

INSIGHTi
Supplemental Funding for Ukraine:
Department of State, Foreign Operations, and
Related Programs (SFOPS)
March 8, 2022
The Administration’s Request for Emergency Supplemental Funding
On March 2, 2022, the Biden Administration submitted to Congress a request for $5 billion in emergency
supplemental funding for Department of State, Foreign Operations, and Related Programs (SFOPS)
appropriations accounts to address the crisis caused by Russia’s invasion of Ukraine. Such funds were
requested as part of a broader package that would provide a total of $10 billion for Ukraine and $22.5
billion for response activities related to the Coronavirus Disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic. (The
remaining $5 billion for Ukraine would be for the Departments of Defense [$4.8 billion], Commerce [$21
million], Energy [$39 million], Justice [$59 million], and Treasury [$91 million].)
The $5 billion for SFOPS would be divided among four appropriations accounts to “bolster U.S. security
and economic assistance to Ukraine as well as regional allies and partners” and “support lifesaving
humanitarian assistance, including emergency food assistance, and additional support for vulnerable
populations and communities,” according to the request. Proposed funding includes
$500 million in military assistance from the Foreign Military Financing account;
$1.75 billion for economic assistance from the Economic Support Fund account, with
transfers authorized to the Transition Initiatives (TI), International Narcotics Control and
Law Enforcement (INCLE), and Nonproliferation, Anti-terrorism, Demining, and Related
Programs (NADR) accounts, and to State Department and U.S. Agency for International
Development operational accounts to support diplomatic efforts, necessary evacuations of
personnel and other “at risk” persons, and consular activities; and
$2.75 billion for humanitarian assistance, of which $2 billion would be for the
International Disaster Assistance account and $750 million would be for the Migration
and Refugee Assistance account.
The Administration also has proposed increased flexibility for SFOPS funding through changes to
existing authorities, new transfer authorities to move funds between SFOPS accounts, and the authority to
Congressional Research Service
https://crsreports.congress.gov
IN11877
CRS INSIGHT
Prepared for Members and
Committees of Congress
Congressional Research Service
2
reprogram (i.e., to move funds within an account) both FY2022 and prior-year funds. The Administration
asserts in the request that these changes would afford it “maximum flexibility in supporting Ukraine, our
European allies and partners, and other emergent global needs.” Specific proposals include the following:
Amending Section 506(a)(1) the Foreign Assistance Act of 1961 (FAA, P.L. 87-195).
Section 506(a)(1) states that the President may direct the drawdown of up to $100 million
in defense articles if he determines and reports to Congress that “(A) an unforeseen
emergency exists which requires the immediate military assistance to a foreign country or
international organization; and (B) the emergency requirement cannot be met under the
authority of the Arms Export Control Act or any other law.” Congress increased the
drawdown maximum to $200 million in the second continuing resolution (CR) for
FY2022 (P.L. 117-70) and further adjusted it to $300 million in the most recent CR (P.L.
117-86, in effect through March 11). The Administration proposes raising the drawdown
maximum by $1.2 billion.
Amending Section 614 of the FAA. Section 614 authorizes the President to provide FAA
and Arms Export Control Act (AECA) assistance if he notifies and justifies to Congress
that to do so is in the U.S. national security interest. This authority is not to exceed $750
million in AECA sales, $250 million in FAA or AECA assistance, and more than $100
million of foreign currencies accrued under FAA or any other law. The Administration
proposes increasing the authority in Section 614 by $250 million but does not specify in
the request how the increase would apply to the various categories of assistance listed in
the section (e.g., AECA sales versus FAA or AECA assistance).
Amending Sections 516(f) and 516(g)(1) of the FAA. Section 516(f) directs that the
President must wait 30 days between the date on which he notifies Congress of a transfer
of excess defense articles (EDA) valued at $7 million or more and the transfer itself.
Section 516(g)(1) states that the value of EDA transfers may not exceed $500 million in
any fiscal year. While the Administration does not cite such sections specifically in its
request, it proposes waiving both the notification requirement and the $500 million limit
on the provision of EDA.
Reprogramming regardless of Appropriations Directives. Annual SFOPS
appropriations laws include numerous provisions that direct certain funds to specific
priorities, whether related to sectors, countries, or regions. The Administration requests
the authority to “reprogram FY2022 and prior-year funds for Ukraine regardless of
existing appropriations directives,” which could potentially reduce or eliminate funding
to unspecified programs and activities for which Congress has already appropriated
funds.
Outlook
While some news organizations have reported bipartisan congressional support for emergency
supplemental funding for Ukraine, there appears to be disagreement over how such funds should be
allocated. Some Members have advocated for more funding for defense purposes, while others have
recommended a greater emphasis on humanitarian and economic assistance for Ukrainians in need. It also
remains unclear whether Congress will incorporate emergency funds into a full-year appropriations
measure for FY2022 (anticipated by March 11, when the current CR expires) or pursue a stand-alone
emergency supplemental measure. The requested additional funds to combat COVID-19 may also affect
the way in which Congress approaches emergency funding for Ukraine; some lawmakers have questioned
the need and requested further justification for new COVID-19-related funding.
Congressional Research Service
3
Whether or not lawmakers accept the Administration’s proposed changes to authorities and requested new
transfer and reprogramming authorities remains to be seen. A key consideration for Congress is how much
funding and decisionmaking flexibility to grant the executive branch. Congress may choose to enact
supplemental funding but not any of the requested authorities, requiring the Administration to follow all
existing requirements on such funds. Congress also may choose to grant certain authorities on a time-
limited basis, such that they apply only to the funds enacted in the supplemental package. This approach
would grant executive agencies some additional flexibilities to address this crisis—and potentially set
precedent for future such emergencies—but not change statute in the long term. Finally, Congress may
accept the proposed changes in full and without a time limitation, with potentially broader implications
for the allocation and congressional oversight of assistance for years to come.
Author Information
Emily M. Morgenstern
Analyst in Foreign Assistance and Foreign Policy
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.
IN11877 · VERSION 1 · NEW