Department of State, Foreign Operations, and
February 2, 2021
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). None of the requested SFOPS funds were designated as

Overseas Contingency Operations (OCO) funds.

The Administration’s FY2021 request was about 3% higher than its FY2020 request for
SFOPS accounts but nearly 24% below the FY2020 SFOPS funding level enacted by Congress (including
COVID-19 supplemental funds, which were enacted after the FY2021 request was submitted). Within these totals,
funding was 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 have been reduced by 18.9% from FY2020-enacted levels. Noteworthy cuts were
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 have seen 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).
The House passed an FY2021 SFOPS bill, H.R. 7608, Division A, on July 24, 2020. The bill would have provided
a total of $66.03 billion in net budget authority for SFOPS accounts ($66.10 billion prerescissions). No FY2021
SFOPS legislation was introduced in the Senate.
On December 21, both chambers passed the Omnibus and COVID Relief and Response Act, H.R. 133, which
included SFOPS appropriations in Division K. The enacted legislation included a net total of $60.98 billion
($61.51 billion prerescission) for SFOPS accounts, 38.2% more than the Administration’s request and 6.6% more
than FY2020 funding. Of these funds, $8.25 billion were designated as OCO. President Trump signed the bill into
law (P.L. 116-260) on December 27, 2020.
An account-by-account comparison of the FY2021 SFOPS request, FY2021 SFOPS legislation, and FY2020
SFOPS funding is presented in Appendix A. 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, comparing funding levels for accounts and purposes across
enacted FY2020 SFOPS appropriations, FY2021 Administration requests, and FY2021 SFOPS legislation. It does
not provide significant analysis of international affairs policy issues. For in-depth analysis and contextual
information on international affairs issues, consult the wide range of CRS reports on specific subjects, such as
global health, diplomatic security, and U.S. participation in the United Nations.
Congressional Research Service

link to page 5 link to page 37

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, international 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 was about 3% higher than the FY2020 request for SFOPS accounts
but nearly 24% below the FY2020 SFOPS funding level enacted by Congress, including
supplemental funds to help combat the Coronavirus Disease 2019 (COVID-19) epidemic
globally, which were enacted after the FY2021 request was submitted.2 The Trump
Administration consistently requested far less SFOPS funding than Congress appropriated. This is

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

a reversal from the Obama Administration, when Congress typically provided less total SFOPS
funding than was requested, though the gap narrowed over time during Obama’s terms (Table 1).
Table 1. SFOPS Requests and Actual Funding, FY2013-FY2021
(In 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
60.98
Difference
-8.0%
-2.1%
-1.1%
-0.6%
-0.7%
+34.7%
+30.5%
+32.7%
+38.2%
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 have been the lowest in over a decade
(Figure 2).
Figure 2. SFOPS Funding, FY2010-FY2021
(In billions of U.S. dollars)
70
65
60
55
50
45
40
35
30
Total, Current $
Total, Constant 2020$

Sources: Annual SFOPS CBJs; P.L. 116-94; P.L. 116-123; P.L. 116-136; P.L. 116-260; 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

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

In addition to raising the caps, Congress has worked around the BCA limits by designating a
portion of annual SFOPS appropriations as “Overseas Contingency Operations (OCO)” or
“emergency” funding, both of which are excluded from BCA discretionary budget limits.
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 Trump Administration last requested OCO funds for SFOPS for FY2018, though it continued
to request OCO funds in the DOD budget. Nevertheless, Congress designated $8.00 billion of
enacted SFOPS funding in both FY2019 and FY2020 as OCO.
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 Trump Administration. The House-passed FY2021
legislation continued this practice, including $8.00 billion in OCO funds and an additional $10.02
billion designated as emergency funding. The enacted FY2021 appropriation, P.L. 116-206,
included $8.25 billion designated as OCO and an additional $5.27 billion in designated
emergency funding for Consular and Border Security Programs, Sudan, Global Health Programs,
the Economic Support Fund, and Debt Restructuring.
Congressional Action on FY2021 SFOPS Legislation
Congressional action on SFOPS and other FY2021 appropriations was delayed by disruption of
congressional 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 did not consider FY2021 legislation.
Having enacted no FY2021 appropriations by the start of the new fiscal year on October 1, 2020,
Congress enacted a series of continuing resolutions to continue funding government agencies at

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

the FY2020 level until P.L. 116-260, the Omnibus and COVID Relief and Response Act (which
include SFOPS appropriations as Division K) was signed into law on December 27, 2020.5
Table 2. Status of FY2021 SFOPS Appropriations
(In billions of U.S. dollars)
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
12/21
12/21
12/27
Total $
$48.01

$66.03

$66.03
$60.98
$60.98
$60.98
Source: H.R. 7608; House 302(b) allocation table, available at: https://appropriations.house.gov/sites/
democrats.appropriations.house.gov/files/Alloc1.pdf; P.L. 116-260.
Notes: The 302(b) allocation of budget authority does not include emergency or OCO funds. Funding totals
account for rescissions.
House Legislation. The House-passed bill, H.R. 7608, Division A, would have provided 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 Trump 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.
P.L. 116-260. The omnibus FY2021 appropriations legislation passed by both the House and
Senate on December 21, 2020, and signed into law on December 27, 2020, included SFOPS
appropriations in Division K. The bill provided $61.59 billion in new budget authority ($60.98
billion after rescission), including $17.29 billion for State Department Operations and related
accounts, and $44.22 billion for Foreign Operations accounts.
State Department Operations and Related
Agency Highlights
The FY2021 request would have 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).6 The Trump Administration’s
request, submitted before COVID-19 was declared a global pandemic, did not include funds to
support the State Department’s response to the pandemic. To date, Congress has provided 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) and Title IX of the FY2021
SFOPS appropriations law (Division K of P.L. 116-260).

5 The continuing resolutions were P.L. 116-159, P.L. 116-215, P.L. 116-225, and P.L. 116-226, and P.L. 116-246.
6 Congress provided $264 million in COVID-19 supplemental funds the Diplomatic Programs account pursuant to P.L.
116-123, the Coronavirus Preparedness and Response Supplemental Appropriations Act, 2020. Subsequently, Congress
provided an additional $324 million COVID-19 supplemental funds for the same account pursuant to the Coronavirus
Aid, Relief, and Economic Security (CARES) Act (P.L. 116-136).
Congressional Research Service
4

link to page 9 link to page 10 SFOPS: FY2021 Budget and Appropriations

The Trump Administration’s stated priorities for funding provided via Department of State and
Related Agency accounts in FY2021 included
 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.7
H.R. 7608, the House legislation, would have provided about $17.56 billion for the State
Department and Related Agency accounts. This would have marked an increase of 1.4% from the
FY2020 enacted level and a 25.2% increase from the Trump Administration’s request. Of the
funds provided in the House legislation, $959.40 million would have comprised additional
funding for State Department operations related to COVID-19.
The omnibus appropriations law, P.L. 116-260, included $17.29 billion for the Department of
State and Related Agency accounts. While this funding total constituted a -0.1% decline from the
FY2020 enacted level and a 1.6% cut relative to the House bill, it exceeded the Trump
Administration’s FY2021 request by 23.2%. Some of this funding increase relative to the
Administration’s request was due to emergency funding for State Department operations
provided in Title IX of the SFOPS appropriation. Such funding was provided for consular
operations to offset losses of consular fee and surcharge revenues resulting from the COVID-19
pandemic (see the “COVID-19 and State Department Operations” text box) and, separately, to
compensate victims of the 1998 bombings of the U.S. embassies in Kenya and Tanzania.
Table 3 provides a comparative breakout of the Trump Administration’s State Department and
Related Agency request, by selected accounts.
Table 3. State Department and Related Agency: Selected Accounts
(In billions of current U.S. dollars; includes OCO funds)
%
%
change,
change,
FY20
FY20
enacted
enacted
FY2019
FY2020
FY2021
to FY21
FY2021
FY2021
to FY21
Account
Actual
Enacted
Request
request
House
Enacted enacted
Diplomatic Programs
9.25
9.71
8.49
-12.6%
10.14
9.32
-4.1%
Worldwide Security
4.10
4.10
3.70
-9.8%
4.10
4.12
0.6%
Protection
Embassy Security,
1.98
1.98
1.68
-14.8%
1.98
1.95
-1.3%
Construction &
Maintenance
Educational and
0.70
0.73
0.31
-57.6%
0.74
0.74
1.3%
Cultural Exchange
Programs
International
2.91
3.00
2.05
-31.8%
2.96
2.96
-1.3%
Organizationsa

7 Letter transmitted from Secretary of State Michael R. Pompeo to Congress, February 10, 2020.
Congressional Research Service
5

SFOPS: FY2021 Budget and Appropriations

%
%
change,
change,
FY20
FY20
enacted
enacted
FY2019
FY2020
FY2021
to FY21
FY2021
FY2021
to FY21
Account
Actual
Enacted
Request
request
House
Enacted enacted
U.S. Agency for
0.81
0.81
0.64
-21.4%
0.64
0.80
-0.9%
Global Media
State and Related
16.54
17.31
14.03
-18.9%
17.56
17.29
-0.1%
Agency Total
(includes Function 300
funding and other
commissions)
Sources: FY2020 and FY2021 SFOPS CBJs P.L. 116-6; P.L. 116-94; P.L. 116-123; P.L. 116-136; H.R. 7608; P.L.
116-260; 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.
The aggregate FY2021 enacted figure includes funds designated in Title IX for the Consular and Border Security
Programs account and for Sudan claims (the Sudan claims figure of $150 mil ion is also reflected in the
Diplomatic Programs total)
a. Includes Contributions to International Organizations and Contributions for International Peacekeeping
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 Title V of annual SFOPS appropriations laws
pertaining to multilateral assistance (in P.L. 116-260).
COVID-19 and State Department Operations
Since the outbreak of COVID-19, the Department of State has coordinated the evacuations of thousands of U.S.
personnel and private citizens abroad and taken measures intended to protect its personnel around the world.
The Coronavirus Preparedness and Response Supplemental Appropriations Act, 2020 (P.L. 116-123) appropriated
an additional $264 mil ion to the Diplomatic Programs account, to remain available through FY2022, for purposes
that included maintaining consular operations, reimbursing evacuation expenses, and emergency preparedness.
This law also amended P.L. 116-94 to allow the State Department to transfer an additional $90 mil ion in
previously appropriated funds for emergency evacuations. The CARES Act (P.L. 116-136) appropriated an
additional $324 mil ion to the Diplomatic Programs account for similar purposes stipulated in P.L. 116-123, while
providing additional transfer authorities to fund evacuations. The FY2021 SFOPS appropriations law included $300
mil ion appropriated through Title IX for consular operations, including the adjudication of passport and visa
applications and services for American citizens abroad. The law also authorized the State Department to transfer
funds appropriated elsewhere to fund consular operations, fol owing consultation with Congress.8 While such
consular operations are usually funded through consular fees and surcharges, including passport and visa fees,
these revenues have declined considerably amid global travel restrictions imposed during the COVID-19
pandemic.
Selected Programs and Priorities
Consistent with its previous requests, the majority of the funding the Trump Administration
requested for the Department of State and Related Agency appropriations accounts was for

8 See Section 7069(c) of P.L. 116-260.
Congressional Research Service
6

SFOPS: FY2021 Budget and Appropriations

diplomatic programs, diplomatic security and embassy construction, and contributions to
international organizations and international peacekeeping activities. For FY2021, such programs
comprised approximately 87.1% of the Trump Administration’s request and 82.3% of the enacted
appropriations Congress provided for these accounts. Some of the Trump Administration’s
priorities within these areas, as identified by the Department of State in its Congressional Budget
Justification, are detailed below.
Diplomatic Programs
The Diplomatic Programs account is the State Department’s principal operating appropriation and
serves as the source of funding for several key functions. These include
 most domestic and overseas State Department personnel salaries;
 foreign policy programs administered by State Department regional bureaus, the
Bureau of Conflict and Stabilization Operations, and others;
 public diplomacy programs; and
 the operations of the department’s strategic and managerial units, including the
Bureaus of Administration, Budget and Planning, and Legislative Affairs as well
as the Office of the Chief of Protocol.9
The Trump Administration’s FY2021 request for Diplomatic Programs totaled $8.49 billion,
around 12.6% less than the $9.71 billion Congress provided for this account in FY2020 (this
amount included $588 million Congress provided for Diplomatic Programs in FY2020
supplemental COVID-19 funds; see text box on the previous page for more detail). The
Administration’s request sought $138 million for the Global Engagement Center (GEC), which is
responsible for leading interagency efforts to recognize, understand, expose, and counter foreign
state and non-state propaganda and disinformation efforts aimed at undermining U.S. interests,
including those carried out from Russia, China, and Iran.10 The Administration maintained that
this request, which would have significantly increased funding for the GEC from recent year
levels that ranged from around $60-75 million, would have allowed the GEC to meet “the
growing challenge of countering foreign propaganda and disinformation.”11
The Trump Administration’s request also included an intended realignment of personnel and
funding from the Bureau of Global Talent Management (formerly the Bureau of Human
Resources); the Bureau of Arms Control, Verification, and Compliance; and the Office of the
Coordinator for Cyber Issues to establish a new Bureau for Cyber Security and Emerging
Technologies (CSET). The State Department first notified Congress of its intent to create this new
bureau in June 2019. It was intended to be responsible for supporting “foreign policies and
initiatives to promote U.S. cyber and emerging technology policies and deter adversaries from
malicious and destabilizing behavior in their use and application of such technologies.”12 Some

9 U.S. Department of State, Congressional Budget Justification: Department of State, Foreign Operations, and Related
Programs, Fiscal Year 2021, February 10, 2020, pp. 10-18.
10 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/.
11 Testimony of Special Envoy & Coordinator for the Global Engagement Center Lea Gabrielle before the Senate
Foreign Relations Subcommittee on State Department and USAID Management, International Operations, and Bilateral
International Development, March 5, 2020,
https://www.foreign.senate.gov/imo/media/doc/030520_Gabrielle_Testimony.pdf.
12 U.S. Department of State, Congressional Budget Justification, p. 11.
Congressional Research Service
7

link to page 13 SFOPS: FY2021 Budget and Appropriations

observers, including some Members of Congress, criticized elements of the State Department’s
plan for CSET, arguing that additional cyber-related matters such as global internet governance
and digital economy issues should have been included in the bureau’s remit.13
The House legislation, H.R. 7608, included $10.14 billion for Diplomatic Programs, $955 million
of which was designated “to prevent, prepare for, and respond to coronavirus,” including with
regard to evacuation expenses, emergency preparedness, and maintaining consular operations.
This figure would have totaled 4.4% more than the FY2020 enacted level for this account and
19.4% more than the Administration’s request. The report accompanying this legislation (H.Rept.
116-444) noted support for the GEC’s work and stated that the GEC’s operating plan submitted to
Congress should describe its coordination with DOD regarding the proposed use of all FY2021
funding.14 The House bill did not directly address the CSET bureau.
The enacted omnibus appropriation included $9.32 billion for Diplomatic Programs. This figure
marked a decline of 4.1% relative to the FY2020 enacted level yet totaled 9.8% more than the
Trump Administration’s FY2021 request. It also amounted to 8.1% less than what would have
been provided had the House bill been enacted. The joint explanatory statement accompanying
P.L. 116-260 stated that the law provided funding up to the FY2020 level for the GEC.15 This
language indicates that Congress rejected the State Department’s request to increase GEC funding
from the FY2020 level of $62 million. Like the House bill, the final appropriations law did not
include any specific language regarding the use of appropriated funds to stand up the new CSET
bureau. While former Secretary of State Mike Pompeo formally approved the creation of CSET
on January 7, 2021, despite ongoing congressional concerns described above, the Biden
Administration may choose to review the CSET bureau’s mission and scope of responsibility.16
Diplomatic Security
For FY2021, the Trump Administration requested around $5.38 billion for the State Department’s
key diplomatic security accounts: $3.70 billion for the Worldwide Security Protection (WSP)
allocation within the Diplomatic Programs account and $1.68 billion for the Embassy Security,
Construction, and Maintenance (ESCM) account. The Administration’s request represented a
decrease of 11.4% from the FY2020 enacted funding level (see Table 4).

13 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/.
14 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.
15 Joint Explanatory Statement Accompanying Division K of P.L. 116-260, p. 8.
16 U.S. Department of State, “Secretary Pompeo Approves New Cyberspace Security and Emerging Technologies
Bureau,” January 7, 2021, https://2017-2021.state.gov/secretary-pompeo-approves-new-cyberspace-security-and-
emerging-technologies-bureau//index.html.
Congressional Research Service
8

link to page 10 SFOPS: FY2021 Budget and Appropriations

Table 4. Diplomatic Security Annual Appropriations, FY2019-FY2021
(In millions of current U.S. dollars, includes OCO funds)
%
%
change,
change,
FY20
FY20
enacted
enacted
FY2019
FY2020
FY2021
to FY21
FY2021
FY2021
to FY21
Account
Actual
Enacted
Request
request
House
Enacted
enacted
Worldwide Security
4.10
4.10
3.70
-9.8%
4.10
4.12
0.6%
Protection
Embassy Security,
1.98
1.98
1.68
-14.8%
1.98
1.95
-1.3%
Construction, and
Maintenance
Diplomatic
6.08
6.08
5.38
-11.4%
6.08
6.07
0%a
Security (total)
Sources: FY2021 SFOPS CBJ; P.L. 116-94; H.R. 7608; P.L. 116-260; CRS calculations.
Notes: Percentage changes may not reflect numbers included in this table due to rounding. Annual
appropriations data do not reflect available carryover funds.17
a. Aggregate funding appropriated to the diplomatic security accounts in both FY2020 and FY2021 totaled
$6,071,348,000. However, rounding the disaggregated funding levels for the WSP allocation and the ESCM
account, which slightly differed across these two fiscal years, made it appear that the aggregate funding
levels were not identical.
The Trump Administration proposed that Congress decouple WSP from Diplomatic Programs and
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.18 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.19
The Trump Administration’s WSP-funded priorities for FY2021 included the hiring of an
additional 110 special agents at DS, which the Administration maintained was necessary to
address critical overseas vacancies. In addition, the Administration sought funding to deploy High
Definition Secure Video Systems (HDSVS) at overseas posts worldwide. The Administration
stated these systems would provide enhanced monitoring capabilities, including greater video
resolution and enhanced nighttime visibility.20

17 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.
18 U.S. Department of State, Congressional Budget Justification, p. 14.
19 U.S. Department of State, Congressional Budget Justification, Appendix 1: Department of State Diplomatic
Engagement, Fiscal Year 2021, February 10, 2020, p. 328.
20 U.S. Department of State, Congressional Budget Justification, p. 14.
Congressional Research Service
9

SFOPS: FY2021 Budget and Appropriations

The Trump Administration’s ESCM request
Proposed Standalone WSP Account
included $866.67 million for the State
Department’s share of the Capital Security
The Worldwide Security Protection (WSP) subaccount
within the Diplomatic Programs account has been used
Cost Sharing and Maintenance Cost Sharing
to fund programs that the State Department’s Bureau
Programs (CSCS/MCS), which fund the
of Diplomatic Security (DS) and other bureaus
planning, design, construction, and
implement to protect the department’s staff, property,
maintenance of the United States’ overseas
and information. Similar to the FY2020 request, the
diplomatic posts. The Administration
FY2021 proposal requested that Congress create a
new WSP standalone account and authorize the
maintained that this request, when combined
transfer of all unobligated WSP funds into this account
with funds contributed by other agencies with
by no later than the onset of FY2022 (October 1,
overseas personnel and visa fee revenues,
2021). The Trump Administration maintained that
would fund these programs at the $2.20 billion
creating this account wil increase the transparency of
level recommended by the Benghazi
WSP expenditures by more clearly disaggregating
funding for diplomatic programs from that for security-
Accountability Review Board.21 Construction
related activities. Congress refrained from
projects the Administration sought to fund
implementing the Administration’s request in the
through this request included a new embassy
FY2021 SFOPS appropriations law.
compound in Riyadh, Saudi Arabia, and new
consulate compounds in Adana, Turkey, and Rio de Janeiro, Brazil.22
The House legislation (H.R. 7608), if enacted, would have provided a total of $6.08 billion for the
State Department’s diplomatic security accounts. This figure was equal to the FY2020 enacted
level for these accounts and totaled 13.0% more than the Trump Administration’s request (see
Table 4).23 H.Rept. 116-444 stated that this funding included resources to deploy HDSVS at
overseas posts worldwide and hire 110 new DS agents, as requested by the Administration.24 The
House legislation did not seek to implement the Administration’s request for a standalone WSP
account.
The enacted FY2021 appropriations law provided $4.12 billion for WSP and $1.95 billion for
ESCM, for a total of approximately $6.07 billion in diplomatic security funding. This aggregate
funding level exceeded the Trump Administration’s request by about 12.9% and was equal to
both the funding level that would have been provided in the House bill and the FY2020
appropriation. While the aggregate funding levels were equal, the FY2021 enacted appropriation
provided more funding for WSP and less funding for ESCM than the House bill and the FY2020
appropriation. Like the House bill, the enacted appropriation did not provide for the creation of a
standalone WSP account, as requested by the Administration. The joint explanatory statement
accompanying this law maintained the language provided in H.Rept. 116-444 regarding funding
for the deployment of HDSVS and the hiring of additional DS agents. The joint explanatory
statement also recommended a State Department contribution of $1.07 billion to the CSCS and
MCS programs, which totaled 23.0% more than the intended contribution included in the
Administration’s request.25 However, as in previous years, the Department of State and other

21 U.S. Department of State, Congressional Budget Justification, Appendix 1: Department of State Diplomatic
Engagement, pp. 1-2.
22 U.S. Department of State, Congressional Budget Justification, Appendix 1: Department of State Diplomatic
Engagement, p. 331.
23 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.
24 House Committee on Appropriations, State Foreign Operations, and Related Programs Appropriations Bill, 2021, p.
13.
25 Joint Explanatory Statement Accompanying Division K of P.L. 116-260, p. 16.
Congressional Research Service
10

link to page 17 link to page 15 SFOPS: FY2021 Budget and Appropriations

stakeholders were authorized to determine the annual funding level and contributions for all
agencies.26
Assessed Contributions to International Organizations and
Peacekeeping Missions
The Contributions to International Organizations (CIO) account is the funding vehicle for the
United States’ payments of its assessed contributions (membership dues) to over 40 organizations.
These include the United Nations (U.N.) and its specialized agencies (among them, the World
Health Organization, or WHO), inter-American organizations such as the Organization of
American States, and the North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO), among others.27 U.S.
funding to international organizations is also provided through the various SFOPS multilateral
assistance accounts, as described in the “Foreign Operations Highlights” section of this report.
Separately, the United States pays its assessed contributions to most U.N. peacekeeping missions
through the Contributions for International Peacekeeping Operations (CIPA) account.28
For FY2021, the Trump Administration requested a combined $2.05 billion for these accounts. If
enacted, this funding level would have marked a 31.8% cut from that provided by Congress for
FY2020. Table 5 shows recent funding levels for each account.
Table 5. U.S. Payments of Assessments to International Organizations and
Peacekeeping Missions, FY2019-FY2021
(In billions of current U.S. dollars; includes OCO funds)
%
%
change,
change,
FY20
FY20
enacted
enacted
FY2019
FY2020
FY2021
to FY21
FY2021
FY2021
to FY21
Account
Actual
Enacted
Request
request
House
Enacted
enacted
Contributions to
1.36
1.47
0.97
-34.4%
1.51
1.51
2.2%
International
Organizations
Contributions for
1.55
1.53
1.08
-29.3%
1.46
1.46
-4.6%
International
Peacekeeping
Activities
Total
2.91
3.00
2.05
-31.8%
2.97
2.97
-1.3%
Sources: FY2021 SFOPS CBJ; P.L. 116-94; H.R. 7608; P.L. 116-260; CRS calculations
Note: Percentage changes may not reflect numbers included in this table due to rounding.

26 For example, see Section 7004(b) of P.L. 116-260. The State Department submits its planned contributions to the
CSCS and MCS programs, and the total funding levels for these programs, as part of the annual Embassy Security,
Construction, and Maintenance account operating plans that it is required by law to provide to Congress pursuant to
annual appropriations laws. For example, see Sec. 7061 of P.L. 116-260.
27 U.S. Department of State, Congressional Budget Justification, pp. 40-41. On April 14, 2020, President Donald
Trump announced that the United States would suspend funding to the World Health Organization (WHO), pending a
60- to 90-day review, because of WHO’s “role in severely mismanaging and covering up the spread of the
coronavirus.” For more information, see CRS Insight IN11369, U.S. Funding to the World Health Organization
(WHO), by Luisa Blanchfield and Tiaji Salaam-Blyther.
28 Successive Administrations have also requested funds for the U.N. Support office in Somalia (UNSOS) under the
Contributions for International Peacekeeping Activities (CIPA) account. However, Congress generally has appropriated
funds for UNSOS through the Peacekeeping Operations (PKO) account.
Congressional Research Service
11

SFOPS: FY2021 Budget and Appropriations

Similar to previous budget requests, the Trump Administration’s CIO request prioritized paying
assessments to international organizations “whose missions substantially advance U.S. foreign
policy interests” while proposing funding cuts to those organizations whose work it said either
did not directly affect U.S. national security interests or rendered unclear results.29 With these
intentions in mind, the Administration proposed to decrease payments to the U.N. regular budget
and specialized agency funding by around one-third.30 The request intended to maintain near-
recent-year levels of U.S. funding for other organizations, including the International Atomic
Energy Agency (IAEA).31
For CIPA, the Trump Administration’s FY2021 request reflected its commitment to reduce costs
for U.N. peacekeeping missions by reevaluating their respective mandates, design, and
implementation. The Administration stated that its request, when combined with the application
of U.N. peacekeeping credits (excess funds from previous U.N. peacekeeping missions), would
have allowed the United States to provide 25% of all assessed global funding for U.N.
peacekeeping missions, which is equal to the statutory cap established by Congress.32 However,
the current U.S. assessment for U.N. peacekeeping (last negotiated in 2018) is 27.9%, meaning
that around $345 million of anticipated U.S. assessed funding would have been carried over into
arrears.33 This practice has resulted in the accumulation of over $1 billion in U.S. peacekeeping
arrearages since FY2017.34
If enacted, the House legislation would have provided $2.97 billion for CIO and CIPA, a decrease
of 1.0% from the FY2020 enacted figure and an increase of 44.9% from the Trump
Administration’s request (see Table 5). For CIO, it sought to ensure that not less than $118.95
million was made available to the World Health Organization (WHO) and not less than $53.91
million was made available to NATO. While the Trump Administration notified Congress of its
intent to withdraw from the WHO, the House legislation would have prevented the use of any
funds made available by the act for this purpose.35 With regard to CIPA, the House legislation
included authority to allow the Secretary of State to exceed the 25% statutory cap with respect to
payment of U.S. assessed contributions to peacekeeping missions. This was intended to limit the
further accumulation of arrears.36
The FY2021 appropriations law provided a combined total of $2.96 billion for CIO and CIPA,
which is 44.8% more than the Trump Administration's request and identical to the amount in the
House proposal. The enacted law did not include the aforementioned House bill provisions
providing line item funding to the WHO and NATO and prohibiting the use of appropriated funds

29 U.S. Department of State, Congressional Budget Justification, p. 40.
30 U.S. Department of State, Congressional Budget Justification, p. 41.
31 U.S. Department of State, Congressional Budget Justification, p. 41.
32 See Section 404 of P.L. 103-236.
33 U.S. Department of State, Congressional Budget Justification, p. 43.
34 Over the years, the gap between the actual U.S. peacekeeping assessment and the 25% statutory cap led to funding
shortfalls. The State Department and Congress often covered these shortfalls by raising the cap for limited periods and
allowing for the application of U.N. peacekeeping credits to fund outstanding U.S. balances. For several years, these
actions allowed the United States to pay its peacekeeping assessments in full. However, since FY2017 Congress has
declined to raise the cap, and in mid-2017, the Trump Administration began the ongoing practice of allowing the
application of peacekeeping credits up to, but not beyond, the 25% cap. For more information, see CRS In Focus
IF10597, United Nations Issues: U.S. Funding of U.N. Peacekeeping, by Luisa Blanchfield.
35 See Section 9015 of H.R. 7608.
36 House Committee on Appropriations, State Foreign Operations, and Related Programs Appropriations Bill, 2021,
p. 31.
Congressional Research Service
12

SFOPS: FY2021 Budget and Appropriations

to withdraw the United States from the WHO. This may owe in part to then-President-elect
Biden’s pledge to retract the United States’ intent to withdraw from the WHO.37 The law also
provided the funding necessary to pay the full U.S. assessment to the U.N. regular budget.38 For
CIPA, the joint explanatory statement noted that sufficient funds were provided for United States
contributions to peacekeeping missions at the 25% statutory cap.39 The law permitted the
payment of peacekeeping arrears with appropriated funds, provided that the State Department
consult with Congress prior to using appropriated funds for this purpose.
Foreign Operations Highlights
The foreign operations accounts in the SFOPS appropriation compose the majority of U.S.
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.40 The Trump
Administration’s FY2021 foreign operations request totaled $30.09 billion, representing a 3.7%
increase from the Administration’s FY2020 request and a 25.7% decrease from FY2020-enacted
levels. Total foreign assistance requested for FY2021, including the food assistance funds
provided in the agriculture appropriation, would have represented a 29.1% reduction from
FY2020-enacted levels.
The Trump Administration’s budget request articulated five primary goals for U.S. foreign
assistance that were meant to align with the National Security Strategy and the State-USAID Joint
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;41
 enhance commitment to long-term development;
 strengthen key areas of U.S. leadership, to include global health and
humanitarian assistance; and
 advance U.S. national security and economic interests.42

37 After his inauguration, President Biden implemented this pledge. See letter from President Joseph R. Biden, Jr. to
Mr. António Guterres, Secretary-General of the United Nations, January 20, 2021,
https://www.whitehouse.gov/briefing-room/statements-releases/2021/01/20/letter-his-excellency-antonio-guterres/. See
also Jamey Keaten, “Biden’s US revives support for WHO, reversing Trump retreat,” Associated Press, January 21,
2021.
38 Joint Explanatory Statement Accompanying Division K of P.L. 116-260, p. 18.
39 Joint Explanatory Statement Accompanying Division K of P.L. 116-260, p. 10.
40 For more information on international food assistance programs, see CRS Report R45422, U.S. International Food
Assistance: An Overview, by Alyssa R. Casey.
41 According to the Trump 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 maintained 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.
42 Documents provided by the State Department at budget roll-out briefings, February 10, 2020.
Congressional Research Service
13

link to page 27 link to page 18 SFOPS: FY2021 Budget and Appropriations

These goals were also meant to guide the Trump Administration’s regional thematic priorities
(see “Country and Regional Assistance”), as well as how funds would be allocated across
assistance types. The Administration’s FY2021 budget request proposed cuts in nearly all
assistance types (Table 6). The only exception was export promotion assistance, which would
have seen a significant increase, largely due to proposed funding for the new U.S. International
Development Finance Corporation (DFC), and an estimated increase in offsetting collections
from the Export-Import Bank.43
The House legislation, H.R. 7608, included 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 Trump
Administration’s request. This steep increase over FY2020 funding could largely be attributed to
the $9.06 billion in emergency funding appropriated to “prevent, prepare for, and respond to
coronavirus” abroad.44
The omnibus appropriation, P.L. 116-260, provided $44.22 billion for foreign operations, an 8.7%
increase from FY2020 enacted levels and a 47.0% increase from the Trump Administration’s
FY2021 request. Some of the increase may be attributed to emergency funding appropriated in
Title IX of SFOPS, which was designated for COVID-19 response, including for vaccine
procurement and distribution, and assistance to Sudan.
Table 6. Foreign Operations, by Type, FY2019-FY2021
(In billions of U.S. dollars)
%
%
change,
change,
FY20
FY20
enacted
enacted
FY2019
FY2020
FY2021
to FY21
FY2021
FY2021
to FY21
Type
Actual
Enacted
Request
request
House
Enacted
enacted
USAID Administration
1.67
1.76
1.59
-9.5%
1.79
1.71
-2.71%
Global Health Programs
8.87
9.53
6.00
-37.1%
11.66
13.20
38.50%
Non-Health Development
Assistance
(includes Treasury TA,
8.10
8.13
6.15
-24.3%
11.47
8.89
9.35%
excludes ind. agencies)
Humanitarian Assistance
7.82
8.74
6.27
-28.3%
10.08
7.83
-10.39%
Independent Agencies
1.37
1.47
1.21
-17.9%
1.41
1.39
-5.46%
Security Assistance
9.15
9.01
7.73
-14.2%
9.02
9.00
-0.11%
Multilateral Assistance
1.85
2.08
1.48
-28.9%
3.32
2.04
-1.99%
Export Promotion
-0.16
-0.02
-0.34
1379.3%
-1.00
0.16
-797.37%
Foreign Operations Total
40.39
40.70
30.09
-26.1%
48.64
44.22
8.67%
Sources: P.L. 116-260; H.R. 7608; FY2021 SFOPS CBJ; P.L. 116-94; P.L. 116-123; P.L. 116-136; CRS calculations.
Notes: FY2020-enacted includes funds from the first and third supplemental appropriations for the novel
coronavirus (P.L. 116-123 and, 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.

43 U.S. Department of State, Congressional Budget Justification, p. 108.
44 H.R. 7608.
Congressional Research Service
14

link to page 19 link to page 19 link to page 20

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 comprised 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 was 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 have been reduced under the budget
proposal (Table 7).
Requested cuts to GHP subaccounts ranged
from 8.0% for malaria programs to 100% for
USAID’s HIV/AIDS and vulnerable children
subaccounts. The Trump Administration

asserted that despite its proposed reduction to
Source: FY2021 SFOPS CBJ.
HIV/AIDS funding, the requested level would have been sufficient to maintain treatment for all
current recipients. The proposal also reflected the Administration’s effort to limit U.S.
contributions to the Global Fund—an international financing mechanism for efforts to combat
AIDS, tuberculosis, and malaria—to 25% of all donations, rather than the 33% limit that the
United States has provided since the George W. Bush Administration.
Table 7. Global Health Programs, by Subaccount, FY2019-FY2021
(In millions of U.S. dollars)
%
% change,
change,
FY20
FY20
enacted
enacted
FY2019
FY2020
FY2021
to FY21
FY2021
FY2021
to FY21
Subaccount
Actual
Enacted
Request
request
House
Enacted
enacted
State HIV/AIDS
4,370.0
4,370.0
3,180.3
-27.2%
4,370.0
4,370.0
0.0%
Global Fund
1,350.0
1,560.0
657.7
-57.8%
1,560.0
1,560.0
0.0%
USAID HIV/AIDS
330.0
330.0
0.0
-100.0%
330.0
330.0
0.0%
USAID Malaria
755.0
770.0
708.5
-8.0%
755.0
770.0
0.0%
USAID Maternal and
835.0
851.0
659.6
-22.5%
850.0
855.5
0.5%
Child Health
USAID Family
Planning/
556.5
524.0
237.0
-54.8%
585.5
524.0
0.0%
Reproductive Healtha
USAID Nutrition
145.0
150.0
90.0
-40.0%
145.0
150.0
0.0%
USAID Tuberculosis
302.0
310.0
275.0
-11.3%
310.0
319.0
2.9%
Congressional Research Service
15

link to page 20 link to page 20 link to page 20 SFOPS: FY2021 Budget and Appropriations

%
% change,
change,
FY20
FY20
enacted
enacted
FY2019
FY2020
FY2021
to FY21
FY2021
FY2021
to FY21
Subaccount
Actual
Enacted
Request
request
House
Enacted
enacted
Pandemic
Influenza/Otherb
535.0
[of which
100.0
[435.0]
115.0
-78.5%
125.0
190.0
-64.5%
supplemental]
Neglected Tropical
Diseases
102.5
102.5
75.0
-26.8%
102.5
102.5
0.0%
Vulnerable Children
24.0
25.0
0.0
-100.0%
24.0
25.0
0.0%
COVID-19
—
—
—
—
2,500.0c
4,000.0d
—
GHP Total
8,870.0
9,527.5
5,998.1
-37.5%
11,657.0
13,196.0
38.5%
Source: P.L. 116-260; H.R. 7608; FY2021 SFOPS CBJ; P.L. 116-94; P.L. 116-123; CRS calculations.
a. FY2019 actual reflects a $32.5 mil ion transfer from the International Organizations and Programs (IO&P)
account.
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 emergency 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. 116-123).
d. FY2021 enacted includes $4.00 bil ion in emergency GHP funding to “prevent, prepare for, and respond to
coronavirus, including for vaccine procurement and delivery.”
As noted above, the Trump Administration’s FY2021 request did not include funds for COVID-
19, 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 2020 (P.L. 116-123). The Trump Administration
did not submit a request for additional FY2021 funds to combat the virus.45
The House legislation, H.R. 7608, would have represented a 22.4% increase over FY2020
enacted levels and nearly doubled the Trump Administration’s proposed global health funding
level. However, much like the overall funding for foreign operations, this steep increase over
FY2020 funding was largely a result of the House’s $2.5 billion in emergency GHP funds to
address COVID-19 abroad.
The final FY2021 GHP levels represented a 38.5% increase over FY2020 enacted levels. Most
GHP subaccounts maintained or saw modest increases from FY2020 enacted levels. The overall
increase is therefore primarily a result of $4 billion in emergency funding for COVID-19 that was
not allocated by subaccount and is largely directed for vaccine procurement and distribution.
Humanitarian Assistance
The FY2021 budget request for humanitarian assistance was nearly $6.27 billion, roughly
equivalent to the FY2020 request but down 40.1% from the FY2020-enacted level of $10.46

45 For more information on the U.S. response to COVID-19, see CRS In Focus IF11421, COVID-19: Global
Implications and Responses, by Sara M. Tharakan et al.
Congressional Research Service
16

link to page 21

SFOPS: FY2021 Budget and Appropriations

billion.46 In successive years, the Trump Administration requested levels of humanitarian
assistance far lower than those enacted the prior year, at times reflecting the fact that
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
consistently supported global humanitarian efforts through appropriation levels well above the
budget request (Figure 4).
Figure 4. Humanitarian Assistance Budget Requests and Enacted Funding, by
Account, FY2013-FY2021
(In billions of current U.S. dollars)

Sources: P.L. 116-260; FY2021 SFOPS CBJ; P.L. 116-94; P.L. 116-123; P.L. 116-136; CRS calculations.
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 Trump
Administration’s request assumed $2.80 billion in carryover funding from past-year humanitarian
assistance. The Administration asserted that the FY2021 request, combined with the estimated
carryover, totaled 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.”47

46 Total FY2020-enacted funding includes supplemental funds enacted in two COVID-19 supplemental appropriations
and Food for Peace Act, Title II funds, which are part of the Agriculture appropriation.
47 FY2021 SFOPS CBJ, p. 80.
Congressional Research Service
17

SFOPS: FY2021 Budget and Appropriations

The House legislation included $11.85 billion in humanitarian assistance, including $2.25 billion
in emergency funding to address COVID-19 in humanitarian contexts and $1.78 billion in Food
for Peace Act, Title II funds. This level represented a 13% increase from FY2020 enacted levels
and an 89.0% increase from the Trump Administration’s proposal.
The omnibus legislation included $9.57 billion in humanitarian assistance, including $1.74 billion
in Food for Peace Act, Title II funds. This level represents a modest increase (0.2%) over FY2020
enacted levels, not including supplemental funds that had been enacted to address COVID-19
abroad.
Proposed Humanitarian Account Consolidation
For FY2021, as in FY2020, the Trump Administration proposed 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 justified
the restructuring as necessary “to optimize humanitarian assistance, prioritize funding, and use
funding as effectively and efficiently as possible.”48 The proposal would effectively have moved
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.49 In FY2020, enacted
funding for these accounts totaled $3.78 billion. The budget request would have eliminated the
ERMA account and significantly reduced funding to MRA, with none for overseas needs. Within
USAID, the BHA is in the process of combining the functions of the Offices of U.S. Foreign
Disaster Assistance and Food for Peace. The budget request would have eliminated the
International Disaster Assistance (IDA) account (FY2020-enacted funding totaled $4.95 billion),
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 have been consolidated into the IHA account.
The House legislation did not adopt the Trump Administration’s IHA proposal. The
accompanying report, H.Rept. 116-444, noted that the “Committee does not support the
consolidation of all overseas humanitarian assistance into a single account.” Instead, the bill
would have appropriated funds in the traditional account structure.

48 In FY2020, the Trump 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.
49 There was no funding requested in the Migration and Refugee Assistance (MRA) account for overseas humanitarian
needs. However, the State Department’s Bureau of Population, Refugees, and Migration (PRM) would have retained
$299.21 million in MRA funding to support U.S. refugee admissions, Humanitarian Migrants to Israel, and PRM
administrative expenses, as well as other activities such as policy oversight and diplomatic engagement. Transfer
authority would reportedly have allowed funding to move from IHA to MRA should the MRA funds be insufficient.
Congressional Research Service
18

link to page 23

SFOPS: FY2021 Budget and Appropriations

Security Assistance
The Trump Administration requested $7.73
billion in international security assistance for
Figure 5. Security Assistance, by Account,
FY2021, an increase of 4.3% from the
FY2019-FY2021
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 have been
to Peacekeeping Operations (PKO, -36.6%)
and International Military Education and
Training (IMET, -27.4%) (Figure 5).50
Consistent with prior year requests and
appropriations, the majority of security
assistance ($5.19 billion) would have been 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 sought flexibility to provide FMF
assistance through a combination of grants
and loans, including loan guarantees, rather

than the current use of FMF on an almost
Sources: P.L. 116-260; H.R. 7608 FY2021 SFOPS
CBJ; P.L. 116-94; CRS calculations.
exclusive grant basis. The Administration
asserted that this authority would both
Notes: FMF = Foreign Military Financing; IMET =
International Military Education and Training; PKO =
“expand the tools available to the United
Peacekeeping Operations; NADR = Nonproliferation,
States to help NATO and Major-Non NATO
Anti-terrorism, Demining and Related Programs;
allies51 purchase more American-made
INCLE = International Narcotics Control and Law
defense equipment and related services” and
Enforcement.
“increase burden sharing by asking these partners to contribute more national funds to foreign
military sales cases.”52
The House legislation included $9.02 billion in security assistance, which was essentially level
with FY2020 enacted funding but represented a 16.6% increase from the Trump Administration’s
proposal. The enacted omnibus legislation provided $9.00 billion in security assistance, a slight
decrease from FY2020 enacted funding but a 10.9% increase from the Administration’s request.
Development Assistance and Export Promotion
The remaining third of the FY2021 foreign operations request proposed to allocate funds to non-
health development sectors as well as to independent agencies, multilateral assistance, and export
promotion agencies.

50 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.
51 Major non-NATO allies are designated by the President, in accordance with 22 U.S.C. §2321k.
52 FY2021 SFOPS CBJ, p. 99.
Congressional Research Service
19

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

Development Assistance
The FY2021 budget request would have reduced funding from FY2020-enacted levels in a
number of development sectors (Table 8). Environment-focused aid, for example, would have
been cut by 86.3%, while funding for education and water and sanitation would have declined by
61.2%. As with the FY2020 request, the FY2021 request included a significant increase from
prior year-enacted funding levels for women’s economic empowerment programming, largely
due to a proposed $200.00 million for the Women’s Global Development and Prosperity Initiative
(W-GDP).53
The House legislation, H.R. 7608, if enacted, would have kept level or increased all development
sectors when compared to FY2020 enacted levels and would have represented an increase in all
sectors when compared to the Trump Administration’s request, with the exception of gender-
related and trafficking in persons programs. When compared to FY2020 enacted levels, the
greatest increases in funding would have been to environmental and gender programming.
The omnibus legislation, P.L. 116-260, kept level or increased funding for all development sectors
when compared to FY2020 enacted appropriations. The largest increases were to gender and
trafficking in persons programs, which saw 69.5% and 47.8% increases, respectively, from
FY2020 enacted levels (Table 8). Within the funds designated for gender programs, Congress
fulfilled the Trump Administration’s request for $200.00 million for W-GDP.54
Table 8. Select Development Sectors, FY2019-FY2021
(In millions of current U.S. dollars)
%
% change,
change,
FY20
FY20
enacted to
enacted
FY2019
FY2020
FY2021
FY21
FY2021
FY2021
to FY21
Sector
Actual
Enacted
Request
request
House
Enacted
enacted
Democracy Programs
(excluding NED)
2,400.0
2,400.0
1,551.4
-35.4%
2,400.5
2,417.0
0.7%
Education (basic and
higher)
1,035.0
1,110.0
430.5
-61.2%
1,210.0
1,185.0
6.7%
Food Security
1,000.6
1,005.6
506.1
-49.7%
1,005.6
1,010.6
0.5%
Environment
500.7
906.7
124.6
-86.3%
1,306.0
986.7
8.8%
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
450.0
0.0%
Gender
215.0
330.0
525.7
59.3%
460.0
560.0
69.7%
Trafficking in Persons
67.0
67.0
77.4
15.5%
67.0
99.0
47.8%

53 The Trump Administration launched the W-GDP Initiative in February 2019. The Initiative aims to “reach 50 million
women in the developing world by 2025 through U.S. government activities, private-public partnerships, and a new,
innovative fund” (https://www.whitehouse.gov/wgdp/).
54 Congress designated FY2020 and FY2021 funds for W-GDP using a ceiling: in FY2021 Congress designated “up to”
$200 million for this purpose, in contrast with the “no less than” directive used for the other allocations noted in Table
8. This language offers administering agencies the flexibility to determine (in consultation with the Appropriations
Committees) the actual amount of funding as long as it does not exceed adheres to the funding ceiling. In practice, this
also means that the FY2021 actual level for W-GDP could end up being less than the actual amount provided in
FY2020.
Congressional Research Service
20

SFOPS: FY2021 Budget and Appropriations

%
% change,
change,
FY20
FY20
enacted to
enacted
FY2019
FY2020
FY2021
FY21
FY2021
FY2021
to FY21
Sector
Actual
Enacted
Request
request
House
Enacted
enacted
Micro and Small
Enterprise
265.0
265.0
144.2
-45.6%
265.0
265.0
0.0%
Diplomatic Progress Fund
n.a.
n.a.
200.0
n.a.
—
—
n.a.
Sources: P.L. 116-260; H.R. 7608; FY2021 SFOPS CBJ; P.L. 116-94; CRS calculations.
Note: n.a. = not applicable.
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 have been combined into a single new Economic Support and
Development Fund (ESDF). The Trump Administration asserted that this consolidated account
would streamline the deployment of resources, increasing efficiency in foreign assistance.
Because the consolidated account would have incorporated both core and shared USAID
accounts, it was unclear what portion of the new account USAID would manage or implement.
The Administration made a similar request in the FY2018, FY2019, and FY2020 budget requests,
but Congress did not enact the proposals.
The FY2021 budget request nestled the Relief and Recovery Fund (RRF) and a proposed new
Diplomatic Progress Fund (DPF)—both previously requested as separate budget items—under
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.”55 While Congress provided funds for the RRF in previous fiscal
years, Congress did not accept the Trump Administration’s proposal for the DPF.
The House legislation did not include ESDF, but rather continued the use of DA, ESF, AEECA,
and DF. In addition, pursuant to the Global Fragility Act (Title V, Division J, P.L. 116-94) the
House replaced the RRF with a new Prevention and Stabilization Fund (PSF). However, the
funding level for the new PSF was $100.00 million, half of what was appropriated in FY2020 for
the RRF. The House prohibited funding for the Trump Administration’s proposed DPF.
As with the House legislation, the omnibus appropriation did not include ESDF and included
$100.00 million for the PSF. Further, there was no mention of the Trump Administration’s
proposed DPF in the final legislation.
Independent Agencies
The Trump Administration’s FY2021 request would have reduced funding to the Peace Corps (-
19.5%) and the Millennium Challenge Corporation (-11.6%). The request also proposed
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.56 The Administration maintained that

55 FY2021 SFOPS CBJ, p. 77.
56 The Trump Administration was not the first to propose elimination of the Inter-American Foundation. In 1999,
Congressional Research Service
21

SFOPS: FY2021 Budget and Appropriations

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.”57 To
implement the shuttering of the IAF and USADF, the Administration requested $3.85 million and
$4.66 million, respectively.
The House legislation would have provided level or increased funding for all independent
agencies when compared to FY2020 enacted funding before FY2020 supplemental funding was
passed for COVID-19.58 The legislation also did not adopt the Trump Administration’s proposal
to eliminate the IAF and USADF. Rather, the House provided increased funding for the two
agencies, including $10.00 million in emergency COVID-19 funding for each agency.
The omnibus appropriation provided level or increased funding for independent agencies when
comparing to FY2020 enacted levels before supplemental appropriations were passed.59 Congress
also appropriated increased and level funds for the IAF and USADF, respectively.
Multilateral Assistance
SFOPS multilateral assistance accounts provide for U.S. payments to multilateral development
banks and international organizations that pool funding from multiple donors to finance
development activities.60 The Trump Administration’s FY2021 request would have reduced these
accounts by 28.9% from FY2020-enacted levels. As in the Trump Administration’s three previous
requests, the proposal would have eliminated funding for the International Organizations and
Programs (IO&P) 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 proposed eliminating funds for the Global
Environment Facility (GEF) and the International Fund for Agricultural Development (IFAD).
For the GEF, the Administration asserted that carryover funds from FY2019 and FY2020
appropriations were sufficient to meet the U.S. pledge to the GEF’s seventh replenishment.61
The House legislation, if enacted, would have provided a total of $3.32 billion in multilateral
assistance accounts, representing a 59.6% increase compared to FY2020 enacted levels and a
124.3% increase from the Trump Administration’s request. This increase is largely due to the
inclusion of $1.28 billion in emergency COVID-19 funding for the IO&P account.
The omnibus appropriation provided a total of $2.04 billion in multilateral assistance accounts,
representing a 2.0% decrease from FY2020-enacted levels. The largest decrease was to funds for
the International Development Association, which saw an 8.8% decrease from its FY2020
enacted appropriation. All other accounts were kept level or experienced a slight decrease with

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.
57 FY2021 SFOPS CBJ, pp. 85-86.
58 The Peace Corps received $88 million in FY2020 supplemental appropriations (P.L. 116-136) to address COVID-19
abroad.
59 Ibid.
60 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.
61 FY2021 SFOPS CBJ, p. 104.
Congressional Research Service
22

link to page 28 link to page 17 SFOPS: FY2021 Budget and Appropriations

the exception of the International Fund for Agricultural Development, which saw an 8.3%
increase from its FY2020 enacted funding.
Export Promotion
The FY2021 request included an increased investment in the U.S. Development Finance
Corporation (DFC), established in 2019 to implement the BUILD Act.62 However, the Trump
Administration proposed eliminating funding for the U.S. Trade and Development Agency
(USTDA)—the request included $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.63 As in previous years, the Administration assumed that all export promotion
expenditures would be offset by collections. In the FY2021 request, the Administration assumed
$711.20 million and $496.00 million in offsetting collections from the Export-Import Bank and
the DFC, respectively.
The House legislation would have provided level or increased funding for export promotion
accounts when compared to both FY2020 enacted levels and the Trump Administration’s request.
The only exception was the DFC corporate capital account’s administrative expenses subaccount,
which would have received a 10.1% increase in funding when compared to FY2020 enacted
levels but a 2.0% decrease when compared to the Administration’s proposal. As in previous years,
the House assumed that all export promotion expenditures would be offset by collections. The
House legislation also did not accept the Administration’s proposal to shutter USTDA, and
instead funded the agency at the same level as FY2020.
The enacted omnibus appropriation provided level funding for the Export-Import Bank’s
administrative expenses when compared to the FY2020 enacted level and increased funding for
the Bank’s Office of Inspector General. The legislation assumed that the Bank’s expenditures
would be offset by collections and would return $113.5 million to the Treasury. The legislation
also provided increased funding for the DFC, particularly within its Corporate Capital Account,
and assumed only some offsetting collections. As with the House legislation, the omnibus funded
USTDA at the same level as FY2020.
Country and Regional Assistance
The Trump Administration organized much of its country and regional assistance into six
thematic priorities (Figure 6). These priorities were also meant to reflect the broader foreign
operations goals outlined in “Foreign Operations Highlights.”

62 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.
63 FY2021 SFOPS CBJ, p. 106.
Congressional Research Service
23

link to page 29 link to page 29

SFOPS: FY2021 Budget and Appropriations

Figure 6. Regional Thematic Priorities, FY2021 Request

Source: Created by CRS using the Trump 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 Trump Administration’s calculations for these thematic priorities.
Top country recipients under the FY2021 request remained consistent with prior year funding
allocations. Israel, Egypt, and Jordan would have remained the top three recipients of foreign
assistance—though Egypt would move ahead of Jordan when compared with FY2019 actual
funding—largely due to the proposed levels of military aid for those three countries. Other
countries that the Trump Administration maintained were strategically significant, including
Afghanistan and Ukraine, also remained top country recipients in the FY2021 request, as did
several African countries that would have received high levels of global health and development
aid (Table 9).
Regionally, the Middle East and Africa would have received the largest shares of aid in the
FY2021 request—together comprising about 71.5% of total aid 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 varied significantly. For example, Africa received a majority of GHP
funding (58.1% in FY2019 and a proposed 66.7% for FY2021), but accounted for a small
proportion of INCLE funding (5.2% in FY2019 and a proposed 4.1% for FY2021). In
comparison, the Western Hemisphere region accounted 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
24

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.

Note: 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) did not provide comprehensive
regional allocations, but did specify assistance levels for several countries and regions. These
included $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 would have been directed to be
used for the Northern Triangle countries (El Salvador, Guatemala, and Honduras). The legislation
also included $457.25 million for Colombia, $453.00 million for Ukraine, and $290.00 million
for the Countering Russian Influence Fund. The House bill would have maintained the use of a
Countering Chinese Influence Fund but did not specify a funding level.
As with the House legislation, the omnibus and its joint explanatory statement did not provide
comprehensive regional allocations. However, allocations were specified for some countries and
regions. These included $3.31 billion for Israel, $1.65 billion for Jordan, $1.43 billion for Egypt,
and $505.93 million for the Central America region. The legislation also designated $461.38
million for Colombia, $453.00 million for Ukraine, $290.00 million for the Countering Russian
Influence Fund, and $300.00 million for the Countering Chinese Influence Fund. Finally, the
legislation also made available monies for two new funds—a Global Community Engagement
and Resilience Fund and a People-to-People Partnership for Peace Fund—but did not specify
funding levels for either.

Congressional Research Service
25

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

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

FY2020
% Change,
% Change,
Enacted
FY2020
FY2020
(P.L. 116-94,
Enacted vs.
FY2021
Enacted vs.
FY2019
P.L. 116-123,
FY2021
FY2021
House (H.R.
FY2021
FY2021

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

Int’l Boundary/U.S.-Mexico
77.53
85.07
98.77
16.10%
98.77
98.77
16.10%
American Sections
13.26
15.01
10.66
-28.96%
15.01
15.01
0.00%
Int’l Fisheries
50.65
62.72
34.68
-44.71%
60.72
62.85
0.20%
Agency for Global Media, Subtotal
807.90
810.40
637.25
-21.37%
637.25
802.96
-0.92%
Broadcasting Operations
798.20
798.70
632.73
-20.78%
632.73
793.26
-0.68%
Capital Improvements
9.70
11.70
4.52
-61.37%
4.52
9.70
-17.09%
Related Programs, Subtotal
252.78
381.34
83.59
-78.08%
385.28
385.28
1.03%
Asia Foundation
17.00
19.00
—
-100.00%
20.00
20.00
5.26%
U.S. Institute for Peace
38.63
45.00
15.74
-65.02%
45.00
45.00
0.00%
Center for Middle East-West Dialogue
0.19
0.25
0.25
2.04%
0.25
0.25
2.04%
Eisenhower Exchange Programs
0.19
0.27
0.21
-22.59%
0.21
0.21
-22.59%
CRS-27

link to page 36 link to page 36 link to page 36 link to page 36 link to page 36 link to page 36 link to page 36
FY2020
% Change,
% Change,
Enacted
FY2020
FY2020
(P.L. 116-94,
Enacted vs.
FY2021
Enacted vs.
FY2019
P.L. 116-123,
FY2021
FY2021
House (H.R.
FY2021
FY2021

Actual
P.L. 116-136)
Request
Request
7608)
Enacted
Enacted
Israeli-Arab Scholarship Program
0.07
0.12
0.12
-4.03%
0.12
0.12
-4.03%
East-West Center
16.70
16.70
—
-100.00%
19.70
19.70
17.96%
Nat’l Endowment for Democracy
180.00
300.00
67.28
-77.58%
300.00
300.00
0.00%
Other Commissions, Subtotal
14.75
13.50
13.97
-3.46%
14.30
14.30
5.89%
Preservation of America’s Heritage Abroad
0.68
0.68
0.64
-4.89%
0.64
0.64
-4.89%
Int’l Religious Freedom
4.50
4.50
4.50
—
4.50
4.50
0.00%
Security & Cooperation in Europe
2.58
2.58
2.58
—
2.91
2.91
12.76%
Cong.-Exec. Commission on People’s
2.00
2.25
2.25
—
2.25
2.25
0.00%
Republic of China
U.S.-China Economic and Security Review
3.50
3.50
4.00
14.29%
4.00
4.00
14.29%
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
44,224.25
9.26%
(3,935.43)
(5,869.46)
(13,151.61)
(9337.58)
Title II. Admin of Foreign Assistance
1,674.48
1,759.05
1,591.75
-9.51%
1,786.03
1,711.45
-2.71%
(158.07)
(96.00)
(108.00)
USAID Operating Expenses
1,372.88
1,472.25
1,311.87
-10.89%
1,469.53
1,377.75
-6.42%
(158.07)
(95.00)b
(105.00)c
USAID Capital Investment Fund
225.00
210.30
205.00
-2.52%
238.00
258.20
22.78%
USAID Inspector General
76.60
76.50
74.88
-2.12%
78.50
75.50
-1.13%
(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
31,308.95
13.26%
(3,222.78)
(4,936.34)
(10,925.34)
(8,435.46)
Global Health Programs (GHP), State +
8,869.95
9,527.45
5,998.00
-37.05%
11,656.98
13,195.95
38.50%
USAID
(435.00)a
(2,500.00)c
(4,000.00)d
CRS-28

link to page 36 link to page 36 link to page 36 link to page 36 link to page 36 link to page 36 link to page 36 link to page 36 link to page 36 link to page 36 link to page 36 link to page 36
FY2020
% Change,
% Change,
Enacted
FY2020
FY2020
(P.L. 116-94,
Enacted vs.
FY2021
Enacted vs.
FY2019
P.L. 116-123,
FY2021
FY2021
House (H.R.
FY2021
FY2021

Actual
P.L. 116-136)
Request
Request
7608)
Enacted
Enacted
(of which USAID)
[3,149.95]
[3,597.45]
[2,160.10]
-39.95%
[3,226.98]
[7,265.95]
129.76%
(2,500.00)c
(4,000.00)d
(of which State)
[5,720.00]
[5,930.00]
[3,837.87]
-35.28%
[5,930.00]
[5,930.00]
0.00%
Development Assistance
3,000.00
3,400.00
—
n.a.
4,700.00
3,500.00
2.94%
(900.00)c
International Disaster Assistance
4,385.31
4,953.36
—
n.a.
5,520.36
4,395.36
-11.27%
(584.27)
(2,291.98)ab
(2,858.98)c
(1,914.04)
Transition Initiatives
92.04
92.04
112.00
21.68%
92.04
92.04
0.00%
(62.04)
Complex Crises Fund
30.00
30.00
—
-100.00%
30.00
30.00
0.00%
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
3,851.96
16.90%
(1,172.34)
(250.00)a
(1,500.00)c
(700.00)d
Economic Support and Development Fund
—
—
5,925.60
n.a.
—
—
n.a.
Democracy Fund
227.20
273.70
—
n.a.
323.70
290.70
6.21%
Assistance for Europe, Eurasia and Central
760.33
770.33
—
n.a.
1,270.33
770.33
0.00%
Asia
(500.00)c
Migration & Refugee Assistance
3,432.00
3,782.00
299.21
-92.09%
4,557.00
3,432.00
-9.25%
(1,404.12)
(1,871.36)b
(2,646.36)c
(1,701.42)
International Humanitarian Assistance
—
—
5,968.00
n.a.
—
—
n.a.
Emergency Refugee and Migration
1.00
0.10
—
n.a.
0.10
0.10
0.00%
Assistance
Independent Agencies, Subtotal
1,368.00
1,474.00
1,209.71
-17.93%
1,410.00
1,393.50
-5.46%
(88.00)
(20.00)
CRS-29

link to page 36 link to page 36 link to page 36 link to page 36
FY2020
% Change,
% Change,
Enacted
FY2020
FY2020
(P.L. 116-94,
Enacted vs.
FY2021
Enacted vs.
FY2019
P.L. 116-123,
FY2021
FY2021
House (H.R.
FY2021
FY2021

Actual
P.L. 116-136)
Request
Request
7608)
Enacted
Enacted
Peace Corps
410.50
498.50
401.20
-19.52%
410.50
410.50
-17.65%
(88.00)b
Mil ennium Challenge Corporation
905.00
905.00
800.00
-11.60%
905.00
912.00
0.77%
Inter-American Foundation
22.50
37.50
3.85
-89.73%
51.50
38.00
1.33%
(10.00)c
U.S. African Development Foundation
30.00
33.00
4.66
-85.88%
43.00
33.00
0.00%
(10.00)c
Department of the Treasury, Subtotal
30.00
45.00
111.00
146.67%
111.00
357.00
693.00%
(120.00)
Department of the Treasury Technical
30.00
30.00
33.00
10.00%
33.00
33.00
10.00%
Assistance
Debt Restructuring
—
15.00
78.00
420.00%
78.00
324.00
2060.00%
(120.00)d
Title IV. Int’l Security Assistance
9,153.08
9,013.95
7,729.66
-14.25%
9,015.20
9,004.03
-.011%
(554.59)
(837.12)
(837.12)
(902.12)
International Narcotics Control & Law
1,497.47
1,391.00
1,010.28
-27.37%
1,391.00
1,385.57
-0.39%
Enforcement
Nonproliferation, Anti-Terrorism,
864.55
895.75
753.55
-15.87%
897.00
889.25
-0.73%
Demining
Peacekeeping Operations
488.67
457.35
290.00
-36.59%
457.35
440.76
-3.63%
(325.21)
(325.21)
(325.21)
(325.21)
International Military Education & Training
110.78
112.93
104.93
-7.08%
112.93
112.93
0.00%
Foreign Military Financing
6,191.61
6,156.92
5,570.90
-9.52%
6,156.92
6,175.52
0.30%
(229.37)
(511.91)
(511.91)
(576.91)
Title V. Multilateral Assistance
1,849.20
2,082.28
1,481.24
-28.86%
3,322.47
2,040.82
-1.99%
(1,281.15)
CRS-30

link to page 36
FY2020
% Change,
% Change,
Enacted
FY2020
FY2020
(P.L. 116-94,
Enacted vs.
FY2021
Enacted vs.
FY2019
P.L. 116-123,
FY2021
FY2021
House (H.R.
FY2021
FY2021

Actual
P.L. 116-136)
Request
Request
7608)
Enacted
Enacted
International Organizations & Programs
331.50
390.50
—
-100.00%
1,671.65
387.50
-0.77%
(1,281.15)c
Int’l Bank for Reconstruction and
—
206.50
206.50
0.00%
206.50
206.50
0.00%
Development
World Bank: Global Environment Facility
139.58
139.58
—
-100.00%
139.58
139.58
0.00%
World Bank: Int’l Development
1,097.01
1,097.01
1,001.40
-8.72%
1,001.40
1,001.40
-8.72%
Association
Asian Development Fund
47.40
47.40
47.40
0.00%
47.40
47.40
0.00%
African Development Bank-Capital
32.42
—
54.65
n.a.
54.65
54.65
n.a.
African Development Fund
171.30
171.30
171.30
0.00%
171.30
171.30
0.00%
International Fund for Agricultural
30.00
30.00
—
-100.00%
30.00
32.50
8.33%
Development
Title VI. Export Assistance
-161.49
-22.80
-337.27
1,379.26%
-99.80
159.00
-797.37%
Export-Import Bank (net)
100.05
-34.30
-689.05
1908.90%
-114.30
-113.50
230.90%
Overseas Private Investment Corporation
-341.04
—
—
—
—
—
—
Development Finance Corporation
—
-68.00
339.68
599.53%
-65.00
193.00
-383.82%
Trade & Development Agency
79.50
79.50
12.11
-84.77%
79.50
79.50
0.00%
State, Foreign Operations & Related
55,000.55
57,787.64
44,123.42
-23.65%
66,102.45
61,514.43
6.45%
Programs, TOTAL
(8,000.00)
(10,647.46)
(18,018.55)
(13.695.12)
Ad Ons/Rescissions, net
-324.62
-578.74
—
—
-75.00
-530.12
-8.40%
(-282.46)
(-425.12)
State, Foreign Operations & Related
54,675.93
57,208.90
44,123.42
-22.87%
66,027.45
60,984.31
6.60%
Programs, Net of Rescissions
(8,000.00)
(10,365.00)
(18,018.55)
(13,270.00)
Sources: FY2019 Actuals and the FY2021 request are from the FY2021 SFOPS CBJ; FY2020 enacted data are from P.L. 116-94, Division G, P.L. 116-123, and P.L. 116-
136.
CRS-31

Notes: Figures in brackets are subsumed in the larger account above and are not counted against the total. Figures in parentheses are amount designated as Overseas
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 emergency funding designated for the novel coronavirus in Title VIII of H.R. 7608.
d. Includes emergency funding designated for the novel coronavirus, section 7 of the Sudan Claims Resolution Act, and payment to the International Monetary Fund for
Heavily Indebted Poor Countries debt relief for Sudan in Title IX of the final appropriation.
e. The Consular and Border Security Programs account is typically funded through fees and surcharges pursuant to Section 7081 of P.L. 115-31, rather than annual
appropriations. However, col ections derived from such fees and surcharges declined considerably due to the COVID-19 pandemic, prompting Congress to provide
a direct appropriation for this account.

CRS-32

link to page 37 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, House-passed bill, and Enacted
(In millions of U.S. dollars)
FY2020
Enacted
% Change,
% Change
(P.L. 116-93,
FY2020
FY2021
FY2020
P.L. 116-94,
Enacted vs.
House
Enacted vs.
FY2019
P.L. 116-
FY2021
FY2021
(H.R. 7608,
FY2021
FY2021

Actual
136)
Request
Request
H.R. 7667)
Enacted
Enacted
State-Foreign
54,534.49
56,946.10
43,979.32
-22.77%
65,852.95
60,668.11
6.35%
Operations, excluding
commissionsa
Commerce-Justice-
99.48
101.74
107.37
5.53%
107.37
105.37
3.57%
Science
Foreign Claims
2.41
2.34
2.37
1.33%
2.37
2.37
1.33%
Settlement Commission
Int’l Trade Commission
97.08
99.40
105.00
5.63%
105.00
103.00
3.62%
Agriculture
1,926.26
1,945.00
—
n.a.
2,010.00
1,970.00
1.29%
FFPA Title II
1,716.00
1,725.00
—
n.a.
1,775.00
1,740.00
0.87%
McGovern-Dole
210.26
220.00
—
n.a.
235.00
230.00
4.55%
Total International
56,560.23
58,992.84
44,086.68
-25.27%
67,970.32
62,743.48
6.18%
Affairs (150)
Sources: FY2019 Actuals and the FY2021 request are from the FY2021 SFOPS CBJ, FY2021 Foreign Claims
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
33

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

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 7 · UPDATED
34