges in Afghanistan as wel as the needs of Afghan refugees~~use~~. .
Proposed Humanitarian Account Consolidation
For FY2021, as in FY2020, the Trump Administration proposed to fund For FY2021, as in FY2020, the Trump Administration proposed to fund ~~all~~ al humanitarian 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 justified through USAID’s new Bureau for Humanitarian Assistance (BHA). The Administration justified
the restructuring as necessary “to optimize humanitarian assistance, prioritize funding, and use the restructuring as necessary “to optimize humanitarian assistance, prioritize funding, and use
funding as effectively and efficiently as possible.”funding as effectively and efficiently as possible.”5052 The proposal would effectively have moved The proposal would effectively 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.51 In FY2020, enacted~~
~~funding for these accounts totaled $3.78 billion. The budget request would have eliminated the~~
~~ERMA account and significantly reduced 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 Assistance and Food for Peace. The budget request would have eliminated the~~
~~International Disaster Assistance (IDA) account (FY2020-enacted funding totaled $4.95 billion),~~

~~49 FY2021 SFOPS CBJ, p. 80.~~
~~50 In FY2020, the Trump~~ 51 FY2021 SFOPS CBJ, p. 80. 52 In FY2020, the T rump Administration proposed a “senior dual-hat leader” under the authority of the Secretary of 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 USAIDState but reporting to both the Secretary of State and the USAID Administrator, which Administrator, which ~~appears~~appear s to have been replaced to have been replaced
by “leveraging the comparative strengths of the Department of State and USAID underby “leveraging the comparative strengths of the Department of State and USAID under the authority of the Secretary of the authority of the Secretary of
State.” FY2021 SFOPSState.” FY2021 SFOPS CBJ,CBJ, ~~p. 80.~~
~~51 There was no funding requested in the Migration and Refugee Assistance (MRA) account for overseas humanitarian~~
~~needs. However, the State Department’s Bureau of Population, Refugees, and Migration (PRM) would have retained~~
~~$299.21 million in MRA 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 have allowed funding to move from IHA to MRA should the MRA funds be insufficient.~~
~~Congressional Research Service~~

19

~~link to page 25~~

~~Department of State, Foreign Operations, and Related Programs~~

~~as well~~ p. 80. Congressional Research Service 20 link to page 27 Department of State, Foreign Operations, and Related Programs Assistance (ERMA) accounts—from the State Department to USAID.53 In FY2020, enacted funding for these accounts totaled $3.78 bil ion. The budget request would have eliminated the ERMA account and significantly reduced 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 Assistance and Food for Peace. The budget request would have eliminated the International Disaster Assistance (IDA) account (FY2020-enacted funding totaled $4.95 bil ion), as wel as Food for Peace Act, Title II emergency food assistance funding, the latter of which is as Food for Peace Act, Title II emergency food assistance funding, the latter of which is
currently appropriated through the agriculture appropriation but administered by USAID currently appropriated through the agriculture appropriation but administered by USAID
(FY2020-enacted funding totaled $1.73 (FY2020-enacted funding totaled $1.73 ~~billion~~bil ion). Funds previously requested in these accounts ). Funds previously requested in these accounts
would have been consolidated into the IHA account. would have been consolidated into the IHA account.
~~The House legislation did not adopt~~None of the enacted legislation adopted the Trump Administration’s IHA proposal. The the Trump Administration’s IHA proposal. The
report accompanying accompanying ~~report~~the House bil , H.Rept. 116-444, noted that the “Committee does not support the , H.Rept. 116-444, noted that the “Committee does not support the
consolidation of consolidation of ~~all~~ al overseas humanitarian assistance into a single account.” Instead, the overseas humanitarian assistance into a single account.” Instead, the ~~bill~~
bil would have appropriated funds in the traditional account structure. would have appropriated funds in the traditional account structure.
Security Assistance
The Trump Administration requested $7.73 The Trump Administration requested $7.73 ~~billion~~bil ion in international security assistance for in international security assistance for
FY2021, an increase of 4.3% from the FY2020 request and 14.3% below the FY2020-enacted FY2021, an increase of 4.3% from the FY2020 request and 14.3% below the FY2020-enacted
level. The greatest cuts to security assistance accounts would have been to Peacekeeping level. The greatest cuts to security assistance accounts would have been to Peacekeeping
Operations (PKO, -36.6%) and International Military Education and Training (IMET, -27.4%) Operations (PKO, -36.6%) and International Military Education and Training (IMET, -27.4%)
(Figure 5).52
~~Figure 5. Security Assistance, by Account, FY2019-FY2021~~
~~(In billions of current U.S. dollars)~~

Sources: P.L. 116-260; H.R. 7608 FY2021 SFOPS CBJ; P.L. 116-94; CRS calculations.
Notes: FMF = Foreign Military Financing; IMET = International Military Education and Training; PKO =
~~Peacekeeping Operations; NADR = Nonproliferation, Anti-terrorism,~~ 54 53 T here was no funding requested in the Migration and Refugee Assistance (MRA) account for overseas humanitarian needs. However, the State Department’s Bureau of Population, Refugees, and Migration (PRM) would have retained $299.21 million in MRA 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. T ransfer authority would reportedly have allowed funding to move from IHA to MRA should the MRA funds be insufficient. 54 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 Congress generally has appropriated through t he Peacekeeping Operations (PKO) account. Congressional Research Service 21 Department of State, Foreign Operations, and Related Programs Figure 5. Security Assistance, by Account, FY2019-FY2021 (In bil ions of current U.S. dol ars) Sources: P.L. 116-260; H.R. 7608 FY2021 SFOPS CBJ; P.L. 116-94; CRS calculations. P.L. 117-31 did not include security assistance. Notes: FMF = Foreign Military Financing; IMET = International Military Education and Training; PKO = Peacekeeping Operations; NADR = Nonproliferation, Anti-terrorism, Demining and Related Programs; INCLE = Demining and Related Programs; INCLE =
International Narcotics Control and Law Enforcement. International Narcotics Control and Law Enforcement.
Consistent with prior year requests and appropriations, the majority of security assistance ($5.19 Consistent with prior year requests and appropriations, the majority of security assistance ($5.19
~~billion)~~ bil ion) would have been for Foreign Military Financing (FMF) to the Middle East, including would have been for Foreign Military Financing (FMF) to the Middle East, including
$3.30 $3.30 ~~billion~~ bil ion in grants to Israel. As in the Trump Administration’s past three budget proposals, the in grants to Israel. As in the Trump Administration’s past three budget proposals, the

~~52 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~~
~~Congress generally has appropriated through the Peacekeeping Operations (PKO) account.~~
~~Congressional Research Service~~

20

~~link to page 27 link to page 27~~ ~~Department of State, Foreign Operations, and Related Programs~~

FY2021 request sought flexibility to provide FMF assistance through a combination of grants and FY2021 request sought flexibility to provide FMF assistance through a combination of grants and
loans, including loan guarantees, rather than the current use of FMF on an almost exclusive grant loans, including loan guarantees, rather than the current use of FMF on an almost exclusive grant
basis. The Administration asserted that this authority would both “expand the tools available to basis. The Administration asserted that this authority would both “expand the tools available to
the United States to help NATO and Major-Non NATO the United States to help NATO and Major-Non NATO ~~allies53~~al ies55 purchase more American-made purchase more American-made
defense equipment and related services” and “increase burden sharing by asking these partners to defense equipment and related services” and “increase burden sharing by asking these partners to
contribute more national funds to foreign military sales cases.”contribute more national funds to foreign military sales cases.”5456
The House legislation The House legislation included $9.02 included $9.02 ~~billion~~ bil ion in security assistance, which was in security assistance, which was ~~essentially~~essential y level level
with FY2020 enacted funding but represented a 16.6% increase from the Trump Administration’s with FY2020 enacted funding but represented a 16.6% increase from the Trump Administration’s
proposal. The enacted omnibus legislation provided $9.00 proposal. The enacted omnibus legislation provided $9.00 ~~billion~~ bil ion in security assistance, a slight in security assistance, a slight
decrease from FY2020 enacted funding but a 10.9% increase from the Administration’s request. decrease from FY2020 enacted funding but a 10.9% increase from the Administration’s request.
Development Assistance and Export Promotion
The remaining third of the FY2021 foreign operations request proposed to The remaining third of the FY2021 foreign operations request proposed to ~~allocate~~al ocate funds to non- funds to non-
health development sectors as health development sectors as ~~well~~ wel as to independent agencies, multilateral assistance, and export as to independent agencies, multilateral assistance, and export
promotion agencies. 55 Major non-NAT O allies are designated by the President, in accordance with 22 U.S.C. §2321k. 56 FY2021 SFOPS CBJ, p. 99. Congressional Research Service 22 link to page 28 link to page 28 link to page 28 link to page 28 Department of State, Foreign Operations, and Related Programs ~~promotion agencies.~~
Development Assistance
The FY2021 budget request would have reduced funding from FY2020-enacted levels in a The FY2021 budget request would have reduced funding from FY2020-enacted levels in a
number of development number of development ~~sector~~ssectors (Table 8). Environment-focused aid, for example, would have Environment-focused aid, for example, would have
been cut by 86.3%, while funding for education and water and sanitation would have declined by 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 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 prior year-enacted funding levels for women’s economic empowerment programming, largely
due to a proposed $200.00 due to a proposed $200.00 ~~million~~mil ion for the Women’s Global Development and Prosperity Initiative for the Women’s Global Development and Prosperity Initiative
(W-GDP).(W-GDP).55
57 The House legislation, The House legislation, H.R. 7608H.R. 7608 (116th Congress), if enacted, would have kept level or increased , if enacted, would have kept level or increased ~~all~~ al development development
sectors when compared to FY2020 enacted levels and would have represented an increase in sectors when compared to FY2020 enacted levels and would have represented an increase in ~~all~~
al sectors when compared to the Trump Administration’s request, with the exception of gender-sectors when compared to the Trump Administration’s request, with the exception of gender-
related and trafficking in persons programs. When compared to FY2020 enacted levels, related and trafficking in persons programs. When compared to FY2020 enacted levels, the the
greatest increases in funding would have been to environmental and gender programming.greatest increases in funding would have been to environmental and gender programming.
The omnibus legislation, P.L. 116-260, kept level or increased funding for The omnibus legislation, P.L. 116-260, kept level or increased funding for ~~all~~ al development sectors development sectors
when compared to FY2020 enacted appropriations. The largest increases were to gender and 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 trafficking in persons programs, which saw 69.5% and 47.8% increases, respectively, from
FY2020 enacted FY2020 enacted ~~levels~~ levels (Table 8). Within the funds designated for gender programs, Congress . Within the funds designated for gender programs, Congress
~~fulfilled~~ fulfil ed the Trump Administration’s request for $200.00 the Trump Administration’s request for $200.00 ~~million~~mil ion for W-GDP. for W-GDP.56

~~53 Major non-NATO allies are designated by the President, in accordance with 22 U.S.C. §2321k.~~
~~54 FY2021 SFOPS CBJ, p. 99.~~
~~55 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/).~~
~~56 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~~58 Congress provided additional funding for development assistance in ARPA. As explained above, Congress cited ESF authorities for the majority of the foreign operations funds. However, the stated priorities for those funds largely align with other appropriations accounts (e.g., $905 mil ion is directed toward “United States Agency for International Development for global health activities to prevent, prepare for, and respond to coronavirus, which shal include a contribution to a multilateral vaccine development partnership to support epidemic preparedness.”) As such, it is unclear whether or not the ARPA funds wil be obligated and expended through the ESF appropriations account. Table 8. Select Development Sectors, FY2019-FY2021 (In mil ions of current U.S. dol ars) % % change, change, FY20 FY20 enacted to enacted FY2019 FY2020 FY2021 FY21 FY2021 FY2021 to FY21 Sector Actual Enacted Request request House Enacted enacted Democracy Programs (excluding NED) 2,400.0 2,400.0 1,551.4 -35.4% 2,400.5 2,417.0 0.7% 57 T he T rump Administration launched the W-GDP Initiative in February 2019. T he 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/). 58 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. T his language offers administering agencies the flexibility to determine (in consultation wit h the Appropriations the Appropriations
Committees) the actual amount of funding as long as it does not exceed adheres to the funding ceiling. In practice, this 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 Walso means that the FY2021 actual level for W -GDP could-GDP could end up beingend up being ~~less~~ less than the actual amount provided in than the actual amount provided in
FY2020. FY2020.
Congressional Research Service Congressional Research Service

2123

Department of State, Foreign Operations, and Related Programs

~~Congress provided additional funding for development assistance in ARPA. As explained above,~~
~~Congress cited ESF authorities for the majority of the foreign operations funds. However, the~~
~~stated priorities for those funds largely align with other appropriations accounts (e.g., $905~~
~~million is directed toward “United States Agency for International Development for global health~~
~~activities to prevent, prepare for, and respond to coronavirus, which shall include a contribution to~~
~~a multilateral vaccine development partnership to support epidemic preparedness.”) As such, it is~~
~~unclear whether or not the ARPA funds will be obligated and expended through the ESF~~
~~appropriations account.~~
~~Table 8. Select Development Sectors, FY2019-FY2021~~
~~(In millions of current U.S. dollars)~~
%
% change,
change,
FY20
FY20
enacted to
enacted
FY2019
FY2020
FY2021
FY21
FY2021
FY2021
to FY21
Sector
Actual
Enacted
Request
request
House
Enacted
enacted
~~Democracy Programs~~
~~2,400.0~~
~~2,400.0~~
~~1,551.4~~
~~-35.4%~~
~~2,400.5~~
~~2,417.0~~
~~0.7%~~
~~(excluding NED)~~
~~Education (basic and~~
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 1,185.0
6.7% 6.7%
~~higher)~~
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 1,010.6
0.5% 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
986.7 986.7
8.8% 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
450.0 450.0
0.0% 0.0%
Gender Gender
215.0 215.0
330.0 330.0
525.7 525.7
59.3% 59.3%
460.0 460.0
560.0 560.0
69.7% 69.7%
Trafficking in Persons Trafficking in Persons
67.0 67.0
67.0 67.0
77.4 77.4
15.5% 15.5%
67.0 67.0
99.0 99.0
47.8% 47.8%
Micro and Micro and ~~Small~~
Smal 265.0 265.0
265.0 265.0
144.2 144.2
-45.6% -45.6%
265.0 265.0
265.0 265.0
0.0% 0.0%
Enterprise Enterprise
Diplomatic Diplomatic ~~Progress~~ Progress Fund Fund
n.a. n.a.
n.a. n.a.
200.0 200.0
n.a. n.a.
— —
— —
n.a. n.a.
Sources: P.L. 116-260; H.R. 7608P.L. 116-260; H.R. 7608; FY2021 SFOPS CBJ; P.L.FY2021 SFOPS CBJ; P.L. 116-94; CRS calculations. Does116-94; CRS calculations. Does not include funds not include funds
provided in P.L. 117-2 (ARPA). provided in P.L. 117-2 (ARPA).
P.L. 117-31 did not include assistance for these activities. Note: n.a. = not applicable. n.a. = not applicable.
Proposed Economic Support and Development Fund
Under the FY2021 request, most development accounts—Development Assistance (DA); ESF; Under the FY2021 request, most development accounts—Development Assistance (DA); ESF;
Assistance to Europe, Eurasia and Central Asia (AEECA); and the Democracy Fund (DF)—Assistance to Europe, Eurasia and Central Asia (AEECA); and the Democracy Fund (DF)—
would have been combined into a single new Economic Support and Development Fund (ESDF). would have been combined into a single new Economic Support and Development Fund (ESDF).
The Trump Administration asserted that this consolidated account would streamline the The Trump Administration asserted that this consolidated account would streamline the
deployment of resources, increasing efficiency in foreign assistance. Because the consolidated deployment of resources, increasing efficiency in foreign assistance. Because the consolidated
account would have incorporated both core and shared USAID accounts, it was unclear what account would have incorporated both core and shared USAID accounts, it was unclear what
portion of the new account USAID would manage or implement. The Administration made a 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 Congress did not enact similar request in the FY2018, FY2019, and FY2020 budget requests, but Congress did not enact
the proposals. the proposals.
The FY2021 budget request nestled the Relief and Recovery Fund (RRF) and a proposed new The FY2021 budget request nestled 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
~~Congressional Research Service~~

22

~~Department of State, Foreign Operations, and Related Programs~~

the proposed ESDF account. According to the justification, the DPF would “the proposed ESDF account. According to the justification, the DPF would “~~allow~~al ow the State 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.”5759 While Congress provided funds for the RRF in previous fiscal While Congress provided funds for the RRF in previous fiscal
years, Congress did not accept the Trump Administration’s proposal for the DPF. years, Congress did not accept the Trump Administration’s proposal for the DPF.
The House legislation The House legislation did not include ESDF, but rather continued the use of DA, ESF, AEECA, did not include ESDF, but rather continued 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 replaced the RRF with a new Prevention and Stabilization Fund (PSF). However, the House replaced the RRF with a new Prevention and Stabilization Fund (PSF). However, the
funding level for the new PSF was $100.00 funding level for the new PSF was $100.00 ~~million~~mil ion, half of what was appropriated in FY2020 for , half of what was appropriated in FY2020 for
the RRF. The House prohibited funding for the Trump Administration’s proposed DPF. the RRF. The House prohibited funding for the Trump Administration’s proposed DPF.
59 FY2021 SFOPS CBJ, p. 77. Congressional Research Service 24 Department of State, Foreign Operations, and Related Programs As with the House legislation, ~~As with the House legislation,~~ the omnibus appropriation did not include ESDF and included the omnibus appropriation did not include ESDF and included
$100.00 $100.00 ~~million~~mil ion for the PSF. Further, there was no mention of the Trump Administration’s for the PSF. Further, there was no mention of the Trump Administration’s
proposed DPF in the final legislation. proposed DPF in the final legislation.
Independent Agencies
The Trump Administration’s FY2021 request would have reduced funding to the Peace Corps (- The Trump Administration’s FY2021 request would have reduced funding to the Peace Corps (-
19.5%) and the 19.5%) and the ~~Millennium Challenge~~ Mil ennium Chal enge Corporation (-11.6%). The request also proposed Corporation (-11.6%). The request also proposed
eliminatingeliminating the Inter-American Foundation (IAF) and the U.Sthe Inter-American Foundation (IAF) and the U.S. African Development Foundation African Development Foundation
(USADF), and incorporating staff and (USADF), and incorporating staff and ~~small~~ smal grant activities of the two foundations into USAID’s grant activities of the two foundations into USAID’s
new Bureau for Development, Democracy, and Innovation.new Bureau for Development, Democracy, and Innovation.5860 The Administration maintained that The Administration maintained that
this consolidation would this consolidation would ~~allow~~al ow USAID to “capitalize on the existing expertise, capacity, USAID to “capitalize on the existing expertise, capacity,
relationships, and tools that USADF and IAF provide, including their regional and market relationships, and tools that USADF and IAF provide, including their regional and market
segment emphases, in order to reinforce U.S. government bilateral development efforts.”segment emphases, in order to reinforce U.S. government bilateral development efforts.”5961 To To
implement the shuttering of the IAF and USADF, the Administration requested $3.85 implement the shuttering of the IAF and USADF, the Administration requested $3.85 ~~million~~mil ion and and
$4.66 $4.66 ~~million~~mil ion, respectively. , respectively.
The House legislation The House legislation would have provided level or increased funding for would have provided level or increased funding for ~~all~~ al independent independent
agencies when compared to FY2020 enacted funding before FY2020 supplemental funding was agencies when compared to FY2020 enacted funding before FY2020 supplemental funding was
passed for COVID-19.passed for COVID-19.6062 The legislation also did not adopt the Trump Administration’s proposal The legislation also did not adopt the Trump Administration’s proposal
to eliminateto eliminate the IAF and USADF. Rather, the House provided increased funding for the two the IAF and USADF. Rather, the House provided increased funding for the two
agencies, including $10.00 agencies, including $10.00 ~~million~~mil ion in emergency COVID-19 funding for each agency. in emergency COVID-19 funding for each agency.
The omnibus appropriation provided level The omnibus appropriation provided level or increased funding for independent agencies when or increased funding for independent agencies when
comparing to FY2020 enacted levels before supplemental appropriations were passed.comparing to FY2020 enacted levels before supplemental appropriations were passed.6163 Congress Congress
also appropriated increased and level funds for the IAF and USADF, respectively. 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

~~57 FY2021 SFOPS CBJ, p. 77.~~
~~58 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~~
~~during FY2000-FY2001.~~
~~59 FY2021 SFOPS CBJ, pp. 85-86.~~
~~60 The Peace Corps received $88 million in FY2020 supplemental appropriations (P.L. 116-136) to address COVID-19~~
~~abroad.~~
~~61 Ibid.~~
~~Congressional Research Service~~

23

~~Department of State, Foreign Operations, and Related Programs~~

~~development activities.62~~development activities.64 The Trump Administration’s FY2021 request would have reduced these The Trump Administration’s FY2021 request would have reduced these
accounts by 28.9% from FY2020-enacted levels. As in the Trump Administration’s three previous accounts by 28.9% from FY2020-enacted levels. As in the Trump Administration’s three previous
requests, the proposal would have eliminated funding for the International Organizations and requests, the proposal would have eliminated funding for the International Organizations and
Programs (IO&P) account, which funds U.S. voluntary contributions to international Programs (IO&P) account, which funds U.S. voluntary contributions to international
organizations, primarily United Nations entities such as UNICEF. Congress appropriated $390.50 organizations, primarily United Nations entities such as UNICEF. Congress appropriated $390.50
~~million~~ mil ion for IO&P in FY2020. The Administration also proposed eliminating funds for the Global 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). Environment Facility (GEF) and the International Fund for Agricultural Development (IFAD).
For the GEF, the Administration asserted that carryover funds from FY2019 and FY2020 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.appropriations were sufficient to meet the U.S. pledge to the GEF’s seventh replenishment.63
~~The House legislation, if enacted, would have provided a total of $3.32 billion~~ 65 60 T he T rump 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 during FY2000-FY2001. 61 FY2021 SFOPS CBJ, pp. 85-86. 62 T he Peace Corps received $88 million in FY2020 supplemental appropriations ( P.L. 116-136) to address COVID-19 abroad. 63 Ibid. 64 For more information on U.S. payments to multilateral development banks, see CRS Report RS20792, Multilateral Developm ent Banks: U.S. Contributions FY2000 -FY2020, by Rebecca M. Nelson. 65 FY2021 SFOPS CBJ, p. 104. Congressional Research Service 25 Department of State, Foreign Operations, and Related Programs The House legislation, if enacted, would have provided a total of $3.32 bil ion in multilateral in multilateral
assistance accounts, representing a 59.6% increase compared to FY2020 enacted levels and a 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 124.3% increase from the Trump Administration’s request. This increase is largely due to the
inclusion of $1.28 inclusion of $1.28 ~~billion~~bil ion in emergency COVID-19 funding for the IO&P account. in emergency COVID-19 funding for the IO&P account.
The omnibus appropriation provided a total of $2.04 The omnibus appropriation provided a total of $2.04 ~~billion~~bil ion in multilateral in multilateral assistance accounts, assistance accounts,
representing a 2.0% decrease from FY2020-enacted levels. The largest decrease was to funds for 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 the International Development Association, which saw an 8.8% decrease from its FY2020
enacted appropriation. enacted appropriation. ~~All~~ Al other accounts were kept level or experienced a slight decrease with 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% the exception of the International Fund for Agricultural Development, which saw an 8.3%
increase from its FY2020 enacted funding. increase from its FY2020 enacted funding.
Through ARPA, Congress provided an additional $580 Through ARPA, Congress provided an additional $580 ~~million in multilateral assistance funding,~~
mil ion in multilateral assistanc e funding, citing the IO&P authorities in the Foreign Assistance Act of 1961, as amended. Congress directed citing the IO&P authorities in the Foreign Assistance Act of 1961, as amended. Congress directed
the funds “include support for the priorities and objectives of the United Nations Global the funds “include support for the priorities and objectives of the United Nations Global
Humanitarian Response Plan COVID–19 through voluntary contributions to international Humanitarian Response Plan COVID–19 through voluntary contributions to international
organizations and programs administered by such organizations.” organizations and programs administered by such organizations.”
Export Promotion
The FY2021 request included an increased investment in the U.S. Development Finance The FY2021 request included 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.6466 However, the Trump However, the Trump
AdministrationAdministration proposed eliminating funding for the U.S. Trade and Development Agency proposed eliminating funding for the U.S. Trade and Development Agency
(USTDA)—the request included $12.11 (USTDA)—the request included $12.11 ~~million~~ mil ion for the agency’s “orderly closeout”—and an 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.6567 As in previous years, the Administration assumed that As in previous years, the Administration assumed that ~~all~~ al export promotion export promotion
expenditures would be offset by collections. In the FY2021 request, the Administration assumed expenditures would be offset by collections. In the FY2021 request, the Administration assumed
$711.20 $711.20 ~~million~~ mil ion and $496.00 and $496.00 ~~million~~mil ion in offsetting collections from the Export-Import Bank and in offsetting collections from the Export-Import Bank and
the DFC, respectively. the DFC, respectively.
The House legislation The House legislation would have provided level or increased funding for export promotion would have provided level or increased funding for export promotion
accounts when compared to both FY2020 enacted levels and the Trump Administration’s request. accounts when compared to both FY2020 enacted levels and the Trump Administration’s request.
The only exception was the DFC corporate capital account’s administrative expenses subaccount, The only exception was the DFC corporate capital account’s administrative expenses subaccount,
which would have received a 10.1% increase in funding when compared to FY2020 enacted which would have received a 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, levels but a 2.0% decrease when compared to the Administration’s proposal. As in previous years,

~~62 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.~~
~~63 FY2021 SFOPS CBJ, p. 104.~~
~~64 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.~~
~~65 FY2021 SFOPS CBJ, p. 106.~~
~~Congressional Research Service~~

24

~~link to page 30 link to page 19~~

~~Department of State, Foreign Operations, and Related Programs~~

~~the House assumed that all~~ the House assumed that al export promotion expenditures would be offset by collections. The export promotion expenditures would be offset by collections. The
House legislation also did not accept the Administration’s proposal to shutter USTDA, and House legislation also did not accept the Administration’s proposal to shutter USTDA, and
instead funded the agency at the same level as FY2020. instead funded the agency at the same level as FY2020.
The enacted omnibus appropriation provided level funding for the Export-Import Bank’s 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 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 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 would be offset by collections and would return $113.5 ~~million~~mil ion to the Treasury. The legislation to the Treasury. The legislation
also provided increased funding for the DFC, particularly within its Corporate Capital Account, 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 and assumed only some offsetting collections. As with the House legislation, the omnibus funded
USTDA at the same level as FY2020. 66 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. 67 FY2021 SFOPS CBJ, p. 106. Congressional Research Service 26 link to page 32 link to page 19 link to page 33 link to page 33 Department of State, Foreign Operations, and Related Programs ~~USTDA at the same level as FY2020.~~
Country and Regional Assistance
The Trump Administration organized much of its country and regional assistance into six The Trump Administration organized much of its country and regional assistance into six
thematic thematic ~~priorities~~ priorities (Figure 6). . These priorities were also meant to reflect the broader foreign These priorities were also meant to reflect the broader foreign
operations goals outlined in operations goals outlined in “Foreign Operations Highlights.” ”
Figure 6. Regional Thematic Priorities, FY2021 Request

Source: Created by CRS using the Trump Administration’sCreated by CRS using the Trump Administration’s FY2021 budget FY2021 budget ~~rollout~~rol out documents presented on documents presented on
February 10, 2020. February 10, 2020.
Note: This map does not capture This map does not capture ~~all~~ al bilateral assistance included in the FY2021 request. Other countries would bilateral assistance included in the FY2021 request. Other countries would
receivereceive assistance but are not in the Trump Administration’sassistance but are not in the Trump Administration’s calculations for these thematic priorities. calculations for these thematic priorities.
Top country recipients under the FY2021 request remained consistent with prior year funding Top country recipients under the FY2021 request remained consistent with prior year funding
~~allocations~~ al ocations. Israel, Egypt, and Jordan would have remained the top three recipients of foreign . Israel, Egypt, and Jordan would have remained 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 Trump Administration maintained were countries that the Trump Administration maintained were ~~strategically~~strategical y significant, including significant, including
Afghanistan and Ukraine, also remained top country recipients in the FY2021 request, as did Afghanistan and Ukraine, also remained top country recipients in the FY2021 request, as did
~~Congressional Research Service~~

25

~~link to page 31 link to page 31~~

~~Department of State, Foreign Operations, and Related Programs~~

several African countries that would have received high levels of global health and development several African countries that would have received high levels of global health and development
aid aid (Table 9). .
~~Regionally~~Regional y, the Middle East and Africa would have received the largest shares of aid in the , the Middle East and Africa would have received the largest shares of aid in the
FY2021 request—together comprising about 71.5% of total aid FY2021 request—together comprising about 71.5% of total aid ~~allocated~~al ocated by country or region— by country or region—
consistent with FY2019 consistent with FY2019 yearyear actuals (Figure 7). Proposed funding for Europe and Eurasia and, Proposed funding for Europe and Eurasia and,
separately, the Indo-Pacific, come to 3.9% and 9.2%, respectively. Notably, the distribution of separately, the Indo-Pacific, come to 3.9% and 9.2%, respectively. Notably, the distribution of
assistance within regions varied significantly. For example, Africa received a majority of GHP assistance within regions varied significantly. For example, Africa received a majority of GHP
funding (58.1% in FY2019 and a proposed 66.7% for FY2021), but accounted for a funding (58.1% in FY2019 and a proposed 66.7% for FY2021), but accounted for a ~~small~~
smal proportion of INCLE funding (5.2% in FY2019 and a proposed 4.1% for FY2021). In proportion of INCLE funding (5.2% in FY2019 and a proposed 4.1% for FY2021). In
comparison, the Western Hemisphere region accounted for a comparison, the Western Hemisphere region accounted for a ~~small~~ smal percentage of GHP (2.5% in percentage of GHP (2.5% in
Congressional Research Service 27 Department of State, Foreign Operations, and Related Programs 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). FY2019 and a proposed 44.8% for FY2021).
Table 9. Top Aid Recipients by Country,
Figure 7. Proportional Aid, by Region,
FY2019 Actual and FY2021 Request
FY2019 Actual and FY2021 Request
(In (In ~~millions~~mil ions of current U.S. of current U.S. ~~dollars~~dol ars) )
(In (In ~~billions~~bil ions of current U.S. of current U.S. ~~dollars~~dol ars) )
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~~al ocation charts provided by the State charts provided by the State
Department. Department.

Note: This reflectsThis reflects only assistance that is only assistance that is
Source: FY2021 SFOPS CBJ. FY2021 SFOPS CBJ.
requested at the country or regional level, requested at the country or regional level, not not
funds for global activitiesfunds for global activities or humanitarian funds. or humanitarian funds.
The House legislation The House legislation and report (H.R. 7608/H.Rept. 116-444) did not provide comprehensive and report (H.R. 7608/H.Rept. 116-444) did not provide comprehensive
regional regional ~~allocations~~al ocations, but did specify assistance levels for several countries and regions. These , but did specify assistance levels for several countries and regions. These
included $3.31 included $3.31 ~~billion~~ bil ion for Israel, $1.53 for Israel, $1.53 ~~billion~~bil ion for Jordan, $1.43 for Jordan, $1.43 ~~billion~~bil ion for Egypt, and $519.89 for Egypt, and $519.89
~~million~~ mil ion for the Central America region, of which $420.79 for the Central America region, of which $420.79 ~~million~~mil ion would have been directed to be would have been directed to be
used for the Northern Triangle countries (El Salvador, Guatemala, and Honduras). The legislation used for the Northern Triangle countries (El Salvador, Guatemala, and Honduras). The legislation
also included $457.25 also included $457.25 ~~million~~ mil ion for Colombia, $453.00 for Colombia, $453.00 ~~million~~ mil ion for Ukraine, and $290.00 for Ukraine, and $290.00 ~~million~~mil ion
for the Countering Russian Influence Fund. The House for the Countering Russian Influence Fund. The House ~~bill~~ bil would have maintained the use of a would have maintained the use of a
Countering Chinese Influence Fund but did not specify a funding level. Countering Chinese Influence Fund but did not specify a funding level.
As with the House legislation, As with the House legislation, the omnibus and its joint explanatory statement did not provide the omnibus and its joint explanatory statement did not provide
comprehensive regional comprehensive regional ~~allocations~~al ocations. However, . However, ~~allocations~~al ocations were specified for some countries and were specified for some countries and
regions. These included $3.31 regions. These included $3.31 ~~billion~~bil ion for Israel, $1.65 for Israel, $1.65 ~~billion~~bil ion for Jordan, $1.43 for Jordan, $1.43 ~~billion~~bil ion for Egypt, for Egypt,
and $505.93 and $505.93 ~~million~~ mil ion for the Central America region. The legislation also designated $461.38 for the Central America region. The legislation also designated $461.38
~~Congressional Research Service~~

26

~~Department of State, Foreign Operations, and Related Programs~~

~~million~~ mil ion for Colombia, $453.00 for Colombia, $453.00 ~~million~~mil ion for Ukraine, $290.00 for Ukraine, $290.00 ~~million~~mil ion for the Countering Russian for the Countering Russian
Influence Fund, and $300.00 Influence Fund, and $300.00 ~~million~~mil ion for the Countering Chinese Influence Fund. for the Countering Chinese Influence Fund. ~~Finally~~Final y, the , the
legislationlegislation also made availablealso made available monies for two new funds—a Global Community Engagement 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 and Resilience Fund and a People-to-People Partnership for Peace Fund—but did not specify
funding levels for either. funding levels for either.

Congressional Research Service Congressional Research Service

2728

link to page link to page 3940 link to page link to page 3940 link to page link to page 3940 link to page link to page 3940 link to page link to page 3940 link to page link to page 3940 link to page link to page 3940 link to page link to page 3940
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 (In ~~millions~~mil ions of U.S. of U.S. ~~dollars~~dol ars; numbers in parentheses are the portion of the account totals designated as OCO or emergency funds) ; numbers in parentheses are the portion of the account totals designated as OCO or emergency funds)
FY2020
% Change,
FY2021 % Change,
Enacted
FY2020
~~FY2021~~Enacteda
FY2020
(P.L. 116-94,
Enacted vs.
FY2021
~~Enacteda~~
(P.L. 116- Enacted vs.
FY2019
P.L. 116-123,
FY2021
FY2021
House (H.R.
~~(P.L. 116-~~
260, P.L. FY2021

Actual
P.L. 116-136)
Request
Request
7608)
~~260~~117-31)
Enacted
Title I. State, Broadcasting &
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 17,290.19
-0.13% -0.13%
Related Agencies, TOTAL
(4,064.57) (4,064.57)
(4,778.01) (4,778.01)
(4,866.94) (4,866.94)
(4,357.54) (4,357.54)
Administration Administration of Foreign Affairs,of Foreign Affairs, Subtotal 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 12,948.79
4.80% 4.80%
(2,979.67) (2,979.67)
(3,693.11) (3,693.11)
(4,064.71) (4,064.71)
(3,555.31) (3,555.31)
Diplomatic Diplomatic Programs 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 9,320.01
-4.05% -4.05%
(2,942.77) (2,942.77)
( (3,214.12)bc
( (3,581.12)d
( (2,376.12)e
(of which Worldwide (of which Worldwide Security Protection) 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] [4,120.90]
0.61% 0.61%
(2,626.12) (2,626.12)
(2,626.12) (2,626.12)
(2,626.12) (2,626.12)
(2,226.12) (2,226.12)
Consular and Border Consular and Border Security Programs Security Programs
— —
— —
— —
— —
— —
300.~~00e~~00e f
— —
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
250.00 250.00
79.21% 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
145.73 145.73
0.00% 0.00%
(54.90) (54.90)
(54.90) (54.90)
( (59.30)d
(54.90) (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
740.30 740.30
1.31% 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 7.42
2.81% 2.81%
Protection of Foreign Missions Protection of Foreign Missions & Officials & Officials
30.89 30.89
30.89 30.89
25.90 25.90
-16.15% -16.15%
30.89 30.89
30.89 30.89
0.00% 0.00%
Embassy Security, Embassy Security, Construction & Construction &
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 1,950.45
-1.27% -1.27%
Maintenance Maintenance
(424.09) (424.09)
(824.29) (824.29)
(of which Worldwide (of which Worldwide Security Upgrades) 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] [1,181.40]
-2.01% -2.01%
(424.09) (424.09)
(424.29) (424.29)
(824.49) (824.49)
CRS- CRS-2829

link to page link to page 3940
FY2020
% Change,
FY2021 % Change,
Enacted
FY2020
~~FY2021~~Enacteda
FY2020
(P.L. 116-94,
Enacted vs.
FY2021
~~Enacteda~~
(P.L. 116- Enacted vs.
FY2019
P.L. 116-123,
FY2021
FY2021
House (H.R.
~~(P.L. 116-~~
260, P.L. FY2021

Actual
P.L. 116-136)
Request
Request
7608)
~~260~~117-31)
Enacted
Emergency-Diplomatic Emergency-Diplomatic & Consular & Consular
7.89 7.89
7.89 7.89
7.89 7.89
0.00% 0.00%
7.89 7.89
7.89 7.89
0.00% 0.00%
Services Services
Repatriation Loans Repatriation Loans
1.30 1.30
1.30 1.30
1.30 1.30
0.00% 0.00%
1.30 1.30
2.50 2.50
92.31% 92.31%
Payment American Payment American Institute Taiwan Institute Taiwan
31.96 31.96
31.96 31.96
26.31 26.31
-17.68% -17.68%
31.96 31.96
31.96 31.96
0.00% 0.00%
International Chancery Center International Chancery Center
0.74 0.74
0.74 0.74
0.74 0.74
0.00% 0.00%
2.74 2.74
2.74 2.74
269.18% 269.18%
Foreign Service Foreign Service ~~Retirement~~ Retirement (mandatory) (mandatory)
158.90 158.90
158.90 158.90
158.90 158.90
0.00% 0.00%
158.90 158.90
158.90 158.90
0.00% 0.00%
International Orgs, Subtotal International Orgs, Subtotal
2,911.17 2,911.17
3,000.19 3,000.19
2,045.42 2,045.42
-31.82% -31.82%
2,962.24 2,962.24
2,962.24 2,962.24
-1.26% -1.26%
(1,084.90) (1,084.90)
(1,084.90) (1,084.90)
(802.23) (802.23)
(802.23) (802.23)
Contributions to Int’l Orgs Contributions to Int’l Orgs
1,360.27 1,360.27
1,473.81 1,473.81
966.22 966.22
-34.44% -34.44%
1,505.93 1,505.93
1,505.93 1,505.93
2.18% 2.18%
(96.24) (96.24)
(96.24) (96.24)
(96.24) (96.24)
(96.24) (96.24)
Contributions, Int’l Peacekeeping Contributions, Int’l Peacekeeping
1,550.90 1,550.90
1,526.38 1,526.38
1,079.20 1,079.20
-29.30% -29.30%
1,456.31 1,456.31
1,456.31 1,456.31
-4.59% -4.59%
(988.66) (988.66)
(988.66) (988.66)
(705.99) (705.99)
(705.99) (705.99)
International Commissions, International Commissions, Subtotal Subtotal
141.44 141.44
162.80 162.80
144.11 144.11
-11.48% -11.48%
174.50 174.50
176.62 176.62
8.49% 8.49%
(Function 300) (Function 300)

Int’l Boundary/U.S.-Mexico Int’l Boundary/U.S.-Mexico
77.53 77.53
85.07 85.07
98.77 98.77
16.10% 16.10%
98.77 98.77
98.77 98.77
16.10% 16.10%
American American Sections Sections
13.26 13.26
15.01 15.01
10.66 10.66
-28.96% -28.96%
15.01 15.01
15.01 15.01
0.00% 0.00%
Int’l Fisheries Int’l Fisheries
50.65 50.65
62.72 62.72
34.68 34.68
-44.71% -44.71%
60.72 60.72
62.85 62.85
0.20% 0.20%
Agency for Global Media, Subtotal Agency for Global Media, Subtotal
807.90 807.90
810.40 810.40
637.25 637.25
-21.37% -21.37%
637.25 637.25
802.96 802.96
-0.92% -0.92%
Broadcasting Operations Broadcasting Operations
798.20 798.20
798.70 798.70
632.73 632.73
-20.78% -20.78%
632.73 632.73
793.26 793.26
-0.68% -0.68%
Capital Improvements Capital Improvements
9.70 9.70
11.70 11.70
4.52 4.52
-61.37% -61.37%
4.52 4.52
9.70 9.70
-17.09% -17.09%
Related Programs, Related Programs, Subtotal Subtotal
252.78 252.78
381.34 381.34
83.59 83.59
-78.08% -78.08%
385.28 385.28
385.28 385.28
1.03% 1.03%
Asia Foundation Asia Foundation
17.00 17.00
19.00 19.00
— —
-100.00% -100.00%
20.00 20.00
20.00 20.00
5.26% 5.26%
U.S. Institute for Peace U.S. Institute for Peace
38.63 38.63
45.00 45.00
15.74 15.74
-65.02% -65.02%
45.00 45.00
45.00 45.00
0.00% 0.00%
Center for Middle East-West Dialogue Center for Middle East-West Dialogue
0.19 0.19
0.25 0.25
0.25 0.25
2.04% 2.04%
0.25 0.25
0.25 0.25
2.04% 2.04%
CRS- CRS-2930

link to page link to page 3940 link to page link to page 3940 link to page link to page 3940 link to page link to page 3940 link to page link to page 3940
FY2020
% Change,
FY2021 % Change,
Enacted
FY2020
~~FY2021~~Enacteda
FY2020
(P.L. 116-94,
Enacted vs.
FY2021
~~Enacteda~~
(P.L. 116- Enacted vs.
FY2019
P.L. 116-123,
FY2021
FY2021
House (H.R.
~~(P.L. 116-~~
260, P.L. FY2021

Actual
P.L. 116-136)
Request
Request
7608)
~~260~~117-31)
Enacted
Eisenhower Exchange Programs Eisenhower Exchange Programs
0.19 0.19
0.27 0.27
0.21 0.21
-22.59% -22.59%
0.21 0.21
0.21 0.21
-22.59% -22.59%
Israeli-Arab Israeli-Arab Scholarship Program Scholarship Program
0.07 0.07
0.12 0.12
0.12 0.12
-4.03% -4.03%
0.12 0.12
0.12 0.12
-4.03% -4.03%
East-West Center East-West Center
16.70 16.70
16.70 16.70
— —
-100.00% -100.00%
19.70 19.70
19.70 19.70
17.96% 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
300.00 300.00
0.00% 0.00%
Other Commissions, Other Commissions, Subtotal Subtotal
14.75 14.75
13.50 13.50
13.97 13.97
-3.46% -3.46%
14.30 14.30
14.30 14.30
5.89% 5.89%
Preservation Preservation of America’sof America’s Heritage Heritage
0.68 0.68
0.68 0.68
0.64 0.64
-4.89% -4.89%
0.64 0.64
0.64 0.64
-4.89% -4.89%
Abroad Abroad
Int’l Religious Int’l Religious Freedom Freedom
4.50 4.50
4.50 4.50
4.50 4.50
— —
4.50 4.50
4.50 4.50
0.00% 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 2.91
12.76% 12.76%
Cong.-Exec. Commission Cong.-Exec. Commission on People’s on People’s
2.00 2.00
2.25 2.25
2.25 2.25
— —
2.25 2.25
2.25 2.25
0.00% 0.00%
Republic of China 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 4.00
14.29% 14.29%
Western Western Hem.Hem. Drug Policy Commission 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~~824.25
~~9.26~~10.74%
(3,935.43)
(5,869.46)
(13,151.61)
(~~9337~~9,937.58)
Title II. Admin of Foreign Title II. Admin of Foreign Assistance 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 1,711.45
-2.71% -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 1,377.75
-6.42% -6.42%
(158.07) (158.07)
( (95.00)c
( (105.00)d
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
258.20 258.20
22.78% 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 75.50
-1.13% -1.13%
( (1.00)b
( (3.00)d
Title III: Bilateral Title III: Bilateral Economic Assistance 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, 31,~~308~~908.95 .95
~~13.26~~15.43% %
(3,222.78) (3,222.78)
(4,936.34) (4,936.34)
(10,925.34) (10,925.34)
( (~~8,435~~9,035.46) .46)
CRS- CRS-3031

link to page link to page 3940 link to page link to page 3940 link to page link to page 3940 link to page link to page 3940 link to page link to page 3940 link to page link to page 3940 link to page link to page 3940 link to page link to page 3940 link to page link to page 3940 link to page link to page 3940 link to page link to page 3940 link to page link to page 3940 link to page link to page 3940 link to page link to page 3940 link to page link to page 3940 link to page link to page 3940 link to page 40 link to page 40
FY2020
% Change,
FY2021 % Change,
Enacted
FY2020
~~FY2021~~Enacteda
FY2020
(P.L. 116-94,
Enacted vs.
FY2021
~~Enacteda~~
(P.L. 116- Enacted vs.
FY2019
P.L. 116-123,
FY2021
FY2021
House (H.R.
~~(P.L. 116-~~
260, P.L. FY2021

Actual
P.L. 116-136)
Request
Request
7608)
~~260~~117-31)
Enacted
Global Health Programs Global Health Programs (GHP), State + (GHP), State +
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
13,195.95 13,195.95
38.50% 38.50%
USAID USAID
( (435.00)b
( (2,500.00)d
( (4,000.00)e
(of which USAID) (of which USAID)
[3,149.95] [3,149.95]
[3,597.45] [3,597.45]
[2,160.10] [2,160.10]
-39.95% -39.95%
[3,226.98] [3,226.98]
[7,265.95] [7,265.95]
129.76% 129.76%
( (2,500.00)d
( (4,000.00)e
(of which State) (of which State)
[5,720.00] [5,720.00]
[5,930.00] [5,930.00]
[3,837.87] [3,837.87]
-35.28% -35.28%
[5,930.00] [5,930.00]
[5,930.00] [5,930.00]
0.00% 0.00%
Development Development Assistance Assistance
3,000.00 3,000.00
3,400.00 3,400.00
— —
n.a. n.a.
4,700.00 4,700.00
3,500.00 3,500.00
2.94% 2.94%
( (900.00)d
International Disaster International Disaster ~~Assistance~~
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 4,395.36
-11.27% -11.27%
(584.27) (584.27)
( (2,291.98)bc
( (2,858.98)d
(1,914.04) (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 92.04
0.00% 0.00%
(62.04) (62.04)
Complex Crises Complex Crises Fund Fund
30.00 30.00
30.00 30.00
— —
-100.00% -100.00%
30.00 30.00
30.00 30.00
0.00% 0.00%
Development Development Credit Authority—Admin Credit Authority—Admin
10.00 10.00
— —
— —
— —
— —
— —
— —
Development Development Credit Authority Subsidy 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 3,851.96
16.90% 16.90%
(1,172.34) (1,172.34)
( (250.00)b
( (1,500.00)d
( (700.00)e
Economic Support and Development Economic Support and Development
— —
— —
5,925.60 5,925.60
n.a. n.a.
— —
— —
n.a. n.a.
Fund Fund
Democracy Democracy Fund Fund
227.20 227.20
273.70 273.70
— —
n.a. n.a.
323.70 323.70
290.70 290.70
6.21% 6.21%
Assistance Assistance for Europe, Eurasia and for Europe, Eurasia and
760.33 760.33
770.33 770.33
— —
n.a. n.a.
1,270.33 1,270.33
770.33 770.33
0.00% 0.00%
Central Asia Central Asia
( (500.00)d
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, 3,~~432~~532.00 .00
- -~~9.25~~6.61% %
(1,404.12) (1,404.12)
( (1,871.36)c
( (2,646.36)d
(1, (1,~~701.42)~~801.42)g
International Humanitarian Assistance International Humanitarian Assistance
— —
— —
5,968.00 5,968.00
n.a. n.a.
— —
— —
n.a. n.a.
Emergency Refugee and Migration Emergency Refugee and Migration
1.00 1.00
0.10 0.10
— —
n.a. n.a.
0.10 0.10
0500.10 .10
05,000.00% .00%
Assistance Assistance
(500.00)g CRS-32~~CRS-31~~

link to page link to page 3940 link to page link to page 3940 link to page link to page 3940 link to page link to page 3940 link to page link to page 3940
FY2020
% Change,
FY2021 % Change,
Enacted
FY2020
~~FY2021~~Enacteda
FY2020
(P.L. 116-94,
Enacted vs.
FY2021
~~Enacteda~~
(P.L. 116- Enacted vs.
FY2019
P.L. 116-123,
FY2021
FY2021
House (H.R.
~~(P.L. 116-~~
260, P.L. FY2021

Actual
P.L. 116-136)
Request
Request
7608)
~~260~~117-31)
Enacted
Independent Agencies, Independent Agencies, Subtotal 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
1,393.50 1,393.50
-5.46% -5.46%
(88.00) (88.00)
(20.00) (20.00)
Peace Corps Peace Corps
410.50 410.50
498.50 498.50
401.20 401.20
-19.52% -19.52%
410.50 410.50
410.50 410.50
-17.65% -17.65%
( (88.00 )c Mil ennium Chal enge)c
~~Millennium Challenge~~ Corporation Corporation
905.00 905.00
905.00 905.00
800.00 800.00
-11.60% -11.60%
905.00 905.00
912.00 912.00
0.77% 0.77%
Inter-American Inter-American Foundation Foundation
22.50 22.50
37.50 37.50
3.85 3.85
-89.73% -89.73%
51.50 51.50
38.00 38.00
1.33% 1.33%
( (10.00)d
U.S. African Development U.S. African Development Foundation Foundation
30.00 30.00
33.00 33.00
4.66 4.66
-85.88% -85.88%
43.00 43.00
33.00 33.00
0.00% 0.00%
( (10.00)d
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
357.00 357.00
693.00% 693.00%
(120.00) (120.00)
Department of the Treasury Technical Department of the Treasury Technical
30.00 30.00
30.00 30.00
33.00 33.00
10.00% 10.00%
33.00 33.00
33.00 33.00
10.00% 10.00%
Assistance Assistance
Debt Restructuring Debt Restructuring
— —
15.00 15.00
78.00 78.00
420.00% 420.00%
78.00 78.00
324.00 324.00
2060.00% 2060.00%
( (120.00)e
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 9,004.03
- -~~.011~~0.11% %
(554.59) (554.59)
(837.12) (837.12)
(837.12) (837.12)
(902.12) (902.12)
International Narcotics Control & Law International Narcotics Control & Law
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 1,385.57
-0.39% -0.39%
Enforcement Enforcement
Nonproliferation, Nonproliferation, Anti-Terrorism, Anti-Terrorism,
864.55 864.55
895.75 895.75
753.55 753.55
-15.87% -15.87%
897.00 897.00
889.25 889.25
-0.73% -0.73%
Demining 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
440.76 440.76
-3.63% -3.63%
(325.21) (325.21)
(325.21) (325.21)
(325.21) (325.21)
(325.21) (325.21)
International Military Education & International Military Education &
110.78 110.78
112.93 112.93
104.93 104.93
-7.08% -7.08%
112.93 112.93
112.93 112.93
0.00% 0.00%
Training Training
Foreign Military Foreign Military Financing 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 6,175.52
0.30% 0.30%
(229.37) (229.37)
(511.91) (511.91)
(511.91) (511.91)
(576.91) (576.91)
CRS- CRS-3233

link to page link to page 3940 link to page link to page 3940 link to page 40
FY2020
% Change,
FY2021 % Change,
Enacted
FY2020
~~FY2021~~Enacteda
FY2020
(P.L. 116-94,
Enacted vs.
FY2021
~~Enacteda~~
(P.L. 116- Enacted vs.
FY2019
P.L. 116-123,
FY2021
FY2021
House (H.R.
~~(P.L. 116-~~
260, P.L. FY2021

Actual
P.L. 116-136)
Request
Request
7608)
~~260~~117-31)
Enacted
Title V. Multilateral Title V. Multilateral Assistance 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
2,040.82 2,040.82
-1.99% -1.99%
(1,281.15) (1,281.15)
International Organizations & Programs International Organizations & Programs
331.50 331.50
390.50 390.50
— —
-100.00% -100.00%
1,671.65 1,671.65
387.50 387.50
-0.77% -0.77%
( (1,281.15)d
Int’l Bank for Reconstruction and Int’l Bank for Reconstruction and
— —
206.50 206.50
206.50 206.50
0.00% 0.00%
206.50 206.50
206.50 206.50
0.00% 0.00%
Development Development
World World Bank: Global Environment Facility Bank: Global Environment Facility
139.58 139.58
139.58 139.58
— —
-100.00% -100.00%
139.58 139.58
139.58 139.58
0.00% 0.00%
World World Bank: Int’l Development Bank: Int’l Development
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 1,001.40
-8.72% -8.72%
Association Association
Asian Development Asian Development Fund Fund
47.40 47.40
47.40 47.40
47.40 47.40
0.00% 0.00%
47.40 47.40
47.40 47.40
0.00% 0.00%
African Development African Development Bank-Capital Bank-Capital
32.42 32.42
— —
54.65 54.65
n.a. n.a.
54.65 54.65
54.65 54.65
n.a. n.a.
African Development African Development Fund Fund
171.30 171.30
171.30 171.30
171.30 171.30
0.00% 0.00%
171.30 171.30
171.30 171.30
0.00% 0.00%
International Fund for Agricultural International Fund for Agricultural
30.00 30.00
30.00 30.00
— —
-100.00% -100.00%
30.00 30.00
32.50 32.50
8.33% 8.33%
Development 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
159.00 159.00
-797.37% -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 -113.50
230.90% 230.90%
Overseas Overseas Private Investment Corporation Private Investment Corporation
-341.04 -341.04
— —
— —
— —
— —
— —
— —
Development Development Finance Corporation Finance Corporation
— —
-68.00 -68.00
339.68 339.68
599.53% 599.53%
-65.00 -65.00
193.00 193.00
-383.82% -383.82%
Trade & Development Trade & Development Agency Agency
79.50 79.50
79.50 79.50
12.11 12.11
-84.77% -84.77%
79.50 79.50
79.50 79.50
0.00% 0.00%
ARPA Emergency Fundsh — — — — — 10,000.00 — SFOPS TOTAL, pre-rescission~~SFOPS TOTAL, pre-ARPA~~
55,000.55
57,787.64
44,123.42
-23.65%
66,102.45
~~61,514~~72,114.43
~~6.45~~24.79%
(8,000.00)
(10,647.46)
(18,018.55)
(~~13,695~~24,295.12)
Rescissions, Rescissions, net net
-324.62 -324.62
-578.74 -578.74
— —
— —
-75.00 -75.00
-530.12 -530.12
-8.40% -8.40%
(-282.46) (-282.46)
(-425.12) (-425.12)
~~SFOPS TOTAL, Net of Rescissions,~~
~~54,675.93~~
~~57,208.90~~
~~44,123.42~~
~~-22.87%~~
~~66,027.45~~
~~60,984.31~~
~~6.60%~~
~~pre-ARPA~~
~~(8,000.00)~~
~~(10,365.00)~~
~~(18,018.55)~~
~~(13,270.00)~~
~~CRS-33~~CRS-34

link to page link to page ~~39 link to page 39~~40
FY2020
% Change,
FY2021 % Change,
Enacted
FY2020
~~FY2021~~Enacteda
FY2020
(P.L. 116-94,
Enacted vs.
FY2021
~~Enacteda~~
(P.L. 116- Enacted vs.
FY2019
P.L. 116-123,
FY2021
FY2021
House (H.R.
~~(P.L. 116-~~
260, P.L. FY2021

Actual
P.L. 116-136)
Request
Request
7608)
~~260~~117-31) Enacted SFOPS TOTAL, Net of Rescissions,)
~~Enacted~~
~~ARPA Emergency Fundsg~~
—
—
—
—
—
~~(10,000.00)~~
—
~~State, Foreign Operations & Related~~
54,675.93
57,208.90
44,123.42
-22.87%
66,027.45
~~70,984~~71,584.31 25.13%~~.31~~
~~24.08%~~
~~Programs, TOTAL, with ARPA~~
(8,000.00)
(10,365.00)
(18,018.55)
(23,~~270~~870.00)
~~124.51%~~
Sources: FY2019 Actuals and the FY2021 request are fromFY2019 Actuals and the FY2021 request are from the FY2021 SFOPS CBJ; FY2020 enacted data are fromthe FY2021 SFOPS CBJ; FY2020 enacted data are from P.L. 116-94, Division G, P.L. 116-123, and P.L. 116-P.L. 116-94, Division G, P.L. 116-123, and P.L. 116-
136; FY2021 enacted are from P.L. 116-260136; FY2021 enacted are from P.L. 116-260 and P.L. 117-31. ARPA figures are from. ARPA figures are from P.L. 117-2, Title X. P.L. 117-2, Title X.
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 emergencyContingency Operations (OCO) or supplemental emergency funding and are subsumed in the largerfunding and are subsumed in the larger account number above them. “Enduring” funding is also sometimes account number above them. “Enduring” funding is also sometimes
referredreferred to as “base” or “ongoing” funding in budget documents. Numbers may not add due to rounding. “n.a.” = not applicable. to as “base” or “ongoing” funding in budget documents. Numbers may not add due to rounding. “n.a.” = not applicable.
a. Account totals do not include funding from P.L.a. Account totals do not include funding from P.L. 117-2, the ARPA, which are added in as a lump sum at the bottom of the table.117-2, the ARPA, which are added in as a lump sum at the bottom of the table.
b. Includes funding for the first novel coronavirus (COVID-19) supplemental appropriation, P.L.b. Includes funding for the first novel coronavirus (COVID-19) supplemental appropriation, P.L. 116-123. That legislation appropriated $264 116-123. That legislation appropriated $264 ~~million~~ mil ion for Diplomatic for Diplomatic
Programs, Programs, ~~$1 million~~ $1 mil ion for the USAID Inspector General,for the USAID Inspector General, ~~$435 million~~ $435 mil ion for Global Health Programs-USAID,for Global Health Programs-USAID, ~~$300 million~~ $300 mil ion for International Disasterfor International Disaster Assistance,Assistance, and and
$250 $250 ~~million~~ mil ion for the Economic Support Fund. for the Economic Support Fund. ~~All~~ Al of these funds were designated as being for an emergencyof these funds were designated as being for an emergency requirement.requirement. As suchAs such , like, like OCO funds, they do not OCO funds, they do not
count against BCA discretionarycount against BCA discretionary spending caps. spending caps.
c. Includes funding for the third novel coronavirus supplemental appropriations, P.L. c. Includes funding for the third novel coronavirus supplemental appropriations, P.L. 116-136. That legislation included $324 116-136. That legislation included $324 ~~million~~ mil ion for Diplomaticfor Diplomatic Programs,Programs, $95 $95
~~million~~ mil ion for USAID Operating Expenses, $258 for USAID Operating Expenses, $258 ~~million~~ mil ion for International Disasterfor International Disaster Assistance,Assistance, ~~$250 million~~ $250 mil ion for Migration and Refugee Assistance,for Migration and Refugee Assistance, and $88 and $88 ~~million~~ mil ion for the for the
Peace Corps.Peace Corps.
d. Includes emergency d. Includes emergency funding designated for the novel coronavirus in Title VIII of H.R. 7608. funding designated for the novel coronavirus in Title VIII of H.R. 7608.
e. Includes emergencye. Includes emergency funding designated for the novel coronavirus,funding designated for the novel coronavirus, ~~section~~ Section 7 of the Sudan Claims 7 of the Sudan Claims Resolution Act, and payment to the International Monetary Fund Resolution Act, and payment to the International Monetary Fund ~~for~~
for Heavily Indebted Poor Countries debt reliefHeavily Indebted Poor Countries debt relief for Sudan in Title IX of the final appropriation. for Sudan in Title IX of the final appropriation.
f. f.
The Consular and Border The Consular and Border Security ProgramsSecurity Programs account is account is ~~typically~~typical y funded through fees and surcharges pursuant to Section 7081 of funded through fees and surcharges pursuant to Section 7081 of P.L.P.L. 115-31, rather than annual 115-31, rather than annual
appropriations. However,appropriations. However, ~~collections~~ col ections derived fromderived from such fees and surcharges declined considerably due to the COVID-19 pandemic, prompting Congress to provide such fees and surcharges declined considerably due to the COVID-19 pandemic, prompting Congress to provide
a direct appropriation for this account.a direct appropriation for this account.
~~g. For more~~ g. Includes funding from P.L. 117-31, which appropriated $100 mil ion for the Migration and Refugee Assistance account and $500 mil ion for the Emergency Refugee and Migration Assistance account. h. For more information on the funding included in the Americaninformation on the funding included in the American Rescue Plan Act, see the Rescue Plan Act, see the ~~Text Box on page 3.~~

~~CRS-34~~“Emergency Supplemental Funding, FY2021” text box above. CRS-35

link to page link to page 4041 link to page link to page 4041 Department of State, Foreign Operations, and Related Programs

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 (In ~~millions~~mil ions of U.S. of U.S. ~~dollars~~dol ars) )
FY2020
Enacted
% Change,
FY2021
% Change
(P.L. 116-93,
FY2020
FY2021
Enacted
FY2020
P.L. 116-94,
Enacted vs.
House
(P.L. 116-
Enacted vs.
FY2019
P.L. 116-
FY2021
FY2021
(H.R. 7608,
260 + P.L.
FY2021

Actual
136)
Request
Request
H.R. 7667)
117-2)
Enacted
State-Foreign
54,534.49
56,946.10
43,979.32
-22.77%
65,852.95
~~70,668~~71,268.11
~~24.10~~25.15%
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 2.37
1.33% 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
103.00 103.00
3.62% 3.62%
Agriculture
1,926.26
1,945.00
— —
n.a.
2,010.00
2,770.00
42.42%
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 1,740.00
0.87% 0.87%
McGovern-Dole McGovern-Dole
210.26 210.26
220.00 220.00
— —
n.a. n.a.
235.00 235.00
230.00 230.00
4.55% 4.55%
ARPA emergency fund ARPA emergency fundsb
— —
— —
— —
n.a. n.a.
— —
800.00 800.00
n.a. n.a.
Total International
56,560.23
58,992.84
44,086.68
-25.27%
67,970.32
~~73,543~~74,143.48
~~24.67~~25.68%
Affairs (150)
Sources: FY2019 Actuals and the FY2021 request are fromFY2019 Actuals and the FY2021 request are from the FY2021 SFOPS CBJ, FY2021 Foreign Claims the FY2021 SFOPS CBJ, FY2021 Foreign Claims
Settlement CommissionSettlement Commission CBJ, and FY2021 U.S. International Trade CommissionCBJ, and FY2021 U.S. International Trade Commission CBJ; FY2020 enacted data are CBJ; FY2020 enacted data are
from P.L.from P.L. 116-93, Division B, P.L. 116-94, Divisions116-93, Division B, P.L. 116-94, Divisions B and G, P.L. 116-123, and P.L. 116-136. FY2021 enacted is B and G, P.L. 116-123, and P.L. 116-136. FY2021 enacted is
from P.L.from P.L. ~~116-260 and P.L.117-2~~ 116-260, P.L. 117-2, and P.L. 117-31. .
a. Includes mandatory spending from the Foreign Servicea. Includes mandatory spending from the Foreign Service ~~retirement~~ retirement account, and does not align with budget account, and does not align with budget
justification figures that count only discretionary justification figures that count only discretionary spending. Funding for certain international commissions spending. Funding for certain international commissions
appropriated in the SFOPS appropriated in the SFOPS ~~bill~~ bil are excluded here because they are excluded here because they ~~fall~~ fal under function 300 of the budget under function 300 of the budget
(Natural Resources(Natural Resources and Environment), not function 150 (International Affairs).and Environment), not function 150 (International Affairs).
b. International food assistance funding was provided in the Agriculture title of the APRA (P.L. 117-2), in b. International food assistance funding was provided in the Agriculture title of the APRA (P.L. 117-2), in
~~section~~Section 1007. 1007.

Congressional Research Service Congressional Research Service

3536

Department of State, Foreign Operations, and Related Programs

Appendix C. SFOPS Organization Chart

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

Author Information

Cory R. Gill Cory R. Gill
Emily Emily M. Morgenstern 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~~

36

~~Department of State, Foreign Operations, and Related Programs~~

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 under the direction of Congress. Information in a CRS Report should ~~not~~n ot be relied upon for purposes other 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 1012 · UPDATED
37 37