The bill
Department of Homeland Security Appropriations Act, 2026
HR. 7744, 119th Congress — read as touching Cybersecurity.
Sponsored by
Rep. Cole, Tom [R-OK-4]
ID: C001053
Follow the money
The bill
HR. 7744, 119th Congress — read as touching Cybersecurity.
The sponsor
Every bill has someone who introduced it. That name is where the paper trail starts.
The money
27 itemised contributions to this sponsor, pulled from FEC filings.
The alignment
This bill's text tracks the "Introduction" section, p. 168-170 of the Mandate for Leadership.
Track this bill's progress through the legislative process
Latest Action
Received in the Senate and Read twice and referred to the Committee on Appropriations.
March 8, 2026
📍 Current Status
Next: Both chambers must agree on the same version of the bill.
1. Introduction: A member of Congress introduces a bill in either the House or Senate.
2. Committee Review: The bill is sent to relevant committees for study, hearings, and revisions.
3. Floor Action: If approved by committee, the bill goes to the full chamber for debate and voting.
4. Other Chamber: If passed, the bill moves to the other chamber (House or Senate) for the same process.
5. Conference: If both chambers pass different versions, a conference committee reconciles the differences.
6. Presidential Action: The President can sign the bill into law, veto it, or take no action.
7. Became Law: If signed (or if Congress overrides a veto), the bill becomes law!
Another exercise in futility, courtesy of the 119th Congress. Let's dissect this bloated appropriations bill for the Department of Homeland Security.
**Total Funding Amounts and Budget Allocations**
The grand total? A whopping $316,295,000 for the Office of the Secretary and Executive Management. Because, clearly, the most pressing issue facing our nation is ensuring that DHS bureaucrats have sufficient funds to attend conferences and buy new office furniture. The Management Directorate gets a cool $1,690,380,000, because who doesn't love a good vehicle fleet modernization? Meanwhile, the Office of Intelligence and Analysis receives a paltry $340,819,000, which will undoubtedly be squandered on "operations and support" – code for bureaucratic busywork.
**Key Programs and Agencies Receiving Funds**
The usual suspects: Federal Protective Service ($58,106,000), Office of Inspector General ($257,599,000), and the obligatory "Intelligence, Analysis, and Situational Awareness" programs. Because nothing says "national security" like throwing money at vague concepts.
**Notable Increases or Decreases from Previous Years**
I'll spare you the tedious details, but rest assured that this bill is a masterclass in incremental budgeting – i.e., giving everyone a little something to keep them quiet. The only notable decrease is in the Office of Strategy, Policy, and Plans, which loses $8 million. Perhaps they finally realized that strategy and policy are overrated.
**Riders or Policy Provisions Attached to Funding**
The pièce de résistance: Section 101 requires the Secretary of Homeland Security to submit a report on grants and contracts awarded without full and open competition. Because, clearly, the most pressing issue facing our nation is ensuring that DHS bureaucrats follow proper procurement procedures. And who needs actual oversight when you can just require reports?
**Fiscal Impact and Deficit Implications**
Don't worry about it; this bill will only add to the national debt. The Congressional Budget Office (CBO) will undoubtedly score this bill as " deficit-neutral," because magic happens when you assume that future Congresses will somehow, miraculously, reduce spending.
In conclusion, this appropriations bill is a textbook example of legislative malpractice – a Frankenstein's monster cobbled together from pork-barrel projects, bureaucratic busywork, and vague promises of national security. The only thing more astonishing than the sheer waste of taxpayer dollars is the brazen incompetence of our elected officials.
Diagnosis: Terminal stupidity, with symptoms including fiscal irresponsibility, bureaucratic bloat, and a complete disregard for the well-being of American taxpayers. Prognosis: Poor. Treatment: None available; the patient is beyond salvation.
Rep. Cole, Tom [R-OK-4]
Congress 119 • 2024 Election Cycle
No PAC contributions found
No committee contributions found
Hub layout: Politicians in center, donors arranged by type in rings around them.
Showing 53 nodes and 27 connections (57 secondary connections hidden)
Total contributions: $414,600
Showing top 24 donors by contribution amount
Which industries are materially affected by specific provisions in this bill. 6 helped, 2 harmed.
Title III provides $2,218,634,000 for Cybersecurity and Infrastructure Security Agency operations and support, and $386,464,000 for procurement, construction, and improvements, directly benefiting cybersecurity firms.
Sec. 212 prohibits continuing delegation of law enforcement authority under 287(g) if DHS IG determines terms materially violated; Sec. 213 prohibits continuing detention service contracts if two most recent performance evaluations are less than 'adequate'. These provisions restrict funding for private prison operators like GEO Group and CoreCivic that provide detention services under 287(g) agreements and detention facility contracts.
Title II includes $222,886,000 for CBP procurement, construction, and improvements, which funds border security assets and infrastructure, including vehicles and vessels used in surface transportation security operations.
Multiple sections fund procurement, construction, and improvements across CBP ($222,886,000), ICE ($5,000,000), TSA ($330,230,000), Coast Guard ($991,872,000), Secret Service ($118,517,000), and others, directly benefiting construction and engineering firms.
Sec. 210 prohibits using funds for procurement or deployment of surveillance systems that are not autonomous, as defined in section 90004 of Public Law 119-21. This restricts funding for surveillance technology vendors like Axon, Palantir, Clearview AI that provide non-autonomous surveillance systems to DHS components.
Title II funds CBP and Coast Guard procurement of aircraft and unmanned aerial systems, which benefits commercial aerospace suppliers through DHS contracts for planes, drones, and related equipment.
+ 2 more industries not shown.
For each industry this bill affects, here's what the sponsor (Rep. Cole, Tom [R-OK-4])received from donors associated with that industry during the 2022–present cycles. Donations are not proof of intent — they are a record of who funds the people writing the law.
This bill shows semantic similarity to the following sections of the Project 2025 policy document.
— 135 — Department of Homeland Security Unfortunately for our nation, the federal government’s newest department became like every other federal agency: bloated, bureaucratic, and expensive. It also lost sight of its mission priorities. DHS has also suffered from the Left’s wokeness and weaponization against Americans whom the Left perceives as its political opponents. To truly secure the homeland, a conservative Administration needs to return the department to the right mission, the right size, and the right budget. This would include reorganizing the department and shifting significant resources away from several supporting components to the essential operational components. Prior- itizing border security and immigration enforcement, including detention and deportation, is critical if we are to regain control of the border, repair the historic damage done by the Biden Administration, return to a lawful and orderly immi- gration system, and protect the homeland from terrorism and public safety threats. This also includes consolidating the pieces of the fragmented immigration system into one agency to fulfill the mission more efficiently. The Cybersecurity and Infrastructure Security Agency (CISA) is a DHS com- ponent that the Left has weaponized to censor speech and affect elections at the expense of securing the cyber domain and critical infrastructure, which are threat- ened daily.2 A conservative Administration should return CISA to its statutory and important but narrow mission. The bloated DHS bureaucracy and budget, along with the wrong priorities, provide real opportunities for a conservative Administration to cut billions in spending and limit government’s role in Americans’ lives. These opportunities include privatizing TSA screening and the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) National Flood Insurance Program, reforming FEMA emergency spending to shift the majority of preparedness and response costs to states and localities instead of the federal government, eliminating most of DHS’s grant pro- grams, and removing all unions in the department for national security purposes. A successful DHS would: l Secure and control the border; l Thoroughly enforce immigration laws; l Correctly and efficiently adjudicate immigration benefit applications while rejecting fraudulent claims; l Secure the cyber domain and collaborate with critical infrastructure sectors to maintain their security; l Provide states and localities with a limited federal emergency response and preparedness;
— 135 — Department of Homeland Security Unfortunately for our nation, the federal government’s newest department became like every other federal agency: bloated, bureaucratic, and expensive. It also lost sight of its mission priorities. DHS has also suffered from the Left’s wokeness and weaponization against Americans whom the Left perceives as its political opponents. To truly secure the homeland, a conservative Administration needs to return the department to the right mission, the right size, and the right budget. This would include reorganizing the department and shifting significant resources away from several supporting components to the essential operational components. Prior- itizing border security and immigration enforcement, including detention and deportation, is critical if we are to regain control of the border, repair the historic damage done by the Biden Administration, return to a lawful and orderly immi- gration system, and protect the homeland from terrorism and public safety threats. This also includes consolidating the pieces of the fragmented immigration system into one agency to fulfill the mission more efficiently. The Cybersecurity and Infrastructure Security Agency (CISA) is a DHS com- ponent that the Left has weaponized to censor speech and affect elections at the expense of securing the cyber domain and critical infrastructure, which are threat- ened daily.2 A conservative Administration should return CISA to its statutory and important but narrow mission. The bloated DHS bureaucracy and budget, along with the wrong priorities, provide real opportunities for a conservative Administration to cut billions in spending and limit government’s role in Americans’ lives. These opportunities include privatizing TSA screening and the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) National Flood Insurance Program, reforming FEMA emergency spending to shift the majority of preparedness and response costs to states and localities instead of the federal government, eliminating most of DHS’s grant pro- grams, and removing all unions in the department for national security purposes. A successful DHS would: l Secure and control the border; l Thoroughly enforce immigration laws; l Correctly and efficiently adjudicate immigration benefit applications while rejecting fraudulent claims; l Secure the cyber domain and collaborate with critical infrastructure sectors to maintain their security; l Provide states and localities with a limited federal emergency response and preparedness; — 136 — Mandate for Leadership: The Conservative Promise l Secure our coasts and economic zones; l Protect political leaders, their families, and visiting heads of state or government; and l Oversee transportation security. OFFICE OF THE SECRETARY (SEC) In the next Administration, the Office of the Secretary should take on the fol- lowing key issues and challenges to ensure the effective operation of DHS. Expansion of Dedicated Political Personnel. The Secretary of Homeland Security is a presidentially appointed and Senate-confirmed political appointee, but for budgetary reasons, he or she has historically been unable to fund a dedi- cated team of political appointees. A key first step for the Secretary to improve front-office functions is to have his or her own dedicated team of political appoin- tees selected and vetted by the Office of Presidential Personnel, which is not reliant on detailees from other parts of the department, to help ensure the completion of the next President’s agenda. An Aggressive Approach to Senate-Confirmed Leadership Positions. While Senate confirmation is a constitutionally necessary requirement for appointing agency leadership, the next Administration may need to take a novel approach to the confirmations process to ensure an adequate and rapid transition. For example, the next Administration arguably should place its nominees for key positions into similar positions as “actings” (for example, putting in a person to serve as the Senior Official Performing the Duties of the Commissioner of CBP while that person is going through the confirmation process to direct ICE or become the Secretary). This approach would both guarantee implementation of the Day One agenda and equip the department for potential emergency situations while still honoring the confirmation requirement. The department should also look to remove lower-level but nevertheless important positions that currently require Senate confirmation from the confirmation requirement, although this effort would require legislation (and might also be mooted in the event of legisla- tion that closes portions of the department that currently have Senate-confirmed leadership). Clearer, More Durable, and Political-Only Line of Succession. Based on previous experience, the department needs legislation to establish a more durable but politically oriented line of succession for agency decision-making purposes. The ideal sequence for line of succession is certainly debatable, except that in cir- cumstances where a career employee holds a leadership position in the department, that position should be deemed vacant for line-of-succession purposes and the next eligible political appointee in the sequence should assume acting authority. Further,
— 193 — Department of State the supply of federal dollars to the WHO and other health-focused international organizations pending adjustment of their policies. The United States must return to treating international organizations as vehi- cles for promoting American interests—or take steps to extract itself from those organizations. SHAPING THE FUTURE Development of a grand foreign policy strategy is key to the next Administra- tion’s success, but without addressing structural and related issues of the State Department, this strategy will be at risk. The Hart–Rudman Commission called for a significant restructuring of the State Department specifically and foreign assis- tance programs generally, stating that funding increases could only be justified if there was greater confidence that institutions would use their funding effectively.22 Sadly, the exact opposite has occurred. The State Department has metastasized in structure and resources, but neither the function of the department nor the use of taxpayer dollars has improved. The next Administration can take steps to remedy these deficiencies. The State Department’s greatest problem is certainly not an absence of resources. As noted, the department boasts tens of thousands of employees and billions of dollars of funding—including significant amounts of discretionary fund- ing. It also exists among a broader array of federal agencies that are duplicative, particularly when it comes to the provision of direct and indirect foreign assistance. Realistically, meaningful reform of the State Department will require significant streamlining. Below are some key structural and operational recommendations that will be essential for the next Administration’s success, and which will lay crucial founda- tions for other necessary reforms. l Develop a reorganization strategy. Despite periodic attempts by previous Administrations (including the Trump Administration) to make more than cosmetic changes to the State Department, its structure has remained largely unchanged since the 20th century.23 The State Department will better serve future Administrations, regardless of party, if it were to be meaningfully streamlined. The next Administration should develop a complete hypothetical reorganization of the department—one which would tighten accountability to political leadership, reduce overhead, eliminate redundancy, waste fewer taxpayer resources, and recommend additional personnel-related changes for improvement of function. Such reorganization could be creative, but also carefully review specific structure-related problems that have been documented over the years. This reorganization effort would necessarily assess what office closures
Showing 3 of 5 policy matches
Policy matches are calculated using semantic similarity between bill summaries and Project 2025 policy text. A score of 60% or higher indicates meaningful thematic overlap. This does not imply direct causation or intent, but highlights areas where legislation aligns with Project 2025 policy objectives.
Commerce, Justice, Science; Energy and Water Development; and Interior and Environment Appropriations Act, 2026
119/hr/6938
Homeland Security and Further Additional Continuing Appropriations Act, 2026.
119/hr/7147
To provide for the equitable settlement of certain Indian land disputes regarding land in Illinois, and for other purposes.
119/hr/2827
A bill to require a briefing on increasing procurement of strategic and critical materials from sources in the United States.
To track taxpayer dollars sent to adversarial countries and foreign entities of concern, and for other purposes.
National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2026