Contents

• Overview
• Emergency Funds
• Congressional Action
• Title I: Department of State and Related Agency
• Foreign Operations Funding
• Title II: U.S. Agency for International Development
• Title III: Bilateral Economic Assistance
• Title IV: International Security Assistance
• Title V: Multilateral Assistance
• Title VI: Export and Investment Assistance
• Outlook

Summary

Congress typically considers 12 distinct appropriations measures on an annual basis to fund federal programs and activities. Since FY2008, one of these measures has been the Department of State, Foreign Operations, and Related Programs (SFOPS) appropriations bill, which has included funding for U.S. diplomatic activities; cultural exchanges; development, security, and humanitarian assistance; and participation in multilateral organizations, among other international activities. For FY2026, the Trump Administration requested $31.14 billion in new budget authority for SFOPS accounts, while at the same time requesting the rescission and cancellation of $22.30 billion of previously appropriated SFOPS funding.

The FY2026 request, not including rescissions, represented a 41.2% decrease from FY2025 total enacted SFOPS funding. When including the proposed rescissions and cancellations, the request represented an 83.0% decrease from FY2025 enacted funding. Consistent with previous budget requests and annual SFOPS appropriations measures, the budget request divided SFOPS into two main components:

• Department of State and Related Agency. These accounts, which traditionally have been provided in Title I of the SFOPS bill, primarily support Department of State diplomatic and security activities, along with the department's internal management functions. The Trump Administration proposed $11.94 billion in new budget authority for Title I accounts in FY2026, a 28.2% decrease from total FY2025 enacted levels.
• Foreign Operations and Related Programs. These accounts, which have typically been provided in Titles II-VI of the SFOPS bill, have funded most foreign assistance activities. The FY2026 request included a total of $19.20 billion in new budget authority for these accounts, a 47.1% decrease from total FY2025 enacted levels.

On July 23, 2025, the House Appropriations Committee approved a FY2026 National Security, Department of State, and Related Programs (NSRP) appropriations measure, H.R. 4779 (comparable to prior years' SFOPS bills, with a different title). If enacted, the bill would have provided $49.45 billion in new budget authority for NSRP accounts, or a net of $45.90 billion when including rescissions of prior year budget authority.

Congress enacted legislation on November 12, 2025, P.L. 119-37, that included a continuing resolution (CR) to fund SFOPS/NSRP-supported federal government agencies in FY2026 at FY2025 levels. The CR extended funding through the earlier of January 30, 2026, or the enactment of a full-year appropriation. On February 3, Congress enacted the FY2026 Consolidated Appropriations Act (P.L. 119-75), a "minibus" of six appropriations bills with Division F as the National Security, Department of State, and Related Programs Appropriations Act. The act includes $50.07 billion for NSRP, net of rescissions, representing a 3.5% decrease from FY2025 enacted SFOPS funding and a 466.3% increase from the President's request for FY2026.

Table A-1 provides an account-by-account comparison of the FY2026 request, FY2026 House bill, and final FY2026 NSRP appropriations, with FY2025 enacted funding levels. Table A-2 offers a similar comparison focused specifically on the International Affairs budget (Function 150). Both appendices will be updated to reflect congressional action. Figure A-1 depicts the typical International Affairs budget account structure.

This report tracks SFOPS budget requests and appropriations, comparing funding levels for accounts and purposes. 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 human rights, 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, and Related Programs Appropriations: A Guide to Component Accounts; for more on NSRP accounts, see CRS Report R48939, National Security, Department of State, and Related Programs Appropriations: A Guide to Component Accounts.

---

Overview

Annual Department of State, Foreign Operations, and Related Programs (SFOPS) appropriations historically have supported a range of U.S. activities around the world.¹ These include the operation of U.S. embassies, diplomatic activities, foreign assistance, U.S. participation in multilateral organizations, and U.S. export promotion activities, among others. The SFOPS appropriation closely aligns with the International Affairs budget function (150), which typically represents about 1% of the annual federal budget.²

For FY2026, the Trump Administration requested $31.14 billion in new budget authority for SFOPS appropriations accounts. At the same time, the Administration proposed $22.30 billion in rescissions and cancellations of previously appropriated funds, including $20 billion of "State and USAID" funding from unspecified accounts. The request, not including proposed rescissions and cancellations, represented a 41.2% decrease from total enacted SFOPS appropriations for FY2025 (Division F of P.L. 118-47, continued in P.L. 119-4, and including rescissions enacted in P.L. 119-28). When including proposed rescissions and cancellations, the request represented an 83.0% decrease from total enacted SFOPS appropriations for FY2025.

To date, Congress has enacted the National Security, Department of State, and Related Programs (NSRP) Appropriations Act, 2026 (Division F of P.L. 119-75 ). The act includes $50.07 billion for NSRP, net of rescissions. In sum, NSRP appropriations provided in P.L. 119-75 represent a 3.5% decrease from FY2025 enacted SFOPS funding and a 466.3% increase from the President's request for FY2026.

Emergency Funds

Congress has in recent decades appropriated funding designated as "emergency," which is not bound by preestablished budget caps, almost annually in the SFOPS bill. Some of this emergency funding was designated for Overseas Contingency Operations (OCO).⁵ Congress has directed such funding for a range of activities, including those considered in the regular budget cycle as well as those responding to unanticipated global crises. Funds have been provided through annual appropriations bills and off-cycle supplemental measures. For FY2024, for example, Congress enacted emergency funding for SFOPS accounts in both the regular appropriation (Division F of P.L. 118-47) and an emergency supplemental measure (Divisions A, B, and C of P.L. 118-50). The emergency supplemental funding was primarily to support Israel, Ukraine, and activities in the Indo-Pacific. Emergency-designated funding for SFOPS accounts has fluctuated from year to year, at times accounting for a large portion of total annual SFOPS appropriations (Figure 1). Since FY2017, the years for which emergency funding accounted for the highest percentage of total SFOPS funding are FY2017 (36.1%), FY2022 (34.2%), and FY2024 (34.2%).

The Trump Administration did not include emergency funds in its SFOPS request for FY2026.

Figure 1. SFOPS Funding: FY2017-FY2026

Sources: Prepared by CRS using annual Department of State, Foreign Operations, and Related Programs Congressional Budget Justifications (CBJs); P.L. 117-180; P.L. 117-328; P.L. 118-47; P.L. 118-50; P.L. 119-4; P.L. 119-28; P.L. 119-75. Notes: Actual = actual obligation totals as reported in the CBJs. Enacted = the amount appropriated in regular and supplemental SFOPS/NSRP measures. Topline levels are net of rescissions and cancellations.

Congressional Action

At the start of the 119^th Congress, the House Appropriations Committee renamed the former SFOPS subcommittee to be the National Security, Department of State, and Related Programs (NSRP) subcommittee. The Senate Appropriations Committee maintained the name of its SFOPS subcommittee.

House Legislation. On July 23, 2025, the House Appropriations Committee approved its FY2026 National Security, Department of State, and Related Programs (NSRP) appropriations measure, H.R. 4779. If enacted, the bill would have provided $49.45 billion in new budget authority for NSRP accounts—$14.61 billion for Department of State and Related Agencies accounts and $34.84 billion for Foreign Operations. When including rescissions of prior year funding, the measure would have provided a total of $45.90 billion for NSRP accounts. Not including rescissions, H.R. 4779 would have represented a 6.6% decrease from FY2025 enacted levels and a 58.8% increase from the President's request for FY2026. When including rescissions of prior year funding and the cancellation of funds proposed in the Administration's FY2026 request, H.R. 4779 would have represented an 11.5% decrease from FY2025 total enacted funding and a 419.1% increase from the President's FY2026 proposal.

Senate Legislation. The Senate Appropriations Committee did not mark up or report a SFOPS/NSRP bill for FY2026.

Continuing Resolution. Following a government shutdown that began on October 1, 2025, Congress enacted legislation on November 12, 2025, P.L. 119-37, that included a continuing resolution (CR) to fund SFOPS/NSRP-supported federal government agencies in FY2026 at FY2025 levels. The CR extended funding through the earlier of January 30, 2026, or the enactment of a full-year appropriation.

Consolidated Appropriations. The Senate and House, on January 30 and February 3, 2026, respectively, passed the FY2026 Consolidated Appropriations Act, a "minibus" of six appropriations bills with Division F as the National Security, Department of State, and Related Programs Appropriations Act. The measure was signed by President Trump on February 3 and became P.L. 119-75. The act includes $50.07 billion for NSRP, net of rescissions. In sum, NSRP appropriations provided in P.L. 119-75 represent a 3.5% decrease from FY2025 enacted SFOPS funding and a 466.3% increase from the President's request for FY2026.

Title I: Department of State and Related Agency

The Department of State and Related Agency title has traditionally funded the State Department's internal operations and many nonforeign assistance programs, including most Foreign Service and Civil Service personnel salaries, diplomatic security and embassy construction, U.S. assessed contributions (membership dues) to international organizations and international peacekeeping missions, and public diplomacy and cultural exchanges. Congress has funded the operations and programs of the U.S. Agency for Global Media (USAGM), an independent federal agency supervising civilian U.S. government-funded international broadcasting to foreign publics, under the "Related Agency" heading of this title. The Trump Administration's FY2026 request for the Title I accounts totaled $11.94 billion, or 28.2% less than the $16.62 billion Congress provided for these accounts in FY2025 (including emergency funding). Figure 2 provides additional detail regarding the Trump Administration's Title I funding priorities. For a full listing of the Title I accounts and recent proposed and actual funding levels, see Table A-1.

Figure 2. FY2026 SFOPS Title I Request, by Funding Priority

Source: State Department, FY2026 Congressional Budget Justification, Department of State, Foreign Operations, and Related Programs. Notes: "Ongoing Operations" funds the operating budgets of most of the State Department's regional, functional, and managerial bureaus; diplomatic engagement to advance U.S. national security and foreign policy interests on matters including sanctions enforcement and arms control; public diplomacy programs; and salaries of many of the State Department's Foreign and Civil Service personnel. It encompasses the Human Resources (excluding Worldwide Security Protection, or WSP, American Salaries), Overseas Programs, and Diplomatic Policy & Support funding allocations under the Diplomatic Programs (DP) account, along with a small share of the Security Programs allocation. It is distinct from the WSP funding category, which is described in the following subsection.

House Legislation. H.R. 4779 would have provided $14.61 billion for Title I appropriations accounts. This level would have represented an 12.1% decrease from the FY2025 enacted level and was 22.4% higher than the Administration's FY2026 proposal.

Consolidated Appropriations. Division F of P.L. 119-75 provides $16.63 billion for Title I appropriations accounts. This figure is slightly above (+0.1%) the FY2025 enacted level and 39.3% higher than the Administration's FY2026 proposal.

Diplomatic Security and Embassy Construction

The Worldwide Security Protection (WSP) allocation within the Diplomatic Programs (DP) account and the Embassy Security, Construction, and Maintenance (ESCM) account also are known as the SFOPS "diplomatic security accounts." WSP is the primary operating appropriation for the Bureau of Diplomatic Security (DS), which is the State Department's federal law enforcement and security arm responsible for protecting overseas diplomatic posts, residences, and domestic offices, among other duties.⁶ WSP also funds several other bureaus with security-related functions, including the Bureau of Diplomatic Technology (DT) and the Bureau of Medical Services (MED). ESCM is the primary operating appropriation for the Bureau of Overseas Buildings Operations (OBO). OBO is responsible for the "planning, acquisition, design, construction, operations, maintenance, and disposal of U.S. governmental diplomatic and consular property overseas."⁷ Congress has long provided budget authority for both WSP and ESCM on either a multiyear or no-year basis. Such action allows the State Department to retain unobligated funds for several years after the fiscal year for which they were appropriated or, in the case of no-year appropriations, indefinitely. Therefore, the annual appropriations Congress provides for WSP and ESCM constitute only a share of all available funding for these accounts at any point in time (Figure 3).

Figure 3. Embassy Security, Construction, and Maintenance Available Funding: FY2024-FY2026 Request

Sources: White House, Technical Supplement to the 2026 Budget (Appendix), p. 676.

The Trump Administration's FY2026 request included a combined $5.74 billion for the diplomatic security accounts (Table 2), 0.5% less than the funding Congress provided for the accounts in FY2025. For WSP, the Administration's request reflected "cost containment" related to DS operations in Iraq (for which the Administration requested $613.1 million for FY2026, or 11.8% less than the estimated $694.8 million for DS expenses in Iraq in FY2025); DT's programs to protect the State Department's information technology enterprise from "insider threats, data breaches, and compliance violations" and to ensure State Department compliance with the Federal Information Security Management Act (FISMA); and MED's work "to train, equip, and deploy medical providers to support security, protective, and response operations" when U.S. diplomatic personnel abroad are affected by natural or manmade disasters.⁸ For ESCM, the request included $1.12 billion in funding for the Capital Security Cost Sharing (CSCS) and Maintenance Cost Sharing (MCS) Programs, which fund the planning, design, construction, and maintenance of U.S. overseas posts. When accounting for further contributions from consular fees and other agencies with personnel assigned to U.S. embassies and other overseas posts, the Administration's total request for these programs was $2.21 billion.⁹

House Legislation. H.R. 4779 would have provided $5.77 billion for the diplomatic security accounts, level with enacted FY2025 funding and 0.5% higher than the Administration's proposal. The bill did not include language specifically addressing the Administration's WSP funding priorities in Iraq. The committee report accompanying the bill noted that it would have provided $1.12 billion in ESCM funding for the CSCS and MCS programs, which equaled the Administration's request.¹⁰

Consolidated Appropriations. Division F of P.L. 119-75 aligns with the House legislation, providing $5.77 billion for the diplomatic security accounts. This total is level with FY2025 enacted funding and 0.5% higher than the Administration's proposal. The explanatory statement accompanying this law said that it included $1.12 billion in ESCM funding for CSCS and MCS, reflecting both the Administration's request and the House bill.¹¹

Assessed Contributions to International Organizations and Peacekeeping Missions¹²

The Contributions to International Organizations (CIO) account traditionally has funded the United States' payments of its annual assessed contributions (membership dues) to over 40 international organizations (IOs). These include the United Nations (UN), UN specialized agencies (such as the Food and Agriculture Organization and World Health Organization), and regional entities (such as NATO). Separately, the United States has paid its assessed contributions to UN peacekeeping missions through the Contributions for International Peacekeeping Activities (CIPA) account. The United States also has provided additional funding to IOs through various SFOPS humanitarian and multilateral assistance accounts.¹³

The Trump Administration's combined FY2026 budget proposal for CIO and CIPA was $263.8 million. The request, which would have eliminated funding for the UN regular budget and UN peacekeeping, represented an 89.2% decrease from combined CIO and CIPA funding of $2.45 billion in FY2025. For CIO, the Administration requested $263.8 million, 80.8% less than the FY2025 funding level of $1.37 billion.¹⁴ The request would have eliminated funding for the CIPA account; for FY2025, Congress enacted $1.08 billion for CIPA (Table 3).¹⁵

The Administration's request stated that any additional funding for IOs would depend on the outcome of the Administration's review of U.S. participation in and funding of IOs under Executive Order (E.O.) 14199.¹⁶ In January 2026, the President announced the outcome, instructing agencies to cease participation in or funding of 31 UN entities and 66 other IOs "to the extent permitted by law."¹⁷ The request also noted that if the President chooses, additional funding could be transferred to CIO and CIPA from the proposed America First Opportunity Fund (A1OF; see "Non-Health Development & Transition Assistance" for more information).¹⁸

House Legislation. H.R. 4779 would have provided a combined total of $872.5 million for CIO and CIPA for FY2026, representing a 64.4% decrease from the FY2025 enacted total. The level was 230.7% higher than the Administration's proposal.

Consolidated Appropriations. Division F of P.L. 119-75 provides a combined total of $2.62 billion for CIO and CIPA for FY2026. This level represents a 6.9% increase from the FY2025 enacted level and is 893.1% higher than the Administration's request.

Foreign Operations Funding

Title II: U.S. Agency for International Development

Title II traditionally has provided funding for USAID's administrative accounts, including the Operating Expenses (OE), Capital Investment Fund, and Office of Inspector General (OIG) accounts.¹⁹ For FY2026, the Trump Administration did not request funds for these three accounts, consistent with its effort to transition "select USAID functions to the Department [of State] and to phase out others."²⁰ Funds to aid in the transition were requested elsewhere in the budget proposal, including $358.4 million in DP funding for "the Department's integration of certain foreign assistance functions and activities previously covered by USAID,"²¹ and $49.7 million in State Department Capital Investment Fund monies to "integrate and sustain USAID's enterprise data systems ... into the Department,"²² among others.

House Legislation. If enacted, H.R. 4779 would have provided $112.0 million for Title II in an Operating Expenses account; in line with the President's request, the bill would not have funded the Capital Investment Fund or the Office of Inspector General. In total, funding for Title II that H.R. 4779 would have provided amounted to a decrease of 94.2% from total enacted Title II appropriations for FY2025.

Consolidated Appropriations. As with the House legislation, Division F of P.L. 119-75 renames Title II to be "Administration of Assistance" and provides $112.0 million for an Operating Expenses account. The bill also provides $62.5 million for an Office of Inspector General. In total, the $174.5 million provided for Title II in the legislation represents a 90.9% decrease from FY2025 enacted levels.

Title III: Bilateral Economic Assistance²³

The bilateral economic assistance title typically provides funding for bilateral foreign assistance programs (excluding security assistance), four independent agencies, and select Department of the Treasury international programs. For FY2026, the Administration requested $11.39 billion in new budget authority for Title III accounts, a 49.5% reduction from FY2025 enacted levels. Title III accounts are explored in greater detail below.

House Legislation. H.R. 4779 would have provided $23.64 billion for Title III accounts, a 4.7% increase from FY2025 Title III enacted levels and 107.5% higher than the Administration's FY2026 proposal.

Consolidated Appropriations. Division F of P.L. 119-75 provides $23.35 billion for Title III accounts, a 3.5% increase from FY2025 enacted levels and 104.9% higher than the Administration's FY2026 request.

Non-Health Development & Transition Assistance

Title III typically has funded six non-health development and transition assistance accounts. These include Development Assistance (DA), Transition Initiatives (TI), Complex Crises Fund (CCF), Democracy Fund (DF), Economic Support Fund (ESF), and Assistance for Europe, Eurasia, and Central Asia (AEECA). Collectively, these accounts have provided funding for programs across sectors such as democracy and governance, agriculture and food security, basic and higher education, and energy and the environment, among others. For FY2026, the Trump Administration sought to eliminate all six accounts and instead program some non-health development funds through one new appropriations account (Figure 4). According to the request, the Administration proposed the following:

• Establishing an America First Opportunity Fund (A1OF) that would replace DA, DF, ESF, and AEECA. A1OF would seek to "streamline accounts and ensure the most effective use of foreign assistance funding."²⁴ The request also appears to have proposed authorities for the A1OF beyond those underpinning the four accounts it sought to replace. The $2.9 billion request for A1OF represented a 31.7% reduction from the combined FY2025 appropriations for the four accounts.
• Eliminating CCF and "[redirecting] crisis funding to the [International Humanitarian Assistance (IHA)] and [Emergency Refugee and Migration (ERMA)] accounts."²⁵
• Eliminating TI based on the premise that "it often results in further destabilization and funds a wasteful tangle of non-governmental organizations (NGOs) and partisan cutouts pushing a leftist agenda around the world."²⁶

Figure 4. Non-Health Development and Transition Assistance Accounts: FY2025-FY2026

Sources: P.L. 118-47; P.L. 119-4; P.L. 119-28; State Department, FY2026 Congressional Budget Justification, Department of State, Foreign Operations, and Related Programs; H.R. 4779; P.L. 119-75. Notes: DA = Development Assistance; TI = Transition Initiatives; CCF = Complex Crises Fund; ESF = Economic Support Fund; DF = Democracy Fund; AEECA = Assistance for Europe, Eurasia, and Central Asia; A1OF = America First Opportunity Fund; NSIP = National Security Investment Programs.

House Legislation. H.R. 4779 would have provided $7.33 billion for two non-health development accounts: a new National Security Investment Programs (NSIP) account and the existing DF. This total would have represented a 71.4% increase from FY2025 enacted levels—though a 19.0% decrease from prerescission FY2025 levels—and was 152.8% higher than the Administration's FY2026 proposal. The new NSIP account would have carried the authorities of the prior DA, ESF, and AEECA appropriations accounts. Of the $6.98 billion the bill would have appropriated to NSIP, it directed that $750.0 million be made available to the A1OF, which the bill sought to establish in the General Provisions (Title VII). In line with the President's FY2026 request, the NSRP bill would not have provided funds for CCF or TI.

Consolidated Appropriations. Division F of P.L. 119-75 provides $6.97 billion for two non-health development accounts: the House-proposed NSIP account and DF. This total represents a 63.1% increase from FY2025 enacted levels—though a 22.0% decrease from prerescission FY2025 levels—and is 140.7% higher than the Administration's FY2026 proposal. As with the House legislation, the new NSIP carries the authorities of the prior DA, ESF, and AEECA accounts. The Joint Explanatory Statement accompanying the act refers back to the House Report for a description of the account, which notes that "the Committee views recent changes with respect to the provision of United States foreign assistance as an opportunity to embrace innovative solutions for implementing programs that are in the national security interest of the United States."²⁷ The measure does not direct a certain amount of NSIP to the A1OF, rather NSIP funds may be made available for the A1OF (pursuant to Section 7071(a)). In line with the President's FY2026 request, and consistent with the House NSRP bill, Division F of P.L. 119-75 does not provide funds for CCF or TI.

Humanitarian Assistance

Title III has traditionally included three global humanitarian assistance accounts: International Disaster Assistance (IDA), Migration and Refugee Assistance (MRA), and ERMA. The Trump Administration proposed eliminating funding for IDA and MRA and, in their place, establishing an International Humanitarian Assistance account that would carry the same authorities underlying IDA and MRA. Under the request, IHA would have received $2.5 billion, representing a 66.3% decrease from total combined IDA and MRA appropriations for FY2025. The Administration also proposed $1.50 billion for ERMA, which would be 15,000 times ERMA's FY2025 appropriation. According to the Administration, the significant increase for ERMA was intended to "respond to unexpected urgent refugee and migration crises when in the national interest," and "may be used to support efforts aimed at curbing illegal migration by facilitating the voluntary return of migrants from the United States to their country of origin or legal status."²⁸ In sum, the proposed total for humanitarian assistance was 46.0% less than FY2025 enacted levels (Figure 5).

Figure 5. Humanitarian Assistance Accounts: FY2025-FY2026

Sources: P.L. 118-47; P.L. 119-4; P.L. 119-28; State Department, FY2026 Congressional Budget Justification, Department of State, Foreign Operations, and Related Programs; H.R. 4779; P.L. 119-75.

House Legislation. H.R. 4779 would have provided $5.50 billion for two global humanitarian accounts: $5.00 billion for IHA and $500.0 million for ERMA. The total amount for the global humanitarian assistance accounts would have been 25.8% less than FY2025 enacted appropriations and 37.5% higher than the President's proposal. The IHA account would have carried the authorities of the former IDA and MRA accounts and was directed to prioritize "those most in need of relief and rehabilitation because of natural and manmade disasters."²⁹ Consistent with the President's request, the report accompanying the measure would have allowed for appropriated ERMA funds to be used to "[facilitate] the voluntary return of migrants from the United States to their country of origin."³⁰

Consolidated Appropriations. Division F of P.L. 119-75 provides $5.50 billion for two global humanitarian accounts: $5.40 billion for IHA and $100.0 million for ERMA. The total amount for the two accounts is 25.8% less than FY2025 enacted appropriations for humanitarian assistance and is 37.5% higher than the Administration's request. As with the House bill, the IHA account in Division F of P.L. 119-75 would carry the authorities of the former IDA and MRA accounts.

Global Health Programs

For FY2026, the Trump Administration proposed $3.80 billion for Global Health Programs (GHP), a 60.2% decrease from FY2025 enacted levels. The request also proposed that all GHP funding be managed by the State Department; in prior years Congress has directed a portion of the GHP appropriation to be allocated directly to USAID. Administrations and Congresses typically have subdivided GHP into subaccounts, as shown in Table 4. The request would have reduced funding for every subaccount relative to FY2025 enacted levels and provided no funding for nutrition, vulnerable children, and reproductive health/family planning programs.

House Legislation. H.R. 4779 would have provided a total of $9.52 billion for GHP. That level would have represented a 0.1% decrease from FY2025 enacted levels and was 150.7% higher than the Administration's proposal. If enacted, the bill would have maintained or increased funding relative to FY2025 enacted levels for most subaccounts, while reducing funds for Family Planning/Reproductive Health and "Other Public Health Threats," and providing no funds for Global Health Security.

Consolidated Appropriations. Division F of P.L. 119-75 provides a total of $9.42 billion for GHP, representing a 1.9% decrease from FY2025 enacted levels. The total is 148.0% higher than the Administration's request for FY2026. The measure maintains or decreases funding relative to FY2025 enacted levels for nearly all subaccounts. The only increase is to Department of State-managed HIV/AIDS funding.

Independent Agencies and Treasury Programs

The Trump Administration proposed a total of $670.5 million in new budget authority for the four SFOPS-funded independent agencies, a 52.2% reduction from FY2025 enacted levels. Under the request, the Peace Corps would have seen level funding for FY2026 when compared with FY2025, and the Millennium Challenge Corporation (MCC) would have seen a 75.9% reduction. Separately, the request proposed a cancellation of $1.22 billion in prior year MCC unobligated balances from programs that the Administration asserted "are no longer aligned" with its priorities.³¹ The requests for the Inter-American Foundation (IAF) and U.S. African Development Foundation (USADF)—$10.0 million and $6.0 million, respectively—were for close-out costs. Such a request was consistent with E.O. 14217 of February 19, 2025, eliminating the "non-statutory components and functions" of IAF and USADF, among other federal agencies.³²

Compared with FY2025 enacted levels, the Administration proposed reductions for all three Department of the Treasury International Programs. The Administration sought $30.0 million for International Affairs Technical Assistance, a 21.1% reduction from FY2025 enacted levels. It did not propose funding for Treasury Debt Restructuring or for Tropical Forest and Coral Reef Conservation, which received $10.0 million and $15.0 million, respectively, in new budget authority for FY2025.

House Legislation. H.R. 4779 would have provided a combined $1.36 billion for the four independent agencies, a 3.3% decrease from FY2025 enacted levels and 102.3% higher than the President's request. The greatest deviation from the President's request was with funding for MCC, which would have received $930.0 million in the bill, 315.2% more than what was proposed; the bill would have met the President's request for IAF and USADF. It also would have decreased by 4.6% funding for the Peace Corps when compared to both the FY2025 enacted level and the President's request for FY2026.

H.R. 4779 also would have met the President's proposal for the Department of the Treasury International Programs by providing $30.0 million for the International Affairs Technical Assistance account.

Consolidated Appropriations. Division F of P.L. 119-75 provides a combined $1.28 billion for the four independent agencies noted above and an additional $100 million for the United States Foundation for Natural Security and Counterterrorism.³³ The $1.38 billion for these five independent agencies represents a 1.6% decrease from FY2025 enacted levels and is 106.0% higher than the Administration's proposal.

Division F of P.L. 119-75 also provides the requested $30.0 million for the International Affairs Technical Assistance account and an additional $52.0 million for Treasury Debt Restructuring.

Title IV: International Security Assistance³⁴

Title IV provides funding for five security assistance accounts: International Narcotics Control and Law Enforcement (INCLE); Nonproliferation, Anti-terrorism, Demining and Related Programs (NADR); Peacekeeping Operations (PKO); International Military Education and Training (IMET); and Foreign Military Financing (FMF). For FY2026, the Trump Administration proposed $6.15 billion for the five accounts, a reduction of 31.2% compared with total FY2025 enacted levels (Figure 6). The proposed reductions to each account varied, with the largest to PKO (-92.7%) and the smallest to NADR (-14.4%).

Figure 6. Security Assistance Accounts: FY2025-FY2026

Sources: P.L. 118-47; P.L. 119-4; State Department, FY2026 Congressional Budget Justification, Department of State, Foreign Operations, and Related Programs; H.R. 4779; P.L. 119-75. Notes: NADR = Nonproliferation, Anti-terrorism, Demining, and Related Programs; PKO = Peacekeeping Operations; IMET = International Military Education and Training; FMF = Foreign Military Financing; INCLE = International Narcotics Control and Law Enforcement.

House Legislation. The House Appropriations Committee NSRP bill for FY2026 would have provided $10.07 billion for the five Title IV accounts, a 12.8% increase from FY2025 enacted appropriations for Title IV and 63.9% higher than the President's request. When compared with FY2025 enacted levels, the NSRP bill would have kept level funding for NADR, PKO, and IMET and increased funding for INCLE (+35.5%) and FMF (+10.5%). Compared with the President's request for FY2026, the NSRP bill would have provided more funding than proposed for each account with the greatest increases to INCLE (+1,418.0%) and PKO (+1,268.2%).

Consolidated Appropriations. Division F of P.L. 119-75 provides a combined total of $8.88 billion for the five Title IV accounts, a 0.6% decrease from FY2025 enacted levels and 44.6% higher than the Administration's proposal. When compared with FY2025 enacted levels, the greatest change is to PKO, which would be reduced by 18.3%.

Title V: Multilateral Assistance³⁵

For Title V, which traditionally has provided funds for voluntary contributions (not membership dues) to multilateral organizations, the Trump Administration proposed $1.38 billion for FY2026, which, if enacted, would have represented a 35.5% decrease from FY2025 levels. The Administration did not request funding for five accounts Congress funded for FY2025: International Bank for Reconstruction and Development, Global Environment Facility, African Development Fund, International Fund for Agriculture and Development, and the Global Agriculture and Food Security Program. The Administration requested funding for two entities that Congress did not specifically fund for FY2025: the European Bank for Reconstruction and Development and the Inter-American Investment Corporation.

House Legislation. H.R. 4779 would have provided $222.0 million for Title V accounts, 89.6% lower than what was provided in FY2025 enacted appropriations and 83.9% lower than the President's proposal for FY2026. The bill would have provided funding to three accounts: the Global Environment Facility, the African Development Bank, and Treasury International Assistance Programs. For accounts requested in the President's proposal but not provided for in H.R. 4779, the report accompanying the measure noted that authorization was needed for the proposed contribution and that "the Committee looks forward to working with the authorizing committees of jurisdiction on" authorizing such contributions "and will continue to review funding requirements throughout the legislative process."³⁶

Consolidated Appropriations. Division F of P.L. 119-75 provides $1.87 billion for multilateral assistance accounts, a decrease of 12.4% from enacted FY2025 amounts and 35.8% higher than the Administration's proposal. Notably, the measure provides funding for IO&P, which Congress zeroed out with a rescission for FY2025. The measure also provides funding for accounts not requested by the President, including the Global Environment Facility and International Fund for Agricultural Development. The bill does not provide funding for the Administration's requested contribution to the Inter-American Investment Corporation.

Title VI: Export and Investment Assistance³⁷

Title VI typically provides funding for three agencies: the Export-Import Bank of the United States (Ex-Im Bank), the U.S. International Development Finance Corporation (DFC), and the U.S. Trade and Development Agency (USTDA).³⁸ For Ex-Im and DFC, offsetting collections are meant to reduce each agency's budgetary impact. For FY2026, the Administration proposed $287.5 million for these agencies, inclusive of offsetting collections. Ex-Im and USTDA operating budgets would have been level to those appropriated for FY2025—$148.9 million and $87.0 million, respectively—while DFC would have seen reductions in its administrative expenses (from $243.0 million to $230.0 million, or a 5.3% reduction) and program operating (from $740.3 million to $573.0 million, or a 22.6% reduction) budgets compared with FY2025 appropriations.

House Legislation. The House Appropriations Committee NSRP bill would have provided a total of $792.3 million for the Title VI agencies, inclusive of projected offsetting collections. This level would have represented a 4.6% increase over FY2025 enacted levels and was 175.6% higher than the President's proposal.

Consolidated Appropriations. Division F of P.L. 119-75 provides a total of $723.3 million for the Title VI agencies, inclusive of projected offsetting collections. This represents a 4.5% decrease from FY2025 enacted levels and is 151.6% higher than the Administration's request.

Outlook

Congress enacted full-year FY2026 NSRP appropriations in February 2026; however, appropriations for FY2026 may not be complete. Members may continue to debate the need for additional funding for or rescissions to FY2026 appropriated levels in the remaining months of the fiscal year.

Appendix. Supplementary Tables and Figures

The following tables and figure provide additional detail on and comparisons of the FY2025 enacted levels, the FY2026 request, the FY2026 House bill, and the enacted FY2026 National Security, Department of State, and Related Programs (NSRP) appropriations bill. Table A-1 provides an account-by-account comparison of the two years; Table A-2 offers a similar comparison focused specifically on the International Affairs budget (Function 150). Figure A-1 depicts the International Affairs budget account structure.

Figure A-1. International Affairs Budget Components

Source: Created by CRS using the Office of Management and Budget functional classification system.

Footnotes

1.	In the 119th Congress, the House Appropriations Committee renamed the former SFOPS subcommittee to be the National Security, Department of State, and Related Programs (NSRP) subcommittee.
2.	The SFOPS appropriation aligns closely but not exactly with the International Affairs budget (Function 150). The primary differences are that international food aid programs are part of Function 150 but funded through the Agriculture appropriation, and that SFOPS includes funding for international commissions that are part of the Function 300 budget (Natural Resources and Environment). The historical tables accompanying the President's budget request do not include estimates for FY2026 budget authority.
3.	Though rescissions and cancellations are generally of funds appropriated in prior fiscal years, Administrations and Congresses have often included them in their calculations for the amounts appropriated in the legislation in which they are included. For the purposes of this report, CRS has provided comparisons of the Administration's top-line proposal with and without the proposed rescissions. Analysis at the Title- and Account-levels, however, does not include the proposed rescissions unless indicated.
4.	It was not clear in all instances how, if at all, the Administration considered the proposed rescissions as distinct from the proposed cancellations. While there are technical differences between the two terms, their effect on budgetary resources is the same. For more information, see CRS Report R48432, The Impoundment Control Act of 1974: Background and Congressional Consideration of Rescissions, by James V. Saturno.
5.	Congress appropriated OCO funding for foreign affairs agencies through SFOPS between FY2012 and FY2021. For more on such funds, see CRS In Focus IF10143, Foreign Affairs Overseas Contingency Operations (OCO) Funding: Background and Current Status.
6.	State Department, "About Us – Bureau of Diplomatic Security," https://www.state.gov/about-us-bureau-of-diplomatic-security.
7.	State Department, "Bureau of Overseas Buildings Operations," https://www.state.gov/bureaus-offices/bureau-of-overseas-buildings-operations/.
8.	State Department, FY2026 Congressional Budget Justification, pp. 48-51, https://www.state.gov/wp-content/uploads/2025/05/FY-2026-State-CBJ-.pdf.
9.	State Department, FY2026 Congressional Budget Justification, pp. 69-70.
10.	H.Rept. 119-217, p. 18.
11.	See Section 4 of P.L. 119-75 and the explanatory statement accompanying Division B of H.R. 7006.
12.	Luisa Blanchfield, CRS Specialist in International Relations, authored this section.
13.	Other SFOPS accounts that have historically provided funding to UN entities include, but are not limited to, International Organizations and Programs, International Disaster Assistance, and Migration and Refugee Assistance. For more information, see CRS In Focus IF10354, United Nations Issues: U.S. Funding to the U.N. System.
14.	The CIO request includes $150.81 million for UN and UN-affiliated bodies, $94.91 million for regional organizations, and $18.08 million for other IOs. This includes funding for the International Atomic Energy Agency ($115.9 million), NATO ($94.1 million), and the International Civil Aviation Organization ($19.8 million).
15.	State Department, FY2026 Congressional Budget Justification, pp. 87-93.
16.	E.O. 14199 of February 4, 2025, "Withdrawing the United States from and Ending Funding to Certain United Nations Organizations and Reviewing United States Support to All International Organizations," 90 Federal Register 9275.
17.	The White House, Presidential Memoranda, "Withdrawing the United States from International Organizations, Conventions, and Treaties that Are Contrary to the Interests of the United States," January 7, 2026.
18.	State Department, FY2026 Congressional Budget Justification, pp. 87-93.
19.	For more on USAID, see CRS In Focus IF10261, U.S. Agency for International Development: An Overview, by Emily M. McCabe.
20.	State Department, FY2026 Congressional Budget Justification, p. 18.
21.	State Department, FY2026 Congressional Budget Justification, p. 42.
22.	State Department, FY2026 Congressional Budget Justification, p. 61.
23.	The Congressional Budget Justification (CBJ) lists Bilateral Economic Assistance as Title II because it proposes eliminating funding for the three accounts that have traditionally been funded under Title II.
24.	State Department, FY2026 Congressional Budget Justification, p. 122.
25.	State Department, FY2026 Congressional Budget Justification, p. 123.
26.	State Department, FY2026 Congressional Budget Justification, p. 123.
27.	H.Rept. 119-217, p. 40.
28.	State Department, FY2026 Congressional Budget Justification, p. 129. MRA's authorization language specifies that appropriations are authorized for contributions to the activities of certain international organizations, such as the International Organization for Migration and the International Committee of the Red Cross, as well as for "assistance to or on behalf of refugees who are outside the United States." (22 U.S.C. §2601(b)). ERMA's authorization is broader in scope, allowing for assistance to be furnished "whenever the President determines it to be important to the national interest ... for the purpose of meeting unexpected urgent refugee and migration needs" (22 U.S.C. §2601(c)).
29.	H.R. 4779, p. 27.
30.	H.Rept. 119-217, p. 39.
31.	State Department, FY2026 Congressional Budget Justification, p. 131. The justification does not provide specifics on which programs are considered to no longer align with Administration priorities.
32.	Executive Order 14217, "Commencing the Reduction of the Federal Bureaucracy," 90 Federal Register 10577, February 19, 2025.
33.	Such funds are provided to "carry out the purposes of section 5102 of the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2025 (22 U.S.C. §10602)." Section 5102 of the FY2025 NDAA (P.L. 118-159) is titled "United States Foundation for International Conservation."
34.	The CBJ lists International Security Assistance as Title III because it proposes eliminating funding for the three accounts that have traditionally been funded under Title II.
35.	The CBJ lists Multilateral Assistance as Title IV because it proposes eliminating funding for the three accounts that have traditionally been funded under Title II.
36.	See H.Rept. 119-217 language related to the Contribution to the International Development Association, the Contribution to the Asian Development Fund, the Contribution to the European Bank for Reconstruction and Development, and the Contribution to the Inter-American Development Bank on pp. 55-56.
37.	The CBJ lists Export and Investment Assistance as Title V because it proposes eliminating funding for the three accounts that have traditionally been funded under Title II.
38.	For more on the Ex-Im Bank, see CRS In Focus IF10017, Export-Import Bank: Overview and Issues for Congress, by Shayerah I. Akhtar; for more on DFC, see CRS In Focus IF11436, U.S. International Development Finance Corporation (DFC), by Shayerah I. Akhtar and Nick M. Brown; and for more on USTDA, see CRS In Focus IF10673, U.S. Trade and Development Agency (TDA), by Shayerah I. Akhtar.