link to page 1 
October 23, 2019
Diplomatic Security and the Role of Congress
Congress has played a significant role in creating and
approximately 337 of them (69.34%) took place in one of
overseeing the Department of State’s modern-day
the 12 countries designated as of October 2019 as “Level 4:
diplomatic security apparatus. Legislation such as the
Do Not Travel” by the Bureau of Consular Affairs.
Omnibus Diplomatic Security and Antiterrorism Act of
Like the State Department’s data, information from the
1986 (P.L. 99-399) and the Secure Embassy Construction
(nongovernmental) University of Maryland’s START
and Counterterrorism Act of 1999 (Appendix G, Division
Global Terrorism Database indicates that of the recorded
A, Title VI of P.L. 106-113) established core tenets of U.S.
attacks against U.S. diplomatic facilities and personnel, a
diplomatic security processes, structures, and requirements.
similar high percentage occurred in countries considered
Congress also provides annual appropriations for the State
dangerous or unstable. START data for the period between
Department’s diplomatic security programs. With a
2006 and 2016 includes 67 incidents designated as targeting
dangerous and ever-changing threat landscape overseas and
U.S. diplomatic personnel, officials on diplomatic missions,
ongoing security reforms at the department, Congress is
or occurring at U.S. facilities, and meeting the criteria for
likely to remain closely engaged on oversight and funding
terrorism defined by the Department of State’s Country
matters regarding diplomatic security.
Report on Terrorism. Of these incidents, approximately
U.S. Diplomatic Security in a
53% took place in countries with a level 4 travel advisory,
Dangerous World
such as Afghanistan, Iraq, Libya, and Yemen; another 21%
occurred in countries with a level 3 travel advisory, such as
The Department of State maintains an overseas presence in
Lebanon and Pakistan.
dozens of countries with high levels of instability. When
considering whether to open a post in a high-risk area, the
Role of Congress
department adheres to regulations aimed at balancing
By passing legislation, conducting oversight of the State
acceptable risk, the impetus of advancing core U.S.
Department, and appropriating funding each year, Congress
interests, and the availability of appropriate resources to
acts as a primary stakeholder in working to better ensure the
accomplish the post’s mission. Nevertheless, attacks on
safety and security of U.S. personnel and overseas posts.
U.S. overseas posts and personnel occur with some
Following terrorist attacks against U.S. facilities and
frequency.
personnel in Beirut, Lebanon in 1983 and 1984, Congress
enacted the Omnibus Diplomatic Security and
Figure 1 illustrates that from 2006 to 2016, which
Antiterrorism Act of 1986 (P.L. 99-399) to clarify the State
comprises the most recent data available, the State
Department’s diplomatic security responsibilities, including
Department documented more than 450 significant security
developing and implementing programs to protect U.S.
incidents on U.S. diplomatic facilities and/or personnel.
government personnel abroad and, when necessary,
providing for the safe evacuation of such personnel when
Figure 1. U.S. Diplomatic Security Incidents,
their lives are endangered. This law further requires the
2006-2016
State Department to convene an Accountability Review
Board (ARB) following a significant incident at a U.S.
mission abroad. It also empowers ARBs to examine the
facts and circumstances surrounding the relevant incident
and transmit recommendations to the Secretary of State to
improve the department’s security programs, while
requiring the Secretary to submit a report to Congress
regarding the actions it has taken with respect to each
recommendation. The Advisory Panel on Overseas
Security, which was chaired by Admiral Bobby Inman and
issued a report in 1985 containing several recommendations
intended to strengthen U.S. embassy security following the
Beirut attacks, first conceptualized the ARB process.
Coordinated bombings of the U.S. Embassies in Kenya and
Tanzania in 1998 prompted ARBs and heightened
Source: Created by CRS based on U.S. Department of State, Bureau
congressional review of embassy security standards and
of Diplomatic Security, https://www.state.gov/m/ds/rls/rpt/
protocol. Those ARBs found that “no attention was paid to
273453.htm, accessed May, 2019.
vehicle bomb attacks” in the State Department’s
These incidents ranged from vandalism to high-casualty
Emergency Action Plan guidance and that the U.S.
terrorist attacks. Of these documented incidents,
government was not devoting adequate resources to
https://crsreports.congress.gov
link to page 2 
Diplomatic Security and the Role of Congress
security against terrorist attacks. Congress subsequently
Recent Reforms
passed the Secure Embassy Construction and
The State Department reports that it has implemented the
Counterterrorism Act of 1999 (Appendix G, Division A,
29 recommendations issued by the Benghazi ARB. Many of
Title VI of P.L. 106-113) to require that any new diplomatic
its actions have particular relevance to enhancing U.S.
facility be no less than 100 feet from the facility’s perimeter
diplomatic security at high-risk posts, including the
(the “setback” requirement), and that new facilities have the
following:
capacity to accommodate all nonmilitary U.S. personnel on
The creation of the “Vital Presence Validation Process”
site (the “co-location” requirement). Congress also
(VP2), which establishes risk-managed decisionmaking
authorized additional funding allowing the Diplomatic
regarding U.S. presence in high-threat locations. VP2
Security Service, which is tasked with managing the State
Department’s security programs protecting overseas posts,
seeks to systematize the process of opening, continuing,
ceasing, or restarting diplomatic operations, or
to hire an additional 200 special agents.
modifying staffing footprints, in response to challenges
Congress funds the State Department’s diplomatic security
in dangerous locations.
programs through appropriations for the Worldwide
The creation of the position of Deputy Assistant
Security Protection allocation of the Diplomatic Programs
Secretary (DAS) for High Threat Programs. This DAS is
account and, separately, the Embassy Security,
responsible for managing and directing the formulation,
Construction, and Maintenance account. Figure 2 illustrates
planning, coordination, policy development, and
funding Congress has appropriated for diplomatic security
implementation of security programs that protect high-
dating back to FY1986. Congress provides these funds as
risk diplomatic posts and reporting directly to the
no-year appropriations, which allows the State Department
Assistant Secretary of State for Diplomatic Security on
to retain indefinite authority to spend them beyond the
matters related to supporting these missions.
fiscal year for which they were appropriated.
In July 2015, the Government Accountability Office (GAO)
Figure 2. Diplomatic Security Appropriations,
found that while the Department of State has implemented
FY1986-FY2020
upgraded security at “hard” targets such as embassies,
“soft” targets such as diplomatic residences remained
Appropriations in $ millions. FY2019-2020: requested funding
vulnerable. In May 2019, the department completed a
review of its overseas residential security requirements and
carried out several actions intended to better ensure that
overseas posts are working to meet these residential
security standards.
Issues for the 116th Congress
Congress is considering diplomatic security measures
intended to increase congressional oversight and bolster the
Department of State’s risk management practices. For
example, Section 206 of the Department of State
Authorization Act of 2019 (H.R. 3352) would require the
Source: Created by CRS, based on U.S. Department of State
State Department to provide more detailed information to
Congressional Budget Justification (1986-2020).
Congress regarding long-term plans to replace or maintain
Notes: (1) FY1987, implementing Inman Commission
overseas diplomatic posts, taking into account existing
recommendations; (2) FY1999, increased embassy security funding
requirements under the Secure Embassy Construction and
following embassy bombings in Kenya and Tanzania; (3) FY2002,
Counterterrorism Act of 1999 and other related statutes and
increased funding after 9/11/2001 attacks; (4) FY2009, DOD hands
regulations. In addition, Section 209 of this bill would
over responsibility to State regarding embassy security in Iraq; (5)
require that the State Department provide more information
2012 Terrorist Attack in Benghazi; (6) FY2017, increased share of
to Congress regarding assessments of security deficiencies
funding enacted in Overseas Contingency Operation (OCO) Funding.
at U.S. diplomatic posts, including information about
requests made by diplomatic posts for security upgrades.
The State Department also convened ARBs to investigate
Finally, Section 210 would mandate the revision of the
attacks against diplomatic missions in Benghazi, Libya
State Department’s internal regulations to ensure that
(2012), and Havana, Cuba (2016-2018). The Benghazi and
information on the current threat environment is provided to
Cuba ARBs issued 29 and 30 recommendations,
all USG employees traveling to a foreign country on
respectively, all of which the Department of State has either
official business. H.R. 3352 passed the House of
implemented or pledged to implement. Congress carried out
Representatives on July 25, 2019, and is currently pending
particularly significant oversight following the Benghazi
before the Senate Committee on Foreign Relations.
attack. Over half a dozen reports authored by several
committees—including a House Select committee tasked
Cory R. Gill, Analyst in Foreign Affairs
solely with investigating the attack—analyzed the security
Edward J. Collins-Chase, Research Assistant
postures of the State Department and other agencies prior
to, during, and after the attack. Some of the reports included
IF11338
recommendations addressing perceived security
deficiencies.
https://crsreports.congress.gov
Diplomatic Security and the Role of Congress
Disclaimer
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 under the direction of Congress.
Information in a CRS Report should not be relied upon for purposes other than public understanding of information that has
been provided by CRS to Members of Congress in 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 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 copy or otherwise use copyrighted material.
https://crsreports.congress.gov | IF11338 · VERSION 1 · NEW