Department of Homeland Security Appropriations Act, 2026

Download PDF
Bill ID: 119/hr/7744
Last Updated: September 7, 2026

Sponsored by

Rep. Cole, Tom [R-OK-4]

ID: C001053

Follow the money

The bill

Department of Homeland Security Appropriations Act, 2026

HR. 7744, 119th Congress — read as touching Cybersecurity.

The sponsor

Rep. Cole, Tom [R-OK-4]

Every bill has someone who introduced it. That name is where the paper trail starts.

The money

$414,600 raised

27 itemised contributions to this sponsor, pulled from FEC filings.

The alignment

55% match to Project 2025

This bill's text tracks the "Department of Homeland Security" section, p. 168-170 of the Mandate for Leadership.

Bill's Journey to Becoming a Law

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

Introduced

Committee Review

Floor Action

Passed House

Senate Review

📍 Current Status

Next: Both chambers must agree on the same version of the bill.

🎉

Passed Congress

🖊️

Presidential Action

⚖️

Became Law

📚 How does a bill become a law?

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!

Bill Summary

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.

Related Topics

Foreign Aid & DiplomacyFederal Budget & AppropriationsDefense Spending & Procurement
Generated using Llama 3.1 70B (Dr. Haus personality)

💰 Campaign Finance Network

Rep. Cole, Tom [R-OK-4]

Congress 119 • 2024 Election Cycle

Total Contributions
$414,600
24 donors
PACs
$0
Organizations
$139,000
Committees
$0
Individuals
$275,600

No PAC contributions found

1
CHEROKEE NATION
3 transactions
$124,200
2
PECHANGA BAND OF INDIANS
2 transactions
$8,300
3
SAGINAW CHIPPEWA INDIAN TRIBE
1 transaction
$5,000
4
ISBELL FARMS
1 transaction
$1,500

No committee contributions found

1
KANADY, MICHAEL C
1 transaction
$100,000
2
SPITZER, TERRY
1 transaction
$30,000
3
PEROT, ROSS MR. JR
1 transaction
$13,200
4
FAISON, JAY
1 transaction
$11,600
5
TEMPLETON, WILLIAM
1 transaction
$11,600
6
BARBOUR, HALEY
1 transaction
$10,000
7
HELM, JAY
1 transaction
$10,000
8
AMEY, DEBORAH
1 transaction
$10,000
9
BORGER, ERIN MR.
1 transaction
$6,600
10
CRAFT, KELLY MRS.
1 transaction
$6,600
11
DANIELS, BRANDON MR.
1 transaction
$6,600
12
DRUMMOND, WENDY MRS.
1 transaction
$6,600
13
EGGE, LESLIE MRS.
1 transaction
$6,600
14
FISHER, KENNETH MR.
1 transaction
$6,600
15
FISHER, SHERRILYN MRS.
1 transaction
$6,600
16
FURMAN, MATTHEW MR.
1 transaction
$6,600
17
HUNT, WOODY L. MR.
1 transaction
$6,600
18
LE NORMAN, DAVID MR.
1 transaction
$6,600
19
MCDAVID, SHAWN P. MR.
1 transaction
$6,600
20
MEHLMAN, KENNETH MR.
1 transaction
$6,600

Donor Network - Rep. Cole, Tom [R-OK-4]

PACs
Organizations
Individuals
Politicians

Hub layout: Politicians in center, donors arranged by type in rings around them.

Loading...

Showing 52 nodes and 57 connections

Total contributions: $57

Top Donors - Rep. Cole, Tom [R-OK-4]

Showing top 24 donors by contribution amount

4 Orgs20 Individuals

Industry Impact

Which industries are materially affected by specific provisions in this bill. 6 helped, 2 harmed.

  • +Cybersecurityconfidence 0.95

    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.

Who funds the sponsor on these industries

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.

Industries this bill HELPS

  • from 27 contributions
    • SILBEY, NEELY MRS.$6,700
    • SCHMID, ELIZABETH$2,000
    • RITTER, DOUGLAS$1,500
    • STRIEBEL, ERICA$1,500
    • BERGIN, DONALD II$1,500
  • from 7 contributions
    • SIMMONS, ROBERT MR.$1,000
    • BACHMANN, STEVE$1,000
    • MCLEMORE, THOMAS$1,000
    • OJAKLI, ZIAD$1,000
    • PETERS, BERND$1,000
  • from 1 contribution
    • BOLIN, PRENTISS W. MR. JR$1,000
  • from 1 contribution
    • BECHTEL, MICHAEL$500

Project 2025 Policy Matches

This bill shows semantic similarity to the following sections of the Project 2025 policy document.AI-enhanced analysis provides detailed alignment ratings.

Department of Homeland Security

Weak
Vector: 69%
Pages: 168-170AI Enhanced

AI Analysis:

"The bill focuses on DHS funding, oversight, and transparency through reporting requirements and grant accountability, which tangentially aligns with Project 2025's emphasis on political personnel expansion, compliance in federal grants, and restructuring for mission efficiency, but does not directly implement or prioritize the specific political appointee or structural reforms outlined."

Key themes:grant complianceoversight and accountabilitypersonnel managementmission efficiencypolitical leadership

— 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, — 137 — Department of Homeland Security individuals wielding acting Secretary authority should have explicit authority to finalize agency actions, including regulations, to ensure that the department’s homeland security mission is fulfilled. Soft Closure of Unnecessary Offices. Pending a possible presidential deci- sion to shrink or eliminate DHS itself, the next Administration will still have the obligation to protect the homeland as required by law. The Secretary therefore can and should use his or her inherent, discretionary leadership authority to “soft close” ineffective and problematic corners of the department. While those corners are to be determined, the Secretary could shift personnel, funding, and opera- tional responsibility to mission-essential components of the department, including the Office of the Secretary itself. This effort not only would make the department more efficient, but also would support a legislative move to shrink or dismantle the department by showing that the agency can fulfill national security–critical functions without its current bloated bureaucracy. Restructuring and Redistribution of Career Personnel. To strengthen political decision-making and ensure that taxpayer dollars are being used legally and efficiently, the Secretary should make major changes in the distribution of career personnel throughout the department. For example, personnel from parts of the department undergoing soft closure could be redistributed to what will be workload-intensive corners of the department, including national security–critical and transparency functions. All personnel with law enforcement capacity should be removed immediately from office billets and deployed to field billets to maxi- mize law enforcement capacity. Compliance for Grants and Other Federal Funding. The next Adminis- tration should take steps to restore lawfulness and integrity to the department’s massive regimen of federal grant programs, most of which are managed and dis- tributed by the Federal Emergency Management Agency. The Secretary should direct FEMA to ensure that all FEMA-issued grant funding for states, localities, and private organizations is going to recipients who are lawful actors, can demon- strate that they are in compliance with federal law, and can show that their mission and actions support the broader homeland security mission. All applicants and potential recipients of such grant funding should be required to meet certain pre- conditions for eligibility (except for receipt of post-disaster or nonhumanitarian funding) or should simply be considered ineligible for funding. Such preconditions should include at least the following: l Certification by applicants that they comply with all aspects of federal immigration laws, including the honoring of all immigration detainers. l Certification by applicants that they are both registered with E-Verify and using E-Verify in a transparent and nonevasive manner. For states

Department of Homeland Security

Weak
Vector: 66%
Pages: 168-170AI Enhanced

AI Analysis:

"The bill focuses on DHS funding, transparency, and oversight through reporting requirements, but does not address core Project 2025 priorities such as border security, immigration enforcement, CISA reform, privatization of TSA/FEMA, or reducing bureaucratic bloat. While it increases oversight—aligning weakly with accountability themes—it lacks substantive policy shifts toward the conservative restructuring outlined in Project 2025."

Key themes:oversightaccountabilitybudget transparency

— 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,

Department of Homeland Security

Weak
Vector: 66%
Pages: 186-188AI Enhanced

AI Analysis:

"The bill primarily provides funding and includes general oversight and transparency provisions, but it does not address the specific Project 2025 DHS policy objectives such as the 287(g) program, HSI refocusing, Blackie’s Warrants, FEMA reform, or CISA changes."

Key themes:oversighttransparencygrant accountabilitybudget reporting

— 153 — Department of Homeland Security l 287(g) program. Issue a memo prohibiting any jurisdiction that applies from being denied access to the program unless good cause is shown. l Homeland Security Investigations (HSI) priorities. Issue Department Management Directive (and ICE companion Directive) to refocus HSI on immigration offenses and criminal offenses typically associated with immigration (for example, human trafficking). All criminal investigative work without a clear nexus to the border or otherwise to Title 8 should be turned over to the appropriate federal agency. l Blackie’s Warrants. ICE OPLA, ERO, and HSI should issue a joint internal memo on operationalizing Blackie’s Warrants for immediate use on worksite enforcement and other appropriate investigations and operations. FEDERAL EMERGENCY MANAGEMENT AGENCY (FEMA) Needed Reforms FEMA is the lead federal agency in preparing for and responding to disasters, but it is overtasked, overcompensates for the lack of state and local preparedness and response, and is regularly in deep debt. After passage of the 1988 Stafford Act,12 the number of declared federal disasters rose dramatically as most disaster costs were shifted from states and local governments to the federal government. In addition, state-friendly FEMA regulations, such as a “per capita indicator,” failed to maintain the pace of inflation and made it easy to meet disaster declaration thresholds. This combination has left FEMA unprepared in both readiness and funding for the truly catastrophic disasters in which its services are most needed. Reform of FEMA requires a greater emphasis on federalism and state and local preparedness, leaving FEMA to focus on large, widespread disasters. Under the Stafford Act, FEMA has the authority to adjust the per capita indi- cator for damages, which creates a threshold under which states and localities are not eligible for public assistance. FEMA should raise the threshold because the per capita indicator has not kept pace with inflation, and this over time has effectively lowered the threshold for public assistance and caused FEMA’s resources to be stretched perilously thin. Alternatively, applying a deductible could accomplish a similar outcome while also incentivizing states to take a more proactive role in their own preparedness and response capabilities. In addition, Congress should change the cost-share arrangement so that the federal government covers 25 per- cent of the costs for small disasters with the cost share reaching a maximum of 75 percent for truly catastrophic disasters. FEMA is also responsible for the National Flood Insurance Program (NFIP), nearly all of which is issued by the federal government. Washington provides — 154 — Mandate for Leadership: The Conservative Promise insurance at prices lower than the actuarially fair rate, thereby subsidizing flood insurance. Then, when flood costs exceed NFIP’s revenue, FEMA seeks taxpay- er-funded bailouts. Current NFIP debt is $20.5 billion, and in 2017, Congress canceled $16 billion in debt when FEMA reached its borrowing authority limit. These subsidies and bailouts only encourage more development in flood zones, increasing the potential losses to both NFIP and the taxpayer. The NFIP should be wound down and replaced with private insurance starting with the least risky areas currently identified by the program. Budget Issues FEMA manages all grants for DHS, and these grants have become pork for states, localities, and special-interest groups. Since 2002, DHS/FEMA have provided more than $56 billion in preparedness grants for state, local, tribal, and territorial governments. For FY 2023, President Biden requested more than $3.5 billion for federal assistance grants.13 Funds provided under these programs do not provide measurable gains for preparedness or resiliency. Rather, more than any objective needs, political interests appear to direct the flow of nondisaster funds. The principles of federalism should be upheld; these indicate that states better understand their unique needs and should bear the costs of their particularized programs. FEMA employees in Washington, D.C., should not determine how bil- lions of federal tax dollars should be awarded to train local law enforcement officers in Texas, harden cybersecurity infrastructure in Utah, or supplement migrant shelters in Arizona. DHS should not be in the business of handing out federal tax dollars: These grants should be terminated. Accomplishing this, however, will require action by Members of Congress who repeatedly vote to fund grants for political reasons. The transition should focus on building resilience and return on investment in line with real threats. Personnel FEMA currently has four Senate-confirmed positions. Only the Administrator should be confirmed by the Senate; other political leadership need not be con- firmed by the Senate. Additionally, FEMA’s “springing Cabinet position” should be eliminated, as this creates significant unnecessary challenges to the functioning of the whole of DHS at points in time when coordinated responses are most needed. CYBERSECURITY AND INFRASTRUCTURE SECURITY AGENCY (CISA) Needed Reforms CISA is supposed to have two key roles: (1) protection of the federal civilian government networks (.gov) while coordinating the execution of national cyber defense and sharing information with non-federal and private-sector partners

Showing 3 of 5 policy matches

About These Correlations

Policy matches are calculated using a hybrid approach: initial candidates are found using semantic similarity between bill summaries and Project 2025 policy text, then an AI model (Llama 3.1 70B) provides detailed alignment ratings and analysis. Ratings range from 1 (minimal alignment) to 5 (very strong alignment). This analysis does not imply direct causation or intent.

Full Policy Text

Related Bills