Department of State, Foreign Operations, and
August 5, 2020
Related Programs: FY2021 Budget and
Cory R. Gill
Appropriations
Analyst in Foreign Affairs

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

activities, cultural exchanges, development and security assistance, and participation in
Emily M. Morgenstern
multilateral organizations, among other international activities. On February 10, 2020,
Analyst in Foreign
the Trump Administration submitted to Congress its SFOPS budget proposal for
Assistance and Foreign
FY2021, totaling $44.12 billion (including $158.90 million in mandatory State
Policy
Department retirement funds). Consistent with Administration requests since FY2018,

none of the requested SFOPS funds were designated as Overseas Contingency
Operations (OCO) funds.

The Administration’s FY2021 request is about 3% higher than its FY2020 request for 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, funding is divided among two
main components:
 Department of State and Related Agency accounts. These funds, provided in Title I of the
SFOPS appropriation, primarily support Department of State diplomatic and security activities
and would be reduced by 18.9% from FY2020-enacted levels. Noteworthy cuts are proposed for
the Educational and Cultural Exchange Programs (-57.6%), International Organizations (-31.8%)
accounts, and the Diplomatic Programs account (-12.6%), which funds many of the State
Department’s day-to-day operations.
 The Foreign Operations accounts, funded in Titles II-VI of the SFOPS bill, fund most foreign
assistance activities. These accounts would see a total reduction of 25.7%, with particularly 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 food aid programs
funded through the agriculture appropriation).
An account-by-account comparison of the FY2021 SFOPS request and enacted FY2020 SFOPS appropriations is
presented in Appendix A, which will be updated to include House and Senate-passed FY2021 funding bills as
they are approved. Appendix B provides a similar comparison, focused specifically on the International Affairs
budget. Appendix B depicts the organization of the SFOPS appropriation.
This report is designed to track SFOPS appropriations, with a focus on comparing funding levels for accounts and
purposes across enacted FY2020 SFOPS appropriations, FY2021 Administration requests, and FY2021 SFOPS
legislation as it moves through the legislative process. It does not provide significant analysis of international
affairs policy issues. For in-depth analysis and contextual information on international affairs issues, please
consult the wide range of CRS reports on specific subjects, such as global health, diplomatic security, and U.S.
participation in the United Nations.
Current legislative status: The House passed a FY2021 SFOPS bill, H.R. 7608-Division A, on July
24, 2020. The bill would provide a total of $66.10 billion in budget authority for SFOPS accounts
($66.03 billion after rescissions). Senate SFOPS legislation for FY2021 has yet to be introduced.

Congressional Research Service

link to page 5 link to page 33

SFOPS: FY2021 Budget and Appropriations

Overview
On February 10, 2020, the Trump Administration proposed its FY2021 budget for the Department
of State, Foreign Operations, and Related Programs (SFOPS) accounts, totaling $44.12 billion
(including $158.90 million in mandatory retirement funds).1 SFOPS funding typically represents
about 1% of the annual federal budget and supports a wide range of U.S. activities around the
world, including the operations of U.S. embassies, diplomatic activities, educational and cultural
exchanges, development, security, and humanitarian assistance, and U.S. participation in
multilateral organizations. Figure 1 shows funding for different SFOPS 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 Administration’s request is 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 COVID-19 epidemic globally which were enacted after
the FY2021 request was submitted.2 The Trump Administration has consistently requested far less
SFOPS funding than Congress has appropriated. This is a reversal from the Obama

1 The payment covers the U.S. government’s contribution to the Foreign Service Retirement and Disability System and
the Foreign Service Pension System for USAID and the Department of State. It is the only mandatory spending in the
SFOPS appropriation.
The SFOPS budget aligns closely but not exactly with Function 150 (International Affairs) of the federal budget. The
primary exception is funding for international food aid programs, which are part of Function 150 but funded through
the agriculture appropriation. SFOPS also includes funding for international commissions in the Function 300 budget
(see Appendix 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 Implications and Responses,
coordinated by Tiaji Salaam-Blyther.
Congressional Research Service
1

link to page 6 link to page 6

SFOPS: FY2021 Budget and Appropriations

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 billions of current U.S. dollars)

FY2013 FY2014 FY2015 FY2016 FY2017 FY2018 FY2019 FY2020 FY2021
Request
56.41
51.96
55.01
54.83
60.21
40.21
41.66
43.10
44.12
Actual
51.91
50.89
54.39
54.52
59.78
54.18
54.38
57.21
n/a
Difference
-8.0%
-2.1%
-1.1%
-0.6%
-0.7%
+34.7%
+30.5%
+32.7%
n/a
Sources: Annual SFOPS Congressional Budget Justifications (CBJs) prepared by the Department of State and
U.S. Agency of International Development; P.L. 116-6; P.L. 116-94; P.L. 116-123; P.L. 116-136.
Note: FY2020 actuals represent the enacted appropriation, including the coronavirus supplemental.
If enacted, the requested SFOPS funding level would be the lowest in over a decade (Figure 2).
Figure 2. SFOPS Funding, FY2010-FY2021 Request
(In billions of U.S. dollars)

Sources: Annual SFOPS CBJs; P.L. 116-94; P.L. 116-123; P.L. 116-136; 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
in place by the Budget Control Act of 2011 (BCA; P.L. 112-25). FY2021 is the last year covered
by the Act. Congress has managed the constraints imposed by the BCA in part by repeatedly
amending the BCA to raise the caps, most recently with the Bipartisan Budget Act of 2019 (BBA
2019; P.L. 116-37). The BBA 2019 raised discretionary spending limits set by the BCA for
FY2020 and FY2021, the final two years the BCA caps are in effect.3
In addition to raising the caps, Congress has worked around the BCA limits by designating a
portion of annual SFOPS appropriations as “Overseas Contingency Operations (OCO)” or

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

SFOPS: FY2021 Budget and Appropriations

“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
OCO funds for the Department of Defense (DOD). Originally used to support shorter-term,
contingency-related programming in Afghanistan, Iraq, and Pakistan that was not considered part
of the “base” or “core” budget, OCO’s use expanded considerably in level and scope between
FY2012 and FY2017. Global SFOPS OCO funding peaked at $20.80 billion in FY2017 (nearly
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
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
and contingency activities, with some describing OCO (in both SFOPS and Defense
appropriations) as a slush fund.4
The Administration has not requested OCO funds for SFOPS since FY2018, though it has
continued to request OCO funds in the DOD budget. Nevertheless, Congress designated $8.00
billion of enacted SFOPS funding in both FY2019 and FY2020 as OCO, continuing a downward
trend in the use of OCO since the FY2017 peak.
In addition to OCO funds, Congress has periodically used funding designated as “emergency” to
address a range of unanticipated needs, including response to Ebola and Zika virus outbreaks, and
countering a surge in ISIS activity. In FY2020, Congress appropriated $2.37 billion in
supplemental emergency SFOPS funding to address needs related to the Coronavirus Disease
2019 (COVID-19) pandemic abroad. Like OCO-designated funding, emergency-designated
funding does not count toward the BCA discretionary spending caps and may therefore be used as
an alternative to the OCO designation. Before the use of OCO in SFOPS, supplemental
emergency appropriations were the primary mechanism for funding contingency activities.
Both categories of BCA-exempt funding were used by Congress in the FY2020 SFOPS bill,
though neither were requested by the Administration. The House-passed FY2021 legislation
would continue this practice, as it includes $8.00 billion in OCO funds and an additional $10.02
billion designated as emergency funding.
Congressional Action on FY2021 SFOPS Legislation
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
FY2021 budget request before most hearings were postponed in March 2020. House
appropriators resumed work in July, approving a FY2021 SFOPS bill on July 9, 2020, which was
approved by the full House on July 24, 2020 as part of a 4-bill appropriations package (H.R.
7608, Division A). The Senate SFOPS Subcommittee has yet to consider FY2021 legislation.

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

SFOPS: FY2021 Budget and Appropriations

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

7/24/20

Total $
$48.01

$66.03

$66.03

Source: H.R. 7608; House 302(b) allocation table, available at:
https://appropriations.house.gov/sites/democrats.appropriations.house.gov/files/Alloc1.pdf.
Notes: The 302(b) allocation of budget authority does not include emergency or OCO funds. Funding totals
account for rescissions.
House Legislation. The House-passed bill, H.R. 7608, Division A, would provide a total of
$66.10 billion in total new budget authority for SFOPS accounts ($66.03 billion net after
rescissions), nearly 50% more than the Administration’s total request and 15% more than the
enacted FY2020 appropriation (including supplementals). Of that amount, $18.02 billion (27%)
was designated as emergency or OCO funding, including $10.02 billion in emergency funding
related to COVID-19.
State Department Operations and Related
Agency Highlights
The FY2021 request would cut funding for the Department of State and Related Agency
appropriations accounts to $14.03 billion, down 18.9% from an enacted FY2020 level of $17.31
billion (including $588 million in COVID-19 supplemental funds).5 The Administration’s request
does not include funds to support the State Department’s response to the COVID-19 pandemic.
To date, Congress has provided all State Department operations funding for COVID-19-related
matters through two FY2020 supplemental appropriations acts (P.L. 116-123 and P.L. 116-136).
The Administration’s stated priorities for funding provided via Department of State and Related
Agency accounts in FY2021 include
 supporting the Indo-Pacific Strategy;
 countering Chinese, Russian, and Iranian malign influence;
 protecting U.S. government personnel, facilities, and data assets; and
 maintaining American leadership in international organizations while asking
other nations to increase their support.6
H.R. 7608, the House legislation, would provide about $17.56 billion for the State Department
and Related Agency accounts. This marks an increase of 1.4% from the FY2020 enacted level
and a 25.2% increase from the Administration’s request. Of the funds provided in the House

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

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

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

% change,
FY20 enacted

FY2019
FY2020
FY2021
to FY21
FY2021
Account
Actual
Enacted
Request
request
House
Diplomatic Programs
9.25
9.71
8.49
-12.6%
10.14
Worldwide Security Protection
4.10
4.10
3.70
-9.8%
4.10
Embassy Security,
1.98
1.98
1.68
-14.8%
1.98
Construction & Maintenance
Educational and Cultural
0.70
0.73
0.31
-57.6%
0.74
Exchange Programs
International Organizationsa
2.91
3.00
2.05
-31.8%
2.96
U.S. Agency for Global
0.81
0.81
0.64
-21.4%
0.64
Media
State and Related Agency
16.54
17.31
14.03
-18.9%
17.56
Total
(includes Function 300 funding
and other commissions)
Sources: FY2020 and FY2021 SFOPS CBJs P.L. 116-6; P.L. 116-94; P.L. 116-123; P.L. 116-136; H.R. 7608; CRS
calculations.
Notes: 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.
FY2020 enacted includes funds from the first and third supplemental appropriations for the novel coronavirus
(P.L. 116-123 and P.L. 116-136, respectively).
FY2021 House legislation figures for the Diplomatic Programs account and the State and Related Agency Total
includes funding designated for the novel coronavirus in Title VIII of H.R. 7608.
a. Includes Contributions to International Organizations and Contributions for International Peacekeeping
Activities accounts, the main funding vehicles for assessed obligations (dues) to the many international
organizations and peacekeeping efforts that the United States supports. Excludes voluntary contributions to
multilateral organizations, which are usually provided through the title of annual SFOPS appropriations laws
pertaining to multilateral assistance (in P.L. 116-6, Title V).
Selected Programs and Priorities
Consistent with its previous requests, the majority (87.1%) of the funding the Administration is
requesting for the Department of State and Related Agency appropriations accounts is for
diplomatic programs, diplomatic security and embassy construction, and contributions to
international organizations and international peacekeeping activities. For FY2020, such programs
composed approximately 88.1% of the Administration’s request and 84.8% of the enacted
appropriations Congress provided for these accounts. Some of the Administration’s priorities
within these areas, as identified by the Department of State in its Congressional Budget
Justification, are detailed below.
Congressional Research Service
5

SFOPS: FY2021 Budget and Appropriations

Diplomatic Programs
COVID-19 and State
The Diplomatic Programs account is the State
Department Operations
Department’s principal operating
Since the outbreak of COVID-19, the Department of
appropriation and serves as the source of
State has coordinated the evacuations of thousands of
funding for several key functions. These
U.S. personnel and private citizens abroad and taken
measures intended to protect its personnel both in the
include
United States and those remaining deployed at

overseas posts. In the past, Congress has provided
most domestic and overseas State
budget authority for such activities primarily through
Department personnel salaries;
the Diplomatic Programs and Emergencies in the

Diplomatic and Consular Service (EDCS) accounts.
foreign policy programs administered
by State Department regional bureaus,
The Coronavirus Preparedness and Response
the Bureau of Conflict and
Supplemental Appropriations Act, 2020 (P.L. 116-123)
appropriated an additional $264 mil ion to the
Stabilization Operations, and others;
Diplomatic Programs account, to remain available
 public diplomacy programs; and
through FY2022, for purposes that include maintaining
consular operations, reimbursing evacuation expenses,
 the operations of the department’s
and emergency preparedness. This law also amended
strategic and managerial units,
P.L. 116-94 to increase the amount of FY2020
including the Bureaus of
Diplomatic Programs funding the State Department is
Administration, Budget and Planning,
authorized to transfer to the EDCS account for
emergency evacuations from $10 mil ion to $100
and Legislative Affairs as well as the
mil ion. The CARES Act (P.L. 116-136) appropriated an
Office of the Chief of Protocol.7
additional $324 mil ion to the Diplomatic Programs
account for these purposes. This law also amended P.L.
The Administration’s FY2021 request for
116-94 to increase the amount of funds the State
Diplomatic Programs totals $8.49 billion,
Department is authorized to transfer from the EDCS
around 12.6% less than the $9.71 billion
account to the Repatriations Loans Program Account
Congress provided for this account in FY2020
(which pays for costs associated with loans provided to
destitute U.S. citizens abroad who have no other
(this amount includes $588 million Congress
source of funds to return to the United States); the
provided for Diplomatic Programs in FY2020
increase was from $1 mil ion to $5 mil ion. Among
supplemental COVID-19 funds; see text box
other provisions, this law also authorizes the State
for more detail). The Administration’s request
Department to grant additional paid leave to address
seeks $138 million for the Global Engagement
employee hardships resulting from COVID-19 and to
provide, on a reimbursable basis to the extent feasible,
Center (GEC), which is responsible for
medical services for private U.S. citizens, nationals, and
leading interagency efforts to recognize,
permanent resident aliens abroad who are otherwise
understand, expose, and counter foreign state
unable to obtain such services.
and non-state propaganda and disinformation
efforts aimed at undermining U.S. interests, including those carried out from Russia, China, and
Iran.8 The Administration maintains that this request, which would constitute a $76 million
increase in annual funding for the GEC provided through SFOPS, would alleviate the need for
DOD to transfer funds for GEC operations. Some Members of Congress and other observers have
expressed concern regarding past DOD transfers, arguing that DOD has not transferred funding to
the State Department in an expeditious manner or at funding levels that reflect congressional
intent.9

7 U.S. Department of State, Congressional Budget Justification: Department of State, Foreign Operations, and Related
Programs, Fiscal Year 20201, February 10, 2020, pp. 10-18.
8 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/.
9 For example, see Senator Robert Menendez, “Menendez Calls for Swift Action on Countering Kremlin Propaganda
With Congressionally Authorized Funds,” March 5, 2018, https://www.menendez.senate.gov/news-and-events/press/
menendez-calls-for-swift-action-on-countering-kremlin-propaganda-with-congressionally-authorized-funds; and
Congressional Research Service
6

link to page 11 SFOPS: FY2021 Budget and Appropriations

The Administration’s request also includes a realignment of personnel and funding from the
Bureau of Global Talent Management (formerly the Bureau of Human Resources); the Bureau of
Arms Control, Verification, and Compliance; and the Office of the Coordinator for Cyber Issues
to establish a new Bureau for Cyber Security and Emerging Technologies (CSET). The State
Department first notified Congress of its intent to create this new bureau in June 2019. It will be
responsible for supporting “foreign policies and initiatives to promote U.S. cyber and emerging
technology policies and deter adversaries from malicious and destabilizing behavior in their use
and application of such technologies.”10 Some observers have expressed criticism over elements
of the State Department’s plan for CSET, arguing that additional cyber-related matters such as
global internet governance should be included in the bureau’s remit. However, it appears that this
issue and related matters will instead remain under the purview of the Bureau of Economic and
Business Affairs.11
The House legislation, H.R. 7608, includes $10.14 billion for Diplomatic Programs, $955 million
of which is designated “to prevent, prepare for, and respond to coronavirus,” including with
regard to evacuation expenses, emergency preparedness, and maintaining consular operations.
This figure totals 4.4% more than the FY2020 enacted level for this account and 19.4% more than
the Administration’s request. The report accompanying this legislation (H.Rept. 116-444) notes
support for the GEC’s work and states that the GEC’s operating plan submitted to Congress
should describe its coordination with DOD regarding the proposed use of all FY2021 funding.12
Diplomatic Security
For FY2021, the Administration requests around $5.38 billion for the State Department’s key
diplomatic security accounts: $3.70 billion for the Worldwide Security Protection (WSP)
allocation within the Diplomatic Programs account and $1.68 billion for the Embassy Security,
Construction, and Maintenance (ESCM) account. The Administration’s request represents a
decrease of 11.4% from the FY2020 enacted funding level (see Table 4).
Table 4. Diplomatic Security Annual Appropriations, FY2019-FY2021 Request
(In millions of current U.S. dollars, includes OCO funds)
% change,
FY20
enacted to
FY2019
FY2020
FY2021
FY21
FY2021
Account
Actual
Enacted
Request
request
House
Worldwide Security
4.10
4.10
3.70
-9.8%
4.10
Protection

Senator Rob Portman, “At Senate Foreign Relations Committee Hearing, Portman Questions Secretary Pompeo on
Global Engagement Center, Continuing Aid for Ukraine, and Expanding Sanctions on Russia,” April 10, 2019, at
https://www.portman.senate.gov/newsroom/press-releases/senate-foreign-relations-committee-hearing-portman-
questions-secretary.
10 U.S. Department of State, Congressional Budget Justification, p. 11.
11 Sean Lyngaas, “State Department proposes new $20.8 million cybersecurity bureau,” Cyberscoop, June 5, 2019, at
https://www.cyberscoop.com/state-department-proposes-new-20-8-million-cybersecurity-bureau/.
12 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.
Congressional Research Service
7

SFOPS: FY2021 Budget and Appropriations

% change,
FY20
enacted to
FY2019
FY2020
FY2021
FY21
FY2021
Account
Actual
Enacted
Request
request
House
Embassy Security,
1.98
1.98
1.68
-14.8%
1.98
Construction, and
Maintenance
Diplomatic Security
6.08
6.08
5.38
-11.4%
6.08
(total)
Sources: FY2021 SFOPS CBJ; P.L. 116-94; H.R. 7608; CRS calculations.
Notes: Percentage changes may not reflect numbers included in this table due to rounding. Annual
appropriations data do not reflect available carryover funds.13
The Administration is proposing that Congress decouple WSP from Diplomatic Programs and
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.
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
response programs, including those pertaining to operational medicine and security and crisis
management training.14 The ESCM account funds the Bureau of Overseas Building Operations
(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
abroad.15
The Administration’s WSP-funded priorities
Proposed Standalone WSP Account
for FY2021 include the hiring of an additional
The Worldwide Security Protection (WSP) subaccount
110 special agents at DS, which the
within the Diplomatic Programs account has been used
Administration maintains is necessary to
to fund programs that the State Department’s Bureau
address critical overseas vacancies. In
of Diplomatic Security (DS) and other bureaus
implement to protect the department’s staff, property,
addition, the Administration intends to deploy
and information. Similar to the FY2020 request, the
High Definition Secure Video Systems
FY2021 proposal requests that Congress create a new
(HDSVS) at overseas posts worldwide. The
WSP standalone account and authorize the transfer of
Administration has stated these systems will
all unobligated WSP funds into this account by no later
provide enhanced monitoring capabilities at
than the onset of FY2022 (October 1, 2021). The
Administration maintains that creating this account wil
overseas posts, including greater video
increase the transparency of WSP expenditures by
resolution and enhanced nighttime visibility.16
more clearly disaggregating funding for diplomatic
At the same time, the Administration has
programs from that for security-related activities.
proposed a cut of $109 million for DS
operations in Afghanistan, which it says is consistent with the consolidation of DS-managed

13 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.
14 U.S. Department of State, Congressional Budget Justification, p. 14.
15 U.S. Department of State, Congressional Budget Justification, Appendix 1: Department of State Diplomatic
Engagement, Fiscal Year 2021, February 10, 2020, p. 328.
16 U.S. Department of State, Congressional Budget Justification, p. 14.
Congressional Research Service
8

link to page 15 SFOPS: FY2021 Budget and Appropriations

locations in the country and a corresponding reduction in costs for guard services and logistical
support.17
The Administration’s ESCM request includes $866.67 million for the State Department’s share of
the Capital Security Cost Sharing and Maintenance Cost Sharing Programs, which are the sources
of funding for the planning, design, construction, and maintenance of the United States’ overseas
diplomatic posts. The Administration maintains that this request, when combined with funds
contributed by other agencies with personnel at overseas posts and visa fee revenues, will fund
these programs at the $2.20 billion level recommended by the Benghazi Accountability Review
Board.18 Construction projects the Administration is seeking to fund through this request include
a new embassy compound in Riyadh, Saudi Arabia, and new consulate compounds in Adana,
Turkey, and Rio de Janeiro, Brazil.19
The House legislation (H.R. 7608) includes a total of $6.08 billion for the State Department’s
diplomatic security accounts. This figure is equal to the FY2020 enacted level for these accounts
and totals 13.0% more than the Administration’s request (see Table 4).20 H.Rept. 116-444 states
that this funding includes resources to deploy HDSVS at overseas posts worldwide and hire 110
new DS agents, as requested by the Administration.21 The House legislation does not seek to
implement the Administration’s request for a standalone WSP account.
Assessed Contributions to International Organizations and
Peacekeeping Missions
The Contributions to International Organizations (CIO) account is the funding vehicle for the
United States’ payments of its assessed contributions (membership dues) to over 40 organizations.
These include the United Nations (U.N.) and its specialized agencies (among them, the World
Health Organization, or WHO), inter-American organizations such as the Organization of
American States, and the North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO), among others.22 U.S.
funding to international organizations is also provided through the various SFOPS multilateral
assistance accounts, as described in the “Foreign Operations Highlights” section of this report.
Separately, the United States pays its assessed contributions to most U.N. peacekeeping missions
through the Contributions for International Peacekeeping Operations (CIPA) account.23

17 U.S. Department of State, Congressional Budget Justification, p. 15.
18 U.S. Department of State, Congressional Budget Justification, Appendix 1: Department of State Diplomatic
Engagement, pp. 1-2.
19 U.S. Department of State, Congressional Budget Justification, Appendix 1: Department of State Diplomatic
Engagement, p. 331.
20 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.
21 House Committee on Appropriations, State Foreign Operations, and Related Programs Appropriations Bill, 2021, p.
13.
22 U.S. Department of State, Congressional Budget Justification, pp. 40-41. On April 14, 2020, President Donald
Trump announced that the United States would suspend funding to the World Health Organization (WHO), pending a
60- to 90-day review, because of WHO’s “role in severely mismanaging and covering up the spread of the
coronavirus.” For more information, see CRS Insight IN11369, U.S. Funding to the World Health Organization
(WHO), by Luisa Blanchfield and Tiaji Salaam-Blyther.
23 Successive Administrations have also requested funds for the U.N. Support office in Somalia (UNSOS) under the
Contributions for International Peacekeeping Activities (CIPA) account. However, Congress generally has appropriated
funds for UNSOS through the Peacekeeping Operations (PKO) account.
Congressional Research Service
9

link to page 14 SFOPS: FY2021 Budget and Appropriations

For FY2021, the Administration is requesting a combined $2.05 billion for these accounts. If
enacted, this funding level would mark 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 Request
(In millions of current U.S. dollars; includes OCO funds)
% change,
FY20
enacted to
FY2019
FY2020
FY2021
FY21
FY2021
Account
Actual
Enacted
Request
request
House
Contributions to
1.36
1.47
0.97
-34.4%
1.51
International Organizations
Contributions for
1.55
1.53
1.08
-29.3%
1.46
International Peacekeeping
Activities
Total
2.91
3.00
2.05
-31.8%
2.97
Sources: FY2021 SFOPS CBJ; P.L. 116-94; H.R. 7608; CRS calculations
Note: Percentage changes may not reflect numbers included in this table due to rounding.
Similar to previous budget requests, the Administration’s CIO request prioritizes paying
assessments to international organizations “whose missions substantially advance U.S. foreign
policy interests” while proposing funding cuts to those organizations whose work it says either
does not directly affect U.S. national security interests or renders unclear results.24 With these
intentions in mind, the Administration proposed to eliminate funding to the Organization of
Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD), while decreasing U.N. regular budget and
specialized agency funding by more than one-third.25 The request intends to maintain near-recent-
year levels of U.S. funding for other organizations, including the International Atomic Energy
Agency (IAEA).26
For CIPA, the Administration’s FY2021 request reflects its ongoing commitment to reduce costs
for U.N. peacekeeping missions by reevaluating their respective mandates, design, and
implementation. The Administration has stated that its request, when combined with the
application of U.N. peacekeeping credits (excess funds from previous U.N. peacekeeping
missions), would allow 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.27 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 be carried over into
arrears.28 This practice has resulted in the accumulation of over $900 million in U.S.
peacekeeping arrearages since FY2017.29

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

SFOPS: FY2021 Budget and Appropriations

The House legislation includes $2.97 billion for CIO and CIPA, a decrease of 1.0% from the
FY2020 enacted figure and an increase of 44.9% from the Administration’s request (see Table 5).
For CIO, this bill provides that not less than $118.95 million shall be made available to the World
Health Organization (WHO) and not less than $53.91 million shall be made available to NATO.
While the Trump Administration has notified Congress of its intent to withdraw from the WHO,
the House legislation would prevent the use of any funds made available by the act for this
purpose.30 With regard to CIPA, the House legislation includes authority to allow the Secretary of
State to exceed the 25% statutory cap with respect to payment of U.S. assessed contributions to
peacekeeping missions. This is intended to limit the further accumulation of arrears, which
H.Rept. 116-444 states are projected to exceed $1 billion for FY2017 through FY2020.31
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.32 The
Administration’s FY2021 foreign operations request totals $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 represent a 29.1% reduction from FY2020-
enacted levels.
The Administration’s budget request articulates five primary goals for U.S. foreign assistance that
are meant to align with both the National Security Strategy and the State-USAID Joint Strategic
Plan:
 prioritize global strategic challenges, including countering Chinese, Russian, and
Iranian influence;
 support strategic partners and allies, including Israel, Egypt, Jordan, Colombia,
and Venezuela;33
 enhance commitment to long-term development;

shortfalls. The State Department and Congress often covered these shortfalls by raising the cap for limited periods and
allowing for the application of U.N. peacekeeping credits to fund outstanding U.S. balances. For several years, these
actions allowed the United States to pay its peacekeeping assessments in full. However, since FY2017 Congress has
declined to raise the cap, and in mid-2017, the Trump Administration began the ongoing practice of allowing the
application of peacekeeping credits up to, but not beyond, the 25% cap. For more information, see CRS In Focus
IF10597, United Nations Issues: U.S. Funding of U.N. Peacekeeping, by Luisa Blanchfield.
30 See Section 9015 of H.R. 7608.
31 House Committee on Appropriations, State Foreign Operations, and Related Programs Appropriations Bill, 2021, p.
31.
32 For more information on international food assistance programs, see CRS Report R45422, U.S. International Food
Assistance: An Overview, by Alyssa R. Casey.
33 According to the Administration, support for Venezuela would include “bilateral democracy and health assistance for
Venezuelans, as well as assistance for Venezuelans fleeing their country and for the communities hosting them.”
Further, the Administration maintains that it includes flexibility in programming to “support a democratic transition and
related needs in Venezuela should circumstances warrant.” U.S. Department of State, Congressional Budget
Justification, p. 75.
Congressional Research Service
11

link to page 24 link to page 16 link to page 16 SFOPS: FY2021 Budget and Appropriations

 strengthen key areas of U.S. leadership, to include global health and
humanitarian assistance; and
 advance U.S. national security and economic interests.34
These goals are also meant to guide the Administration’s regional thematic priorities (see
“Country and Regional Assistance”), as well as how funds are allocated across assistance types.
The Administration’s FY2021 budget request proposes cuts in nearly all assistance types (Table
6). The only exception is export promotion assistance, which would see a significant increase.
This increase is largely due to proposed funding for the new U.S. Development Finance
Corporation (DFC), which the Administration states represents an “expansion of the role of
development finance in advancing U.S. interests around the world,” and an estimated increase in
offsetting collections from the Export-Import Bank.35
The House legislation, H.R. 7608, includes a total of $48.64 billion for foreign operations, an
increase of 19.5% from FY2020 enacted levels and a 61.7% increase from the Administration’s
request. This steep increase over FY2020 funding can largely be attributed to the $9.06 billion in
emergency funding appropriated to “prevent, prepare for, and respond to coronavirus” abroad.36
Table 6. Foreign Operations, by Type, FY2019-FY2021
(In billions of U.S. dollars)
% change, FY20
FY2019
FY2020
FY2021
enacted to FY21
FY2021
Type
Actual
Enacted
Request
request
House
USAID Administration
1.67
1.76
1.59
-9.5%
1.79
Global Health Programs
8.87
9.53
6.00
-37.1%
11.66
Non-Health Development Assistance
8.10
8.13
6.15
-24.3%
11.47
(includes Treasury TA, excludes ind. agencies)
Humanitarian Assistance
7.82
8.74
6.27
-28.3%
10.08
Independent Agencies
1.37
1.47
1.21
-17.9%
1.41
Security Assistance
9.15
9.01
7.73
-14.2%
9.02
Multilateral Assistance
1.85
2.08
1.48
-28.9%
3.32
Export Promotion
-0.16
-0.02
-0.34
1379.3%
-1.00
Foreign Operations Total
40.39
40.70
30.09
-26.1%
48.64
Sources: H.R. 7608 FY2021 SFOPS CBJ; P.L. 116-94; P.L. 116-123; P.L. 116-136; CRS calculations.
Note: FY2020-enacted includes funds from the first and third supplemental appropriations for the novel
coronavirus (P.L. 116-123 and P.L. 116-136, respectively). Export promotion totals are negative because
offsetting col ections from the Export-Import Bank and the Development Finance Corporation are anticipated to
exceed appropriations, as they have in past years, resulting in a net budget gain.

34 Documents provided by the State Department at budget roll-out briefings, February 10, 2020.
35 U.S. Department of State, Congressional Budget Justification, p. 108.
36 H.R. 7608.
Congressional Research Service
12

link to page 17 link to page 17 link to page 17 link to page 18 link to page 18

SFOPS: FY2021 Budget and Appropriations

Key Sectors
Consistent with prior year funding and the FY2020 enacted levels, proposed funding for global
health programs, humanitarian assistance, and security assistance comprises approximately two-
thirds of the $30.09 billion FY2021 foreign operations budget request (Figure 3).
Global Health Programs
Figure 3. Foreign Operations, by Type,
The total FY2021 request for the Global
FY2021 Request
Health Programs (GHP) account is nearly
$6.00 billion, 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 FY2020-enacted levels before
enactment of supplemental funding for
COVID-19, all but one GHP subaccount
would be reduced under the budget proposal
(Table 7).

Source: FY2021 SFOPS CBJ.

Table 7. Global Health Programs, by Subaccount, FY2019-FY2021
(In millions of U.S. dollars)
% change,
FY20 enacted
FY2019
FY2020
FY2021
to FY21
FY2021
Subaccount
Actual
Enacted
Request
request
House
State HIV/AIDS
4,370.0
4,370.0
3,180.3
-27.2%
4,370.0
Global Fund
1,350.0
1,560.0
657.7
-57.8%
1,560.0
USAID HIV/AIDS
330.0
330.0
0.0
-100.0%
330.0
USAID Malaria
755.0
770.0
708.5
-8.0%
755.0
USAID Maternal and Child
Health
835.0
851.0
659.6
-22.5%
850.0
USAID Family Planning/
556.5
524.0
237.0
-54.8%
585.5
Reproductive Healtha
USAID Nutrition
145.0
150.0
90.0
-40.0%
145.0
USAID Tuberculosis
302.0
310.0
275.0
-11.3%
310.0
Pandemic Influenza/Otherb
100.0
535.0
115.0
-78.5%
125.0
[of which supplemental]
[435.0]
Neglected Tropical Diseases
102.5
102.5
75.0
-26.8%
102.5
Vulnerable Children
24.0
25.0
0.0
-100.0%
24.0
COVID-19c
-
-
-
-
2,500.0
GHP Total
8,870.0
9,527.5
5,998.1
-37.5%
11,657.0
Source: H.R. 7608; FY2021 SFOPS CBJ; P.L. 116-94; P.L. 116-123; CRS calculations.
a. FY2019 actual reflects a $32.5 mil ion transfer from the International Organizations and Programs (IO&P)
account.
Congressional Research Service
13

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

b. FY2020-enacted includes funds from the first supplemental appropriation for the novel coronavirus (P.L.
116-123).
c. The FY2021 House measure includes $2.50 bil ion in GHP funding to “prevent, prepare for, and respond to
coronavirus.” These funds would be administered by USAID. Of the appropriated funds, Congress
designated $150.0 mil ion for the Emergency Response Fund, $750.0 mil ion for GAVI, and $800.0 mil ion
for the Global Fund.
P.L. 116-123Requested cuts to GHP subaccounts range from 8.0% for malaria programs to 100%
for USAID’s HIV/AIDS and vulnerable children subaccounts. The Administration asserts that
despite its proposed reduction to HIV/AIDS funding, the requested level would be sufficient to
maintain treatment for all current recipients. The proposal also reflects the Administration’s effort
to limit U.S. contributions to the Global Fund—an international financing mechanism for efforts
to combat AIDS, tuberculosis, and malaria—to 25% of all donations, rather than the 33% limit
that the United States has provided since the George W. Bush Administration.
As noted above, the Administration’s FY2021 request does not include funds for COVID-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
COVID-19 preparedness and response in March (P.L. 116-123). As of this report’s publishing, the
Administration has not submitted a request for additional FY2021 funds to combat the virus.37
The House legislation, H.R. 7608, would represent a 22.4% increase over FY2020 enacted levels
and nearly doubles the Administration’s proposed global health funding level. However, much
like the overall funding for foreign operations, this steep increase over FY2020 funding is largely
a result of the House’s $2.5 billion in emergency GHP funds to address COVID-19 abroad.
Humanitarian Assistance
The FY2021 budget request for humanitarian assistance is nearly $6.27 billion, roughly
equivalent to the FY2020 request but down 40.1% from the FY2020-enacted level of $10.46
billion.38 In successive years, the Administration has requested levels of humanitarian 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 from prior years
may still be available. On a bipartisan basis, for many years, Congress has consistently supported
global humanitarian efforts through appropriation levels well above the budget request (Figure
4).

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

SFOPS: FY2021 Budget and Appropriations

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

Sources: FY2021 SFOPS CBJ; P.L. 116-94; P.L. 116-123; P.L. 116-136; CRS calculations.
Notes: “Request” and “Actual” totals sourced from the most recent U.S. Department of State Congressional
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, IDA = International Disaster Assistance, ERMA =
Emergency Refugee and Migration Assistance, FFP = Food for Peace Act, Title II, and IHA = International
Humanitarian Assistance.
In addition to the proposed $6.27 billion in new funding for humanitarian assistance, the
Administration’s request assumes $2.80 billion in carryover funding from past-year humanitarian
assistance. The Administration asserts that the FY2021 request, combined with the estimated
carryover, totals close to $9.00 billion, which would allow the United States “to program well
above the second highest level ever, and is sufficient to address the needs for Syria, Yemen, and
other crisis areas.”39
The House legislation includes $11.85 billion in humanitarian assistance, including $2.25 billion
in emergency funding to address COVID-19 in humanitarian contexts and $1.78 billion in Food
for Peace Act, Title II funds. This level represents a 13% increase from FY2020 enacted levels
and an 89.0% increase from the Administration’s proposal.

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

SFOPS: FY2021 Budget and Appropriations

Proposed Humanitarian Account Consolidation
For FY2021, as in FY2020, the Trump Administration proposes to fund all humanitarian
assistance through a single International Humanitarian Assistance (IHA) account managed
through USAID’s new Bureau for Humanitarian Assistance (BHA). The Administration has
justified the restructuring as necessary “to optimize humanitarian assistance, prioritize funding,
and use funding as effectively and efficiently as possible.”40 The proposal would effectively move
the administration of overseas refugee and migration assistance funding—currently funded
through the Migration and Refugee Assistance (MRA) and Emergency Refugee and Migration
Assistance (ERMA) accounts—from the State Department to USAID.41 In FY2020, enacted
funding for these accounts totaled $3.78 billion. The budget request would eliminate the ERMA
account and significantly reduce 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 eliminate the International Disaster
Assistance (IDA) account (FY2020-enacted funding totaled $4.95 billion), as well as Food for
Peace Act, Title II emergency food assistance funding, the latter of which is currently
appropriated through the agriculture appropriation but administered by USAID (FY2020-enacted
funding totaled $1.73 billion). Funds previously requested in these accounts would be
consolidated into the IHA account.
The House legislation does not adopt the Administration’s IHA proposal. The accompanying
report, H.Rept. 116-444, notes that the “Committee does not support the consolidation of all
overseas humanitarian assistance into a single account.” Instead, the bill appropriates funds in the
traditional account structure.

40 In FY2020, the Administration proposed a “senior dual-hat leader” under the authority of the Secretary of State but
reporting to both the Secretary of State and the USAID Administrator, which appears to have been replaced by
“leveraging the comparative strengths of the Department of State and USAID under the authority of the Secretary of
State.” FY2021 SFOPS CBJ, p. 80.
41 There is no request in the Migration Refugee Assistance (MRA) account for overseas humanitarian needs. However,
the State Department’s Bureau of Population, Refugees, and Migration (PRM) would retain $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 allow
funding to move from IHA to MRA should the MRA funds be insufficient.
Congressional Research Service
16

link to page 21 link to page 22

SFOPS: FY2021 Budget and Appropriations

Security Assistance
The Administration is requesting $7.73 billion
in international security assistance for
Figure 5. Security Assistance, by Account,
FY2021, an increase of 4.3% from the
FY2019-FY2021 Request
FY2020 request and 14.3% below the
(In billions of current U.S. dollars)
FY2020-enacted level. The greatest cuts to
security assistance accounts would be to
Peacekeeping Operations (PKO, -36.6%) and
International Military Education and Training
(IMET, -27.4%) (Figure 5).42
Consistent with prior year requests and
appropriations, the majority of security
assistance ($5.19 billion) would be for
Foreign Military Financing (FMF) to the
Middle East, including $3.30 billion in grants
to Israel. As in the Trump Administration’s
past three budget proposals, the FY2021
request seeks 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
Sources: FY2021 SFOPS CBJ; P.L. 116-94; CRS
exclusive grant basis. The Administration
calculations.
asserts that this authority would both “expand
Notes: FMF = Foreign Military Financing; IMET =
the tools available to the United States to help
International Military Education and Training; PKO =
NATO and Major-Non NATO allies43
Peacekeeping Operations; NADR = Nonproliferation,
purchase more American-made defense
Anti-terrorism, Demining and Related Programs;
equipment and related services” and “increase
INCLE = International Narcotics Control and Law
burden sharing by asking these partners to
Enforcement.
contribute more national funds to foreign military sales cases.”44
The House legislation provides $9.02 billion in security assistance, which is essentially level with
FY2020 enacted funding but represents a 16.6% increase from the Administration’s proposal.
Development Assistance and Export Promotion
The remaining third of the FY2021 foreign operations request proposes to allocate funds to non-
health development sectors as well as to independent agencies, multilateral assistance, and export
promotion agencies.
Development Assistance
The FY2021 budget request would reduce funding from FY2020-enacted levels in a number of
development sectors (Table 8). Environment-focused aid, for example, would be cut by 86.3%,

42 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.
43 Major non-NATO allies are designated by the President, in accordance with 22 U.S.C. §2321k.
44 FY2021 SFOPS CBJ, p. 99.
Congressional Research Service
17

SFOPS: FY2021 Budget and Appropriations

while funding for education and water and sanitation would fall by 61.2%. As with the FY2020
request, the FY2021 request includes a significant increase from prior year-enacted levels to
programming that seeks to promote women in developing economies, largely due to a proposed
$200.00 million for the Women’s Global Development and Prosperity Initiative (W-GDP).45
The House legislation, H.R. 7608, would keep level or increase all development sectors when
compared to FY2020 enacted levels and would represent an increase in all sectors when
compared to the Administration’s request, with the exception of gender-related and trafficking in
persons programs. When compared to FY2020 enacted levels, the greatest increases in funding
would be to environmental and gender programming (Table 8).
Table 8. Select Development Sectors, FY2019-FY2021
(In millions of current U.S. dollars)
% change,
FY20 enacted
FY2019
FY2020
FY2021
to FY21
FY2021
Sector
Actual
Enacted
Request
request
House
Democracy Programs (excluding
2,400.0
2,400.0
1,551.4
-35.4%
2,400.5
NED)
Education (basic and higher)
1,035.0
1,110.0
430.5
-61.2%
1,210.0
Food Security
1,000.6
1,005.6
506.1
-49.7%
1,005.6
Environment
500.7
906.7
124.6
-86.3%
1,306.0
Economic Growth
n.a.
n.a.
2,194.0
n.a.
n.a.
Water and Sanitation
435.0
450.0
174.5
-61.2%
450.0
Gender
215.0
230.0
525.7
128.6%
460.0
Trafficking in Persons
67.0
67.0
77.4
15.5%
67.0
Micro and Small Enterprise
265.0
265.0
144.2
-45.6%
265.0
Diplomatic Progress Fund
n.a.
n.a.
200.0
n.a.
-
Sources: H.R. 7608; FY2021 SFOPS CBJ; P.L. 116-94; CRS calculations.
Proposed Economic Support and Development Fund
Under the FY2021 request, most development accounts—Development Assistance (DA);
Economic Support Fund (ESF); Assistance to Europe, Eurasia and Central Asia (AEECA); and
the Democracy Fund (DF)—would be combined into a single new Economic Support and
Development Fund (ESDF). The Administration asserts that this consolidated account would
streamline the deployment of resources, increasing efficiency in foreign assistance. Because the
consolidated account would incorporate what are now both core and shared USAID accounts, it
remains unclear what portion of the new account USAID would manage or implement. The

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

SFOPS: FY2021 Budget and Appropriations

Administration made a similar request in the FY2018, FY2019, and FY2020 budget requests, but
Congress did not enact the proposals.
The FY2021 budget request nestles the Relief and Recovery Fund (RRF) and a proposed new
Diplomatic Progress Fund (DPF)—both previously requested as separate budget items—under
the proposed ESDF account. According to the justification, the DPF would “allow the State
Department and USAID to respond to new opportunities arising from progress in diplomatic and
peace efforts around the world.”46 While Congress provided funds for the RRF in previous fiscal
years, Congress has not accepted the Administration’s proposal for the DPF.
The House legislation does not include ESDF, but rather continues 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
House replaces the RRF with a new Prevention and Stabilization Fund (PSF). However, the
funding level for the new PSF is $100 million, half of what was appropriated in FY2020 for the
RRF. The House prohibits funding for the Administration’s proposed DPF.
Independent Agencies
The Administration’s FY2021 request would reduce funding to the Peace Corps (-19.5%) and the
Millennium Challenge Corporation (-11.6%). The request also proposes eliminating the Inter-
American Foundation (IAF) and the U.S African Development Foundation (USADF), and
incorporating staff and small grant activities of the two foundations into USAID’s new Bureau for
Development, Democracy, and Innovation.47 The Administration maintains that this consolidation
would allow USAID to “capitalize on the existing expertise, capacity, relationships, and tools that
USADF and IAF provide, including their regional and market segment emphases, in order to
reinforce U.S. government bilateral development efforts.”48 To implement the shuttering of the
IAF and USADF, the Administration requests $3.85 million and $4.66 million, respectively.
The House legislation provides level or increased funding for all independent agencies when
compared to FY2020 enacted funding before FY2020 supplemental funding was passed for
COVID-19.49 The legislation also does not adopt the Administration’s proposal to eliminate the
IAF and USADF. Rather, the House provides increased funding for the two agencies, including
$10.00 million in emergency COVID-19 funding for each agency.
Multilateral Assistance
SFOPS multilateral assistance accounts provide for U.S. payments to multilateral development
banks and international organizations that pool funding from multiple donors to finance
development activities.50 The Administration’s FY2021 request would reduce these accounts by
28.9% from FY2020-enacted levels. As in the Trump Administration’s three previous requests,
the proposal would eliminate funding for the International Organizations and Programs (IO&P)

46 FY2021 SFOPS CBJ, p. 77.
47 The Trump Administration was not the first to propose elimination of the Inter-American Foundation. In 1999,
Congress passed legislation (P.L. 106-113, later amended by P.L. 106-429) that authorized the President during
FY2000-FY2001 to abolish the Inter-American Foundation. However, the President did not exercise the authority
during FY2000-FY2001.
48 FY2021 SFOPS CBJ, pp. 85-86.
49 The Peace Corps received $88 million in FY2020 supplemental appropriations (P.L. 116-136) to address COVID-19
abroad.
50 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.
Congressional Research Service
19

link to page 25 link to page 15 SFOPS: FY2021 Budget and Appropriations

account, which funds U.S. voluntary contributions to international organizations, primarily
United Nations entities such as UNICEF. Congress appropriated $390.50 million for IO&P in
FY2020. The Administration also proposes eliminating funds for the Global Environment Facility
(GEF) and the International Fund for Agricultural Development (IFAD). For the GEF, the
Administration asserts that carryover funds from FY2019 and FY2020 appropriations are
sufficient to meet the U.S. pledge to the GEF’s seventh replenishment.51
The House legislation provides a total of $3.32 billion in multilateral assistance accounts,
representing a 59.6% increase compared to FY2020 enacted levels and a 124.3% increase from
the Administration’s request. This increase is largely due to the inclusion of $1.28 billion in
emergency COVID-19 funding for the IO&P account.
Export Promotion
The FY2021 request includes an increased investment in the U.S. Development Finance
Corporation (DFC), established in 2019 to implement the BUILD Act.52 However, the
Administration would eliminate funding for the U.S. Trade and Development Agency
(USTDA)—the request includes $12.11 million for the agency’s “orderly closeout”—and an
8.3% reduction from FY2020-enacted levels for the Export-Import Bank of the United States’
Operations account.53 As in previous years, the Administration assumes that all export promotion
expenditures would be offset by collections. In the FY2021 request, the Administration assumes
$711.20 million and $496.00 million in offsetting collections from the Export-Import Bank and
the DFC, respectively.
The House legislation provides level or increased funding for export promotion accounts when
compared to both FY2020 enacted levels and the Administration’s request. The only exception is
the DFC corporate capital account’s administrative expenses subaccount, which would receive 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, the House assumes that all
export promotion expenditures would be offset by collections. The House legislation also does
not accept the Administration’s proposal to shutter USTDA, and instead funds the agency at the
same level as FY2020.
Country and Regional Assistance
The Administration organizes much of its country and regional assistance into six thematic
priorities (Figure 6). These priorities are also meant to reflect the broader foreign operations
goals outlined in “Foreign Operations Highlights.”

51 FY2021 SFOPS CBJ, p. 104.
52 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.
53 FY2021 SFOPS CBJ, p. 106.
Congressional Research Service
20

link to page 26 link to page 26

SFOPS: FY2021 Budget and Appropriations

Figure 6. Regional Thematic Priorities, FY2021 Request

Source: Created by CRS using Administration’s FY2021 budget rol out documents presented on February 10,
2020.
Note: This map does not capture all bilateral assistance included in the FY2021 request. Other countries would
receive assistance but are not in the Administration’s calculations for these thematic priorities.
Top country recipients under the FY2021 request remain consistent with prior year funding
allocations. Israel, Egypt, and Jordan would remain the top three recipients of foreign
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
countries that the Administration maintains are strategically significant, including Afghanistan
and Ukraine, also remain top country recipients in the FY2021 request, as do several African
countries that would receive high levels of global health and development aid (Table 9).
Regionally, the Middle East and Africa would receive the largest shares of aid in the FY2021
request—together comprising about 71.5% of total aid allocated by country or region—consistent
with FY2019 year actuals (Figure 7). Proposed funding for Europe and Eurasia and, separately,
the Indo-Pacific, come to 3.9% and 9.2%, respectively. Notably, the distribution of assistance
within regions vary significantly. For example, Africa receives a majority of GHP funding (58.1%
in FY2019 and a proposed 66.7% for FY2021), but accounts for a small proportion of INCLE
funding (5.2% in FY2019 and a proposed 4.1% for FY2021). In comparison, the Western
Hemisphere region accounts for a small percentage of GHP (2.5% in FY2019 and a proposed
2.2% for FY2021) and a large proportion of INCLE funds (37.7% in FY2019 and a proposed
44.8% for FY2021).
Congressional Research Service
21

SFOPS: FY2021 Budget and Appropriations

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

Notes: This reflects only assistance that is
Source: FY2021 SFOPS CBJ.
requested at the country or regional level, not
funds for global activities or humanitarian funds.
The House legislation and report (H.R. 7608/H.Rept. 116-444) do not provide comprehensive
regional allocations, but do specify assistance levels for several countries and regions. These
include $3.31 billion for Israel, $1.53 billion for Jordan, $1.43 billion for Egypt, and $519.89
million for the Central America region, of which $420.79 million is directed to be used for the
Northern Triangle countries (El Salvador, Guatemala, and Honduras). The legislation also
includes $457.25 million for Colombia, $453.00 million for Ukraine, and $290.00 million for the
Countering Russian Influence Fund. The House maintains the use of a Countering Chinese
Influence Fund but does not specify a funding level.

Congressional Research Service
22

link to page 32 link to page 32 link to page 32 link to page 32
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
(In millions of U.S. dollars; number in parentheses are the portion of the account totals designated as OCO or emergency funds)
FY2020 Enacted
% Change,
(P.L. 116-94, P.L.
FY2020 Enacted
116-123, P.L.
vs. FY2021
FY2021 House

FY2019 Actual
116-136)
FY2021 Request
Request
(H.R. 7608)
Title I. State, Broadcasting & Related Agencies,
16,536.59
17,312.18
14,034.56
-18.93%
17,562.65
TOTAL
(4,064.57)
(4,778.01)
(4,866.94)
Administration of Foreign Affairs, Subtotal
12,408.55
12,943.96
11,110.21
-14.17%
13,389.08
(2,979.67)
(3,693.11)
(4,064.71)
Diplomatic Programs
9,253.95
9,713.69
8,489.89
-12.60%
10,143.20
(2,942.77)
(3,214.12)ab
(3,581.12)c
(of which Worldwide Security Protection)
[4,095.90]
[4,095.90]
[3,695.41]
-9.78%
[4,095.90]
(2,626.12)
(2,626.12)
(2,626.12)
Capital Investment Fund
92.77
139.50
256.70
84.01%
137.50
Office of Inspector General
145.73
145.73
141.42
-2.96%
150.13
(54.90)
(54.90)
(59.30)c
Ed. & Cultural Exchanges
700.95
730.70
310.00
-57.57%
741.70
Representation Expenses
8.03
7.21
7.41
2.79%
7.42
Protection of Foreign Missions & Officials
30.89
30.89
25.90
-16.15%
30.89
Embassy Security, Construction & Maintenance
1,975.45
1,975.45
1,683.76
-14.78%
1,975.45
(424.09)
(of which Worldwide Security Upgrades)
[1,198.25]
[1,205.65]
[941.66]
-21.90%
[1,205.65]
(424.09)
(424.29)
Emergency-Diplomatic & Consular Services
7.89
7.89
7.89
—
7.89
Repatriation Loans
1.30
1.30
1.30
—
1.30
CRS-23

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

FY2019 Actual
116-136)
FY2021 Request
Request
(H.R. 7608)
Payment American Institute Taiwan
31.96
31.96
26.31
-17.68%
31.96
International Chancery Center
0.74
0.74
0.74
—
2.74
Foreign Service Retirement (mandatory)
158.90
158.90
158.90
—
158.90
International Orgs, Subtotal
2,911.17
3,000.19
2,045.42
-31.82%
2,962.24
(1,084.90)
(1,084.90)
(802.23)
Contributions to Int’l Orgs
1,360.27
1,473.81
966.22
-34.44%
1,505.93
(96.24)
(96.24)
(96.24)
Contributions, Int’l Peacekeeping
1,550.90
1,526.38
1,079.20
-29.30%
1,456.31
(988.66)
(988.66)
(705.99)
International Commissions, Subtotal (Function 300)
141.44
162.80
144.11
-11.48%
174.50

Int’l Boundary/U.S.-Mexico
77.53
85.07
98.77
16.10%
98.77
American Sections
13.26
15.01
10.66
-28.96%
15.01
Int’l Fisheries
50.65
62.72
34.68
-44.71%
60.72
Agency for Global Media, Subtotal
807.90
810.40
637.25
-21.37%
637.25
Broadcasting Operations
798.20
798.70
632.73
-20.78%
632.73
Capital Improvements
9.70
11.70
4.52
-61.37%
4.52
Related Programs, Subtotal
252.78
381.34
83.59
-78.08%
385.28
Asia Foundation
17.00
19.00
—
-100.00%
20.00
U.S. Institute for Peace
38.63
45.00
15.74
-65.02%
45.00
Center for Middle East-West Dialogue
0.19
0.25
0.25
2.04%
0.25
Eisenhower Exchange Programs
0.19
0.27
0.21
-22.59%
0.21
Israeli-Arab Scholarship Program
0.07
0.12
0.12
-4.03%
0.12
East-West Center
16.70
16.70
—
-100.00%
19.70
CRS-24

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

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

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

FY2019 Actual
116-136)
FY2021 Request
Request
(H.R. 7608)
Development Assistance
3,000.00
3,400.00
—
n.a.
4,700.00
(900.00)c
International Disaster Assistance
4,385.31
4,953.36
—
n.a.
5,520.36
(584.27)
(2,291.98)ab
(2,858.98)c
Transition Initiatives
92.04
92.04
112.00
21.68%
92.04
(62.04)
Complex Crises Fund
30.00
30.00
—
-100.00%
30.00
Development Credit Authority—Admin
10.00
—
—
—
—
Development Credit Authority Subsidy
[55.00]
—
—
—
—
Economic Support Fund
3,692.86
3,295.00
—
n.a.
4,944.41
(1,172.34)
(250.00)a
(1,500.00)c
Economic Support and Development Fund
—
—
5,925.60
n.a.
—
Democracy Fund
227.20
273.70
—
n.a.
323.70
Assistance for Europe, Eurasia and Central Asia
760.33
770.33
—
n.a.
1,270.33
(500.00)c
Migration & Refugee Assistance
3,432.00
3,782.00
299.21
-92.09%
4,557.00
(1,404.12)
(1,871.36)b
(2,646.36)c
International Humanitarian Assistance
—
—
5,968.00
n.a.
—
Emergency Refugee and Migration Assistance
1.00
0.10
—
n.a.
0.10
Independent Agencies, Subtotal
1,368.00
1,474.00
1,209.71
-17.93%
1,410.00
(88.00)
(20.00)
Peace Corps
410.50
498.50
401.20
-19.52%
410.50
(88.00)b
Mil ennium Challenge Corporation
905.00
905.00
800.00
-11.60%
905.00
Inter-American Foundation
22.50
37.50
3.85
-89.73%
51.50
(10.00)c
CRS-26

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

FY2019 Actual
116-136)
FY2021 Request
Request
(H.R. 7608)
U.S. African Development Foundation
30.00
33.00
4.66
-85.88%
43.00
(10.00)c
Department of the Treasury, Subtotal
30.00
45.00
111.00
146.67%
111.00
Department of the Treasury Technical Assistance
30.00
30.00
33.00
10.00%
33.00
Debt Restructuring
—
15.00
78.00
420.00%
78.00
Title IV. Int’l Security Assistance
9,153.08
9,013.95
7,729.66
-14.25%
9,015.20
(554.59)
(837.12)
(837.12)
International Narcotics Control & Law Enforcement
1,497.47
1,391.00
1,010.28
-27.37%
1,391.00
Nonproliferation, Anti-Terrorism, Demining
864.55
895.75
753.55
-15.87%
897.00
Peacekeeping Operations
488.67
457.35
290.00
-36.59%
457.35
(325.21)
(325.21)
(325.21)
International Military Education & Training
110.78
112.93
104.93
-7.08%
112.93
Foreign Military Financing
6,191.61
6,156.92
5,570.90
-9.52%
6,156.92
(229.37)
(511.91)
(511.91)
Title V. Multilateral Assistance
1,849.20
2,082.28
1,481.24
-28.86%
3,322.47
(1,281.15)
International Organizations & Programs
331.50
390.50
—
-100.00%
1,671.65
(1,281.15)c
Int’l Bank for Reconstruction and Development
—
206.50
206.50
—
206.50
World Bank: Global Environment Facility
139.58
139.58
—
-100.00%
139.58
World Bank: Int’l Development Association
1,097.01
1,097.01
1,001.40
-8.72%
1,001.40
Asian Development Fund
47.40
47.40
47.40
—
47.40
African Development Bank-Capital
32.42
—
54.65
n.a.
54.65
African Development Fund
171.3
171.30
171.30
—
171.30
International Fund for Agricultural Development
30.00
30.00
—
-100.00%
30.00
CRS-27

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

FY2019 Actual
116-136)
FY2021 Request
Request
(H.R. 7608)
Title VI. Export Assistance
-161.49
-22.80
-337.27
1,379.26%
-99.80
Export-Import Bank (net)
100.05
-34.30
-689.05
1908.90%
-114.30
Overseas Private Investment Corporation
-341.04
—
—
—
—
Development Finance Corporation
—
-68.00
339.68
599.53%
-65.00
Trade & Development Agency
79.50
79.50
12.11
-84.77%
79.50
State, Foreign Operations & Related Programs,
55,000.55
57,787.64
44,123.42
-23.65%
66,102.45
TOTAL
(8,000.00)
(10,647.46)
(18,018.55)
Ad Ons/Rescissions, net
-324.62
-578.74
—
—
-75.00
(-282.46)
State, Foreign Operations & Related Programs,
54,675.93
57,208.90
44,123.42
-22.87%
66,027.45
Net of Rescissions
(8,000.00)
(10,365.00)
(18,018.55)
Sources: FY2019 Actuals and the FY2021 request are from the FY2021 SFOPS CBJ; FY2020 enacted data are from P.L. 116-94, Division G, P.L. 116-123, and P.L. 116-
136.
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
Contingency Operations (OCO) or supplemental emergency funding and are subsumed in the larger account number above them. “Enduring” funding is also sometimes
referred to as “base” or “ongoing” funding in budget documents. Numbers may not add due to rounding. “n.a.” = not applicable.
a. Includes funding for the first novel coronavirus (COVID-19) supplemental appropriation, P.L. 116-123. That legislation appropriated $264 mil ion for Diplomatic
Programs, $1 mil ion for the USAID Inspector General, $435 mil ion for Global Health Programs-USAID, $300 mil ion for International Disaster Assistance, and
$250 mil ion for the Economic Support Fund. All of these funds were designated as being for an emergency requirement. As such, like OCO funds, they do not
count against BCA discretionary spending caps.
b. Includes funding for the third novel coronavirus supplemental appropriations, P.L. 116-136. That legislation included $324 mil ion for Diplomatic Programs, $95
mil ion for USAID Operating Expenses, $258 mil ion for International Disaster Assistance, $250 mil ion for Migration and Refugee Assistance, and $88 mil ion for the
Peace Corps.
c. Includes supplemental funding designated for the novel coronavirus in Title VIII of H.R. 7608.

CRS-28

link to page 33 SFOPS: FY2021 Budget and Appropriations

Appendix B. International Affairs Budget
The International Affairs budget, or Function 150, includes funding that is not in the Department
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 for Education and Child Nutrition programs) are in the Agriculture
Appropriations, and the Foreign Claim Settlement Commission and the International Trade
Commission are in the Commerce, Justice, Science appropriations. In addition, the Department of
State, Foreign Operations, and Related Programs appropriation measure includes funding for
certain international commissions that are not part of the International Affairs Function 150
account.
Table B-1. International Affairs Budget, FY2019 Actual, FY2020 Enacted,
and FY2021 Request
(In millions of U.S. dollars)
FY2020
Enacted
% Change,
(P.L. 116-93,
FY2020
FY2021
P.L. 116-94,
Enacted vs.
House
FY2019
P.L. 116-
FY2021
FY2021
(H.R. 7608,

Actual
136)
Request
Request
H.R. 7667
State-Foreign
54,534.49
56,946.10
43,979.32
-22.77%
65,852.95
Operations, excluding
commissionsa
Commerce-Justice-
99.48
101.74
107.37
5.53%
107.37
Science
Foreign Claims
2.41
2.34
2.37
1.33%
2.37
Settlement Commission
Int’l Trade Commission
97.08
99.40
105.00
5.63%
105.00
Agriculture
1,926.26
1,945.00
—
n.a.
2,010.00
FFPA Title II
1,716.00
1,725.00
—
n.a.
1,775.00
McGovern-Dole
210.26
220.00
—
n.a.
235.00
Total International
56,560.23
58,992.84
44,086.68
-25.27%
67,970.32
Affairs (150)
Sources: FY2019 Actuals and the FY2021 request are from the FY2021 SFOPS CBJ, FY2021 Foreign Claims
Settlement Commission CBJ, and FY2021 U.S. International Trade Commission CBJ; FY2020 enacted data are
from P.L. 116-93, Division B, P.L. 116-94, Divisions B and G, P.L. 116-123, and P.L. 116-136.
a. Includes mandatory spending from the Foreign Service retirement account, and does not align with budget
justification figures that count only discretionary spending. Funding for certain international commissions
appropriated in the SFOPS bil are excluded here because they fall under function 300 of the budget
(Natural Resources and Environment), not function 150 (International Affairs).

Congressional Research Service
29

SFOPS: FY2021 Budget and Appropriations

Appendix C. SFOPS Organization Chart

Source: Created by CRS from annual SFOPS legislation.

Author Information

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

Marian L. Lawson

Section Research Manager

Congressional Research Service
30

SFOPS: FY2021 Budget and Appropriations

Disclaimer
This document was prepared by the Congressional Research Service (CRS). CRS serves as nonpartisan
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.

Congressional Research Service
R46367 · VERSION 3 · UPDATED
31