Department of State, Foreign Operations, and
April 1, 2022
Related Programs: FY2022 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.
Analyst in Foreign
Assistance and Foreign
On May 28, 2021, the Biden Administration released its proposed FY2022 budget
Policy
request, which called for $62.121 billion, after rescissions of prior year funds, for

SFOPS accounts. The original FY2022 request was about 13% less than the total
FY2021-enacted level, which included nearly $16 billion in emergency funds, but 11.5%

more than enacted FY2021 levels when emergency funding was excluded. The
Administration submitted a supplemental emergency budget request that included $9.35 billion in SFOPS
accounts on March 2, 2022, to address Russia’s invasion of Ukraine and the ongoing global COVID-19 response.
This brought the total FY2022 SFOPS request to $71.371 billion, net of rescissions.
The House of Representatives passed a FY2022 SFOPS bill, H.R. 4373, on July 28, 2021. The bill would have
provided a total of $62.401 billion in net budget authority for SFOPS accounts. FY2022 SFOPS legislation, S.
3075, was introduced in the Senate on October 26, 2021; no further action was taken. Congress enacted four
continuing resolutions to fund federal agencies in FY2022, largely at FY2021 levels but including $3.448 billion
in additional emergency SFOPS funding, before enacting an omnibus appropriations bill, P.L. 117-103, which the
President signed into law on March 15, 2022. The legislation provided $63.059 billion in net SFOPS funding, of
which $6.80 billion was emergency funding for Ukraine. Total enacted SFOPS funding for FY2022, including
P.L. 117-103 and emergency funding in continuing resolutions, is $66.507 billion after rescissions, or about 7%
below both the FY2021 total enacted level and the Administration’s amended FY2022 request.
Within Department of State and Related Agencies accounts, total enacted funding levels for the core operations
and security accounts were similar in FY2021 and FY2022, to date. Significant changes were seen within some
smaller State Department accounts, including the Capital Investment Fund (+20%), Emergencies in the
Diplomatic and Consular Service (+3968%), and Repatriation Loans (-48%), and in related accounts, including
Contributions to International Organizations (+10%), International Broadcasting Operations (+10%), and the U.S.
Institute for Peace (+20%).
Within Foreign Operations accounts, there were several notable changes between FY2021- and FY2022-enacted
funding levels, largely reflecting a shift in the focus of emergency funding from addressing COVID-19 to
addressing the crises in Afghanistan and Ukraine. Funding increased significantly for the Assistance to Europe,
Eurasia and Central Asia (+110%), Migration and Refugee Assistance (+17%), Emergency Refugee and Migration
Assistance (+355%), and the International Development Finance Corporation (+65%) accounts, among others,
while decreasing substantially for Global Health Programs (-26%), Economic Support Fund (-62%), and
International Organizations and Programs (-56%), among others.
Appendix A presents an account-by-account comparison of the FY2022 SFOPS request; proposed, committee-
approved, and enacted FY2022 SFOPS legislation; and FY2021 SFOPS enacted funding. Appendix B provides a
similar comparison focused specifically on the International Affairs budget. Appendix C depicts the organization
of the SFOPS appropriation.
Congressional Research Service

Department of State, Foreign Operations, and Related Programs

This report tracks SFOPS appropriations, comparing funding levels for accounts and purposes across proposals
and legislation. It does not provide extensive 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. For more
information on SFOPS accounts, see CRS Report R40482, Department of State, Foreign Operations Appropriations: A
Guide to Component Accounts, by Nick M. Brown and Cory R. Gill.
Congressional Research Service

link to page 6

Department of State, Foreign Operations, and Related Programs

Overview
Department of State, Foreign Operations and Related Programs (SFOPS) appropriations support a
wide range of U.S. activities around the world, including the operation of U.S. embassies;
diplomatic activities; educational and cultural exchanges; international development, security, and
humanitarian assistance; and U.S. participation in multilateral organizations. The SFOPS
appropriation closely aligns with the International Affairs budget function, which typically
represents about 1% of the annual federal budget (see Figure 1).1
Figure 1. International Affairs as a Portion of the Federal Budget, FY2022 Est.

Sources: FY2022 Budget Historic Table 5.1; CRS calculations.
Note: Reflects estimated budget authority, FY2022.

On May 28, 2021, the Biden Administration released its proposed FY2022 budget request, which
called for $62.656 billion in new budget authority for SFOPS accounts ($62.121 billion if
proposed rescissions of prior year funding are subtracted).2 The Administration submitted a
supplemental budget request on March 2, 2022, including $9.35 billion in SFOPS accounts to
address needs related to Russia’s invasion of Ukraine and the global Coronavirus Disease 2019
(COVID-19) response. The supplemental request brought the total FY2022 SFOPS request to
$71.906 billion before rescissions, $71.371 billion after rescissions.3
The Administration’s original FY2022 request was 13% less than the total FY2021-enacted level,
which included almost $16 billion in emergency funds, and 11% more than the enacted FY2021
level when emergency funding, used primarily for COVID-19 response, was excluded.4 This first

1 The SFOPS budget aligns closely but not exactly with Function 150 (International Affairs) of the federal budget. The
primary exception is 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.
2 Rescissions of prior year funding do not affect new funding levels, but are considered when calculating the total
budget impact of a proposal for purposes such as compliance with the subcommittee’s 302(b) allocation or spending
caps imposed by law.
3 See letter from OMB Acting Director Shalanda Young to Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi, at
https://www.whitehouse.gov/wp-content/uploads/2022/03/COVID-and-Ukraine-Supplemental-Funding-Request-
Pelosi.pdf.
4 For 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 7 link to page 8 Department of State, Foreign Operations, and Related Programs

SFOPS budget request of the Biden Administration was significantly higher, even before the
supplemental request, than all Trump Administration SFOPS budget requests. It was also higher
than SFOPS annual funding levels enacted in the past decade, in current dollars, with the
exception of FY2021 (Table 1). With the $9.25 billion supplemental request included, the
Administration’s total FY2022 request was about 2.9% less than FY2021 total enacted funding.
Congress has enacted five FY2022 appropriations bills funding SFOPS accounts to date (see
“Congressional Action,” below), totaling $66.507 billion, after rescissions, or about 6.8% less
than the Administration’s request.
Table 1. SFOPS Requests and Actual/Enacted Funding, FY2013-FY2022
(In billions of current U.S. dollars)

FY2013 FY2014 FY2015 FY2016 FY2017 FY2018 FY2019
FY2020 FY2021
FY2022
Request
56.41
51.96
55.01
54.83
60.21
40.21
41.66
43.10
44.12
71.37
Actual/Enac.
51.91
50.89
54.39
54.52
59.78
54.18
54.38
57.37
71.58
66.51
Difference
-8.0%
-2.1%
-1.1%
-0.6%
-0.7%
+34.7%
+30.5%
+33.1%
+62.2%
-6.81%
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; P.L. 116-260; P.L.
117-2; P.L. 117-31; P.L. 117-43; P.L. 117-70; P.L. 117-103. The FY2022 supplemental funding request is accessible
at https://www.whitehouse.gov/wp-content/uploads/2022/03/COVID-and-Ukraine-Supplemental-Funding-
Request-Pelosi.pdf.
Note: Includes supplemental and emergency funds and rescissions. FY2021 and FY2022 actual/enacted figures
are enacted, while FY2013-FY2020 figures are actual.
Overseas Contingency Operations and Emergency Funds
From FY2012 to FY2021, the appropriations process was shaped by discretionary spending caps
put in place by the Budget Control Act of 2011 (BCA; P.L. 112-25). Congress managed the
constraints imposed by the BCA in part by repeatedly amending the BCA to raise the caps, and
also by designating a portion of annual SFOPS appropriations as “Overseas Contingency
Operations” (OCO) or “emergency” funding, both of which were excluded from BCA
discretionary budget limits. Congress began using the OCO designation in SFOPS appropriations
in FY2012. OCO’s use expanded considerably in funding level and scope until FY2017, when
OCO-designated SFOPS funding peaked at $20.80 billion (nearly 35% of SFOPS funds that
year), before leveling off at $8 billion annually between FY2019 and FY2021.5
In addition to OCO funds, Congress has periodically used funding designated as “emergency” to
address a range of unanticipated needs. Congress used this designation in FY2020 and FY2021
primarily to address needs related to the COVID-19 pandemic abroad and humanitarian
assistance for Afghanistan and Afghan refugees. Like OCO-designated funding, emergency-
designated funding did not count toward the BCA discretionary spending caps and could
therefore serve 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.
The FY2022 appropriations cycle was the first in a decade for which the BCA was not a factor,
and may mark the end of the OCO designation within SFOPS legislation. While Administrations

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

2

link to page 8

Department of State, Foreign Operations, and Related Programs

have not requested OCO funding in the international affairs budget since FY2018, the FY2022-
enacted SFOPS appropriations are the first since FY2012 to not include OCO-designated funds
(Figure 2). Although BCA spending caps no longer apply, SFOPS spending is limited by the
subcommittee allocation approved in the annual budget resolution or by the Appropriations
Committee. Emergency-designated funding does not count toward this allocation, so the
designation continues to be an important budgetary tool. Congress designated $10.25 billion, or
about 15% of enacted FY2022 SFOPS funds, as emergency funding.
Figure 2. SFOPS Funding, FY2012-FY2022
(In billions of current U.S. dollars)

Note: FY2021 and FY2022 numbers are enacted funding levels; earlier year data are actual funding as reported
in annual SFOPS CBJs.
Sources: Annual SFOPS CBJs; P.L. 116-94; P.L. 116-123; P.L. 116-136; P.L. 116-260; P.L. 117-2; P.L. 117-31; P.L.
117-43; P.L. 117-70; P.L. 117-103; CRS calculations.
OCO-designated funding became largely indistinguishable in recent years from base funding in
terms of the activities it supported, whereas emergency-designated funding continues to be used
primarily for short-term needs arising from unanticipated events. For this reason, this report
generally groups base and OCO funding from prior years together, comparing FY2022 requested
funding levels with total FY2021 enacted funding (base + OCO + emergency) as well as to
nonemergency funding (base + OCO) to serve various analytic purposes.
Congressional Action
Congressional action on FY2022 appropriations began with subcommittee hearings before the
Administration transmitted its full request to Congress in late May, 2021—months later than is
typical, although late submissions are not unusual at the start of a new Administration.
Subsequent congressional action is detailed below.
House Legislation. The House SFOPS subcommittee approved a FY2022 bill, H.R. 4373, by
voice vote on June 18, 2021. The legislation, which included $62.976 billion in new SFOPS
budget authority ($62.401 billion after rescissions), was approved by the full Appropriations
Committee on July 1, 2021, and by the House of Representatives on July 28, 2021.
Congressional Research Service

3

link to page 33 link to page 33 link to page 9 link to page 9 link to page 18 Department of State, Foreign Operations, and Related Programs

Senate Legislation. FY2022 SFOPS legislation, S. 3075, was introduced in the Senate on
October 26. The proposal was not considered or approved by Congress at any level, and is not
included in the tables and figures in this report, with the exception of Table A-1 in Appendix A.
Continuing Resolutions. No appropriations legislation for FY2022, including for SFOPS, was
enacted before FY2022 began on October 1, 2021. To prevent a lapse in appropriations, a
continuing resolution, the Extending Government Funding and Delivering Emergency Assistance
Act (P.L. 117-43), was enacted on September 30, 2021, to continue funding federal agencies until
December 3, 2021. Funding was largely continued at FY2021 levels, but the legislation provided
an additional $2.17 billion in SFOPS accounts for activities related to assisting individuals at risk
in Afghanistan.6 A second continuing resolution, the Further Extending Government Funding Act
(P.L. 117-70), was enacted and signed into law on December 3, extending appropriations through
February 18, 2022. This legislation also largely continued SFOPS funding at the FY2021 level,
while including an additional $1.28 billion within SFOPS accounts to support evacuation and
resettlement activities related to the crisis in Afghanistan.7 Third and fourth continuing
resolutions, P.L. 117-86 and P.L. 117-95, extended funding for SFOPS accounts through March
11 and March 15, respectively, at the P.L. 117-70 level without additional funds.
Omnibus Legislation. The House and Senate, on March 9 and 10, respectively, passed the
Consolidated Appropriations Act, 2022, which was signed by President Biden on March 15 and
became P.L. 117-103. The act included $58.163 billion in SFOPS base funding in Division K
($56.259 billion after rescissions) and $6.800 billion in supplemental emergency funding related
to Ukraine in Division N, for a total of $64.963 billion before rescissions. The omnibus funding,
together with the supplemental funding included in continuing resolutions (discussed above),
brought the enacted FY2022 SFOPS funding total to $68.411 billion ($66.507 billion after
rescissions).
State Department Operations and Related Agency
Funding Highlights
The Biden Administration’s FY2022 request sought $18.35 billion in funding for the Department
of State and Related Agency appropriations accounts, or approximately 5% more than the
FY2021 enacted level of $17.49 billion (including emergency funds). Priorities the
Administration intended to fund through these accounts in FY2022 included
 revitalizing the foreign policy workforce and broadening diversity, equity, and
inclusion;
 modernizing the State Department’s information technology and enhancing
cybersecurity;

6 P.L. 117-43 included FY2022 SFOPS account emergency funding in Division C, Title IV: $276.9 million for
Emergency Diplomatic and Consular Services, $400 million for International Disaster Assistance, and $1,076.1 million
for Emergency Refugee and Migration Assistance.
7 P.L. 117-70 included the following SFOPS emergency funding, all in Division B, which provided supplemental
appropriations to address the situation in Afghanistan: $44.3 million for Diplomatic Programs, $36 million for
Emergencies in the Diplomatic and Consular Service, and $1.200 billion for Emergency Refugee and Migration
Assistance. Account details for the supplemental funding in the continuing resolutions is provided in the “State
Department Operations and Related Agency Funding Highlights” and “Foreign Operations Highlights” sections of this
report.
Congressional Research Service

4

link to page 10 Department of State, Foreign Operations, and Related Programs

 supporting international organizations and peacekeeping; and
 sustaining security operations and consular services.8
House Legislation. H.R. 4373, the House-passed measure, would have provided $18.20 billion
for the State Department and Related Agency appropriations accounts. This would have been an
increase of over 8% relative to FY2021-enacted nonemergency funds, a 4% increase over total
FY2021-enacted funding, and a nearly 1% decrease from the Biden Administration’s request.
Continuing Resolutions. P.L. 117-43, the continuing resolution that funded federal agencies in
FY2022 through December 3, 2021, included an additional $276.9 million for the Emergencies in
the Diplomatic and Consular Service (EDCS) account. The law specified that such funding was
for “support for Operation Allies Welcome and related efforts by the Department of State,
including additional relocations of individuals at risk as a result of the situation in Afghanistan
and related expenses” and to reimburse the account for previous obligations. The subsequent
continuing resolution, P.L. 117-70, expired on February 18, 2022. It provided an additional $44.3
million for the Diplomatic Programs account and $36 million for EDCS for the same purposes as
those specified in P.L. 117-43. The two subsequent continuing resolutions (P.L. 117-86 and P.L.
117-95), the latter of which expired on March 15, 2022, provided budget authority for the
Department of State and Related Agency appropriations accounts at the FY2021 level and did not
include supplemental funds.
Table 2. State Department and Related Agency: Selected Accounts, FY2020-FY2022
(In billions of current U.S. dollars; includes OCO funds)
% Change,
% Change,
FY21
FY21
Enacted
Enacted to
FY2020
FY2021
FY2022
to FY22
FY2022
FY2022
FY22
Account
Actual
Enacted
Request
Request
House
Enacteda
Enacted
Diplomatic Programs
9.51
9.37
9.49
1.2%
9.48
9.35
-0.3%
Worldwide Security Protection
4.10
4.12
4.08
-1.1%
4.08
3.79
-8.1%
Embassy Security, Construction &
1.98
1.95
1.98
1.7%
2.00
1.98
1.7%
Maintenance
Educational & Cultural Exchange
0.74
0.74
0.74
0.1%
0.75
0.75
1.7%
Programs
International Organizations
3.00
2.96
3.59
21.2%
3.59
3.16
6.7%
U.S. Agency for Global Media
0.81
0.80
0.81
0.9%
0.82
0.89
10%
State and Related Agency Total
17.64
17.49
18.35
4.9%
18.20
17.72
1.3%
(includes Function 300 funding and other
commissions)
Sources: FY2022 SFOPS CBJ; H.R. 4373; P.L. 116-260; P.L. 117-43; P.L. 117-70; P.L. 117-103; CRS calculations.
State and Related Agency totals include additional funding for accounts not listed above.
a. Includes supplemental funding provided in P.L. 117-43 and P.L. 117-70.
Omnibus Appropriation. P.L. 117-103 included $17.21 billion in base State Department and
Related Agency funding and $154 million in supplemental funds to address the crisis in Ukraine,
bringing the total enacted funding for these accounts in FY2022 to nearly $17.73 billion
(including supplemental funding provided in the aforementioned continuing resolutions). This

8 U.S. Department of State, FY2022 Budget Request, slide presentation, May 28, 2021, p. 10.
Congressional Research Service

5

Department of State, Foreign Operations, and Related Programs

funding level is about a 1% increase from the aggregate funding provided for these accounts in
FY2021. When comparing nonemergency funding only, FY2022 appropriations comprise a 2%
increase from FY2021 funds. When all funding is considered, among the most significant funding
increases within these accounts is for the Emergencies in the Diplomatic and Consular Service
account, for which appropriations increased nearly 4,000%, from $7.89 million in FY2021 to
about $313 million in FY2022. Congress provided the entirety of this increase in P.L. 117-43 and
P.L. 117-70, largely to fund relocations of individuals at risk in Afghanistan and related expenses.
Among the accounts for which annual appropriations declined was Repatriations Loans, which is
used to provide direct emergency loans to assist U.S. citizens abroad who have no other source of
funds to return to the United States. Congress provided $1.3 million for this account in FY2022, a
48% decline from the $2.5 million included for this account in FY2021. This reflects a reduction
in demand for these loans following a surge during the early months of the COVID-19
pandemic.9
Consular and Border Security Programs
The Consular and Border Security Programs (CBSP) account funds many of the State Department’s core
consular functions, including the adjudication of visa and passport applications. While CBSP typically is funded
through consular fees and surcharges, fee col ections have declined considerably amid global travel restrictions
imposed during the COVID-19 pandemic.10 The Biden Administration forecasted that fee col ections would
remain below pre-COVID-19 levels during FY2022. It therefore requested that Congress provide a $320 mil ion
appropriation for the CBSP account, extend broadened fee expenditure and transfer authorities enacted during
the COVID-19 pandemic, and authorize new or increased consular fees or surcharges.11 Had it been enacted, the
House bil would have appropriated $320 mil ion for CBSP and included some, but not all, of the fee-related
legislative provisions the Biden Administration requested. Congress did not include an annual appropriation for
CBSP in P.L. 117-103. However, this law provided the State Department the authority, which the Biden
Administration did not request, to deposit passport fees currently transferred to the General Fund of the
Treasury to the CBSP account. Congress estimates that this wil provide at least $340 mil ion in additional
resources for consular operations in FY2022.12 P.L. 117-103 further contained some of the fee-related legislative
provisions the Biden Administration requested, including an extension of broadened authority for the State
Department to expend passport and immigrant visa surcharge col ections to provide consular services. Congress
originally included this authority in the CARES Act.13
Diplomatic Programs
The Diplomatic Programs account is the State Department’s principal operating appropriation and
funds several programs and functions, including
 most domestic and overseas Foreign Service and Civil Service personnel salaries;
 the State Department’s recruitment, diversity, and inclusion programs;
 public diplomacy programs; and
 the operations and programs of the State Department’s strategic and managerial
units, including the Bureaus of Administration, Budget and Planning, Information

9 U.S. Department of State, Congressional Budget Justification, Appendix 1: Department of State Diplomatic
Engagement, Fiscal Year 2022, p. 353.
10 To review the statutory authorization for the CBSP account, see Division J, Title VII, Section 7081 of P.L. 115-31.
11 U.S. Department of State, Congressional Budget Justification, Appendix 1, pp. 68-79.
12 See Section 7069(e) of Division K of P.L. 117-103 and Joint Explanatory Statement Accompanying Division K of
P.L. 117-103, p. 101.
13 See Section 7069(b) of Division K of P.L. 117-103.
Congressional Research Service

6

link to page 10 Department of State, Foreign Operations, and Related Programs

Resource Management (the State Department’s information technology bureau),
and Legislative Affairs, as well as the Office of the Chief of Protocol.14
The Biden Administration’s FY2022 request for the Diplomatic Programs account totaled $9.49
billion, approximately 1% more than the $9.37 billion Congress provided in FY2021. As part of
the Biden Administration’s stated commitment to revitalizing the foreign policy workforce, it
requested funding for an additional 485 Foreign Service and Civil Service positions, 337 of which
would have been funded through Diplomatic Programs.15 Within this request were 130 new
Foreign Service Officer positions the Administration indicated would have been focused on
advancing U.S. prosperity and countering Chinese economic influence, defending U.S. interests
against malign influence from Russia and other foreign actors, and engaging with the United
Nations and other organizations.16 The request included funding for 20 new Civil Service
positions to support the Bureau of Information Resource Management’s cybersecurity and risk
management programs.17
The Biden Administration’s Diplomatic Programs request also sought $46.5 million for diversity
and inclusion resources, which would have been $25.1 million more than the funding provided
for these purposes in FY2021.18 Among other priorities, the request proposed language for
inclusion in the FY2022 SFOPS appropriations measure that the State Department maintained
would have expanded its ability to offer paid internships and $10 million to fund such internships.
The State Department noted that providing compensation for interns would “ensure that all
eligible candidates can take advantage of [internship programs], regardless of background.”19 The
request also prioritized disability hiring programs; additional diversity and inclusion content
within orientation, leadership, and tradecraft classes for State Department personnel; and
coaching services for employees from under-represented groups.20
House Legislation. H.R. 4373 would have appropriated approximately $9.48 billion for
Diplomatic Programs. This overall funding level was less than the Biden Administration’s request
(see Table 2). The House bill sought to provide $3.22 billion for the Diplomatic Programs
account’s Human Resources funding category (through which funds are directed toward salaries
for domestic and overseas U.S. direct hire employees), identical to the Biden Administration’s
request for Human Resources.21 Additionally, the House Appropriations Committee report
accompanying this bill stated that it provided sufficient resources for the Administration to
“restore and expand” the State Department’s workforce.22 With respect to diversity and inclusion,
the committee report noted that the bill included funding for the State Department “to prioritize
initiatives aimed at making real and sustainable progress in diversifying our foreign policy

14 U.S. Department of State, Congressional Budget Justification: Department of State, Foreign Operations, and
Related Programs, Fiscal Year 2022, pp. 16-20.
15 Congressional Budget Justification, Appendix 1: Department of State Diplomatic Engagement, Fiscal Year 2022, p.
6.
16 Ibid., p. 48
17 Ibid., p. 50.
18 Ibid., p. 46.
19 Ibid., pp. 41, 95.
20 Ibid., pp. 90, 95-96.
21 U.S. Congress, House Committee on Appropriations, State Foreign Operations, and Related Programs
Appropriations Bill, 2022, report to accompany H.R. 4373, 117th Cong., 1st sess., H.Rept. 117-84, (Washington, DC:
GPO, 2020), p. 10; U.S. Department of State, Congressional Budget Justification, Appendix 1, pp. 48, 53.
22 House Committee on Appropriations, State Foreign Operations, and Related Programs Appropriations Bill, 2022, p.
4.
Congressional Research Service

7

Department of State, Foreign Operations, and Related Programs

workforce.”23 Furthermore, H.R. 4373 included language similar to what the State Department
requested that would have enabled the State Department to offer additional paid internships. The
committee report recommended not less than $10 million for this purpose, in line with the
Administration’s request.24
Omnibus and Supplemental Appropriations. The FY2022-enacted appropriations for the
Diplomatic Programs account (including supplemental funding) total $9.35 billion, or around
1.5% less than the Biden Administration request.25 Excluding all supplemental funding, which
comprises approximately $9.18 billion, the FY2022 appropriation is about 3% less than the Biden
Administration’s FY2022 request. Division K of P.L. 117-103, which included the annual
appropriation for Diplomatic Programs, provided the entirety of the $3.22 billion the Biden
Administration requested for the account’s Human Resources component. The joint explanatory
statement (JES) accompanying this law stated that it includes funding for additional State
Department Foreign Service and Civil Service positions. The JES further instructed the Secretary
of State to consult with Congress regarding staffing levels prior to submitting an operating plan to
Congress detailing the specific uses of these funds.26
The JES also stated that the FY2022 appropriation “includes funding above the fiscal year 2021
level for workforce diversity initiatives.”27 However, it did not fund all of the Biden
Administration’s diversity and inclusion priorities at requested levels. For example, the law
authorized the State Department to provide up to $8 million for paid internships, which is less
than the requested figure of $10 million.28 In other diversity and inclusion-related areas, the law
included funding above what the Biden Administration requested. In one case, the JES expressed
support for the State Department’s establishment of its Office of Diversity and Inclusion and
provided the Office $4 million in funding, which exceeded the Biden Administration’s request of
$3 million.29
Diplomatic Security
The Worldwide Security Protection (WSP) allocation within the Diplomatic Programs account
and the Embassy Security, Construction, and Maintenance (ESCM) account are often referred to
as the “diplomatic security accounts” within SFOPS. WSP funds the Bureau of Diplomatic
Security (DS), which is responsible for implementing the State Department’s security programs
to protect U.S. embassies and other overseas posts, diplomatic residences, and domestic State
Department offices.30 The ESCM account funds the Bureau of Overseas Building Operations,
which is tasked with providing U.S. diplomatic and consular missions overseas with secure,
functional, and resilient facilities and serving as the single manager for nonmilitary U.S.
Government real property abroad.31

23 Ibid., p. 6.
24 Ibid., p. 12. See also Section 7063(d)(4) of H.R. 4373.
25 In this context, “supplemental funding” means funding Congress provided for the Department of State and Related
Agency appropriations accounts in P.L. 117-43, P.L. 117-70, and Division M of P.L. 117-103.
26 Joint Explanatory Statement Accompanying Division K of P.L. 117-103, p. 7.
27 Ibid., p. 10.
28 Ibid., p. 10 and Section 7064(c) of Division K of P.L. 117-103.
29 Joint Explanatory Statement Accompanying Division K of P.L. 117-103, pp. 7, 9; U.S. Department of State,
Congressional Budget Justification, Appendix 1, p. 47
30 U.S. Department of State, Congressional Budget Justification, p. 20.
31 U.S. Department of State, Congressional Budget Justification, Appendix 1, pp. 2, 321.
Congressional Research Service

8

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

For FY2022, the Administration requested approximately $6.06 billion for the diplomatic security
accounts: $4.08 billion for WSP and $1.98 billion for ESCM. The Administration’s request was
less than the funding Congress provided for these accounts in FY2021 (see Table 3).
Table 3. Diplomatic Security Annual Appropriations, FY2020-FY2022
(In billions of current U.S. dollars, includes OCO funds)
% Change,
FY21
% Change, FY21
Enacted
FY2020
FY2021
FY2022
Enacted to
FY2022
FY2022
to FY22
Account
Actual
Enacted
Request
FY22 Request
House
Enacted
Enacted
Worldwide Security
4.10
4.12
4.08
-1.1%
4.08
3.79
-8.1%
Protection
Embassy Security,
1.98
1.95
1.98
1.7%
2.00
1.98
1.7%
Construction, and
Maintenance
Diplomatic
6.08
6.07
6.06
-0.2%
6.08
5.77
-4.9%
Security (total)
Sources: FY2022 SFOPS CBJ; H.R. 4373; P.L. 116-260; P.L. 117-103; 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.32
The Administration’s FY2022 WSP-funded priorities included 70 new DS overseas special agent
positions, which it maintained were “instrumental to reducing overseas staffing gaps and
mitigating future year retirement trends.”33 The request also sought funding for expanding the
Assistant Regional Security Officer Investigator (ARSO-I) program to combat visa and passport
fraud and related human trafficking concerns, among other priorities.34 With regard to ESCM, the
request called for around $1 billion for the State Department’s share of the Capital Security Cost
Sharing and Maintenance Cost Sharing Programs (CSCS/MCS), which fund the planning, design,
construction, and maintenance of the United States’ overseas diplomatic posts. The
Administration maintained that this request, when combined with contributions from other
agencies with overseas personnel, would have funded these programs at the $2.2 billion level
recommended by the Benghazi Accountability Review Board.35
House Legislation. H.R. 4373 would have appropriated funding for WSP at a level identical to
the Biden Administration’s request and included slightly more ($12.3 million) funding for
ESCM.36 H.R. 4373 did not directly address the Administration’s request for additional overseas

32 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 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.
33 U.S. Department of State, Congressional Budget Justification, Appendix 1, p. 51.
34 U.S. Department of State, Congressional Budget Justification, Appendix 1, pp. 304-305. For background on ARSO-I,
see U.S. Department of State, Bureau of Diplomatic Security, “The Investigative Global Force Multiplier: Diplomatic
Security Service’s Assistant Regional Security Officer-Investigators,” May 27, 2020, at https://www.state.gov/the-
investigative-global-force-multiplier-diplomatic-security-services-assistant-regional-security-officer-investigators/.
35 Ibid., p. 322-323.
36 The Biden Administration’s precise requests for WSP and ESCM, as provided in the State Department’s FY2022
Congressional Budget Justification, total $4,075,899,000 and $1,983,149,000, respectively. The funding totals in the
Congressional Research Service

9

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

DS special agents. The report accompanying this bill stated that it included the funding the
Administration required to hire additional State Department personnel more generally.37 Neither
the bill nor the committee report specifically addressed the proposed ARSO-I expansion.
However, the bill appeared to include sufficient funding to expand the program, as the overall
funding it would have appropriated for WSP was equal to the Administration’s request. Regarding
the ESCM account, the House bill would have provided around $2.12 billion for the CSCS/MCS
programs (when factoring in all funding sources), or nearly 4% less than the Biden
Administration’s request.38 The House bill would have also appropriated $12.3 million more than
the Biden Administration requested in overall funding for ESCM. Had it been enacted, the bill
would have thus included more funding than requested for other ESCM-funded priorities.39
Omnibus Appropriation. The FY2022 omnibus appropriations law, P.L. 117-103, included
$3.79 billion for WSP and $1.98 billion for ESCM, for a total of approximately $5.77 billion in
diplomatic security funding. This aggregate funding level is nearly 5% less than the Biden
Administration’s request. The funding Congress provided for WSP (around $290 million, or 7%,
less than the Administration’s request) may partially reflect reduced Afghanistan-related WSP
costs, for which the Administration requested nearly $580 million prior to the U.S. withdrawal
from that country.40 P.L. 117-103 also included funding for the WSP Human Resources
component equal to the Biden Administration’s request. The law therefore likely provided
sufficient resources for the State Department to bring on the 70 additional DS special agents it
requested pending consultation with Congress (see the “Omnibus and Supplemental
Appropriations” analysis under the “Diplomatic Programs” subsection of this report for more
detail regarding these consultation requirements). P.L. 117-103 did not specifically address
ARSO-I expansion but appears to have included sufficient resources for the State Department to
expand the program.
P.L. 117-103 also appropriated $1.98 billion in funding for ESCM, which is the same figure as the
Biden Administration’s overall request. The law provided resources for the CSCS/MCS program
and other programs funded through ESCM, including repair and construction projects that the
State Department maintains will address “critical maintenance requirements at existing legacy
facilities,” at levels identical to the Biden Administration’s request.41
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 43 international

House bill for WSP and ESCM total $4,075,899,000 and $1,995,449,000, respectively.
37 House Committee on Appropriations, State Foreign Operations, and Related Programs Appropriations Bill, 2022, p.
4.
38 The Biden Administration’s request totaled $2,204,997,000. If enacted, the House bill would provide
$2,124,000,000. See Congressional Budget Justification, Appendix 1, p. 323, and House Committee on Appropriations,
State Foreign Operations, and Related Programs Appropriations Bill, 2022, p. 24.
39 Such priorities may include the Compound Security Upgrade Program, which funds comprehensive security upgrade
projects at U.S. overseas posts and anti-ram vehicle barrier installations, among other projects. See U.S. Department of
State, Congressional Budget Justification, Appendix 1, p. 323.
40 U.S. Department of State, Congressional Budget Justification, Appendix 1, p. 307.
41 Ibid., p. 324 and Joint Explanatory Statement Accompanying Division K of P.L. 117-103, p. 16. While the State
Department’s budget request includes a transfer of around $42.5 million from the Consular and Border Security
Programs account to CSCS/MCS, Congress does not address this proposed transfer in the omnibus appropriations law.
Congressional Research Service

10

link to page 18 link to page 16 Department of State, Foreign Operations, and Related Programs

organizations. These include the United Nations (U.N.) and organizations in the U.N. system
(among them the World Health Organization, or WHO), inter-American organizations such as the
Organization of American States, and regional organizations including the North Atlantic Treaty
Organization (NATO).42 Separately, the United States pays its assessed contributions to U.N.
peacekeeping missions through the Contributions for International Peacekeeping Activities
(CIPA) account.43 U.S. funding to international organizations is also provided through various
SFOPS multilateral assistance accounts (see “Foreign Operations Highlights,” below).
The Biden Administration requested a combined $3.592 billion for these accounts for FY2022.
This funding level would have totaled a 21% increase from the funds Congress appropriated for
FY2021. Table 4 shows recent funding levels for each account.
Table 4. U.S. Payments of Assessments to International Organizations and
Peacekeeping Missions, FY2020-FY2022
(In billions of current U.S. dollars; includes OCO funds)
% Change,
% Change,
FY21
FY21 Enacted
Enacted to
FY2020
FY2021
FY2022
to FY22
FY2022
FY2022
FY22
Account
Actual
Enacted
Request
Request
House
Enacted
Enacted
Contributions to International
1.47
1.51
1.66
10.4%
1.66
1.66
10.4%
Organizations
Contributions for International
1.53
1.46
1.93
32.4%
1.93
1.50
2.9%
Peacekeeping Activities
Total
3.00
2.97
3.59
21.2%
3.59
3.16
6.7%
Sources: FY2022 SFOPS CBJ; H.R. 4373; P.L. 116-260; P.L. 117-103; CRS calculations.
Notes: Percentage changes may not reflect numbers included in this table due to rounding.
The Biden Administration maintained that its CIO request sought funding for “international
programs and organizations whose missions substantially advance U.S. foreign policy interests.”
The Administration further noted that the request reflected its expectation that international
organizations should “rein in costs,” improve their efficiency and effectiveness, enhance their
accountability and transparency, and share funding burdens more equitably among member
states.44 Among other priorities, the request asked for $75 million for payments to the U.N.
Educational, Scientific, and Cultural Organization (UNESCO).45 The Administration also
requested authority for the United States to rejoin UNESCO.46 The Trump Administration
withdrew the United States from UNESCO in 2018.47
For CIPA, the Biden Administration asserted that its FY2022 request advanced its intent to fully
fund the United States’ U.N. peacekeeping commitments and pay down over $900 million in

42 U.S. Department of State, Congressional Budget Justification, pp. 48-49.
43 Ibid., pp. 51-53.
44 U.S. Department of State, Congressional Budget Justification, pp. 48-49.
45 U.S. Department of State, Congressional Budget Justification, Appendix 1, p. 363
46 For additional background, see CRS In Focus IF10354, United Nations Issues: U.S. Funding to the U.N. System, by
Luisa Blanchfield.
47 For more information, see CRS Insight IN10802, U.S. Withdrawal from the United Nations Educational, Scientific
and Cultural Organization (UNESCO), by Luisa Blanchfield.
Congressional Research Service

11

Department of State, Foreign Operations, and Related Programs

arrears that had accumulated over the past four years (this figure excluded previously
accumulated arrears).48 The accumulation of such arrears owed in part to the United Nations’
current assessment of the U.S. share of U.N. peacekeeping budgets, which totals 27.89%. This
exceeds the 25% congressional cap on payments for this purpose that Congress has kept in place
since 1994 due to concerns that U.S. assessments are too high.49 The Biden Administration’s
request asked for $300 million to begin paying down such arrears; the Administration added its
intention to pay down the remainder in FY2023.50 The request also proposed language that, if
enacted, would have authorized the State Department to make funds appropriated in FY2022
available for U.N. peacekeeping missions above the aforementioned 25% statutory cap.51
House Legislation. The House bill would have funded CIO and CIPA at the levels the Biden
Administration requested. While the bill sought to provide an appropriation for CIO that was
equal to the Biden Administration’s request, which incorporated requested funding for UNESCO,
the bill did not include the waiver authority the Biden Administration called for that would have
allowed the United States to rejoin the organization. The House bill included both the $300
million the Biden Administration requested for the payment of peacekeeping arrears and
requested legislative language to allow the State Department to make funds available for U.N.
peacekeeping missions in excess of the 25% statutory cap.52
Omnibus Appropriation. Like the House bill, P.L. 117-103 funded CIO at a level equal to the
Biden Administration’s $1.66 billion request. While this included the funding the Biden
Administration sought for UNESCO, the bill did not include the aforementioned waiver authority
the Biden Administration said was necessary for the United States to rejoin UNESCO. The law
also appropriated $1.50 billion for CIPA, or about 22% less than both the Biden Administration’s
request and the amount the House bill included. While P.L. 117-103 provided nearly 3% more for
CIPA than Congress appropriated in FY2021, this increase may not be sufficient for the Biden
Administration to use $300 million of such funding to begin paying peacekeeping arrears, as
envisioned in the Administration’s request. The law also did not include the authorizing language
the Administration requested that would have allowed the State Department to fund U.N.
peacekeeping missions at levels exceeding the 25% statutory cap on the U.S. share of U.N.
peacekeeping mission budgets.

48 For an overview of U.N. peacekeeping arrears accumulated prior to 2017, see CRS In Focus IF10597, United
Nations Issues: U.S. Funding of U.N. Peacekeeping, by Luisa Blanchfield.
49 Over the years, the gap between the actual U.S. assessment and the 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 (excess U.N. funds from previous missions) 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 allowed
for the application of peacekeeping credits up to, but not beyond, the 25% cap—which has led to the accumulation of
about $920 million in U.S. arrears from FY2017 to FY2020. For more information, see CRS In Focus IF10597, United
Nations Issues: U.S. Funding of U.N. Peacekeeping, by Luisa Blanchfield. See also U.S. Department of State,
Congressional Budget Justification, p. 51.
50 U.S. Department of State, FY2022 Budget Request, slide presentation, p. 42.
51 SFOPS CBJ for FY2022 Appendix 1, p. 397. See also 22 U.S.C. §287e note.
52 House Committee on Appropriations, State Foreign Operations, and Related Programs Appropriations Bill, 2022, p.
6.
Congressional Research Service

12

link to page 18 link to page 19 link to page 19 Department of State, Foreign Operations, and Related Programs

Foreign Operations Highlights
The SFOPS appropriation’s foreign operations accounts comprise 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.53 The Biden Administration’s
initial FY2022 request for Foreign Operations accounts totaled $44.307 billion. The total foreign
assistance request, including the food assistance provided in the agriculture appropriation, totaled
$46.107 billion, which represented an 11% increase from FY2021-enacted nonemergency funds
(i.e., base and OCO) and a nearly 20% decrease from total enacted FY2021 appropriations (i.e.,
base, OCO, and emergency funds to address COVID-19 abroad, certain assistance for Sudan, and
humanitarian assistance for Afghanistan and Afghan refugees).
On March 2, 2022, the Administration requested supplemental foreign operations funding to
support needs related to Russia’s invasion of Ukraine, as well as the continued COVID-19
response abroad.54 For Ukraine, the request included a total of $5.0 billion, of which $2.75 billion
would have been for humanitarian assistance, $1.75 billion for economic assistance, and $500
million for security assistance.55 For COVID-19, the Administration requested a total of $4.25
billion in additional foreign operations funding, of which $3.50 billion would have been for
certain global health initiatives and $750 million for humanitarian assistance. With the
supplemental request, the Administration’s FY2022 foreign operations request totaled $53.56
billion, and the total foreign assistance request was $55.36 billion, or 3.5% less than the FY2021-
enacted funding level. See Table 5 for a more detailed breakdown.
Table 5. Foreign Assistance, by Type, FY2020-FY2022
(In millions of current U.S. dollars)
% Change,
% Change,
FY2021
FY2021
Total
Total
Enacted
Enacted
FY2021
vs. Total
vs.
FY2020
Enacted
FY2022
FY2022
FY2022
FY2022
FY2022
Type
Actual
Totala
Request
Request
House
Enacted
Enacted
USAID Administration
1,766.05
1,752.45
1,862.65
6.3%
1,790.62
2,003.15
14.3%
Global Health Programs
9,559.95
13,195.95
13,550.95
2.7%
10,641.45
9,830.00
-25.5%
Non-health Development Assistance
8,119.08
17,797.04
11,652.11
-34.5%
9,272.00
11,449.19
-35.7
(includes Treasury Technical Assistance)
Humanitarian Assistanceb
10,460.46
11,467.46
13,597.46
18.6%
10,267.46
15,798.85
37.8%
Independent Agencies
1,474.00
1,393.50
1,393.50
0.0%
1,430.00
1,404.50
0.8%
Security Assistance
9,013.95
9,004.03
9,683.89
7.5%
9,034.03
9,579.35
6.4%

53 For more on international food assistance programs, see CRS Report R45422, U.S. International Food Assistance:
An Overview, by Alyssa R. Casey and Emily M. Morgenstern.
54 See letter from OMB Acting Director Shalanda Young to Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi, at
https://www.whitehouse.gov/wp-content/uploads/2022/03/COVID-and-Ukraine-Supplemental-Funding-Request-
Pelosi.pdf.
55 For more on the Ukraine portion of the Administration’s supplemental request, see CRS Insight IN11877,
Supplemental Funding for Ukraine: Department of State, Foreign Operations, and Related Programs (SFOPS), by
Emily M. Morgenstern.
Congressional Research Service

13

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

% Change,
% Change,
FY2021
FY2021
Total
Total
Enacted
Enacted
FY2021
vs. Total
vs.
FY2020
Enacted
FY2022
FY2022
FY2022
FY2022
FY2022
Type
Actual
Totala
Request
Request
House
Enacted
Enacted
Multilateral Assistance
2,049.78
2,620.82
3,630.13
38.5%
4,098.56
2,374.46
-9.4%
Export Promotionc
59.16
159.00
-13.61
-108.6%
223.80
323.80
103.6%
Foreign Assistance Total
42,502.42
57,390.25
55,357.05
-3.5%
46,757.92
52,763.30
-8.1%
Sources: SFOPS CBJ for FY2022; H.R. 4373; H.R. 4356; P.L. 117-103; supplemental request submitted to
Congress on March 2, 2022; CRS calculations.
a. FY2021 enacted total includes emergency funding to address COVID-19 abroad, select assistance for Sudan,
and humanitarian assistance for Afghanistan and Afghan refugees.
b. Includes Food for Peace Act, Title II funds appropriated in annual Agriculture appropriations.
c. Export Promotion numbers are negative when anticipated receipts and other offsetting col ections are
expected to exceed appropriations, resulting in a net gain to the Treasury.
House Legislation. The House FY2022 legislation provided a total of $46.76 billion for foreign
assistance (includes food aid in the Agriculture appropriation, H.R. 4356). This represented a
nearly 19% increase from FY2021-enacted nonemergency funds, a 14% decrease from total
FY2021-enacted funding, and a 5% increase over the Biden Administration’s initial request.
Continuing Resolutions. The first continuing resolution for FY2022 (P.L. 117-43), which
expired on December 3, 2021, included a total of $1.89 billion in emergency funding to address
humanitarian needs in Afghanistan and to assist Afghan refugees, among other objectives. The
funds were provided through three accounts: International Disaster Assistance (IDA, $400
million), Migration and Refugee Assistance (MRA, $415 million), and Emergency Refugee and
Migration Assistance (ERMA, $1.08 billion). The second continuing resolution for FY2022 (P.L.
117-70), which expired on February 18, 2022, included $1.20 billion in supplemental ERMA
funds “for support for Operation Allies Welcome and related efforts by the Department of State,
including additional relocations of individuals at risk as a result of the situation in Afghanistan
and related expenses.” The CR also included a provision that required the Director of the Office
of Management and Budget to provide a report to Congress no later than January 15, 2022, on
Operation Allies Welcome that includes “a strategy and transition plan leading to the conclusion”
of the operation, among other details.
Omnibus Appropriation. P.L. 117-103 provided $40.95 billion in base foreign operations
funding and $9.74 billion in supplemental funds to address the crisis in Ukraine, bringing the total
foreign operations funding for FY2022 to nearly $50.69 billion, and foreign assistance funding to
$52.76 billion. This foreign assistance funding level represents an 8% decrease from total
FY2021 foreign assistance funding. However, when comparing nonemergency funding, FY2022-
enacted funding represents a 4% increase from the FY2021 funding level. The largest increase
among the foreign assistance funding categories was for export assistance, for which FY2022-
enacted appropriations are more than double the FY2021 funding. The largest funding reduction
when comparing FY2021- and FY2022-enacted appropriations was for non-health development
assistance accounts, which decreased by nearly 36% in total.
Congressional Research Service

14

Department of State, Foreign Operations, and Related Programs

Cross-Cutting Issues
The Biden Administration’s budget request articulated certain global priorities for FY2022. These
included responding to climate change through bilateral and multilateral efforts, addressing the
first- and second-order effects of the COVID-19 pandemic, and combating rising
authoritarianism.
Climate Change
The Biden Administration identified climate change response as a top priority. Multilaterally, the
Biden Administration proposed a $625 million contribution to the Green Climate Fund, which
would be the first U.S. contribution since FY2017. The request also included $300 million for the
Clean Technology Fund and $100 million for Multilateral Climate Change Adaptation Funds.
Bilaterally, the Administration asserted that the request “increas[es] investments in systemic
change that promotes adaptation resilience, renewable energy, and sustainable landscapes.”56 The
Administration included climate considerations in all regional-specific requests as well as certain
sector-specific requests such as those for food security and gender.57 The budget request also
incorporated climate-related priorities into independent agency requests, such as those for the
Peace Corps, Millennium Challenge Corporation, and the U.S. African Development Foundation.
House Legislation. The House bill, H.R. 4373, provided funds for both multilateral and bilateral
efforts to combat climate change. The bill included $1.60 billion for the Green Climate Fund and
$200 million for the Clean Technology Fund. The report designated additional funds for climate
efforts and directed agencies to incorporate climate into foreign assistance activities. For
example, it listed climate change as a key issue in a number of regions, including the Indo-
Pacific, Central America, and sub-Saharan Africa. The committee further directed that funds be
made available for “climate change integration at the activity level at USAID, especially to
increase the technical expertise of USAID staff related to climate change mitigation and
adaptation.”
Omnibus Appropriation. P.L. 117-103 included selected funding for climate change efforts but
not at the levels requested by the Administration or proposed in the House legislation. The bill
included $125 million for a Clean Technology Fund and $149 million for the Global Environment
Facility. The bill also directed that $185 million be made available for sustainable landscapes
programs, $270 million for adaptation programs, and $260 million for clean energy programs,
among other environmental initiatives. As in prior year appropriations, the legislation did not
include a contribution to the Green Climate Fund.58
COVID-19
The FY2022 request proposed funds to address the first-order effects of the COVID-19 pandemic,
including global health and humanitarian needs; second- and third-order effects, such as food
security, education, and economic challenges; and long-term pandemic preparedness efforts. The
proposed investments for COVID-19 response included, among others,

56 SFOPS CBJ for FY2022, p. 80.
57 Ibid.
58 For more detailed information on U.S. funding for international climate programs, see CRS In Focus IF12036, U.S.
International Climate Finance: FY2022, by Richard K. Lattanzio.
Congressional Research Service

15

Department of State, Foreign Operations, and Related Programs

 $995 million for Global Health Security to “enhance the global COVID response
and strengthen global health security”;59
 humanitarian assistance funds through the International Disaster Assistance
(IDA) and Migration and Refugee Assistance (MRA) accounts to aid the most
vulnerable populations and maintain “global response capacity” in the wake of
COVID-19;60
 Development Assistance (DA) education funds to “address the global learning
crisis and respond to the impact of COVID-19 on education”;61 and
 Economic Support Fund (ESF) monies to help regions recover from the
economic effects of COVID-19.62
The Administration’s supplemental request for COVID-19, submitted on March 2, 2022, included
an additional $4.25 billion for foreign operations accounts. According to the request, $3.5 billion
would have been for global health programs—including $1.8 billion for the U.S. Global VAX
initiative and $1.7 billion for other COVID-19 global health interventions (e.g., therapeutics and
supplies)—and $750 million would have been for humanitarian assistance, including the
provision of emergency food assistance.
House Legislation. The report accompanying the House measure (H.Rept. 117-84) noted that the
bill
makes a strong commitment to a global health architecture where every country has the
systems and policies to proactively respond to, and mitigate, emerging health threats ...
[and] provides a renewed commitment to development and the economic security of
countries seeking to recover from the ravages of the pandemic including closed schools,
lost livelihoods, and rising levels of gender-based violence and discrimination.
The measure and accompanying report provided $1 billion for Global Health Security; directed
the USAID Administrator to address learning loss due to COVID-19, including through
expanding access to distance learning materials and technology; and recommended that USAID
design COVID-19-sensitive water, sanitation, and hygiene (WASH) programs, among other
provisions.
Omnibus Appropriation. The draft omnibus appropriation included a division with
supplemental funding for COVID-19, including for select SFOPS accounts. However, the
division was removed from the bill prior to its enactment.63 The enacted bill, P.L. 117-103,
included directives related to pandemics and other infectious disease outbreaks but did not
designate specific funding levels for such purposes, with the exception of the Emergency Reserve
Fund, which may receive up to $100 million.
Rising Authoritarianism
The Biden Administration’s budget proposed funds to address rising authoritarianism and
democratic backsliding, including in the context of COVID-19. A proposed $100 million for

59 Ibid., p. 77.
60 Ibid., pp. 84 and 95.
61 Ibid., p. 81.
62 Ibid., pp. 87-88.
63 Laura Weiss, David Lerman, Lindsey McPherson, et al., “Pandemic aid bill pulled as House aims to wrap up
omnibus,” Roll Call, March 9, 2022.
Congressional Research Service

16

link to page 23 Department of State, Foreign Operations, and Related Programs

USAID’s Bureau for Democracy, Development, and Innovation (DDI)—which was level when
compared to the FY2021 appropriation—was to elevate “anti-corruption, human rights, and
countering authoritarianism as strategic and programmatic priorities.”64 The Administration also
included these priorities in some of its regional requests. The Assistance to Europe, Eurasia, and
Central Asia proposal for Europe and Eurasia, for example, was “focused on defending
democracy, rule of law, advancing human rights and gender equality, fighting corruption, and
countering authoritarianism.”65
House Legislation. The House report accompanying H.R. 4373 asserted its support for the
Administration’s “commitment to strengthening and preserving democracies worldwide.” It
provided funds for the Democracy Fund at the level the Administration requested—which would
have been even with the FY2021-enacted level—and provided additional funds for multilateral
efforts, such as $4.5 million for the Organization of American States (OAS) Fund for
Strengthening Democracy and $3.5 million for the U.N. Democracy Fund.
Omnibus Appropriation. The FY2022 omnibus legislation included a total of $340 million for
the Democracy Fund, a 17% increase over the FY2021-enacted level and the Administration’s
request for FY2022. The bill also directed that not less than $2.60 billion be made available for
democracy programs in FY2022, an increase of $183 million from the amount designated in
FY2021. The Joint Explanatory Statement accompanying the legislation also designated $4.5
million in the OAS Fund for Strengthening Democracy and $3.5 million for the U.N. Democracy
Fund, consistent with the House-passed legislation.
Foreign Operations Sectors
Global Health Programs (GHP)66
Most of the global health funding in the USAID and the Department of State budgets is used for
the U.S. President’s Emergency Plan for AIDS Relief (PEPFAR) and infectious disease control
(see Table 6).67 The Biden Administration initially requested $10.05 billion in total for global
health programs in FY2022, a nearly 24% decrease from total FY2021 Global Health Programs
account funding but a 9% increase when FY2021 emergency funds are excluded. Funding for
global health security programs would have increased by $825 million, or more than 429%, from
FY2021 enacted nonemergency funding. The increase appeared to reflect the Administration’s
interest in pandemic preparedness efforts in light of the COVID-19 pandemic.68 The Biden
Administration announced in January 2021 that it would reengage with WHO, and included “the
repayment of arrears” to WHO in the President’s FY2022 discretionary funding request
summary.69 These actions reversed the Trump Administration’s decision to halt U.S. funding to
the WHO and “terminate” the U.S. relationship with the organization.70

64 Ibid., p. 91.
65 Ibid., p. 92.
66 Prepared by Sara Tharakan, Analyst in Global Health and International Development, and Tiaji Salaam-Blyther,
Specialist in Global Health.
67 For more information, see CRS In Focus IF11758, U.S. Global Health Funding: FY2017-FY2022 Request, by Tiaji
Salaam-Blyther. Congress also appropriates global health funding to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention,
all of which is focused on infectious disease prevention and control.
68 SFOPS CBJ for FY2022.
69 White House, The President’s FY2022 Discretionary Budget Request, April 9, 2021, p. 26.
70 For more on the Trump Administration’s decisions regarding WHO, as well as the withdrawal process, see CRS
Congressional Research Service

17

Department of State, Foreign Operations, and Related Programs

The Biden Administration also
 reversed the Mexico City Policy which, when invoked by previous presidents,
required nongovernmental organizations (NGOs) receiving U.S. foreign
assistance for family planning programs to certify that they would not promote or
perform abortion as a method of family planning, even with non-U.S. funds; and
 revoked the Protecting Life in Global Health Assistance policy, which expanded
the Mexico City Policy on family planning and reproductive health (FP/RH)
funding to include all U.S. global health assistance.71
Additionally, the FY2022 budget request sought funding increases for FP/RH programs (+$26
million), as well as for maternal and child health (+$24.5 million).72
As noted above, the Administration submitted to Congress a supplemental funding request in
March 2022 to address COVID-19 abroad, including $3.5 billion for global health programs. This
brought the total FY2022 request for the Global Health Programs account to $13.55 billion, or
about 2.7% more than the FY2021 total enacted funding.
Table 6. Global Health Appropriations, FY2018-FY2022
(In millions of current U.S. dollars)
FY2018
FY2019
FY2020
FY2021
FY2022
FY2022
FY2022

Enacted
Enacted
Enacted
Enacted
Request
House
Enacted
HIV/AIDS
4,320.0
4,370.0
4,370.0
4,370.0
4,370.0
4,520.0
4,390.0
Global Fund
1,350.0
1,350.0
1,560.0
1,560.0
1,560.0
1,560.0
1,560.0
Total, State-GHP
5,670.0
5,720.0
5,930.0
5,930.0
5,930.0
6,080.0
5,950.0
HIV/AIDS
330.0
330.0
330.0
330.0
330.0
330.0
330.0
Tuberculosis
261.0
302.0
310.0
319.0
319.0
469.0
371.1
Malaria
755.0
755.0
770.0
770.0
770.0
820.0
775.0
MCH
829.5
835.0
851.0
855.0
879.5
880.0
890.0
Nutrition
125.0
145.0
150.0
150.0
150.0
160.0
155.0
Vulnerable
23.0
24.0
25.0
25.0
25.0
30.0
27.5
Children
FP/RH
524.0
524.0
524.0
524.0
550.0
760.0
524.0
NTDs
100.0
102.5
102.5
102.5
102.5
112.5
107.5
GHS
72.5
100.0
100.0
190.0
995.0
1,000.0
700.0
Total, USAID-
3,020.0
3,117.5
3,162.5
3,265.5
4,121.0
4,561.5
3,880.0
GHP
Emergency GHP

4,000.0
3,500.0

Total, GHP
8,690.0
8,837.5
9,092.5
13,195.5
13,551.0
10,641.5
9,830.0

Report R46575, U.S. Withdrawal from the World Health Organization: Process and Implications, coordinated by Tiaji
Salaam-Blyther.
71 For more information on the MCP see CRS Report R41360, Abortion and Family Planning-Related Provisions in
U.S. Foreign Assistance Law and Policy, by Luisa Blanchfield.
72 SFOPS CBJ for FY2022.
Congressional Research Service

18

link to page 31 link to page 25 Department of State, Foreign Operations, and Related Programs

Sources: Created by Tiaji Salaam-Blyther, Specialist in Global Health, from appropriations legislation and
engagement with USAID legislative affairs staff.
Notes: FY2021 emergency supplemental funding to combat COVID-19 abroad was enacted in Title IX of P.L.
116-260, but subaccount allocations were not specified. Table does not include funding for global health from
other appropriations vehicles (e.g., CDC funding for global health activities appropriated through Labor-HHS).
MCH = Maternal and Child Health; FP/RH = Family Planning and Reproductive Health; NTDs = Neglected
Tropical Diseases; GHS = Global Health Security.
House Legislation. The House measure, H.R. 4373, provided $10.64 billion in global health
funding for FY2022. The bill provided level or increased funding for each global health
subaccount when compared with the Biden Administration’s initial request. Compared with the
Administration’s initial request, the bill provided the largest increase (in dollar amount) to Family
Planning/Reproductive Health programs and emphasized global health security and health
systems strengthening.
Omnibus Appropriation. The omnibus appropriation, P.L. 117-103, provided $9.83 billion in
global health funding for FY2022 but did not include the emergency COVID-19 funding
requested by the Administration, which Congress continues to debate (see “Outlook” section,
below). The enacted funding represents an increase of $634.5 million (7%) compared with
FY2021-enacted nonemergency funding (i.e., excluding the $4 billion in FY2021 supplemental
funding to combat COVID-19). The legislation provided level or increased funding for each
global health subaccount compared with FY2021-enacted levels. However, compared with the
President’s amended request, the legislation decreased funding to FP/RH (-5%) and Global
Health Security (-30%), and total GHP funding by more than 27%.
Humanitarian Assistance73
The U.S. government supports global efforts to assist people affected by conflict and natural
disasters, consistently providing about one-third of total global humanitarian assistance. Such
assistance is generally appropriated through global humanitarian accounts administered through
the State Department and USAID, including the Migration and Refugee Assistance (MRA),
Emergency Refugee and Migration Assistance (ERMA), and International Disaster Assistance
(IDA) accounts in the SFOPS appropriation, and the Food for Peace, Title II account (FFP) in the
Agriculture appropriation. Continuing a long-standing trend across Administrations, Congress has
supported global humanitarian efforts at appropriation levels well above the budget request (see
Figure 3).
Data show that the scope of global humanitarian and displacement crises has significantly
worsened in the past 25 years. 74 According to the United Nations, the projected numbers of those
displaced or requiring humanitarian assistance in 2022 are the highest on record, in part due to the
ongoing COVID-19 pandemic, which continues to exacerbate drivers of humanitarian need.75 The
U.N. 2022 global humanitarian appeal for $41.00 billion was the highest ever. Enacted FY2021

73 Prepared by Rhoda Margesson, Specialist in International Humanitarian Policy.
74 The New Humanitarian, “Change in the Humanitarian Sector, in Numbers,” September 9, 2020.
75 The United Nations estimates that in 2022, more than 274 million people will require humanitarian assistance and
protection and over 8.4 million persons will be forcibly displaced, the highest number on record. In addition, natural
disasters and deepening environmental vulnerability due to climate change affect millions of people every year. U.N.
Office for the Coordination of Humanitarian Affairs, Global Humanitarian Overview 2022, December 2, 2021. U.N.
humanitarian funding appeals are administered through UNOCHA and bring many aid organizations together to
coordinate a response to major humanitarian crises and disasters worldwide, usually in the form of an appeal for funds
through a collaborative plan. U.N. High Commissioner for Refugees, Mid-Year Trends Report, November 2021 (latest
available).
Congressional Research Service

19

Department of State, Foreign Operations, and Related Programs

U.S. humanitarian funding totaled $11.467 billion, which was also a record high. This total
included emergency supplemental funds from P.L. 117-31 (comprising $500 million for ERMA
and $100 million for MRA to address humanitarian needs in Afghanistan and to assist Afghan
refugees) and at least $800 million in FFP funds and $500 million in MRA funds provided for a
broad range of needs through the American Rescue Plan Act of 2021 (ARPA, P.L. 117-2).76
The Biden Administration’s initial budget request for FY2022 called for $10.10 billion in
humanitarian assistance to support displaced and vulnerable persons worldwide, or about 12%
below the FY2021-enacted total. The request included $3.85 billion for MRA, $100 million for
ERMA, $4.68 billion for IDA, and $1.57 billion for FFP. It would have shifted $170.0 million
from FFP to IDA’s Emergency Food Security Program in a stated effort to increase flexibility in
addressing urgent and growing food insecurity.
The Administration’s supplemental request for aid to Ukraine and assistance to address COVID-
19 abroad sought $3.50 billion in additional FY2022 humanitarian assistance ($2.75 billion for
Ukraine, $750 million for COVID-19), including the provision of emergency food assistance.
This supplemental request brought the Administration’s total FY2022 humanitarian assistance
request to $13.60 billion.
Figure 3. U.S. Humanitarian Assistance, by Account (FY2014-FY2022)

Sources: Annual SFOPS CBJs and Omnibus Funding Legislation.
Notes: MRA = Migration and Refugee Assistance, ERMA = Emergency Refugee and Migration Assistance, IDA =
International Disaster Assistance, IHA = International Humanitarian Assistance, FFP = Food for Peace. FY2020
enacted funding includes supplemental COVID-19 relief appropriations. FY2021-enacted funding includes
emergency supplemental funds from P.L. 117-31 and ARPA. Figure produced with Edward Col ins-Chase, Analyst
in Foreign Policy.
*An IHA consolidated account was proposed under the Trump Administration. Congress did not enact the
proposed funding reductions or changes to the humanitarian account structure.

76 Section 10003 of ARPA also included $3.09 billion under the Economic Support Fund authority “to be made
available to the United States Agency for International Development to prevent, prepare for, and respond to
coronavirus, which shall include support for international disaster relief, rehabilitation, and reconstruction, for
health activities, and to meet emergency food security needs.” It is unclear if any of these funds are to be administered
through the global humanitarian accounts.
Congressional Research Service

20

link to page 9 link to page 9 link to page 18 Department of State, Foreign Operations, and Related Programs

House Legislation. The House measure, H.R. 4373, would have provided $8.53 billion in
humanitarian funding through the MRA, ERMA, and IDA accounts. The House Agriculture
appropriations bill, H.R. 4356, would have provided $1.74 billion in FFP funding, bringing the
total for humanitarian assistance to nearly $10.27 billion for FY2022, which represented an
increase of close to 2% over the Administration’s initial request.
Continuing Resolutions. The first FY2022 CR, the Extending Government Funding and
Delivering Emergency Assistance Act (P.L. 117-43), provided an additional $1.89 billion in
humanitarian assistance to address needs in, and assist refugees from, Afghanistan.77 A second
continuing resolution, the Further Extending Government Funding Act (P.L. 117-70), included an
additional $1.20 billion in humanitarian assistance through the ERMA account primarily to
support relocation and resettlement activities related to the evacuation of Afghans from
Afghanistan.78
Omnibus Appropriation. The FY2022 full year appropriation, P.L. 117-103, included $6.82
billion in regular SFOPS humanitarian assistance accounts ($3.90 billion for MRA, $0.01 million
for ERMA, $2.91 billion for IDA) and $1.74 billion in FFP, for a total of $8.56 billion in enduring
humanitarian assistance appropriations. In addition, Congress appropriated $4.15 billion in
humanitarian assistance for the Ukraine response79 (close to a 34% increase over the
Administration’s Ukraine supplemental request for humanitarian assistance). This amount
included $4.05 billion for SFOPS accounts, ($1.4 billion for MRA and $2.65 billion for IDA),
and $100 million for FFP.
In sum, Congress has appropriated $15.80 billion for the humanitarian assistance accounts for
FY2022. This represents a near 38% increase in total humanitarian appropriations compared with
total enacted humanitarian assistance funding for FY2021, largely due to the additional funding
provided for the humanitarian responses in Afghanistan and Ukraine. Excluding supplemental
humanitarian funding, Congress has appropriated a total of $8.56 billion for humanitarian
assistance in FY2022, an 11% decrease from enacted FY2021 funding levels and approximately
15% below the Administration’s initial FY2022 budget request.

77 P.L. 117-43, Division C, Title IV included $400 million for IDA, $415 million for MRA, and $1,076.1 million for
ERMA.
78 Account details for the supplemental funding in the continuing resolutions is provided in the “State Department
Operations and Related Agency Funding Highlights” and “Foreign Operations Highlights” sections of this report.
79 See Division N of P.L. 117-103—the Ukraine Supplemental Appropriations Act, 2022.
Congressional Research Service

21

link to page 27

Department of State, Foreign Operations, and Related Programs

Security Assistance
The Biden Administration’s initial request
included $9.18 billion in security assistance, a
Figure 4. Security Assistance by Account,
2% increase when compared with FY2021
FY2020-FY2022
enacted levels (see Figure 4). As in past
(In billions of current U.S. dollars)
years, Foreign Military Financing (FMF)
accounted for the largest share of security
assistance funding. The largest proposed
increase was to the International Narcotics
Control and Law Enforcement (INCLE)
account. The Administration asserted that the
10% proposed increase in INCLE would
largely help address the crime and violence
that contribute to irregular migration to the
United States, particularly from Central
America. According to the request, $570
million, or 37% of proposed INCLE funding,
would be allocated to these efforts in Central
America. Other security assistance priorities
identified in the request are countering
terrorist threats, including those posed by the
Islamic State (IS) and Al Qaeda; supporting
implementation of the Global Fragility Act of

2019 (Div. J, Title V of P.L. 116-94); and
Sources: FY2022 SFOPS CBJ; P.L. 116-260; P.L. 117-
103.
countering malign influences of China,
Notes: FMF = Foreign Military Financing; IMET =
Russia, and Iran. The Administration also
International Military Education and Training; INCLE
sought to bolster regional stability in the
= International Narcotics Control and Law
Middle East through Peacekeeping
Enforcement; NADR = Nonproliferation, Anti-
Operations (PKO) support for the
terrorism, Demining and Related Programs; PKO =
Multinational Force and Observers mission in
Peacekeeping Operations.
the Sinai.
The Administration’s supplemental budget request, made in March 2022, included an additional
$500 million in FMF funds to support Ukraine, bringing the total FY2022 security assistance
request to $9.68 billion.
House Legislation. H.R. 4373 would have provided $9.0 billion in security assistance,
representing a less than 1% increase from FY2021-enacted levels and a nearly 2% decrease from
the Administration’s original request.
Omnibus Appropriation. For FY2022, Congress has appropriated a total of $9.58 billion in
security assistance through P.L. 117-103: $8.90 billion in enduring funds and $680 million in
supplemental funding for Ukraine ($650 million in FMF and $30 million in INCLE). The base
security assistance funding represents a 1% decrease in funding compared with FY2021 levels
and a 3% decrease from the President’s request. With emergency funding, the total amount
appropriated for security assistance represents a 6% increase over FY2021 funding and 1% less
than the President’s total request.
Congressional Research Service

22

link to page 28 Department of State, Foreign Operations, and Related Programs

Development Assistance, Export Promotion, and Related Assistance
The remaining third of the FY2022 foreign operations request proposed to allocate funds to non-
health development sectors, independent agencies, multilateral assistance, and export promotion
agencies.
Development Sectors
The Biden Administration’s request for FY2022 did not specify dollar amounts for many non-
health development sectors but offered detail on program priorities within some sectors. For
example, the Administration highlighted investments in gender equality and equity, including
$200 million in proposed funds for the Gender Equity and Equality Action Fund, which the Biden
Administration named as the successor to the Trump Administration’s Women’s Global
Development and Prosperity (W-GDP) Fund. Other key program areas included climate change
and the environment, democracy promotion and countering the rise of global authoritarianism,
and food security—in particular the Feed the Future Initiative.
House Legislation. When compared with FY2021-enacted levels, the House measure (H.R.
4373) would have provided level or increased funding for most non-health development sectors
in FY2022 (see Table 7). The education sector would have seen a decrease of $35 million (3%).
The largest increase was proposed for environmental programs, which would have seen an
increase of $303.5 million (31%) over prior year appropriations.
Table 7. Select Development Sectors, FY2020-FY2022
(In millions of current U.S. dollars)
FY2020
FY2021
FY2022
FY2022
Sector
Enacted
Enacted
House
Enacted
Democracy Programs (excluding NED)
2,400.0
2,417.0
2,517.0
2,600.0
Education (basic and higher)
1,110.0
1,235.0
1,200.0
1,200.0
Food Security
1,005.6
1,010.6
1,100.0
1,010.6
Environment
906.7
986.7
1,290.2
1,295.0
Water and Sanitation
450.0
450.0
475.0
475.0
Gender
330.0
560.0
617.0
560.0
Trafficking in Persons
67.0
99.0
106.4
106.4
Reconciliation Programs
30.0
25.0
25.0
25.0
Micro and Small Enterprise
265.0
265.0
265.0
265.0
Sources: P.L. 116-94; P.L. 116-260; H.R. 4373; P.L. 117-103.
Notes: NED = National Endowment for Democracy.
Omnibus Appropriation. In the FY2022 omnibus appropriation, Congress largely provided level
or increased funding for the non-health development sectors. The one exception was for
education, which decreased by 3% compared with FY2021. Sectors receiving funding increases
compared to prior-year funding include environmental programs (31%), Democracy Programs
(7.6%), Water and Sanitation (5.5%), and Trafficking in Persons (8%).
Congressional Research Service

23

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

Independent Agencies
The Administration’s request for FY2022 would have maintained level funding for the Peace
Corps, Inter-American Foundation (IAF), U.S. African Development Foundation (USADF), and
the Millennium Challenge Corporation (MCC) when compared with FY2021-enacted levels. The
House measure, H.R. 4373, provided increases to the Peace Corps (5%), IAF (17%), and USADF
(30%), and maintained level funding for MCC for FY2022 when compared with FY2021-enacted
levels. The FY2022 Omnibus, P.L. 117-103, keeps level funding for both the Peace Corps and
MCC compared with FY2021 but increases funding for the IAF (11%) and USADF (21%).
Multilateral Assistance
As part of its stated efforts to strengthen U.S. multilateral engagement, the Administration’s
budget request included increases to multilateral assistance for FY2022 when compared with total
enacted funding for FY2021. The largest proposed increase was to the International Development
Association, a World Bank agency that provides grants and loans to the world’s least developed
countries; it would have been a nearly 43% increase over the FY2021-enacted level. As stated
above, the request also proposed funds for climate efforts including the Green Climate Fund (see
“Climate Change”).
House Legislation. H.R. 4373 would have provided a total of $4.1 billion for multilateral
assistance accounts for FY2022, representing a 13% increase from the Biden Administration’s
request. The House measure emphasized the Green Climate Fund, providing $1.60 billion for
FY2022, a 156% increase from the Administration’s proposed $625 million. The House bill did
not increase funding for the International Development Association, instead appropriating level
funding when compared to FY2021.
Omnibus Appropriation. P.L. 117-103 provided a total of $2.37 billion for multilateral
assistance accounts for FY2022, which represented an increase of 16% compared with enduring
(nonemergency) funds for such accounts for FY2021 and a decrease of 35% compared with the
Administration’s request. Compared with FY2021 enduring funds, all multilateral accounts
received level or increased funding with the International Fund for Agriculture and Development
(IFAD) receiving the largest increase (32%).
Export Promotion
For FY2022, the Administration proposed increases to the Export-Import (Ex-Im) Bank and the
U.S. International Development Finance Corporation (DFC) operating accounts to support agency
priorities such as climate change response, clean energy, and sustainable infrastructure. In both
instances, the Administration asserted that offsetting collections would reduce the agencies’
budget burden. The Administration stated its expectation that the Ex-Im Bank would return funds
to the Treasury at the end of the fiscal year, as it had in previous fiscal years. Similarly, while the
Administration stated that it does not expect the DFC to be entirely budget neutral, it asserted that
collections would reduce the agency’s budget burden to $128.4 million with an estimated $472.4
million in offsetting collections.
House Legislation. H.R. 4373 largely met the Administration’s proposed funding for the Ex-Im
Bank and DFC. An exception was the Ex-Im Bank’s program budget, which would have seen a
decrease of $5 million (50%) from the Administration’s proposal. The House legislation provided
increased funding for Ex-Im Bank and DFC when compared with the FY2021-enacted levels.
Omnibus Appropriation. In P.L. 117-103, Congress maintained level funding for the Ex-Im
Bank and U.S. Trade and Development Agency in FY2022 but increased funding for the DFC by
Congressional Research Service

24

link to page 30

Department of State, Foreign Operations, and Related Programs

65% compared with FY2021 appropriations and by 148% compared with the Administration’s
request. As in prior years, the Ex-Im Bank is expected to return funds to the Treasury at the end of
the fiscal year.
Regional Assistance
Similar to previous Administrations, the Biden Administration did not propose regional funding
that captured all appropriations accounts. For example, humanitarian funding was proposed and
provided for in what are often referred to as “global” accounts, wherein funding is allocated on a
needs basis throughout the fiscal year for which it is appropriated. As such, the entirety of foreign
assistance funding for a particular country or region is assessed fully only after the close of a
fiscal year.
However, the Administration did propose regional funding for certain accounts. These included
Global Health Programs (GHP); DA; ESF; Assistance to Europe, Eurasia, and Central Asia
(AEECA); and all five security assistance accounts. For FY2022, the Administration initially
proposed increases in all regions with the exception of Europe and Eurasia, which would have
seen a nearly 4% decrease in funding when compared with FY2020 actual levels (see Figure 5).80
The greatest proposed increase was for funding to the Western Hemisphere, largely to help the
region address the root causes of migration to the United States.
Figure 5. Regional Assistance, FY2020 vs. FY2022 Request

Sources: FY2022 SFOPS Congressional Budget Justification; CRS calculations for FY2020.
Notes: FY2020 is the most recent “actual” data available. Accounts included = GHP, DA, ESF, AEECA, INCLE,
NADR, PKO, IMET, and FMF. FY2020 Actual includes COVID-19 emergency funds.
House Legislation. The House legislation and accompanying report did not provide
comprehensive regional allocations, but did specify assistance levels for several countries and
regions. For example, the measure directed that up to $860.6 million could have been made
available for assistance to Central American countries.81 The legislation also directed that not less

80 FY2020 actuals are used as a comparison because comprehensive country- and regional-specific levels are not
provided in annual appropriations measures. FY2021 total funding levels for most countries have not been reported.
81 Including Belize, Costa Rica, El Salvador, Guatemala, Honduras, Nicaragua, and Panama. Funds may also be
programmed through the Central America Regional Security Initiative (CARSI).
Congressional Research Service

25

Department of State, Foreign Operations, and Related Programs

than $3.3 billion be made available for Israel, not less than $1.4 billion for Egypt, not less than
$481.5 million for assistance for Ukraine, and not less than $132.0 million for assistance for
Georgia, among other designations.
Omnibus Appropriation. The ominbus appropriation, P.L. 117-103, also did not include
comprehensive country- and region-specific allocations. As in prior year appropriations, though,
the measure did include directives for some countries and regions. For example, the law specified
that not less than $3.3 billion shall be made available for Israel, not less than $1.6 billion for the
Indo-Pacific Strategy, and not less than $1.4 billion for Egypt, among other designations. As
noted above, Division N of the bill also provides supplemental appropriations for Ukraine,
including $6.65 billion in foreign operations accounts. These funds were not allocated by country
or region but are likely to increase aid to Europe and Eurasia in FY2022 significantly relative to
FY2021.
Outlook
Although Congress enacted a full year SFOPS appropriation for FY2022 in March 2022, and the
FY2023 budget process is underway, appropriations for FY2022 may not be complete. Members
continue to debate the possible need for additional funding in the remaining months of FY2022,
primarily for the following purposes:
Ukraine. The Russian invasion of Ukraine prompted the Administration to ask Congress for $5
billion in additional FY2022 SFOPS funding to address military, economic, and humanitarian
needs in Ukraine and neighboring counties. Congress included $6.8 billion in emergency SFOPS
funds in the FY2022 omnibus bill for this purpose. As the fighting in Ukraine continues, and the
refugee crisis worsens, Congress may consider supplemental appropriations to provide additional
aid to in the region.
COVID-19. The Administration’s supplemental budget request also included $4.25 billion in
additional FY2022 SFOPS funds to address COVID-19. A draft version of the omnibus bill
included emergency COVID-19 funding within SFOPS accounts, but the funding was removed
from the legislation during final negotiations. Members reportedly are still negotiating a potential
COVID-19 emergency supplemental appropriations bill for FY2022.82
U.S. Diplomatic Presence in Afghanistan. The withdrawal of U.S. military and diplomatic
personnel from Afghanistan in August 2021 occurred after the State Department submitted its
initial FY2022 budget request to Congress and the House of Representatives passed its SFOPS
bill. For FY2022, the Biden Administration requested approximately $579.6 million for
diplomatic security-related priorities in Afghanistan, including the deployment of weaponry on
new Embassy Air helicopters and armored vehicle replacements.83 The Administration also
requested an additional $70.8 million for diplomatic programs in Afghanistan, including mission
staffing and operations, along with information technology costs.84 Although the United States
and Qatar reached an agreement to establish a U.S. Interests Section located within the Qatari
Embassy in Kabul, it does not appear that this agreement involves the assignment of U.S.
personnel to the Interests Section.85 It remains unclear when, or if, the United States will

82 Lindsay McPherson, “Bipartisan talks on pandemic aid offsets underway in Senate,” Congressional Quarterly, March
22, 2022, available at https://plus.cq.com/doc/news-6491010?1&srcpage=home&srcsec=cqn.
83 SFOPS CBJ for FY2022 Appendix 1, p. 307.
84 Ibid., p. 154.
85 Humeyra Pamuk and Jonathan Landay, “Blinken says Qatar to act as U.S. diplomatic representative in Afghanistan,”
Reuters, November 12, 2021.
Congressional Research Service

26

Department of State, Foreign Operations, and Related Programs

reestablish a larger diplomatic presence in Afghanistan, and what the funding requirements to
sustain such a presence may look like.
Congressional Research Service

27

link to page 39 link to page 39 link to page 39 link to page 39 link to page 39
Appendix A. SFOPS Funding, by Account
Table A-1. Department of State, Foreign Operations, and Related Programs Appropriations: FY2021-FY2022
(In millions of U.S. dollars; numbers in parentheses are the portion of the account totals designated as OCO or emergency funds)
FY2022 Omnibus
% Change % Change
FY2022
FY2022
FY2022
CR 2

FY2022
FY2021
FY2021
House-
Senate
CR 1
P.L.
P.L. 117-
FY2022
Req. to
Enacted
Total
FY2022
Passed
Intro
P.L. 117-
117-70, 103, Div.
Total
FY2022 to FY2022

Enacteda
Req.b
H.R. 4373 S. 3075c 43, Div. C Div. B
K, Md
Enactede
Enacted
Enacted
Title I. State, Broadcasting & Related
17,494.19
18,349.10
18,202.98 17,573.12
276.90
80.30
17,367.48
17,724.67
-3%
1%
Agencies, TOTAL
(4,561.54)
(154.00)
(511.20)
Administration of Foreign Affairs, Subtotal
13,152.79
13,371.07
13,204.50 12,599.84
276.90
80.30
12,715.11
13,072.31
-2%
-1%
(3,759.31)
(129.00)
(486.2)
Diplomatic Programs
9,374.01
9,490.67
9,476.98
9,040.67

44.30
9,303.79
9,348.09
-2%
0%
(2,430.12)
(125.00)
(169.30)
of which Worldwide Security Protection
4,120.90
4,075.90
4,075.90
3,625.90

3,788.20
3,788.20
-7%
-8%
(2,226.12)
Consular and Border Security Programs
(300.00)
320.00
320.00

0.00
0.00
-100%
-100%
Capital Investment Fund
250.00
448.88
275.00
448.88

300.00
300.00
-33%
20%
Office of Inspector General
145.73
91.46
91.46

95.46
95.46
+4%
-35%
(54.90)
(4.00)
(4.00)
Special Inspector General for Afghanistan

54.90
54.90

40.00
40.00
-27%
n.a.
Educational & Cultural Exchanges
740.30
741.30
750.00
748.96

753.00
753.00
2%
2%
Representation Expenses
7.42
7.42
7.42
7.42

7.42
7.42
0%
0%
Protection of Foreign Missions & Officials
30.89
30.89
30.89
30.89

30.89
30.89
0%
0%
Embassy Security, Construction &
1,950.45
1,983.15
1,995.45
1,983.15

1,983.15
1,983.15
0%
2%
Maintenance
(824.29)
CRS-28

link to page 39 link to page 39 link to page 39 link to page 39 link to page 39
FY2022 Omnibus
% Change % Change
FY2022
FY2022
FY2022
CR 2

FY2022
FY2021
FY2021
House-
Senate
CR 1
P.L.
P.L. 117-
FY2022
Req. to
Enacted
Total
FY2022
Passed
Intro
P.L. 117-
117-70, 103, Div.
Total
FY2022 to FY2022

Enacteda
Req.b
H.R. 4373 S. 3075c 43, Div. C Div. B
K, Md
Enactede
Enacted
Enacted
Title II. Administration of Foreign
1,752.45
1,862.65
1,790.62
1,976.35
0.00
0.00
2,003.15
2,003.15
8%
14%
Assistance
(41.00)
(29.00)
(29.00)
USAID Operating Expenses
1,418.75
1,527.95
1,455.92
1,635.95

1,660.95
1,660.95
9%
17%
(41.00)
(25.00)
(25.00)
USAID Capital Investment Fund
258.20
258.20
258.20
258.20

258.20
258.20
0%
0%
USAID Inspector General
75.50
76.50
76.50
82.20

84.00
84.00
10%
11%
(4.00)
Title III. Bilateral Assistance
41,083.95
34,143.91
29,625.91 29,248.31
1,891.10 1,200.00
33,314.44
36,405.54
-5%
-11%
(18,210.46) (8,750.00)
(5,937.00) (9,028.00)
Global Health Programs
13,195.95
13,550.95
10,641.45 10,353.95

9,830.00
9,830.00
-27%
-26%
(4,000.00) (3,500.00)
of which USAID
7,265.95
3,870.95
4,561.45
4,423.95

3,880.00
3,880.00
0%
-47%
(4,000.00)
of which State
5,930.00
6,180.00
6,080.00
5,930.00

5,950.00
5,950.00
-4%
0%
Development Assistance
3,500.00
4,075.10
4,075.10
4,075.10

4,140.49
4,140.49
2%
18%
International Disaster Assistance
4,395.36
7,182.36
4,682.36
4,682.36
400.00

6,555.45
6,955.45
-3%
58%
(1,914.04) (2,500.00)
(2,650.00) (3,050.00)
Transition Initiatives
92.04
92.04
92.04
107.04

200.00
200.00
117%
117%
(120.00)
(120.00)
Complex Crises Fund
30.00
60.00
40.00
60.00

60.00
60.00
0%
100%
Economic Support Fund
12,526.96
6,010.23
3,635.23
3,480.13

4,746.00
4,746.00
-21%
-62%
(9,375.00) (1,750.00)d
(647.00)
(647.00)
Democracy Fund
290.70
290.70
290.70
340.70

340.70
340.70
17%
17%
CRS-31

link to page 39 link to page 39 link to page 39 link to page 39 link to page 39
FY2022 Omnibus
% Change % Change
FY2022
FY2022
FY2022
CR 2

FY2022
FY2021
FY2021
House-
Senate
CR 1
P.L.
P.L. 117-
FY2022
Req. to
Enacted
Total
FY2022
Passed
Intro
P.L. 117-
117-70, 103, Div.
Total
FY2022 to FY2022

Enacteda
Req.b
H.R. 4373 S. 3075c 43, Div. C Div. B
K, Md
Enactede
Enacted
Enacted
Assistance for Europe, Eurasia, and Central
770.33
788.93
788.93
788.93

1,620.00
1,620.00
105%
110%
Asia
(1,120.00) (1,120.00)
Migration & Refugee Assistance
4,032.00
4,845.00
3,845.00
3,845.00
415.00

4,312.19
4,727.19
-2%
17%
(2,301.42) (1,000.00)
(1,400.00) (1,815.00)
Emergency Refugee & Migration Assistance
500.10
0.10
0.10
0.10
1,076.10 1,200.00
0.10
2,276.20 2276100%
355%
(500.00)
(2,276.10)
Independent Agencies, Subtotal
1,393.50
1,393.50
1,430.00
1,410.00

1,404.50
1,404.50
1%
1%
Peace Corps
410.50
410.50
430.50
410.50

410.50
410.50
0%
0%
Mil ennium Challenge Corporation
912.00
912.00
912.00
912.00

912.00
912.00
0%
0%
Inter-American Foundation
38.00
38.00
44.50
44.50

42.00
42.00
11%
11%
U.S. African Development Foundation
33.00
33.00
43.00
43.00

40.00
40.00
21%
21%
Department of the Treasury, Subtotal
357.00
105.00
105.00
105.00

105.00
105.00
0%
-71%
(120.00)
International Affairs Technical Assistance
33.00
38.00
38.00
38.00

38.00
38.00
0%
15%
Debt Restructuring
324.00
67.00
67.00
67.00

67.00
67.00
0%
-79%
(120.00)
Title IV. International Security Assistance
9,004.03
9,683.89
9,034.03
9,050.01
0.00
0.00
9,579.35
9,579.35
-1%
6%
(902.12)
(500.00)
(680.00)
(680.00)
International Narcotics Control & Law
1,385.57
1,525.74
1,395.57
1,388.85

1,421.00
1,421.00
-7%
3%
Enforcement
(30.00)
(30.00)
Nonproliferation, Anti-Terrorism,
889.25
900.25
889.25
907.25

900.00
900.00
0%
1%
Demining
CRS-32

link to page 39 link to page 39 link to page 39 link to page 39 link to page 39
FY2022 Omnibus
% Change % Change
FY2022
FY2022
FY2022
CR 2

FY2022
FY2021
FY2021
House-
Senate
CR 1
P.L.
P.L. 117-
FY2022
Req. to
Enacted
Total
FY2022
Passed
Intro
P.L. 117-
117-70, 103, Div.
Total
FY2022 to FY2022

Enacteda
Req.b
H.R. 4373 S. 3075c 43, Div. C Div. B
K, Md
Enactede
Enacted
Enacted
Title VI. Export Assistance
159.00
-13.61
223.80
323.80
0.00
0.00
323.80
323.80
-2479%
104%
Export-Import Bank (net)
-113.50
-221.50
-74.50
-74.50

-74.50
-74.50
-66%
-34%
U.S. Development Finance Corporation
193.00
128.39
218.80
318.80

318.80
318.80
148%
65%
(net)
U.S. Trade & Development Agency
79.50
79.50
79.50
79.50

79.50
79.50
0%
0%
SFOPS Total, Prerescission
72,114.43 71,906.08 62,975.90 63,890.54
2,168.00 1,280.30 64,962.68 68,410.97
-5%
-5%
(24,295.12) (9,250.00)
(6,800.00) (10,248.3)
Rescissions, net
-530.12
-535.00
-575.00 -1,653.64
0.00
0.00
1,903.78
1,903.78
256%
259%
(-425.12)
SFOPS Total, Net of Rescissions
71,584.31 71,371.08 62,400.90 62,236.90
2,168.00 1,280.30 63,058.90 66,507.19
-7%
-7%
(23,870.00) (9,250.00)
(6,800.00) (10,248.3)
Source: SFOPS Congressional Budget Justification for FY2022.
Notes: 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. “Non-emergency” funding includes both “base” funding (also referred to as “enduring” or “ongoing” funding in budget documents) and
OCO funds. Numbers may not add due to rounding. “n.a.” = not applicable.
a. Includes emergency funds provided in Title IX of the final FY2021 SFOPS appropriation (P.L. 116-260), the American Rescue Plan Act of 2021 (P.L. 117-2), and the
Emergency Security Supplemental Appropriations Act, 2021 (P.L. 117-31).
b. Includes supplemental funds requested by the Administration in March 2022 to address the situation in Ukraine and additional COVID-19-related needs.
c. S. 3075 was introduced but was never considered by the Senate SFOPS subcommittee. It is included here only as a reference of potential interest and does not
indicate a Senate agreement on FY2022 funding levels.
d. The supplemental request also asked that this funding be provided with authority to be transferred to the Transition Initiatives, INCLE, NADRA and USAID and
State Department operational accounts.
e. Figures in parenthesis include emergency funding from P.L. 117-43, Div. C; P.L. 117-70, Division B; and P.L. 117-103, Division M.

CRS-34

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 SFOPS
appropriation measure includes funding for certain international commissions that are not part of
the International Affairs Function 150 account.
CRS-35

link to page 41
Table B-1. International Affairs Budget, FY2021-FY2022
(In millions of U.S. dollars; numbers in parentheses are the portion of the account totals designated as OCO or emergency funds)
FY2022
FY2022
CR 2
Omnibus
% Change,
FY2022
CR 1
(P.L. 117-
(P.L. 117-
FY2022
FY2021-
FY2021
House
(P.L. 117-
70, Div.
103, Div. K,
Enacted
FY2022

Total
FY2022 Req.
(H.R. 4373)
43, Div. C)
B)
M)
Total
Enacted
State-Foreign Operations,
71,407.69
71,194.46
62,214.68
2,168.00
1,280.30
62,878.05
66,326.35
-7%
excluding Commissionsa
(23,870)
(9,250.00)
(6,800.00)
(6,800.00)
Commerce-Justice-Science
105.37
105.43
120.93
0.00
0.00
112.43
112.43
7%
Foreign Claims Settlement
2.37
2.43
2.43

2.43
2.43
3%
Commission
Int’l Trade Commission
103.00
103.00
118.5

110.00
110.00
7%
Agriculture
2,770.00
1,800.11
1,985.0
0.00
0.00
2,077.00
2,077.00
-25%
(800.00)
(100.00)
(100.00)
FFPA Title II
2,540.00
1,570.00
1,740.0

1,840.00
1,840.00
-28%
(800.00)
(100.00)
(100.00)
McGovern-Dole
230.00
230.11
245.0

237.00
237.00
+3%
Total International Affairs (150)
74,283.06
73,100.00
64,320.21
2,168.00
1,280.30
65,067.48
68,515.78
-8%
(24,520.00)
(9,250.00)
(6,900.00)
(10,348.30)
Source: SFOPS Congressional Budget Justification for FY2022; H.R. 4373.
Notes: 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. Non-Emergency funding includes both base funding (also referred to as “enduring” or “ongoing” funding in budget documents) and OCO-
designated funds. Numbers may not add due to rounding. “n.a.” = not applicable.
a. Includes mandatory spending from the Foreign Service retirement account and does not align with budget justification figures that count only discretionary spending.
Excludes funding for international commissions that is appropriated in the SFOPS bil but part of function 300 of the budget (Natural Resources and Environment),
not function 150 (International Affairs).

CRS-36

Department of State, Foreign Operations, and Related Programs

Appendix C. International Affairs Components Chart
Figure C-1. International Affairs Budget Components

Source: Created by CRS.

Author Information

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

Marian L. Lawson

Section Research Manager

Congressional Research Service

37

Department of State, Foreign Operations, and Related Programs

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
R46935 · VERSION 8 · UPDATED
38