Department of State, Foreign Operations, and Related Programs: FY2021 Budget and Appropriations

Department of State, Foreign Operations, and
September 24, 2021
Related Programs: FY2021 Budget and
Cory R. Gill
Appropriations
Analyst in Foreign Affairs

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

development and security assistance, and participation in multilateral organizations, among other
international activities. On February 10, 2020, the Trump Administration submitted to Congress
Emily M. Morgenstern
its SFOPS budget proposal for FY2021, totaling $44.12 billion (including $158.90 million in
Analyst in Foreign
mandatory State Department retirement funds). None of the requested SFOPS funds were
Assistance and Foreign
designated as Overseas Contingency Operations (OCO) funds .
Policy

The Trump Administration’s FY2021 request was about 3% higher than its FY2020 request for

SFOPS accounts but nearly 24% below the FY2020 SFOPS funding level enacted by Congress
(including COVID-19 supplemental funds, which were enacted after the FY2021 request was submitted). Within these totals,
funding was divided among two main components:
Department of State and Related Agency accounts. These funds, provided in Title I of the SFOPS
appropriation, primarily support Department of State diplomatic and security activities and would have
been reduced by 18.9% from FY2020-enacted levels. Noteworthy cuts were proposed for the Educational
and Cultural Exchange Programs (-57.6%), International Organizations (-31.8%) accounts, and the
Diplomatic Programs account (-12.6%), which funds many of the State Department’s day-to-day
operations.
 The Foreign Operations accounts, funded in Titles II-VI of the SFOPS bill, fund most foreign assistance
activities. These accounts would have seen a total reduction of 25.7%, with particularly steep cuts proposed
for global health programs (-37.5%), peacekeeping operations (PKO, -36.6%), multilateral aid (-28.9%),
and humanitarian assistance (-28.3%, not including food aid programs funded through the agriculture
appropriation).
The House passed an FY2021 SFOPS bill, H.R. 7608, Division A, on July 24, 2020. The bill would have provided a total of
$66.03 billion in net budget authority for SFOPS accounts ($66.10 billion pre-rescissions). No FY2021 SFOPS legislation
was introduced in the Senate.
On December 21, both chambers passed the Omnibus and COVID Relief and Response Act, H.R. 133, which included
SFOPS appropriations in Division K. The enacted legislation included a net total of $60.98 billion ($61.51 billion pre-
rescission) for SFOPS accounts, 38.2% more than the Administration’s request and 6.6% more than FY2020 funding. Of
these funds, $8.25 billion were designated as OCO. President Trump signed the bill into law (P.L. 116-260) on December 27,
2020.
In March 2021, Congress enacted and President Biden signed into law the American Rescue Plan Act of 2021,
P.L. 117-2. Title X of the $1.9 tril ion legislation to prevent and respond to the impacts of COVID-19 included an
additional $10 bil ion in FY2021 SFOPS emergency funding, though the account breakout of those funds is not
entirely clear. This legislation brought the enacted FY2021 SFOPS funding total to $70.98 bil ion, after
rescissions, a 24% increase over FY2020 funding.
In late July 2021, Congress enacted and President Biden signed into law the Emergency Security Supplemental
Appropriations Act, P.L. 117-31, which included $600 mil ion in SFOPS migration and refugee assistance. This
legislation brought the FY2021 SFOPS enacted funding total to $71.58 bil ion ($72.11 bil ion pre-rescissions), a
25% increase over FY2020 total enacted funding.
Congressional Research Service


link to page 34 link to page 41 link to page 41 Department of State, Foreign Operations, and Related Programs

An account-by-account comparison of the FY2021 SFOPS request, FY2021 SFOPS legislation, and FY2020 SFOPS funding
is presented in Appendix A. Appendix B provides a similar comparison, focused specifically on the International Affairs
budget. Appendix B depicts the organization of the SFOPS appropriation.
This report is designed to track SFOPS appropriations, comparing funding levels for accounts and purposes across enacted
FY2020 SFOPS appropriations, FY2021 Administration requests, and FY2021 SFOPS legislation. It does not provide
significant analysis of international affairs policy issues. For in-depth analysis and contextual information on international
affairs issues, consult the wide range of CRS reports on specific subjects, such as global health, diplomatic security, and U.S.
participation in the United Nations.
Congressional Research Service

link to page 6 link to page 8 link to page 9 link to page 10 link to page 13 link to page 13 link to page 15 link to page 17 link to page 17 link to page 19 link to page 21 link to page 22 link to page 24 link to page 26 link to page 27 link to page 28 link to page 30 link to page 30 link to page 31 link to page 32 link to page 6 link to page 8 link to page 22 link to page 24 link to page 24 link to page 27 link to page 32 link to page 33 link to page 7 link to page 10 link to page 11 link to page 15 link to page 18 link to page 18 link to page 21 link to page 22 Department of State, Foreign Operations, and Related Programs

Contents
Overview ....................................................................................................................... 1
The Budget Control Act, OCO, and COVID-19 Funds .................................................... 3
Congressional Action on FY2021 SFOPS Legislation ........................................................... 4
State Department Operations and Related Agency Highlights................................................. 5
Selected Programs and Priorities .................................................................................. 8
Diplomatic Programs ............................................................................................ 8
Diplomatic Security ............................................................................................ 10
Assessed Contributions to International Organizations and
Peacekeeping Missions..................................................................................... 12
Foreign Operations Highlights ........................................................................................ 14
Key Sectors ............................................................................................................ 16
Global Health Programs ...................................................................................... 17
Humanitarian Assistance ..................................................................................... 19
Security Assistance ............................................................................................. 21
Development Assistance and Export Promotion............................................................ 22
Development Assistance...................................................................................... 23
Independent Agencies ......................................................................................... 25
Multilateral Assistance ........................................................................................ 25
Export Promotion ............................................................................................... 26
Country and Regional Assistance ............................................................................... 27

Figures
Figure 1. SFOPS as a Portion of the Federal Budget, FY2020 Est. .......................................... 1
Figure 2. SFOPS Funding, FY2010-FY2021 ....................................................................... 3
Figure 3. Foreign Operations, by Type, FY2021 Request ..................................................... 17
Figure 4. Humanitarian Assistance Budget Requests and Enacted Funding, by Account,
FY2013-FY2021 ........................................................................................................ 19
Figure 5. Security Assistance, by Account, FY2019-FY2021 ............................................... 22
Figure 6. Regional Thematic Priorities, FY2021 Request..................................................... 27
Figure 7. Proportional Aid, by Region, FY2019 Actual and FY2021 Request ......................... 28

Tables
Table 1. SFOPS Requests and Actual Funding, FY2013-FY2021............................................ 2
Table 2. Status of FY2021 SFOPS Appropriations ................................................................ 5
Table 3. State Department and Related Agency: Selected Accounts ......................................... 6
Table 4. Diplomatic Security Annual Appropriations, FY2019-FY2021 ................................. 10
Table 5. U.S. Payments of Assessments to International Organizations and Peacekeeping
Missions, FY2019-FY2021 .......................................................................................... 13
Table 6. Foreign Operations, by Type, FY2019-FY2021...................................................... 16
Table 7. Global Health Programs, by Subaccount, FY2019-FY2021...................................... 17
Congressional Research Service

link to page 28 link to page 33 link to page 34 link to page 34 link to page 34 link to page 41 link to page 41 link to page 34 link to page 41 link to page 41 link to page 42 Department of State, Foreign Operations, and Related Programs

Table 8. Select Development Sectors, FY2019-FY2021 ...................................................... 23
Table 9. Top Aid Recipients by Country, FY2019 Actual and FY2021 Request ....................... 28

Table A-1. Department of State, Foreign Operations, and Related Agencies
Appropriations, FY2019 Actual, FY2020 Enacted, and FY2021 Request, House-passed
bil , and Enacted ........................................................................................................ 29

Table B-1. International Affairs Budget, FY2019 Actual, FY2020 Enacted,
and FY2021 Request, House-passed bil , and Enacted...................................................... 36

Appendixes
Appendix A. SFOPS Funding, by Account ........................................................................ 29
Appendix B. International Affairs Budget ......................................................................... 36
Appendix C. SFOPS Organization Chart........................................................................... 37


Contacts
Author Information ....................................................................................................... 37

Congressional Research Service

link to page 6 link to page 41
Department of State, Foreign Operations, and Related Programs

Overview
On February 10, 2020, the Trump Administration proposed its FY2021 budget for the Department
of State, Foreign Operations, and Related Programs (SFOPS) accounts, totaling $44.12 bil ion
(including $158.90 mil ion in mandatory retirement funds).1 SFOPS funding typical y represents
about 1% of the annual federal budget and supports a wide range of U.S. activities around the
world, including the operations of U.S. embassies; diplomatic activities; educational and cultural
exchanges, international development, security, and humanitarian assistance; and U.S.
participation in multilateral organizations. Figure 1 shows funding for different SFOPS
components based on FY2020 budget authority estimates, relative to each other and to the
broader federal budget.
Figure 1. SFOPS as a Portion of the Federal Budget, FY2020 Est.

Sources: FY2021 Budget; Historic Table 5.1; FY2020 SFOPS appropriations legislation; CRS calculations.
Note: Reflects estimated budget authority, FY2020, except for International Affairs detail figures, which reflect
enacted appropriations for FY2020.
The Trump Administration’s request was about 3% higher than the FY2020 request for SFOPS
accounts but nearly 24% below the FY2020 SFOPS funding level enacted by Congress, including
supplemental funds to help combat the Coronavirus Disease 2019 (COVID-19) epidemic
global y, which were enacted after the FY2021 request was submitted.2 The Trump
Administration consistently requested far less SFOPS funding than Congress appropriated. This is

1 T he payment covers the U.S. government’s contribution to the Foreign Service Retirement and Disability System and
the Foreign Service Pension System for USAID and the Department of State. It is the only mandatory spending in the
SFOPS appropriation.
T he SFOPS budget aligns closely but not exactly with Function 150 (International Affairs) of the federal budget. T he
primary exception is funding for international food aid programs, which are part of Function 150 but funded through
the agriculture appropriation. SFOPS also includes funding for international commissions in the Function 300 budget
(see Appe ndix B).
2 For more information on international affairs funding for COVID-19 response, see CRS In Focus IF11496, COVID-
19 and Foreign Assistance: Issues for Congress
, by Nick M. Brown, Marian L. Lawson, and Emily M. Morgenstern ,
and CRS Report R46319, Novel Coronavirus 2019 (COVID-19): Q&A on Global Im plications and Responses,
coordinated by T iaji Salaam-Blyther.
Congressional Research Service

1

link to page 7 link to page 34 Department of State, Foreign Operations, and Related Programs

a reversal from the Obama Administration, when Congress typical y provided less total SFOPS
funding than was requested, though the gap narrowed over time during Obama’s terms (Table 1).
Table 1. SFOPS Requests and Actual Funding, FY2013-FY2021
(In bil ions of current U.S. dol ars)

FY2013 FY2014 FY2015 FY2016 FY2017 FY2018 FY2019 FY2020 FY2021
Request
56.41
51.96
55.01
54.83
60.21
40.21
41.66
43.10
44.12
Actual
51.91
50.89
54.39
54.52
59.78
54.18
54.38
57.21
71.58
Difference
-8.0%
-2.1%
-1.1%
-0.6%
-0.7%
+34.7%
+30.5%
+32.7%
+62.2%
Sources: Annual SFOPS Congressional Budget Justifications (CBJs) prepared by the Department of State and
U.S. Agency of International Development; P.L. 116-6; P.L. 116-94; P.L. 116-123; P.L. 116-136; P.L. 116-260; P.L.
117-2; P.L. 117-31.
Note: FY2020 actuals represent the enacted appropriation, including the coronavirus supplemental. FY2021
total includes the ARPA, P.L. 117-2, and supplemental appropriations in P.L. 117-31.
Emergency Supplemental Funding, FY2021
To date, two FY2021 emergency supplemental funding measures that included SFOPS funds have been enacted,
adding to the funding provided in the Omnibus and COVID Relief Response Act.
ARPA. In March 2021, Congress enacted and President Biden signed into law the American Rescue Plan Act of
2021 (ARPA, P.L. 117-2). The $1.9 tril ion legislation, which was developed by authorizing committees using the
budget reconciliation process rather than the appropriations process, included an additional $10 bil ion in FY2021
emergency-designated funding for SFOPS activities intended to prevent, prepare for, or respond to COVID-19
(Title X). Funding was provided for several key purposes:

$204 mil ion for Department of State Operations

$41 mil ion for USAID Operations

$3,750 mil ion for Department of State global health activities, including $3,500 mil ion for the Global Fund to
Fight AIDS, Tuberculosis, and Malaria

$905 mil ion for USAID global health activities, including a contribution to a multilateral vaccine development
partnership to support epidemic preparedness

$3,090 mil ion for USAID activities related to international disaster relief, rehabilitation and reconstruction,
health, and emergency food security

$930 mil ion to address economic and stabilization needs related to the virus

$500 mil ion designated for humanitarian response

$580 mil ion for multilateral assistance
In addition, ARPA included $800 mil ion for emergency food assistance under the Food for Peace authority (aid
appropriated through the Agriculture rather than SFOP appropriation).
It is not clear how al of these funds wil be al ocated by account.3 For this reason, total ARPA funding is added
into the funding table in Appendix A and is not incorporated at the account level of that table or in the other
account-specific sections of this report.
Emergency Security Supplemental Appropriations Act. 2021 (P.L. 117-31). Title IV of this legislation,
signed into law on July 30, 2021, included $100 mil ion in Emergency Refugee and Migration Assistance to address
humanitarian needs of Afghans and $500 mil ion in Migration and Refugee Assistance for unspecified purposes.
Because the appropriations account al ocations were specified in this law, this funding is reflected in the account
tables in this report.

3 Funding provided through T itle X of P.L. 117-2 was not listed by account. T he majority of the funds, $8.675 billion,
were listed as global response funds in a section citing the Economic Support Fund (ESF) section of the Foreign
Assistance Act of 1961 as the general authority. However, the ESF appropriations account is not typically used for the
health and disaster relief activities being provided for in the law, and it is not clear if these funds are intended to flow
through that account.
Congressional Research Service

2

link to page 8 Department of State, Foreign Operations, and Related Programs

If enacted, the requested FY2021 SFOPS funding level would have been the lowest in over a
decade (Figure 2).
Figure 2. SFOPS Funding, FY2010-FY2021
(In bil ions of U.S. dol ars)
80
70
60
50
40
30
20
10
0
Total, Current $
Total, Constant 2020$
FY2021 Request

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; CRS
calculations.
The Budget Control Act, OCO, and COVID-19 Funds
Since FY2012, the appropriations process has been shaped by the discretionary spending caps put
in place by the Budget Control Act of 2011 (BCA; P.L. 112-25). FY2021 is the last year covered
by the act. Congress has managed the constraints imposed by the BCA in part by repeatedly
amending the BCA to raise the caps, most recently with the Bipartisan Budget Act of 2019 (BBA
2019; P.L. 116-37). The BBA 2019 raised discretionary spending limits set by the BCA for
FY2020 and FY2021, the final two years the BCA caps are in effect.4
In addition to raising the caps, Congress has worked around the BCA limits by designating a
portion of annual SFOPS appropriations as “Overseas Contingency Operations (OCO)” or
“emergency” funding, both of which are excluded from BCA discretionary budget limits.
Congress began appropriating OCO in the SFOPS budget in FY2012, having previously provided
OCO funds for the Department of Defense (DOD). Original y used to support shorter-term,
contingency-related programming in Afghanistan, Iraq, and Pakistan that was not considered part
of the “base” or “core” budget, OCO’s use expanded considerably in level and scope between
FY2012 and FY2017. Global SFOPS OCO funding peaked at $20.80 bil ion in FY2017 (nearly
35% of SFOPS funds that year), at which point it was used to support 18 different SFOPS
accounts, ranging from USAID operating expenses and the Office of Inspector General to
International Disaster Assistance and Foreign Military Financing. This broad use has led many
observers to question whether the OCO designation makes a meaningful distinction between core

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

3

Department of State, Foreign Operations, and Related Programs

and contingency activities, with some describing OCO (in both SFOPS and Defense
appropriations) as a slush fund.5
The Trump Administration last requested OCO funds for SFOPS for FY2018, though it continued
to request OCO funds in the DOD budget. Nevertheless, Congress designated $8.00 bil ion of
enacted SFOPS funding in both FY2019 and FY2020 as OCO.
In addition to OCO funds, Congress has periodical y used funding designated as “emergency” to
address a range of unanticipated needs, including response to Ebola and Zika virus outbreaks, and
countering a surge in ISIS activity. In FY2020, Congress appropriated $2.37 bil ion in
supplemental emergency SFOPS funding to address needs related to the COVID-19 pandemic
abroad. Like OCO-designated funding, emergency-designated funding does not count toward the
BCA discretionary spending caps and may therefore be used as an alternative to the OCO
designation. Before the use of OCO in SFOPS, supplemental emergency appropriations were the
primary mechanism for funding contingency activities.
Both categories of BCA-exempt funding were used by Congress in the FY2020 SFOPS bil ,
though neither were requested by the Trump Administration. The House-passed FY2021
legislation continued this practice, including $8.00 bil ion in OCO funds and an additional $10.02
bil ion designated as emergency funding. The enacted FY2021 omnibus appropriation, P.L. 116-
206, included $8.00 bil ion (net of rescissions) designated as OCO and an additional $5.27 bil ion
in designated emergency funding for Consular and Border Security Programs, Sudan, Global
Health Programs, the Economic Support Fund, and Debt Restructuring. An additional $10.6
bil ion in FY2021 emergency-designated SFOPS funds were provided through ARPA (P.L. 117-2)
and the Emergency Security Supplemental Appropriations Act, 2021 (P.L. 117-31) (see text box
above).
Congressional Action on FY2021 SFOPS Legislation
Congressional action on SFOPS and other FY2021 appropriations was delayed by disruption of
congressional activity related to the COVID-19 pandemic. Congress held some hearings on the
FY2021 budget request before most hearings were postponed in March 2020. House
appropriators resumed work in July, approving a FY2021 SFOPS bil on July 9, 2020, which was
approved by the full House on July 24, 2020 as part of a 4-bil appropriations package (H.R.
7608, Division A). The Senate SFOPS Subcommittee did not consider FY2021 legislation.
Having enacted no FY2021 appropriations by the start of the new fiscal year on October 1, 2020,
Congress enacted a series of continuing resolutions to continue funding government agencies at
the FY2020 level until P.L. 116-260, the Omnibus and COVID Relief and Response Act (which
include SFOPS appropriations as Division K) was signed into law on December 27, 2020.6

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.
6 T he continuing resolutions were P.L. 116-159, P.L. 116-215, P.L. 116-225, and P.L. 116-226, and P.L. 116-246.
Congressional Research Service

4

Department of State, Foreign Operations, and Related Programs

Table 2. Status of FY2021 SFOPS Appropriations
(In bil ions of U.S. dol ars; excludes OCO and emergency funds)
302(b)
Committee

Allocations
Action
Floor Action
Conference Agreement
Chamber
House
Senate
House
Senate
House
Senate
House
Senate
Final
Date
7/9/20

7/9/20

7/24/20
12/21
12/21
12/27
Total $
$48.01

$66.03

$66.03
$60.98
$60.98
$60.98
Source: H.R. 7608; House 302(b) al ocation table, available at: https://appropriations.house.gov/sites/
democrats.appropriations.house.gov/files/Al oc1.pdf; P.L. 116-260.
Notes: The 302(b) al ocation of budget authority does not include emergency or OCO funds. Funding totals
account for rescissions. Does not include funding in the ARPA (P.L. 117-2) or supplemental appropriations from
P.L. 117-31.
House Legislation. The House-passed bil , H.R. 7608, Division A, would have provided a total
of $66.10 bil ion in total new budget authority for SFOPS accounts ($66.03 bil ion net after
rescissions), nearly 50% more than the Trump Administration’s total request and 15% more than
the enacted FY2020 appropriation (including supplementals). Of that amount, $18.02 bil ion
(27%) was designated as emergency or OCO funding, including $10.02 bil ion in emergency
funding related to COVID-19.
Omnibus and COVID Relief and Response Act (P.L. 116-260). The omnibus FY2021
appropriations legislation passed by both the House and Senate on December 21, 2020, and
signed into law on December 27, 2020, included SFOPS appropriations in Division K. The bil
provided $61.51 bil ion in new budget authority ($60.98 bil ion after rescission), including $17.29
bil ion for State Department Operations and related accounts, and $44.22 bil ion for Foreign
Operations accounts.
American Rescue Plan Act of 2021. The ARPA (P.L. 117-2), enacted by Congress and signed
into law in March 2021, included an additional $10 bil ion in SFOPS funds, bringing the enacted
SFOPS total to $71.51 bil ion.
Emergency Security Supplemental Appropriation Act, 2021. This supplemental appropriation,
signed into law as P.L. 117-31 on July 30, 2021, included an additional $600 mil ion in SFOPS
migration and refugee assistance funds, bringing the enacted SFOPS total to $72.11 bil ion, or
$71.58 bil ion after rescissions.
State Department Operations and Related
Agency Highlights
The FY2021 request would have cut funding for the Department of State and Related Agency
appropriations accounts to $14.03 bil ion, down 18.9% from an enacted FY2020 level of $17.31
bil ion (including $588 mil ion in COVID-19 supplemental funds).7 The Trump Administration’s
request, submitted before COVID-19 was declared a global pandemic, did not include funds to
support the State Department’s response to the pandemic. To date, Congress has provided al

7 Congress provided $264 million in COVID-19 supplemental funds the Diplomatic Programs account pursuant to P.L.
116-123, the Coronavirus Preparedness and Response Supplemental Appropriations Act, 2020. Subsequently, Congress
provided an additional $324 million COVID-19 supplemental funds for the same account pursuant to the Coronavirus
Aid, Relief, and Economic Security (CARES) Act (P.L. 116-136).
Congressional Research Service

5

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

State Department operations funding for COVID-19-related matters through two FY2020
supplemental appropriations acts (P.L. 116-123 and P.L. 116-136), Title IX of the FY2021 SFOPS
appropriations law (Division K of P.L. 116-260), and Section 10001 of ARPA (P.L. 117-2; see
“Emergency Supplemental Funding, FY2021” text box).
The Trump Administration’s stated priorities for funding provided via Department of State and
Related Agency accounts in FY2021 included
 supporting the Indo-Pacific Strategy;
 countering Chinese, Russian, and Iranian malign influence;
 protecting U.S. government personnel, facilities, and data assets; and
 maintaining American leadership in international organizations while asking
other nations to increase their support.8
H.R. 7608 (116th Congress), the House legislation, would have provided about $17.56 bil ion for
the State Department and Related Agency accounts. This would have marked an increase of 1.4%
from the FY2020 enacted level and a 25.2% increase from the Trump Administration’s request.
Of the funds provided in the House legislation, $959.40 mil ion would have comprised additional
funding for State Department operations related to COVID-19.
The omnibus appropriations law, P.L. 116-260, included $17.29 bil ion for the Department of
State and Related Agency accounts. While this funding total constituted a -0.1% decline from the
FY2020 enacted level and a 1.6% cut relative to the House bil , it exceeded the Trump
Administration’s FY2021 request by 23.2%. Some of this funding increase relative to the
Administration’s request was due to emergency funding for State Department operations
provided in Title IX of the SFOPS appropriation. Such funding was provided for consular
operations to offset losses of consular fee and surcharge revenues resulting from the COVID-19
pandemic (see the “COVID-19 and State Department Operations” text box) and, separately, to
compensate victims of the 1998 bombings of the U.S. embassies in Kenya and Tanzania.
In March 2021 Congress appropriated an additional $204 mil ion for Department of State
operations, to remain available until the end of FY2022, through ARPA. Funds were not divided
among regular appropriations accounts. Instead, Congress made this funding available for the
State Department to “prevent, prepare for, and respond to coronavirus domestical y or
international y, which shal include maintaining Department of State operations.”9 Table 3
provides a comparative breakout of the Trump Administration’s State Department and Related
Agency request, by selected accounts.
Table 3. State Department and Related Agency: Selected Accounts
(In bil ions of current U.S. dol ars; includes OCO funds)
%
%
change,
change,
FY20
FY20
enacted
enacted
FY2019
FY2020
FY2021
to FY21
FY2021
FY2021
to FY21
Account
Actual
Enacted
Request
request
House
Enacted
enacted
Diplomatic Programs
9.25
9.71
8.49
-12.6%
10.14
9.32
-4.1%

8 Letter transmitted from then-Secretary of State Michael R. Pompeo to Congress, February 10, 2020.
9 See Section 10001 of P.L. 117-2.
Congressional Research Service

6

link to page 12 Department of State, Foreign Operations, and Related Programs

%
%
change,
change,
FY20
FY20
enacted
enacted
FY2019
FY2020
FY2021
to FY21
FY2021
FY2021
to FY21
Account
Actual
Enacted
Request
request
House
Enacted
enacted
Worldwide Security
4.10
4.10
3.70
-9.8%
4.10
4.12
0.6%
Protection
Embassy Security,
1.98
1.98
1.68
-14.8%
1.98
1.95
-1.3%
Construction &
Maintenance

Educational and
0.70
0.73
0.31
-57.6%
0.74
0.74
1.3%
Cultural Exchange
Programs

International
2.91
3.00
2.05
-31.8%
2.96
2.96
-1.3%
Organizations0
U.S. Agency for
0.81
0.81
0.64
-21.4%
0.64
0.80
-0.9%
Global Media
State and Related
16.54
17.31
14.03
-18.9%
17.56
17.29
-0.1%
Agency Total, pre
ARPA
(includes Function 300

funding and other
commissions)
ARPA Emergency





0.20

Funds
State and Related
16.54
17.31
14.03
-18.9%
17.56
17.49
1.0%
Agency Total, with
ARPA

Sources: FY2020 and FY2021 SFOPS CBJs P.L. 116-6; P.L. 116-94; P.L. 116-123; P.L. 116-136; P.L. 117-2; H.R.
7608; P.L. 116-260; CRS calculations. P.L. 117-31 did not include any funding for accounts in this table.
Notes: Percentage changes may not reflect numbers included in this table due to rounding. State and Related
Agency totals include additional funding for accounts not listed above.
FY2020 enacted includes funds from the first and third supplemental appropriations for the novel coronavirus
(P.L. 116-123 and P.L. 116-136, respectively).
FY2021 House legislation figures for the Diplomatic Programs account and the State and Related Agency Total
includes funding designated for the novel coronavirus in Title VIII of H.R. 7608.
The aggregate FY2021 enacted figure includes funds designated in Title IX for the Consular and Border Security
Programs account and for Sudan claims (the Sudan claims figure of $150 million is also reflected in the
Diplomatic Programs total)
Includes Contributions to International Organizations and Contributions for International Peacekeeping
Activities accounts, the main funding vehicles for assessed obligations (dues) to the many international
organizations and peacekeeping efforts that the United States supports. Excludes voluntary contributions to
multilateral organizations, which are usual y provided through Title V of annual SFOPS appropriations laws
pertaining to multilateral assistance (in P.L. 116-260).

COVID-19 and State Department Operations
Since the outbreak of COVID-19, the Department of State has coordinated the evacuations of thousands of U.S.
personnel and private citizens abroad and taken measures intended to protect its personnel around the world.
The Coronavirus Preparedness and Response Supplemental Appropriations Act, 2020 ( P.L. 116-123) appropriated
Congressional Research Service

7

Department of State, Foreign Operations, and Related Programs

an additional $264 mil ion to the Diplomatic Programs account, to remain available through FY2022, for purposes
that included maintaining consular operations, reimbursing evacuation expenses, and emergency preparedness.
This law also amended P.L. 116-94 to al ow the State Department to transfer an additional $90 mil ion in
previously appropriated funds for emergency evacuations. The CARES Act (P.L. 116-136) appropriated an
additional $324 mil ion to the Diplomatic Programs account for similar purposes stipulated in P.L. 116-123, while
providing additional transfer authorities to fund evacuations. The FY2021 SFOPS appropriations law included $300
mil ion appropriated through Title IX for consular operations, including the adjudication of passport and visa
applications and services for American citizens abroad. The law also authorized the State Department to transfer
funds appropriated elsewhere to fund consular operations, fol owing consultation with Congress.10 ARPA (P.L.
117-2) appropriated an additional $204 mil ion for State Department operations general y. While consular
operations are usual y funded through consular fees and surcharges, including passport and visa fees, these
revenues have declined considerably amid global travel restrictions imposed during the COVID-19 pandemic.
Selected Programs and Priorities
Consistent with its previous requests, the majority of the funding the Trump Administration
requested for the Department of State and Related Agency appropriations accounts was for
diplomatic programs, diplomatic security and embassy construction, and contributions to
international organizations and international peacekeeping activities. For FY2021, such programs
comprised approximately 87.1% of the Trump Administration’s request and 82.3% of the enacted
appropriations Congress provided for these accounts. Some of the Trump Administration’s
priorities within these areas, as identified by the Department of State in its Congressional Budget
Justification, are detailed below.
Diplomatic Programs
The Diplomatic Programs account is the State Department’s principal operating appropriation and
serves as the source of funding for several key functions. These include
 most domestic and overseas State Department personnel salaries;
 foreign policy programs administered by State Department regional bureaus, the
Bureau of Conflict and Stabilization Operations, and others;
 public diplomacy programs; and
 the operations of the department’s strategic and managerial units, including the
Bureaus of Administration, Budget and Planning, and Legislative Affairs as wel
as the Office of the Chief of Protocol.11
The Trump Administration’s FY2021 request for Diplomatic Programs totaled $8.49 bil ion,
around 12.6% less than the $9.71 bil ion Congress provided for this account in FY2020 (this
amount included $588 mil ion Congress provided for Diplomatic Programs in FY2020
supplemental COVID-19 funds; see text box on the previous page for more detail). The
Administration’s request sought $138 mil ion for the Global Engagement Center (GEC), which is
responsible for leading interagency efforts to recognize, understand, expose, and counter foreign
state and nonstate propaganda and disinformation efforts aimed at undermining U.S. interests,
including those carried out from Russia, China, and Iran.12 The Administration maintained that

10 See Section 7069(c) of P.L. 116-260.
11 U.S. Department of State, Congressional Budget Justification: Department of State, Foreign Operations, and
Related Program s, Fiscal Year 2021
, February 10, 2020, pp. 10-18.
12 U.S. Department of State, “ Global Engagement Center,” https://www.state.gov/bureaus-offices/under-secretary-for-
Congressional Research Service

8

Department of State, Foreign Operations, and Related Programs

this request, which would have significantly increased funding for the GEC from recent year
levels that ranged from around $60-75 mil ion, would have al owed the GEC to meet “the
growing chal enge of countering foreign propaganda and disinformation.”13
The Trump Administration’s request also included an intended realignment of personnel and
funding from the Bureau of Global Talent Management (formerly the Bureau of Human
Resources); the Bureau of Arms Control, Verification, and Compliance; and the Office of the
Coordinator for Cyber Issues to establish a new Bureau for Cyber Security and Emerging
Technologies (CSET). The State Department first notified Congress of its intent to create this new
bureau in June 2019. It was intended to be responsible for supporting “foreign policies and
initiatives to promote U.S. cyber and emerging technology policies and deter adversaries from
malicious and destabilizing behavior in their use and application of such technologies.”14 Some
observers, including some Members of Congress, criticized elements of the State Department’s
plan for CSET, arguing that additional cyber-related matters such as global internet governance
and digital economy issues should have been included in the bureau’s remit.15
The House legislation, H.R. 7608 (116th Congress), included $10.14 bil ion for Diplomatic
Programs, $955 mil ion of which was designated “to prevent, prepare for, and respond to
coronavirus,” including with regard to evacuation expenses, emergency preparedness, and
maintaining consular operations. This figure would have totaled 4.4% more than the FY2020
enacted level for this account and 19.4% more than the Administration’s request. The report
accompanying this legislation (H.Rept. 116-444) noted support for the GEC’s work and stated
that the GEC’s operating plan submitted to Congress should describe its coordination with DOD
regarding the proposed use of al FY2021 funding.16 The House bil did not directly address the
CSET bureau.
The enacted omnibus appropriation included $9.32 bil ion for Diplomatic Programs. This figure
marked a decline of 4.1% relative to the FY2020 enacted level yet totaled 9.8% more than the
Trump Administration’s FY2021 request. It also amounted to 8.1% less than what would have
been provided had the House bil been enacted. The joint explanatory statement accompanying
P.L. 116-260 stated that the law provided funding up to the FY2020 level for the GEC.17 This
language indicates that Congress rejected the State Department’s request to increase GEC funding
from the FY2020 level of $62 mil ion. Like the House bil , the final appropriations law did not
include any specific language regarding the use of appropriated funds to stand up the new CSET
bureau. While former Secretary of State Mike Pompeo formal y approved the creation of CSET
on January 7, 2021, despite ongoing congressional concerns described above, the Biden
Administration is reviewing the CSET bureau’s mission and scope of responsibility.18

public-diplomacy-and-public-affairs/global-engagement -center/.
13 T estimony of Special Envoy & Coordinator for the Global Engagement Center Lea Gabrielle before the Senate
Foreign Relations Subcommittee on State Department and USAID Management, International Operations, and Bilateral
International Development, March 5, 2020,
https://www.foreign.senate.gov/imo/media/doc/030520_Gabrielle_T estimony.pdf .
14 U.S. Department of State, Congressional Budget Justification, p. 11.
15 Sean Lyngaas, “State Department proposes new $20.8 million cybersecurity bureau,” Cyberscoop, June 5, 2019, at
https://www.cyberscoop.com/state-department-proposes-new-20-8-million-cybersecurity-bureau/.
16 U.S. Congress, House Committee on Appropriations, State Foreign Operations, and Related Programs
Appropriations Bill, 2021
, report to accompany H.R. 7608, 116th Cong., 1nd sess., H.Rept. 116-444, (Washington, DC:
GPO, 2020). pp. 14-15.
17 Joint Explanatory Statement Accompanying Division K of P.L. 116-260, p. 8.
18 Maggie Miller, “ New State Department cyber bureau stirs opposition,” T he Hill, January 31, 2010, at
https://thehill.com/policy/cybersecurity/536579-new-state-department-cyber-bureau-stirs-opposition.
Congressional Research Service

9

link to page 15 link to page 15 Department of State, Foreign Operations, and Related Programs

Diplomatic Security
For FY2021, the Trump Administration requested around $5.38 bil ion for the State Department’s
key diplomatic security accounts: $3.70 bil ion for the Worldwide Security Protection (WSP)
al ocation within the Diplomatic Programs account and $1.68 bil ion for the Embassy Security,
Construction, and Maintenance (ESCM) account. The Administration’s request represented a
decrease of 11.4% from the FY2020 enacted funding level (see Table 4).
Table 4. Diplomatic Security Annual Appropriations, FY2019-FY2021
(In mil ions of current U.S. dol ars, includes OCO funds)
%
%
change,
change,
FY20
FY20
enacted
enacted
FY2019
FY2020
FY2021
to FY21
FY2021
FY2021
to FY21
Account
Actual
Enacted
Request
request
House
Enacted
enacted
Worldwide Security
4.10
4.10
3.70
-9.8%
4.10
4.12
0.6%
Protection
Embassy Security,
1.98
1.98
1.68
-14.8%
1.98
1.95
-1.3%
Construction, and
Maintenance
Diplomatic
6.08
6.08
5.38
-11.4%
6.08
6.07
0%a
Security (total)
Sources: FY2021 SFOPS CBJ; P.L. 116-94; H.R. 7608; P.L. 116-260; CRS calculations. Does not include funds
provided in P.L. 117-2 (ARPA). P.L. 117-31 did not include any diplomatic security funding.
Notes: Percentage changes may not reflect numbers included in this table due to rounding. Annual
appropriations data do not reflect available carryover funds.19
a. Aggregate funding appropriated to the diplomatic security accounts in both FY2020 and FY2021 totaled
$6,071,348,000. However, rounding the disaggregated funding levels for the WSP al ocation and the ESCM
account, which slightly differed across these two fiscal years, made it appear that the aggregate funding
levels were not identical.
The Trump Administration proposed that Congress decouple WSP from Diplomatic Programs and
establish a standalone WSP account (see text box). WSP funds the Bureau of Diplomatic Security
(DS), which is responsible for implementing the department’s security programs to protect U.S.
embassies and other overseas posts, diplomatic residences, and domestic State Department
offices. In addition, WSP supports many of the State Department’s security and emergency
response programs, including those pertaining to operational medicine and security and crisis
management training.20 The ESCM account funds the Bureau of Overseas Building Operations
(OBO), which is responsible for providing U.S. diplomatic and consular missions overseas with
secure, functional, and resilient facilities and managing nonmilitary U.S. government property
abroad.21

19 Over the past several years, Congress provided no-year appropriations for both WSP and ESCM, thereby authorizing
the State Department to indefinitely retain appropriated funds beyond the fiscal year for which they were appropriated.
As a result, the department has carried over large balances of unexpired, unobligated WSP and ESCM funds each year
that it is authorized to obligate for purposes including multiyear construction projects and unexpected security
contingencies.
20 U.S. Department of State, Congressional Budget Justification, p. 14.
21 U.S. Department of State, Congressional Budget Justification, Appendix 1: Department of State Diplomatic
Congressional Research Service

10

link to page 15 Department of State, Foreign Operations, and Related Programs

The Trump Administration’s WSP-funded priorities for FY2021 included the hiring of an
additional 110 special agents at DS, which the Administration maintained was necessary to
address critical overseas vacancies. In addition, the Administration sought funding to deploy High
Definition Secure Video Systems (HDSVS) at overseas posts worldwide. The Administration
stated these systems would provide enhanced monitoring capabilities, including greater video
resolution and enhanced nighttime visibility.22
The Trump Administration’s ESCM request
Proposed Standalone WSP Account
included $866.67 mil ion for the State
The Worldwide Security Protection (WSP) subaccount
Department’s share of the Capital Security
within the Diplomatic Programs account has been used
Cost Sharing and Maintenance Cost Sharing
to fund programs that the State Department’s Bureau
Programs (CSCS/MCS), which fund the
of Diplomatic Security (DS) and other bureaus
implement to protect the department’s staff, property,
planning, design, construction, and
and information. Similar to the FY2020 request, the
maintenance of the United States’ overseas
FY2021 proposal requested that Congress create a
diplomatic posts. The Administration
new WSP standalone account and authorize the
maintained that this request, when combined
transfer of al unobligated WSP funds into this account
with funds contributed by other agencies with
by no later than the onset of FY2022 (October 1,
2021). The Trump Administration maintained that
overseas personnel and visa fee revenues,
creating this account wil increase the transparency of
would fund these programs at the $2.20 bil ion
WSP expenditures by more clearly disaggregating
level recommended by the Benghazi
funding for diplomatic programs from that for security-
Accountability Review Board.23 Construction
related activities. Congress refrained from
implementing the Administration’s request in the
projects the Administration sought to fund
FY2021 SFOPS appropriations law.
through this request included a new embassy
compound in Riyadh, Saudi Arabia, and new
consulate compounds in Adana, Turkey, and Rio de Janeiro, Brazil.24
The House legislation (H.R. 7608, 116th Congress), if enacted, would have provided a total of
$6.08 bil ion for the State Department’s diplomatic security accounts. This figure was equal to the
FY2020 enacted level for these accounts and totaled 13.0% more than the Trump
Administration’s request (see Table 4).25 H.Rept. 116-444 stated that this funding included
resources to deploy HDSVS at overseas posts worldwide and hire 110 new DS agents, as
requested by the Administration.26 The House legislation did not seek to implement the
Administration’s request for a standalone WSP account.
The enacted FY2021 appropriations law provided $4.12 bil ion for WSP and $1.95 bil ion for
ESCM, for a total of approximately $6.07 bil ion in diplomatic security funding. This aggregate
funding level exceeded the Trump Administration’s request by about 12.9% and was equal to
both the funding level that would have been provided in the House bil and the FY2020
appropriation. While the aggregate funding levels were equal, the FY2021 enacted appropriation

Engagem ent, Fiscal Year 2021, February 10, 2020, p. 328.
22 U.S. Department of State, Congressional Budget Justification, p. 14.
23 U.S. Department of State, Congressional Budget Justification, Appendix 1: Department of State Diplomatic
Engagem ent,
pp. 1-2.
24 U.S. Department of State, Congressional Budget Justification, Appendix 1: Department of State Diplomatic
Engagem ent,
p. 331.
25 While H.R. 7608 and P.L. 116-94 provide identical overall funding levels for the diplomatic security accounts, H.R.
7608 provides $200,000 more in OCO funding for ESCM, with a corresponding $200,000 decrease in ESCM base
budget funding.
26 House Committee on Appropriations, State Foreign Operations, and Related Programs Appropriations Bill, 2021 , p.
13.
Congressional Research Service

11

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

provided more funding for WSP and less funding for ESCM than the House bil and the FY2020
appropriation. Like the House bil , the enacted appropriation did not provide for the creation of a
standalone WSP account, as requested by the Administration. The joint explanatory statement
accompanying this law maintained the language provided in H.Rept. 116-444 regarding funding
for the deployment of HDSVS and the hiring of additional DS agents. The joint explanatory
statement also recommended a State Department contribution of $1.07 bil ion to the CSCS and
MCS programs, which totaled 23.0% more than the intended contribution included in the
Administration’s request.27 However, as in previous years, the Department of State and other
stakeholders were authorized to determine the annual funding level and contributions for al
agencies.28
Assessed Contributions to International Organizations and
Peacekeeping Missions

The Contributions to International Organizations (CIO) account is the funding vehicle for the
United States’ payments of its assessed contributions (membership dues) to over 40 organizations.
These include the United Nations (U.N.) and its specialized agencies (among them, the World
Health Organization, or WHO), inter-American organizations such as the Organization of
American States, and the North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO), among others.29 U.S.
funding to international organizations is also provided through the various SFOPS multilateral
assistance accounts, as described in the “Foreign Operations Highlights” section of this report.
Separately, the United States pays its assessed contributions to most U.N. peacekeeping missions
through the Contributions for International Peacekeeping Operations (CIPA) account.30
For FY2021, the Trump Administration requested a combined $2.05 bil ion for these accounts. If
enacted, this funding level would have marked a 31.8% cut from that provided by Congress for
FY2020. Table 5 shows recent funding levels for each account.

27 Joint Explanatory Statement Accompanying Division K of P.L. 116-260, p. 16.
28 For example, see Section 7004(b) of P.L. 116-260. T he State Department submits its planned contributions to the
CSCS and MCS programs, and the total funding levels for these programs, as part of the annual Embassy Security,
Construction, and Maintenance account operating plans that it is required by law to provide to Congress pursuant to
annual appropriations laws. For example, see Sec. 7061 of P.L. 116-260.
29 U.S. Department of State, Congressional Budget Justification, pp. 40-41. On April 14, 2020, President Donald
T rump announced that the United States would suspend funding to the World Health Organization (WHO), pending a
60- to 90-day review, because of WHO’s “ role in severely mismanaging and covering up the spread of the
coronavirus.” For more information, see CRS Insight IN11369, U.S. Funding to the World Health Organization
(WHO)
, by Luisa Blanchfield and T iaji Salaam-Blyther.
30 Successive Administrations have also requested funds for the U.N. Support office in Somalia (UNSOS) under the
Contributions for International Peacekeeping Activities (CIPA) account. However, Congress generally has appropriated
funds for UNSOS through t he Peacekeeping Operations (PKO) account.
Congressional Research Service

12

Department of State, Foreign Operations, and Related Programs

Table 5. U.S. Payments of Assessments to International Organizations and
Peacekeeping Missions, FY2019-FY2021
(In billions of current U.S. dol ars; includes OCO funds)
%
%
change,
change,
FY20
FY20
enacted
enacted
FY2019
FY2020
FY2021
to FY21
FY2021
FY2021
to FY21
Account
Actual
Enacted
Request
request
House
Enacted
enacted
Contributions to
1.36
1.47
0.97
-34.4%
1.51
1.51
2.2%
International
Organizations
Contributions for
1.55
1.53
1.08
-29.3%
1.46
1.46
-4.6%
International
Peacekeeping
Activities
Total
2.91
3.00
2.05
-31.8%
2.97
2.97
-1.3%
Sources: FY2021 SFOPS CBJ; P.L. 116-94; H.R. 7608; P.L. 116-260; CRS calculations. Does not include funds
provided in P.L. 117-2 (ARPA). P.L. 117-31 did not include any funds for the CIO or CIPA accounts.
Note: Percentage changes may not reflect numbers included in this table due to rounding.
Similar to previous budget requests, the Trump Administration’s CIO request prioritized paying
assessments to international organizations “whose missions substantial y advance U.S. foreign
policy interests” while proposing funding cuts to those organizations whose work it said either
did not directly affect U.S. national security interests or rendered unclear results.31 With these
intentions in mind, the Administration proposed to decrease payments to the U.N. regular budget
and specialized agency funding by around one-third.32 The request intended to maintain near-
recent-year levels of U.S. funding for other organizations, including the International Atomic
Energy Agency (IAEA).33
For CIPA, the Trump Administration’s FY2021 request reflected its commitment to reduce costs
for U.N. peacekeeping missions by reevaluating their respective mandates, design, and
implementation. The Administration stated that its request, when combined with the application
of U.N. peacekeeping credits (excess funds from previous U.N. peacekeeping missions), would
have al owed the United States to provide 25% of al assessed global funding for U.N.
peacekeeping missions, which is equal to the statutory cap established by Congress.34 However,
the current U.S. assessment for U.N. peacekeeping (last negotiated in 2018) is 27.9%, meaning
that around $345 mil ion of anticipated U.S. assessed funding would have been carried over into
arrears.35 This practice has resulted in the accumulation of over $1 bil ion in U.S. peacekeeping
arrearages since FY2017.36

31 U.S. Department of State, Congressional Budget Justification, p. 40.
32 U.S. Department of State, Congressional Budget Justification, p. 41.
33 U.S. Department of State, Congressional Budget Justification, p. 41.
34 See Section 404 of P.L. 103-236.
35 U.S. Department of State, Congressional Budget Justification, p. 43.
36 Over the years, the gap between the actual U.S. peacekeeping assessment and the 25% statutory cap led to funding
shortfalls. T he State Department and Congress often covered these shortfalls by raising the cap for limited peri ods and
allowing for the application of U.N. peacekeeping credits to fund outstanding U.S. balances. For several years, these
actions allowed the United States to pay its peacekeeping assessments in full. However, since FY2017 Congress has
declined to raise the cap, and in mid-2017, the T rump Administration began the ongoing practice of allowing the
Congressional Research Service

13

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

If enacted, the House legislation would have provided $2.97 bil ion for CIO and CIPA, a decrease
of 1.0% from the FY2020 enacted figure and an increase of 44.9% from the Trump
Administration’s request (see Table 5). For CIO, it sought to ensure that not less than $118.95
mil ion was made available to the World Health Organization (WHO) and not less than $53.91
mil ion was made available to NATO. While the Trump Administration notified Congress of its
intent to withdraw from the WHO, the House legislation would have prevented the use of any
funds made available by the act for this purpose.37 With regard to CIPA, the House legislation
included authority to al ow the Secretary of State to exceed the 25% statutory cap with respect to
payment of U.S. assessed contributions to peacekeeping missions. This was intended to limit the
further accumulation of arrears.38
The FY2021 appropriations law provided a combined total of $2.96 bil ion for CIO and CIPA,
which is 44.8% more than the Trump Administration's request and identical to the amount in the
House proposal. The enacted law did not include the aforementioned House bil provisions
providing line item funding to the WHO and NATO and prohibiting the use of appropriated funds
to withdraw the United States from the WHO. This may owe in part to then-President-elect
Biden’s pledge to retract the United States’ intent to withdraw from the WHO.39 The law also
provided the funding necessary to pay the full U.S. assessment to the U.N. regular budget.40 For
CIPA, the joint explanatory statement noted that sufficient funds were provided for United States
contributions to peacekeeping missions at the 25% statutory cap.41 The law permitted the
payment of peacekeeping arrears with appropriated funds, provided that the State Department
consult with Congress prior to using appropriated funds for this purpose.
Foreign Operations Highlights
The foreign operations accounts in the SFOPS appropriation compose the majority of U.S.
foreign assistance included in the international affairs budget; the remainder is enacted in the
agriculture appropriation, which provides funding for the Food for Peace Act, Title II and
McGovern-Dole International Food for Education and Child Nutrition programs.42 The Trump
Administration’s FY2021 foreign operations request totaled $30.09 bil ion, representing a 3.7%
increase from the Administration’s FY2020 request and a 25.7% decrease from FY2020-enacted
levels. Total foreign assistance requested for FY2021, including the food assistance funds
provided in the agriculture appropriation, would have represented a 29.1% reduction from
FY2020-enacted levels.

application of peacekeeping credits up to, but not beyond, the 25% cap. For more information, see CRS In Focus
IF10597, United Nations Issues: U.S. Funding of U.N. Peacekeeping , by Luisa Blanchfield.
37 See Section 9015 of H.R. 7608.
38 House Committee on Appropriations, State Foreign Operations, and Related Programs Appropriations Bill, 2021 ,
p. 31.
39 After his inauguration, President Biden implemented this pledge. See letter from President Joseph R. Biden Jr. to Mr.
António Guterres, Secretary-General of the United Nations, January 20, 2 021, https://www.whitehouse.gov/briefing-
room/statements-releases/2021/01/20/letter-his-excellency-antonio-guterres/. See also Jamey Keaten, “ Biden’s US
revives support for WHO, reversing T rump retreat ,” Associated Press, January 21, 2021.
40 Joint Explanatory Statement Accompanying Division K of P.L. 116-260, p. 18.
41 Joint Explanatory Statement Accompanying Division K of P.L. 116-260, p. 10.
42 For more information on international food assistance programs, see CRS Report R45422, U.S. International Food
Assistance: An Overview
, by Alyssa R. Casey.
Congressional Research Service

14

link to page 32 link to page 21 Department of State, Foreign Operations, and Related Programs

The Trump Administration’s budget request articulated five primary goals for U.S. foreign
assistance that were meant to align with the National Security Strategy and the State-USAID Joint
Strategic Plan:
 prioritize global strategic chal enges, including countering Chinese, Russian, and
Iranian influence;
 support strategic partners and al ies, including Israel, Egypt, Jordan, Colombia,
and Venezuela;43
 enhance commitment to long-term development;
 strengthen key areas of U.S. leadership, to include global health and
humanitarian assistance; and
 advance U.S. national security and economic interests.44
These goals were also meant to guide the Trump Administration’s regional thematic priorities
(see “Country and Regional Assistance”), as wel as how funds would be al ocated across
assistance types. The Administration’s FY2021 budget request proposed cuts in nearly al
assistance types (Table 6). The only exception was export promotion assistance, which would
have seen a significant increase, largely due to proposed funding for the new U.S. International
Development Finance Corporation (DFC), and an estimated increase in offsetting collections
from the Export-Import Bank.45
The House legislation, H.R. 7608 (116th Congress), included a total of $48.64 bil ion for foreign
operations, an increase of 19.5% from FY2020 enacted levels and a 61.7% increase from the
Trump Administration’s request. This steep increase over FY2020 funding could largely be
attributed to the $9.06 bil ion in emergency funding appropriated to “prevent, prepare for, and
respond to coronavirus” abroad.46
The omnibus appropriation, P.L. 116-260, provided $44.22 bil ion for foreign operations, an 8.7%
increase from FY2020 enacted levels and a 47.0% increase from the Trump Administration’s
FY2021 request. Some of the increase may be attributed to emergency funding appropriated in
Title IX of SFOPS, which was designated for COVID-19 response, including for vaccine
procurement and distribution, and assistance to Sudan.
In March 2021, Congress provided an additional $9.80 bil ion in foreign operations funding
through ARPA to address COVID-19 abroad. Funds were not divided among regular
appropriations accounts; rather sections cited certain authorities in the Foreign Assistance Act of
1961, as amended and designated funds for a range of activities. According to the legislation,
foreign operations funds are intended to support global health programs, international disaster
relief, and contributions to multilateral COVID-19 responses, among others.
In July 2021, Congress provided an additional $600 mil ion in emergency supplemental foreign
operations funding through P.L. 117-31. The measure included $100 mil ion in Migration and

43 According to the T rump Administration, support for Venezuela would include “bilateral democracy and health
assistance for Venezuelans, as well as assistance for Venezuelans fleeing their country and for the communities hosting
them.” Further, the Administration maintained that it includes flexibility in programming to “support a democratic
transition and related needs in Venezuela should circumstances warrant.” U.S. Department of State, Congressional
Budget Justification
, p. 75.
44 Documents provided by the State Department at budget roll-out briefings, February 10, 2020.
45 U.S. Department of State, Congressional Budget Justification, p. 108.
46 H.R. 7608.
Congressional Research Service

15

link to page 22 Department of State, Foreign Operations, and Related Programs

Refugee Assistance and $500 mil ion in Emergency Refugee and Migration Assistance funds to
“address humanitarian needs in Afghanistan and to assist Afghan refugees.”
Table 6. Foreign Operations, by Type, FY2019-FY2021
(In bil ions of U.S. dol ars)
%
%
change,
change,
FY20
FY20
enacted
enacted
FY2019
FY2020
FY2021
to FY21
FY2021
FY2021
to FY21
Type
Actual
Enacted
Request
request
House
Enacted
enacted
USAID Administration
1.67
1.76
1.59
-9.5%
1.79
1.71
-2.71%
Global Health Programs
8.87
9.53
6.00
-37.1%
11.66
13.20
38.50%
Non-Health Development
Assistance
(includes Treasury TA,
8.10
8.13
6.15
-24.3%
11.47
8.89
9.35%
excludes ind. agencies)
Humanitarian Assistance
7.82
8.74
6.27
-28.3%
10.08
8.43
-3.54%
(SFOPS only, excludes FFP)
Independent Agencies
1.37
1.47
1.21
-17.9%
1.41
1.39
-5.46%
Security Assistance
9.15
9.01
7.73
-14.2%
9.02
9.00
-0.11%
Multilateral Assistance
1.85
2.08
1.48
-28.9%
3.32
2.04
-1.99%
Export Promotion
-0.16
-0.02
-0.34
1379.3%
-1.00
0.16
-797.37%
Foreign Operations Total,
pre ARPA

40.39
40.70
30.09
-26.1%
48.64
44.82
10.12%
ARPA Emergency Funds
-
-
-
-
-
9.80
-
Foreign Operations Total,
40.39
40.70
30.09
-26.1%
48.64
54.62
34.20%
with ARPA
Sources: P.L. 116-260; H.R. 7608; FY2021 SFOPS CBJ; P.L. 116-94; P.L. 116-123; P.L. 116-136; P.L. 117-2; P.L.
117-31; CRS calculations.
Notes: FY2020-enacted includes funds from the first and third supplemental appropriations for the novel
coronavirus (P.L. 116-123 and, respectively). Export promotion totals are negative because offsetting col ections
from the Export-Import Bank and the Development Finance Corporation are anticipated to exceed
appropriations, as they have in past years, resulting in a net budget gain.
Key Sectors
Consistent with prior year funding and the FY2020 enacted levels, proposed funding for global
health programs, humanitarian assistance, and security assistance comprised approximately two-
thirds of the $30.09 bil ion FY2021 foreign operations budget request (Figure 3).
Congressional Research Service

16

link to page 22
Department of State, Foreign Operations, and Related Programs

Figure 3. Foreign Operations, by Type, FY2021 Request

Source: FY2021 SFOPS CBJ.
Global Health Programs47
The total FY2021 request for the Global Health Programs (GHP) account was nearly $6.00
bil ion, representing a 5.4% reduction from the FY2020 budget request and a 37.5% reduction
from the FY2020-enacted level, including supplemental appropriations. When compared with
FY2020-enacted levels before enactment of supplemental funding for the COVID-19 pandemic,
all but one GHP subaccount would have been reduced under the budget proposal (Table 7).
Requested cuts to GHP subaccounts ranged from 8.0% for malaria programs to 100% for
USAID’s HIV/AIDS and vulnerable children subaccounts. The Trump Administration asserted
that despite its proposed reduction to HIV/AIDS funding, the requested level would have been
sufficient to maintain treatment for al current recipients. The proposal also reflected the
Administration’s effort to limit U.S. contributions to the Global Fund—an international financing
mechanism for efforts to combat AIDS, tuberculosis, and malaria—to 25% of al donations, rather
than the 33% limit that the United States has provided since the George W. Bush Administration.
Table 7. Global Health Programs, by Subaccount, FY2019-FY2021
(In mil ions of U.S. dol ars)
%
% change,
change,
FY20
FY20
enacted
enacted
FY2019
FY2020
FY2021
to FY21
FY2021
FY2021
to FY21
Subaccount
Actual
Enacted
Request
request
House
Enacted
enacted
State HIV/AIDS
4,370.0
4,370.0
3,180.3
-27.2%
4,370.0
4,370.0
0.0%
Global Fund
1,350.0
1,560.0
657.7
-57.8%
1,560.0
1,560.0
0.0%
USAID HIV/AIDS
330.0
330.0
0.0
-100.0%
330.0
330.0
0.0%
USAID Malaria
755.0
770.0
708.5
-8.0%
755.0
770.0
0.0%

47 T his section was prepared by T iaji Salaam-Blyther, Specialist in Global Health, and Sara T harakan, Analyst in
Global Health and International Development.
Congressional Research Service

17

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

%
% change,
change,
FY20
FY20
enacted
enacted
FY2019
FY2020
FY2021
to FY21
FY2021
FY2021
to FY21
Subaccount
Actual
Enacted
Request
request
House
Enacted
enacted
USAID Maternal and
Child Health

835.0
851.0
659.6
-22.5%
850.0
855.5
0.5%
USAID Family
Planning/

556.5
524.0
237.0
-54.8%
585.5
524.0
0.0%
Reproductive Healtha
USAID Nutrition
145.0
150.0
90.0
-40.0%
145.0
150.0
0.0%
USAID Tuberculosis
302.0
310.0
275.0
-11.3%
310.0
319.0
2.9%
Pandemic
Influenza/Otherb
535.0
[of which
100.0
[435.0]
115.0
-78.5%
125.0
190.0
-64.5%
supplemental]
Neglected Tropical
Diseases

102.5
102.5
75.0
-26.8%
102.5
102.5
0.0%
Vulnerable Children
24.0
25.0
0.0
-100.0%
24.0
25.0
0.0%
COVID-19




2,500.0c
4,000.0d

GHP Total
8,870.0
9,527.5
5,998.1
-37.5%
11,657.0
13,196.0
38.5%
Source: P.L. 116-260; H.R. 7608; FY2021 SFOPS CBJ; P.L. 116-94; P.L. 116-123; CRS calculations. Does not
include funds provided in P.L. 117-2 (ARPA). P.L. 117-31 did not include global health funds.
a. FY2019 actual reflects a $32.5 mil ion transfer from the International Organizations and Programs (IO&P)
account.
b. FY2020 enacted includes funds from the first supplemental appropriation for the novel coronavirus ( P.L.
116-123).
c. The FY2021 House measure includes $2.50 bil ion in emergency GHP funding to “prevent, prepare for, and
respond to coronavirus.” These funds would be administered by USAID. Of the appropriated funds,
Congress designated $150.0 mil ion for the Emergency Response Fund, $750.0 mil ion for GAVI, and $800.0
mil ion for the Global Fund (P.L. 116-123).
d. FY2021 enacted includes $4.00 bil ion in emergency GHP funding to “prevent, prepare for, and respond to
coronavirus, including for vaccine procurement and delivery.”
As noted above, the Trump Administration’s FY2021 request did not include funds for COVID-
19, because the request was prepared prior to the outbreak. Congress enacted, and the President
signed into law, one supplemental appropriations act that included global health funding for
COVID-19 preparedness and response in March 2020 (P.L. 116-123). The Trump Administration
did not submit a request for additional FY2021 funds to combat the virus.48
The House legislation, H.R. 7608 (116th Congress), would have represented a 22.4% increase
over FY2020 enacted levels and nearly doubled the Trump Administration’s proposed global
health funding level. However, much like the overal funding for foreign operations, this steep
increase over FY2020 funding was largely a result of the House’s $2.5 bil ion in emergency GHP
funds to address COVID-19 abroad.
The final FY2021 GHP levels represented a 38.5% increase over FY2020 enacted levels. Most
GHP subaccounts maintained or saw modest increases from FY2020 enacted levels. The overal

48 For more information on the U.S. response to COVID-19, see CRS In Focus IF11421, COVID-19: Global
Im plications and Responses
, by Sara M. T harakan et al.
Congressional Research Service

18

link to page 24
Department of State, Foreign Operations, and Related Programs

increase is therefore primarily a result of $4 bil ion in emergency funding for COVID-19 that was
not al ocated by subaccount and is largely directed for vaccine procurement and distribution.
Through ARPA, Congress provided at least $4.66 bil ion for global health activities, including a
contribution to the Global Fund. However, Congress provided these funds citing Economic
Support Fund (ESF) authorities. It is unclear if the funds wil be channeled through the ESF
appropriations account or transferred to the GHP account prior to their obligation.
Humanitarian Assistance49
The FY2021 budget request for humanitarian assistance was nearly $6.27 bil ion, roughly
equivalent to the FY2020 request but down 40.1% from the FY2020-enacted level of $10.46
bil ion.50 In successive years, the Trump Administration requested levels of humanitarian
assistance far lower than those enacted the prior year, at times reflecting the fact that
humanitarian assistance funds may be carried over from year to year and unobligated balances
from prior years may stil be available. On a bipartisan basis, for many years, Congress
consistently supported global humanitarian efforts through appropriation levels wel above the
budget request (Figure 4).
Figure 4. Humanitarian Assistance Budget Requests and Enacted Funding, by
Account, FY2013-FY2021
(In bil ions of current U.S. dol ars)

Sources: P.L. 116-260; FY2021 SFOPS CBJ; P.L. 116-94; P.L. 116-123; P.L. 116-136; P.L. 117-31. CRS
calculations. Does not include funds provided in P.L. 117-2 (ARPA).

49 T his section prepared by Rhoda Margesson, Specialist in International Humanitarian Policy.
50 T otal FY2020-enacted funding includes supplemental funds enacted in two COVID-19 supplemental appropriations
and Food for Peace Act, T itle II funds, which are part of the Agriculture appropriation.
Congressional Research Service

19

Department of State, Foreign Operations, and Related Programs

Notes: “Request” and “Actual” totals sourced from the most recent U.S. Department of State Congressional
Budget Justification in which they appeared. This figure includes Food for Peace Act, Title II funds, which are part
of the agriculture appropriation, to il ustrate the ful scope of humanitarian assistance.
Accounts: MRA = Migration and Refugee Assistance, IDA = International Disaster Assistance, ERMA =
Emergency Refugee and Migration Assistance, FFP = Food for Peace Act, Title II. *IHA = International
Humanitarian Assistance, a consolidated humanitarian assistance account proposed by the Trump Administration
that was never used in enacted SFOPS legislation.
In addition to the proposed $6.27 bil ion in new funding for humanitarian assistance, the Trump
Administration’s request assumed $2.80 bil ion in carryover funding from past-year humanitarian
assistance. The Administration asserted that the FY2021 request, combined with the estimated
carryover, totaled close to $9.00 bil ion, which would al ow the United States “to program wel
above the second highest level ever, and is sufficient to address the needs for Syria, Yemen, and
other crisis areas.”51
The House legislation included $11.85 bil ion in humanitarian assistance, including $2.25 bil ion
in emergency funding to address COVID-19 in humanitarian contexts and $1.78 bil ion in Food
for Peace Act, Title II funds. This level represented a 13% increase from FY2020 enacted levels
and an 89.0% increase from the Trump Administration’s proposal.
The omnibus legislation included $9.57 bil ion in humanitarian assistance, including $1.74 bil ion
in Food for Peace Act, Title II funds. This level represents a modest increase (0.2%) over FY2020
enacted levels, not including supplemental funds that had been enacted to address COVID-19
abroad.
ARPA included at least $4.39 bil ion in foreign assistance that may be used for humanitarian
purpose, including $800 mil ion for Food for Peace Act, Title II activities. Of those funds,
Congress provided $3.09 bil ion using ESF authorities but designated those funds for
“international disaster relief, rehabilitation, and reconstruction, for health activities, and to meet
emergency food security needs.” It is unclear whether the funds wil be channeled through the
ESF appropriations account or transferred to humanitarian accounts such as IDA prior to their
use.
P.L. 117-31 provided an additional $600 mil ion in humanitarian assistance for FY2021, including
$100 mil ion for Migration and Refugee Assistance and $500 mil ion for Emergency Refugee and
Migration Assistance. Congress designated such funds to address humanitarian chal enges in
Afghanistan as wel as the needs of Afghan refugees.
Proposed Humanitarian Account Consolidation
For FY2021, as in FY2020, the Trump Administration proposed to fund al humanitarian
assistance through a single International Humanitarian Assistance (IHA) account managed
through USAID’s new Bureau for Humanitarian Assistance (BHA). The Administration justified
the restructuring as necessary “to optimize humanitarian assistance, prioritize funding, and use
funding as effectively and efficiently as possible.”52 The proposal would effectively have moved
the administration of overseas refugee and migration assistance funding—currently funded
through the Migration and Refugee Assistance (MRA) and Emergency Refugee and Migration

51 FY2021 SFOPS CBJ, p. 80.
52 In FY2020, the T rump Administration proposed a “senior dual-hat leader” under the authority of the Secretary of
State but reporting to both the Secretary of State and the USAID Administrator, which appear s to have been replaced
by “leveraging the comparative strengths of the Department of State and USAID under the authority of the Secretary of
State.” FY2021 SFOPS CBJ, p. 80.
Congressional Research Service

20

link to page 27 Department of State, Foreign Operations, and Related Programs

Assistance (ERMA) accounts—from the State Department to USAID.53 In FY2020, enacted
funding for these accounts totaled $3.78 bil ion. The budget request would have eliminated the
ERMA account and significantly reduced funding to MRA, with none for overseas needs. Within
USAID, the BHA is in the process of combining the functions of the Offices of U.S. Foreign
Disaster Assistance and Food for Peace. The budget request would have eliminated the
International Disaster Assistance (IDA) account (FY2020-enacted funding totaled $4.95 bil ion),
as wel as Food for Peace Act, Title II emergency food assistance funding, the latter of which is
currently appropriated through the agriculture appropriation but administered by USAID
(FY2020-enacted funding totaled $1.73 bil ion). Funds previously requested in these accounts
would have been consolidated into the IHA account.
None of the enacted legislation adopted the Trump Administration’s IHA proposal. The report
accompanying the House bil , H.Rept. 116-444, noted that the “Committee does not support the
consolidation of al overseas humanitarian assistance into a single account.” Instead, the bil
would have appropriated funds in the traditional account structure.
Security Assistance
The Trump Administration requested $7.73 bil ion in international security assistance for
FY2021, an increase of 4.3% from the FY2020 request and 14.3% below the FY2020-enacted
level. The greatest cuts to security assistance accounts would have been to Peacekeeping
Operations (PKO, -36.6%) and International Military Education and Training (IMET, -27.4%)
(Figure 5).54

53 T here was no funding requested in the Migration and Refugee Assistance (MRA) account for overseas humanitarian
needs. However, the State Department’s Bureau of Population, Refugees, and Migration (PRM) would have retained
$299.21 million in MRA funding to support U.S. refugee admissions, Humanitarian Migrants to Israel, and PRM
administrative expenses, as well as other activities such as policy oversight and diplomatic engagement. T ransfer
authority would reportedly have allowed funding to move from IHA to MRA should the MRA funds be insufficient.
54 FY2021 PKO request figures include funds for the U.N. Support office in Somalia (UNSOS), which successive
Administrations have requested under the Contributions for International Peacekeeping Activities (CIPA) account, but
Congress generally has appropriated through t he Peacekeeping Operations (PKO) account.
Congressional Research Service

21


Department of State, Foreign Operations, and Related Programs

Figure 5. Security Assistance, by Account, FY2019-FY2021
(In bil ions of current U.S. dol ars)

Sources: P.L. 116-260; H.R. 7608 FY2021 SFOPS CBJ; P.L. 116-94; CRS calculations. P.L. 117-31 did not include
security assistance.
Notes: FMF = Foreign Military Financing; IMET = International Military Education and Training; PKO =
Peacekeeping Operations; NADR = Nonproliferation, Anti-terrorism, Demining and Related Programs; INCLE =
International Narcotics Control and Law Enforcement.
Consistent with prior year requests and appropriations, the majority of security assistance ($5.19
bil ion) would have been for Foreign Military Financing (FMF) to the Middle East, including
$3.30 bil ion in grants to Israel. As in the Trump Administration’s past three budget proposals, the
FY2021 request sought flexibility to provide FMF assistance through a combination of grants and
loans, including loan guarantees, rather than the current use of FMF on an almost exclusive grant
basis. The Administration asserted that this authority would both “expand the tools available to
the United States to help NATO and Major-Non NATO al ies55 purchase more American-made
defense equipment and related services” and “increase burden sharing by asking these partners to
contribute more national funds to foreign military sales cases.”56
The House legislation included $9.02 bil ion in security assistance, which was essential y level
with FY2020 enacted funding but represented a 16.6% increase from the Trump Administration’s
proposal. The enacted omnibus legislation provided $9.00 bil ion in security assistance, a slight
decrease from FY2020 enacted funding but a 10.9% increase from the Administration’s request.
Development Assistance and Export Promotion
The remaining third of the FY2021 foreign operations request proposed to al ocate funds to non-
health development sectors as wel as to independent agencies, multilateral assistance, and export
promotion agencies.

55 Major non-NAT O allies are designated by the President, in accordance with 22 U.S.C. §2321k.
56 FY2021 SFOPS CBJ, p. 99.
Congressional Research Service

22

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

Development Assistance
The FY2021 budget request would have reduced funding from FY2020-enacted levels in a
number of development sectors (Table 8). Environment-focused aid, for example, would have
been cut by 86.3%, while funding for education and water and sanitation would have declined by
61.2%. As with the FY2020 request, the FY2021 request included a significant increase from
prior year-enacted funding levels for women’s economic empowerment programming, largely
due to a proposed $200.00 mil ion for the Women’s Global Development and Prosperity Initiative
(W-GDP).57
The House legislation, H.R. 7608 (116th Congress), if enacted, would have kept level or increased
al development sectors when compared to FY2020 enacted levels and would have represented an
increase in al sectors when compared to the Trump Administration’s request, with the exception
of gender-related and trafficking in persons programs. When compared to FY2020 enacted levels,
the greatest increases in funding would have been to environmental and gender programming.
The omnibus legislation, P.L. 116-260, kept level or increased funding for al development sectors
when compared to FY2020 enacted appropriations. The largest increases were to gender and
trafficking in persons programs, which saw 69.5% and 47.8% increases, respectively, from
FY2020 enacted levels (Table 8). Within the funds designated for gender programs, Congress
fulfil ed the Trump Administration’s request for $200.00 mil ion for W-GDP.58
Congress provided additional funding for development assistance in ARPA. As explained above,
Congress cited ESF authorities for the majority of the foreign operations funds. However, the
stated priorities for those funds largely align with other appropriations accounts (e.g., $905
mil ion is directed toward “United States Agency for International Development for global health
activities to prevent, prepare for, and respond to coronavirus, which shal include a contribution to
a multilateral vaccine development partnership to support epidemic preparedness.”) As such, it is
unclear whether or not the ARPA funds wil be obligated and expended through the ESF
appropriations account.
Table 8. Select Development Sectors, FY2019-FY2021
(In mil ions of current U.S. dol ars)
%
% change,
change,
FY20
FY20
enacted to
enacted
FY2019
FY2020
FY2021
FY21
FY2021
FY2021
to FY21
Sector
Actual
Enacted
Request
request
House
Enacted
enacted
Democracy Programs
(excluding NED)
2,400.0
2,400.0
1,551.4
-35.4%
2,400.5
2,417.0
0.7%

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

23

Department of State, Foreign Operations, and Related Programs

%
% change,
change,
FY20
FY20
enacted to
enacted
FY2019
FY2020
FY2021
FY21
FY2021
FY2021
to FY21
Sector
Actual
Enacted
Request
request
House
Enacted
enacted
Education (basic and
higher)
1,035.0
1,110.0
430.5
-61.2%
1,210.0
1,185.0
6.7%
Food Security
1,000.6
1,005.6
506.1
-49.7%
1,005.6
1,010.6
0.5%
Environment
500.7
906.7
124.6
-86.3%
1,306.0
986.7
8.8%
Economic Growth
n.a.
n.a.
2,194.0
n.a.


n.a.
Water and Sanitation
435.0
450.0
174.5
-61.2%
450.0
450.0
0.0%
Gender
215.0
330.0
525.7
59.3%
460.0
560.0
69.7%
Trafficking in Persons
67.0
67.0
77.4
15.5%
67.0
99.0
47.8%
Micro and Smal
265.0
265.0
144.2
-45.6%
265.0
265.0
0.0%
Enterprise
Diplomatic Progress Fund
n.a.
n.a.
200.0
n.a.


n.a.
Sources: P.L. 116-260; H.R. 7608; FY2021 SFOPS CBJ; P.L. 116-94; CRS calculations. Does not include funds
provided in P.L. 117-2 (ARPA). P.L. 117-31 did not include assistance for these activities.
Note: n.a. = not applicable.
Proposed Economic Support and Development Fund
Under the FY2021 request, most development accounts—Development Assistance (DA); ESF;
Assistance to Europe, Eurasia and Central Asia (AEECA); and the Democracy Fund (DF)—
would have been combined into a single new Economic Support and Development Fund (ESDF).
The Trump Administration asserted that this consolidated account would streamline the
deployment of resources, increasing efficiency in foreign assistance. Because the consolidated
account would have incorporated both core and shared USAID accounts, it was unclear what
portion of the new account USAID would manage or implement. The Administration made a
similar request in the FY2018, FY2019, and FY2020 budget requests, but Congress did not enact
the proposals.
The FY2021 budget request nestled the Relief and Recovery Fund (RRF) and a proposed new
Diplomatic Progress Fund (DPF)—both previously requested as separate budget items—under
the proposed ESDF account. According to the justification, the DPF would “al ow the State
Department and USAID to respond to new opportunities arising from progress in diplomatic and
peace efforts around the world.”59 While Congress provided funds for the RRF in previous fiscal
years, Congress did not accept the Trump Administration’s proposal for the DPF.
The House legislation did not include ESDF, but rather continued the use of DA, ESF, AEECA,
and DF. In addition, pursuant to the Global Fragility Act (Title V, Division J, P.L. 116-94) the
House replaced the RRF with a new Prevention and Stabilization Fund (PSF). However, the
funding level for the new PSF was $100.00 mil ion, half of what was appropriated in FY2020 for
the RRF. The House prohibited funding for the Trump Administration’s proposed DPF.

59 FY2021 SFOPS CBJ, p. 77.
Congressional Research Service

24

Department of State, Foreign Operations, and Related Programs

As with the House legislation, the omnibus appropriation did not include ESDF and included
$100.00 mil ion for the PSF. Further, there was no mention of the Trump Administration’s
proposed DPF in the final legislation.
Independent Agencies
The Trump Administration’s FY2021 request would have reduced funding to the Peace Corps (-
19.5%) and the Mil ennium Chal enge Corporation (-11.6%). The request also proposed
eliminating the Inter-American Foundation (IAF) and the U.S. African Development Foundation
(USADF), and incorporating staff and smal grant activities of the two foundations into USAID’s
new Bureau for Development, Democracy, and Innovation.60 The Administration maintained that
this consolidation would al ow USAID to “capitalize on the existing expertise, capacity,
relationships, and tools that USADF and IAF provide, including their regional and market
segment emphases, in order to reinforce U.S. government bilateral development efforts.”61 To
implement the shuttering of the IAF and USADF, the Administration requested $3.85 mil ion and
$4.66 mil ion, respectively.
The House legislation would have provided level or increased funding for al independent
agencies when compared to FY2020 enacted funding before FY2020 supplemental funding was
passed for COVID-19.62 The legislation also did not adopt the Trump Administration’s proposal
to eliminate the IAF and USADF. Rather, the House provided increased funding for the two
agencies, including $10.00 mil ion in emergency COVID-19 funding for each agency.
The omnibus appropriation provided level or increased funding for independent agencies when
comparing to FY2020 enacted levels before supplemental appropriations were passed.63 Congress
also appropriated increased and level funds for the IAF and USADF, respectively.
Multilateral Assistance
SFOPS multilateral assistance accounts provide for U.S. payments to multilateral development
banks and international organizations that pool funding from multiple donors to finance
development activities.64 The Trump Administration’s FY2021 request would have reduced these
accounts by 28.9% from FY2020-enacted levels. As in the Trump Administration’s three previous
requests, the proposal would have eliminated funding for the International Organizations and
Programs (IO&P) account, which funds U.S. voluntary contributions to international
organizations, primarily United Nations entities such as UNICEF. Congress appropriated $390.50
mil ion for IO&P in FY2020. The Administration also proposed eliminating funds for the Global
Environment Facility (GEF) and the International Fund for Agricultural Development (IFAD).
For the GEF, the Administration asserted that carryover funds from FY2019 and FY2020
appropriations were sufficient to meet the U.S. pledge to the GEF’s seventh replenishment.65

60 T he T rump Administration was not the first to propose elimination of the Inter-American Foundation. In 1999,
Congress passed legislation (P.L. 106-113, later amended by P.L. 106-429) that authorized the President during
FY2000-FY2001 to abolish the Inter-American Foundation. However, the President did not exercise the authority
during FY2000-FY2001.
61 FY2021 SFOPS CBJ, pp. 85-86.
62 T he Peace Corps received $88 million in FY2020 supplemental appropriations ( P.L. 116-136) to address COVID-19
abroad.
63 Ibid.
64 For more information on U.S. payments to multilateral development banks, see CRS Report RS20792, Multilateral
Developm ent Banks: U.S. Contributions FY2000 -FY2020
, by Rebecca M. Nelson.
65 FY2021 SFOPS CBJ, p. 104.
Congressional Research Service

25

Department of State, Foreign Operations, and Related Programs

The House legislation, if enacted, would have provided a total of $3.32 bil ion in multilateral
assistance accounts, representing a 59.6% increase compared to FY2020 enacted levels and a
124.3% increase from the Trump Administration’s request. This increase is largely due to the
inclusion of $1.28 bil ion in emergency COVID-19 funding for the IO&P account.
The omnibus appropriation provided a total of $2.04 bil ion in multilateral assistance accounts,
representing a 2.0% decrease from FY2020-enacted levels. The largest decrease was to funds for
the International Development Association, which saw an 8.8% decrease from its FY2020
enacted appropriation. Al other accounts were kept level or experienced a slight decrease with
the exception of the International Fund for Agricultural Development, which saw an 8.3%
increase from its FY2020 enacted funding.
Through ARPA, Congress provided an additional $580 mil ion in multilateral assistanc e funding,
citing the IO&P authorities in the Foreign Assistance Act of 1961, as amended. Congress directed
the funds “include support for the priorities and objectives of the United Nations Global
Humanitarian Response Plan COVID–19 through voluntary contributions to international
organizations and programs administered by such organizations.”
Export Promotion
The FY2021 request included an increased investment in the U.S. Development Finance
Corporation (DFC), established in 2019 to implement the BUILD Act.66 However, the Trump
Administration proposed eliminating funding for the U.S. Trade and Development Agency
(USTDA)—the request included $12.11 mil ion for the agency’s “orderly closeout”—and an
8.3% reduction from FY2020-enacted levels for the Export-Import Bank of the United States’
Operations account.67 As in previous years, the Administration assumed that al export promotion
expenditures would be offset by collections. In the FY2021 request, the Administration assumed
$711.20 mil ion and $496.00 mil ion in offsetting collections from the Export-Import Bank and
the DFC, respectively.
The House legislation would have provided level or increased funding for export promotion
accounts when compared to both FY2020 enacted levels and the Trump Administration’s request.
The only exception was the DFC corporate capital account’s administrative expenses subaccount,
which would have received a 10.1% increase in funding when compared to FY2020 enacted
levels but a 2.0% decrease when compared to the Administration’s proposal. As in previous years,
the House assumed that al export promotion expenditures would be offset by collections. The
House legislation also did not accept the Administration’s proposal to shutter USTDA, and
instead funded the agency at the same level as FY2020.
The enacted omnibus appropriation provided level funding for the Export-Import Bank’s
administrative expenses when compared to the FY2020 enacted level and increased funding for
the Bank’s Office of Inspector General. The legislation assumed that the Bank’s expenditures
would be offset by collections and would return $113.5 mil ion to the Treasury. The legislation
also provided increased funding for the DFC, particularly within its Corporate Capital Account,
and assumed only some offsetting collections. As with the House legislation, the omnibus funded
USTDA at the same level as FY2020.

66 For more on the DFC’s structure and operations, see CRS In Focus IF11436, U.S. International Development
Finance Corporation (DFC)
, by Shayerah Ilias Akhtar and Nick M. Brown.
67 FY2021 SFOPS CBJ, p. 106.
Congressional Research Service

26

link to page 32 link to page 19 link to page 33 link to page 33
Department of State, Foreign Operations, and Related Programs

Country and Regional Assistance
The Trump Administration organized much of its country and regional assistance into six
thematic priorities (Figure 6). These priorities were also meant to reflect the broader foreign
operations goals outlined in “Foreign Operations Highlights.
Figure 6. Regional Thematic Priorities, FY2021 Request

Source: Created by CRS using the Trump Administration’s FY2021 budget rol out documents presented on
February 10, 2020.
Note: This map does not capture al bilateral assistance included in the FY2021 request. Other countries would
receive assistance but are not in the Trump Administration’s calculations for these thematic priorities.
Top country recipients under the FY2021 request remained consistent with prior year funding
al ocations. Israel, Egypt, and Jordan would have remained the top three recipients of foreign
assistance—though Egypt would move ahead of Jordan when compared with FY2019 actual
funding—largely due to the proposed levels of military aid for those three countries. Other
countries that the Trump Administration maintained were strategical y significant, including
Afghanistan and Ukraine, also remained top country recipients in the FY2021 request, as did
several African countries that would have received high levels of global health and development
aid (Table 9).
Regional y, the Middle East and Africa would have received the largest shares of aid in the
FY2021 request—together comprising about 71.5% of total aid al ocated by country or region—
consistent with FY2019 year actuals (Figure 7). Proposed funding for Europe and Eurasia and,
separately, the Indo-Pacific, come to 3.9% and 9.2%, respectively. Notably, the distribution of
assistance within regions varied significantly. For example, Africa received a majority of GHP
funding (58.1% in FY2019 and a proposed 66.7% for FY2021), but accounted for a smal
proportion of INCLE funding (5.2% in FY2019 and a proposed 4.1% for FY2021). In
comparison, the Western Hemisphere region accounted for a smal percentage of GHP (2.5% in
Congressional Research Service

27


Department of State, Foreign Operations, and Related Programs

FY2019 and a proposed 2.2% for FY2021) and a large proportion of INCLE funds (37.7% in
FY2019 and a proposed 44.8% for FY2021).
Table 9. Top Aid Recipients by Country,
Figure 7. Proportional Aid, by Region,
FY2019 Actual and FY2021 Request
FY2019 Actual and FY2021 Request
(In mil ions of current U.S. dol ars)
(In bil ions of current U.S. dol ars)
FY2019 Actual
FY2021 Request
Israel
$3,300.0 Israel
$3,300.0
Jordan
$1,525.0 Egypt
$1,400.0
Egypt
$1,419.3 Jordan
$1,300.0
South Africa
$735.0 Nigeria
$472.1
Nigeria
$658.5 Mozambique
$456.5
Uganda
$487.4 Colombia
$412.9
Afghanistan
$476.5 Afghanistan
$371.8
Iraq
$451.5 Kenya
$330.4
Ukraine
$445.7 Tanzania
$328.7
Zambia
$442.9 Ukraine
$316.9
Sources: FY2021 SFOPS CBJ; FY2019 653(a)
al ocation charts provided by the State
Department.

Note: This reflects only assistance that is
Source: FY2021 SFOPS CBJ.
requested at the country or regional level, not
funds for global activities or humanitarian funds.
The House legislation and report (H.R. 7608/H.Rept. 116-444) did not provide comprehensive
regional al ocations, but did specify assistance levels for several countries and regions. These
included $3.31 bil ion for Israel, $1.53 bil ion for Jordan, $1.43 bil ion for Egypt, and $519.89
mil ion for the Central America region, of which $420.79 mil ion would have been directed to be
used for the Northern Triangle countries (El Salvador, Guatemala, and Honduras). The legislation
also included $457.25 mil ion for Colombia, $453.00 mil ion for Ukraine, and $290.00 mil ion
for the Countering Russian Influence Fund. The House bil would have maintained the use of a
Countering Chinese Influence Fund but did not specify a funding level.
As with the House legislation, the omnibus and its joint explanatory statement did not provide
comprehensive regional al ocations. However, al ocations were specified for some countries and
regions. These included $3.31 bil ion for Israel, $1.65 bil ion for Jordan, $1.43 bil ion for Egypt,
and $505.93 mil ion for the Central America region. The legislation also designated $461.38
mil ion for Colombia, $453.00 mil ion for Ukraine, $290.00 mil ion for the Countering Russian
Influence Fund, and $300.00 mil ion for the Countering Chinese Influence Fund. Final y, the
legislation also made available monies for two new funds—a Global Community Engagement
and Resilience Fund and a People-to-People Partnership for Peace Fund—but did not specify
funding levels for either.

Congressional Research Service

28

link to page 40 link to page 40 link to page 40 link to page 40 link to page 40 link to page 40 link to page 40 link to page 40
Appendix A. SFOPS Funding, by Account
Table A-1. Department of State, Foreign Operations, and Related Agencies Appropriations, FY2019 Actual, FY2020 Enacted,
and FY2021 Request, House-passed bill, and Enacted
(In mil ions of U.S. dol ars; numbers in parentheses are the portion of the account totals designated as OCO or emergency funds)
FY2020
% Change,
FY2021
% Change,
Enacted
FY2020
Enacteda
FY2020
(P.L. 116-94,
Enacted vs.
FY2021
(P.L. 116-
Enacted vs.
FY2019
P.L. 116-123,
FY2021
FY2021
House (H.R.
260, P.L.
FY2021

Actual
P.L. 116-136)
Request
Request
7608)
117-31)
Enacted
Title I. State, Broadcasting &
16,536.59
17,312.18
14,034.56
-18.93%
17,562.65
17,290.19
-0.13%
Related Agencies, TOTAL
(4,064.57)
(4,778.01)
(4,866.94)
(4,357.54)
Administration of Foreign Affairs, Subtotal
12,408.55
12,943.96
11,110.21
-14.17%
13,389.08
12,948.79
4.80%
(2,979.67)
(3,693.11)
(4,064.71)
(3,555.31)
Diplomatic Programs
9,253.95
9,713.69
8,489.89
-12.60%
10,143.20
9,320.01
-4.05%
(2,942.77)
(3,214.12)bc
(3,581.12)d
(2,376.12)e
(of which Worldwide Security Protection)
[4,095.90]
[4,095.90]
[3,695.41]
-9.78%
[4,095.90]
[4,120.90]
0.61%
(2,626.12)
(2,626.12)
(2,626.12)
(2,226.12)
Consular and Border Security Programs





300.00e f

Capital Investment Fund
92.77
139.50
256.70
84.01%
137.50
250.00
79.21%
Office of Inspector General
145.73
145.73
141.42
-2.96%
150.13
145.73
0.00%
(54.90)
(54.90)
(59.30)d
(54.90)
Ed. & Cultural Exchanges
700.95
730.70
310.00
-57.57%
741.70
740.30
1.31%
Representation Expenses
8.03
7.21
7.41
2.79%
7.42
7.42
2.81%
Protection of Foreign Missions & Officials
30.89
30.89
25.90
-16.15%
30.89
30.89
0.00%
Embassy Security, Construction &
1,975.45
1,975.45
1,683.76
-14.78%
1,975.45
1,950.45
-1.27%
Maintenance
(424.09)
(824.29)
(of which Worldwide Security Upgrades)
[1,198.25]
[1,205.65]
[941.66]
-21.90%
[1,205.65]
[1,181.40]
-2.01%
(424.09)
(424.29)
(824.49)
CRS-29

link to page 40
FY2020
% Change,
FY2021
% Change,
Enacted
FY2020
Enacteda
FY2020
(P.L. 116-94,
Enacted vs.
FY2021
(P.L. 116-
Enacted vs.
FY2019
P.L. 116-123,
FY2021
FY2021
House (H.R.
260, P.L.
FY2021

Actual
P.L. 116-136)
Request
Request
7608)
117-31)
Enacted
Emergency-Diplomatic & Consular
7.89
7.89
7.89
0.00%
7.89
7.89
0.00%
Services
Repatriation Loans
1.30
1.30
1.30
0.00%
1.30
2.50
92.31%
Payment American Institute Taiwan
31.96
31.96
26.31
-17.68%
31.96
31.96
0.00%
International Chancery Center
0.74
0.74
0.74
0.00%
2.74
2.74
269.18%
Foreign Service Retirement (mandatory)
158.90
158.90
158.90
0.00%
158.90
158.90
0.00%
International Orgs, Subtotal
2,911.17
3,000.19
2,045.42
-31.82%
2,962.24
2,962.24
-1.26%
(1,084.90)
(1,084.90)
(802.23)
(802.23)
Contributions to Int’l Orgs
1,360.27
1,473.81
966.22
-34.44%
1,505.93
1,505.93
2.18%
(96.24)
(96.24)
(96.24)
(96.24)
Contributions, Int’l Peacekeeping
1,550.90
1,526.38
1,079.20
-29.30%
1,456.31
1,456.31
-4.59%
(988.66)
(988.66)
(705.99)
(705.99)
International Commissions, Subtotal
141.44
162.80
144.11
-11.48%
174.50
176.62
8.49%
(Function 300)

Int’l Boundary/U.S.-Mexico
77.53
85.07
98.77
16.10%
98.77
98.77
16.10%
American Sections
13.26
15.01
10.66
-28.96%
15.01
15.01
0.00%
Int’l Fisheries
50.65
62.72
34.68
-44.71%
60.72
62.85
0.20%
Agency for Global Media, Subtotal
807.90
810.40
637.25
-21.37%
637.25
802.96
-0.92%
Broadcasting Operations
798.20
798.70
632.73
-20.78%
632.73
793.26
-0.68%
Capital Improvements
9.70
11.70
4.52
-61.37%
4.52
9.70
-17.09%
Related Programs, Subtotal
252.78
381.34
83.59
-78.08%
385.28
385.28
1.03%
Asia Foundation
17.00
19.00

-100.00%
20.00
20.00
5.26%
U.S. Institute for Peace
38.63
45.00
15.74
-65.02%
45.00
45.00
0.00%
Center for Middle East-West Dialogue
0.19
0.25
0.25
2.04%
0.25
0.25
2.04%
CRS-30

link to page 40 link to page 40 link to page 40 link to page 40 link to page 40
FY2020
% Change,
FY2021
% Change,
Enacted
FY2020
Enacteda
FY2020
(P.L. 116-94,
Enacted vs.
FY2021
(P.L. 116-
Enacted vs.
FY2019
P.L. 116-123,
FY2021
FY2021
House (H.R.
260, P.L.
FY2021

Actual
P.L. 116-136)
Request
Request
7608)
117-31)
Enacted
Eisenhower Exchange Programs
0.19
0.27
0.21
-22.59%
0.21
0.21
-22.59%
Israeli-Arab Scholarship Program
0.07
0.12
0.12
-4.03%
0.12
0.12
-4.03%
East-West Center
16.70
16.70

-100.00%
19.70
19.70
17.96%
Nat’l Endowment for Democracy
180.00
300.00
67.28
-77.58%
300.00
300.00
0.00%
Other Commissions, Subtotal
14.75
13.50
13.97
-3.46%
14.30
14.30
5.89%
Preservation of America’s Heritage
0.68
0.68
0.64
-4.89%
0.64
0.64
-4.89%
Abroad
Int’l Religious Freedom
4.50
4.50
4.50

4.50
4.50
0.00%
Security & Cooperation in Europe
2.58
2.58
2.58

2.91
2.91
12.76%
Cong.-Exec. Commission on People’s
2.00
2.25
2.25

2.25
2.25
0.00%
Republic of China
U.S.-China Economic and Security Review
3.50
3.50
4.00
14.29%
4.00
4.00
14.29%
Western Hem. Drug Policy Commission
1.50
0.00





Foreign Operations, TOTAL
38,463.96
40,475.46
30,088.86
-25.66%
48,639.81
44,824.25
10.74%
(3,935.43)
(5,869.46)
(13,151.61)
(9,937.58)
Title II. Admin of Foreign Assistance
1,674.48
1,759.05
1,591.75
-9.51%
1,786.03
1,711.45
-2.71%
(158.07)
(96.00)
(108.00)
USAID Operating Expenses
1,372.88
1,472.25
1,311.87
-10.89%
1,469.53
1,377.75
-6.42%
(158.07)
(95.00)c
(105.00)d
USAID Capital Investment Fund
225.00
210.30
205.00
-2.52%
238.00
258.20
22.78%
USAID Inspector General
76.60
76.50
74.88
-2.12%
78.50
75.50
-1.13%
(1.00)b
(3.00)d
Title III: Bilateral Economic Assistance
25,948.70
27,642.99
19,623.49
-29.01%
34,615.92
31,908.95
15.43%
(3,222.78)
(4,936.34)
(10,925.34)
(9,035.46)
CRS-31

link to page 40 link to page 40 link to page 40 link to page 40 link to page 40 link to page 40 link to page 40 link to page 40 link to page 40 link to page 40 link to page 40 link to page 40 link to page 40 link to page 40 link to page 40 link to page 40 link to page 40 link to page 40
FY2020
% Change,
FY2021
% Change,
Enacted
FY2020
Enacteda
FY2020
(P.L. 116-94,
Enacted vs.
FY2021
(P.L. 116-
Enacted vs.
FY2019
P.L. 116-123,
FY2021
FY2021
House (H.R.
260, P.L.
FY2021

Actual
P.L. 116-136)
Request
Request
7608)
117-31)
Enacted
Global Health Programs (GHP), State +
8,869.95
9,527.45
5,998.00
-37.05%
11,656.98
13,195.95
38.50%
USAID
(435.00)b
(2,500.00)d
(4,000.00)e
(of which USAID)
[3,149.95]
[3,597.45]
[2,160.10]
-39.95%
[3,226.98]
[7,265.95]
129.76%
(2,500.00)d
(4,000.00)e
(of which State)
[5,720.00]
[5,930.00]
[3,837.87]
-35.28%
[5,930.00]
[5,930.00]
0.00%
Development Assistance
3,000.00
3,400.00

n.a.
4,700.00
3,500.00
2.94%
(900.00)d
International Disaster Assistance
4,385.31
4,953.36

n.a.
5,520.36
4,395.36
-11.27%
(584.27)
(2,291.98)bc
(2,858.98)d
(1,914.04)
Transition Initiatives
92.04
92.04
112.00
21.68%
92.04
92.04
0.00%
(62.04)
Complex Crises Fund
30.00
30.00

-100.00%
30.00
30.00
0.00%
Development Credit Authority—Admin
10.00






Development Credit Authority Subsidy
[55.00]






Economic Support Fund
3,692.86
3,295.00

n.a.
4,944.41
3,851.96
16.90%
(1,172.34)
(250.00)b
(1,500.00)d
(700.00)e
Economic Support and Development


5,925.60
n.a.


n.a.
Fund
Democracy Fund
227.20
273.70

n.a.
323.70
290.70
6.21%
Assistance for Europe, Eurasia and
760.33
770.33

n.a.
1,270.33
770.33
0.00%
Central Asia
(500.00)d
Migration & Refugee Assistance
3,432.00
3,782.00
299.21
-92.09%
4,557.00
3,532.00
-6.61%
(1,404.12)
(1,871.36)c
(2,646.36)d
(1,801.42)g
International Humanitarian Assistance


5,968.00
n.a.


n.a.
Emergency Refugee and Migration
1.00
0.10

n.a.
0.10
500.10
5,000.00%
Assistance
(500.00)g
CRS-32

link to page 40 link to page 40 link to page 40 link to page 40 link to page 40
FY2020
% Change,
FY2021
% Change,
Enacted
FY2020
Enacteda
FY2020
(P.L. 116-94,
Enacted vs.
FY2021
(P.L. 116-
Enacted vs.
FY2019
P.L. 116-123,
FY2021
FY2021
House (H.R.
260, P.L.
FY2021

Actual
P.L. 116-136)
Request
Request
7608)
117-31)
Enacted
Independent Agencies, Subtotal
1,368.00
1,474.00
1,209.71
-17.93%
1,410.00
1,393.50
-5.46%
(88.00)
(20.00)
Peace Corps
410.50
498.50
401.20
-19.52%
410.50
410.50
-17.65%
(88.00)c
Mil ennium Chal enge Corporation
905.00
905.00
800.00
-11.60%
905.00
912.00
0.77%
Inter-American Foundation
22.50
37.50
3.85
-89.73%
51.50
38.00
1.33%
(10.00)d
U.S. African Development Foundation
30.00
33.00
4.66
-85.88%
43.00
33.00
0.00%
(10.00)d
Department of the Treasury, Subtotal
30.00
45.00
111.00
146.67%
111.00
357.00
693.00%
(120.00)
Department of the Treasury Technical
30.00
30.00
33.00
10.00%
33.00
33.00
10.00%
Assistance
Debt Restructuring

15.00
78.00
420.00%
78.00
324.00
2060.00%
(120.00)e
Title IV. Int’l Security Assistance
9,153.08
9,013.95
7,729.66
-14.25%
9,015.20
9,004.03
-0.11%
(554.59)
(837.12)
(837.12)
(902.12)
International Narcotics Control & Law
1,497.47
1,391.00
1,010.28
-27.37%
1,391.00
1,385.57
-0.39%
Enforcement
Nonproliferation, Anti-Terrorism,
864.55
895.75
753.55
-15.87%
897.00
889.25
-0.73%
Demining
Peacekeeping Operations
488.67
457.35
290.00
-36.59%
457.35
440.76
-3.63%
(325.21)
(325.21)
(325.21)
(325.21)
International Military Education &
110.78
112.93
104.93
-7.08%
112.93
112.93
0.00%
Training
Foreign Military Financing
6,191.61
6,156.92
5,570.90
-9.52%
6,156.92
6,175.52
0.30%
(229.37)
(511.91)
(511.91)
(576.91)
CRS-33

link to page 40 link to page 40 link to page 40
FY2020
% Change,
FY2021
% Change,
Enacted
FY2020
Enacteda
FY2020
(P.L. 116-94,
Enacted vs.
FY2021
(P.L. 116-
Enacted vs.
FY2019
P.L. 116-123,
FY2021
FY2021
House (H.R.
260, P.L.
FY2021

Actual
P.L. 116-136)
Request
Request
7608)
117-31)
Enacted
Title V. Multilateral Assistance
1,849.20
2,082.28
1,481.24
-28.86%
3,322.47
2,040.82
-1.99%
(1,281.15)
International Organizations & Programs
331.50
390.50

-100.00%
1,671.65
387.50
-0.77%
(1,281.15)d
Int’l Bank for Reconstruction and

206.50
206.50
0.00%
206.50
206.50
0.00%
Development
World Bank: Global Environment Facility
139.58
139.58

-100.00%
139.58
139.58
0.00%
World Bank: Int’l Development
1,097.01
1,097.01
1,001.40
-8.72%
1,001.40
1,001.40
-8.72%
Association
Asian Development Fund
47.40
47.40
47.40
0.00%
47.40
47.40
0.00%
African Development Bank-Capital
32.42

54.65
n.a.
54.65
54.65
n.a.
African Development Fund
171.30
171.30
171.30
0.00%
171.30
171.30
0.00%
International Fund for Agricultural
30.00
30.00

-100.00%
30.00
32.50
8.33%
Development
Title VI. Export Assistance
-161.49
-22.80
-337.27
1,379.26%
-99.80
159.00
-797.37%
Export-Import Bank (net)
100.05
-34.30
-689.05
1908.90%
-114.30
-113.50
230.90%
Overseas Private Investment Corporation
-341.04






Development Finance Corporation

-68.00
339.68
599.53%
-65.00
193.00
-383.82%
Trade & Development Agency
79.50
79.50
12.11
-84.77%
79.50
79.50
0.00%
ARPA Emergency Fundsh





10,000.00

SFOPS TOTAL, pre-rescission
55,000.55
57,787.64
44,123.42
-23.65%
66,102.45
72,114.43
24.79%
(8,000.00)
(10,647.46)
(18,018.55)
(24,295.12)
Rescissions, net
-324.62
-578.74


-75.00
-530.12
-8.40%
(-282.46)
(-425.12)
CRS-34

link to page 40
FY2020
% Change,
FY2021
% Change,
Enacted
FY2020
Enacteda
FY2020
(P.L. 116-94,
Enacted vs.
FY2021
(P.L. 116-
Enacted vs.
FY2019
P.L. 116-123,
FY2021
FY2021
House (H.R.
260, P.L.
FY2021

Actual
P.L. 116-136)
Request
Request
7608)
117-31)
Enacted
SFOPS TOTAL, Net of Rescissions,
54,675.93
57,208.90
44,123.42
-22.87%
66,027.45
71,584.31
25.13%
(8,000.00)
(10,365.00)
(18,018.55)
(23,870.00)
Sources: FY2019 Actuals and the FY2021 request are from the FY2021 SFOPS CBJ; FY2020 enacted data are from P.L. 116-94, Division G, P.L. 116-123, and P.L. 116-
136; FY2021 enacted are from P.L. 116-260 and P.L. 117-31. ARPA figures are from P.L. 117-2, Title X.
Notes: Figures in brackets are subsumed in the larger account above and are not counted against the total. Figures in parentheses are amount designated as Overseas
Contingency Operations (OCO) or supplemental emergency funding and are subsumed in the larger account number above them. “Enduring” funding is also sometimes
referred to as “base” or “ongoing” funding in budget documents. Numbers may not add due to rounding. “n.a.” = not applicable.
a. Account totals do not include funding from P.L. 117-2, the ARPA, which are added in as a lump sum at the bottom of the table.
b. Includes funding for the first novel coronavirus (COVID-19) supplemental appropriation, P.L. 116-123. That legislation appropriated $264 mil ion for Diplomatic
Programs, $1 mil ion for the USAID Inspector General, $435 mil ion for Global Health Programs-USAID, $300 mil ion for International Disaster Assistance, and
$250 mil ion for the Economic Support Fund. Al of these funds were designated as being for an emergency requirement. As such , like OCO funds, they do not
count against BCA discretionary spending caps.
c. Includes funding for the third novel coronavirus supplemental appropriations, P.L. 116-136. That legislation included $324 mil ion for Diplomatic Programs, $95
mil ion for USAID Operating Expenses, $258 mil ion for International Disaster Assistance, $250 mil ion for Migration and Refugee Assistance, and $88 mil ion for the
Peace Corps.
d. Includes emergency funding designated for the novel coronavirus in Title VIII of H.R. 7608.
e. Includes emergency funding designated for the novel coronavirus, Section 7 of the Sudan Claims Resolution Act, and payment to the International Monetary Fund
for Heavily Indebted Poor Countries debt relief for Sudan in Title IX of the final appropriation.
f.
The Consular and Border Security Programs account is typical y funded through fees and surcharges pursuant to Section 7081 of P.L. 115-31, rather than annual
appropriations. However, col ections derived from such fees and surcharges declined considerably due to the COVID-19 pandemic, prompting Congress to provide
a direct appropriation for this account.
g. Includes funding from P.L. 117-31, which appropriated $100 mil ion for the Migration and Refugee Assistance account and $500 mil ion for the Emergency Refugee
and Migration Assistance account.
h. For more information on the funding included in the American Rescue Plan Act, see the “Emergency Supplemental Funding, FY2021” text box above.


CRS-35

link to page 41 link to page 41 Department of State, Foreign Operations, and Related Programs

Appendix B. International Affairs Budget
The International Affairs budget, or Function 150, includes funding that is not in the Department
of State, Foreign Operations, and Related Programs (SFOPS) appropriation; in particular,
international food assistance programs (Food for Peace Act (FFPA), Title II and McGovern-Dole
International Food for Education and Child Nutrition programs) are in the Agriculture
Appropriations, and the Foreign Claim Settlement Commission and the International Trade
Commission are in the Commerce, Justice, Science appropriations. In addition, the Department of
State, Foreign Operations, and Related Programs appropriation measure includes funding for
certain international commissions that are not part of the International Affairs Function 150
account.
Table B-1. International Affairs Budget, FY2019 Actual, FY2020 Enacted,
and FY2021 Request, House-passed bill, and Enacted
(In mil ions of U.S. dol ars)
FY2020
Enacted
% Change,
FY2021
% Change
(P.L. 116-93,
FY2020
FY2021
Enacted
FY2020
P.L. 116-94,
Enacted vs.
House
(P.L. 116-
Enacted vs.
FY2019
P.L. 116-
FY2021
FY2021
(H.R. 7608,
260 + P.L.
FY2021

Actual
136)
Request
Request
H.R. 7667)
117-2)
Enacted
State-Foreign
54,534.49
56,946.10
43,979.32
-22.77%
65,852.95
71,268.11
25.15%
Operations, excluding
commissions
a
Commerce-Justice-
99.48
101.74
107.37
5.53%
107.37
105.37
3.57%
Science
Foreign Claims
2.41
2.34
2.37
1.33%
2.37
2.37
1.33%
Settlement Commission
Int’l Trade Commission
97.08
99.40
105.00
5.63%
105.00
103.00
3.62%
Agriculture
1,926.26
1,945.00

n.a.
2,010.00
2,770.00
42.42%
FFPA Title II
1,716.00
1,725.00

n.a.
1,775.00
1,740.00
0.87%
McGovern-Dole
210.26
220.00

n.a.
235.00
230.00
4.55%
ARPA emergency fundsb



n.a.

800.00
n.a.
Total International
56,560.23
58,992.84
44,086.68
-25.27%
67,970.32
74,143.48
25.68%
Affairs (150)
Sources: FY2019 Actuals and the FY2021 request are from the FY2021 SFOPS CBJ, FY2021 Foreign Claims
Settlement Commission CBJ, and FY2021 U.S. International Trade Commission CBJ; FY2020 enacted data are
from P.L. 116-93, Division B, P.L. 116-94, Divisions B and G, P.L. 116-123, and P.L. 116-136. FY2021 enacted is
from P.L. 116-260, P.L. 117-2, and P.L. 117-31.
a. Includes mandatory spending from the Foreign Service retirement account, and does not align with budget
justification figures that count only discretionary spending. Funding for certain international commissions
appropriated in the SFOPS bil are excluded here because they fal under function 300 of the budget
(Natural Resources and Environment), not function 150 (International Affairs).
b. International food assistance funding was provided in the Agriculture title of the APRA (P.L. 117-2), in
Section 1007.

Congressional Research Service

36


Department of State, Foreign Operations, and Related Programs

Appendix C. SFOPS Organization Chart

Source: Created by CRS from annual SFOPS legislation.


Author Information

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


Marian L. Lawson

Section Research Manager



Disclaimer
This document was prepared by the Congressional Research Service (CRS). CRS serves as nonpartisan
shared staff to congressional committees and Members of Congress. It operates solely at the behest of and
under the direction of Congress. Information in a CRS Report should n ot be relied upon for purposes other
than public understanding of information that has been provided by CRS to Members of Congress in
connection with CRS’s institutional role. CRS Reports, as a work of the United States Government, are not
subject to copyright protection in the United States. Any CRS Report may be reproduced and distributed in
its entirety without permission from CRS. However, as a CRS Report may include copyrighted images or
material from a third party, you may need to obtain the permission of the copyright holder if you wish to
copy or otherwise use copyrighted material.

Congressional Research Service
R46367 · VERSION 12 · UPDATED
37