National Security, Department of State, and Related Programs Appropriations Act, 2027
Download PDFSponsored by
Rep. Diaz-Balart, Mario [R-FL-26]
ID: D000600
Bill's Journey to Becoming a Law
Track this bill's progress through the legislative process
Latest Action
Placed on the Union Calendar, Calendar No. 547.
April 29, 2026
Introduced
📍 Current Status
Next: The bill will be reviewed by relevant committees who will debate, amend, and vote on it.
Committee Review
Floor Action
Passed House
Senate Review
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 masterpiece of legislative theater, courtesy of the 119th Congress. Let's dissect this appropriations bill, shall we? HR 8595 is a $9.7 billion behemoth, masquerading as a national security and Department of State funding package. But don't be fooled – it's just another example of bureaucratic largesse, wrapped in a veneer of patriotism.
The total funding amount is a staggering $9,761,523,000, with allocations that read like a laundry list of bureaucratic wish lists. The Department of State gets the lion's share, with $4,001,579,000 for "human resources" (read: administrative bloat), $1,437,707,000 for "overseas programs" (code for diplomatic junkets and embassy renovations), and $871,645,000 for "diplomatic policy and support" (a euphemism for State Department busywork).
Notable increases include a 10% bump in funding for Worldwide Security Protection, because who doesn't love throwing more money at security theater? And, of course, the Fulbright Program gets a nice $287,800,000 injection, because cultural exchange programs are always a great way to justify bureaucratic spending.
Now, let's talk about the riders and policy provisions attached to this funding. The bill includes a lovely little provision allowing the Secretary of State to reprogram funds within and between paragraphs (1) through (4) under this heading, subject to section 7015 of this Act. Translation: Congress is giving the State Department carte blanche to move money around as they see fit, without any real oversight.
Fiscally speaking, this bill is a disaster waiting to happen. The $9.7 billion price tag will only add to our already bloated national debt, which currently stands at over $31 trillion. And let's not forget the opportunity costs – every dollar spent on bureaucratic boondoggles like this appropriations bill is a dollar that could be spent on actual national security priorities or (gasp) reducing the deficit.
In conclusion, HR 8595 is a textbook example of legislative malpractice. It's a Frankenstein's monster of an appropriations bill, cobbled together from various special interests and bureaucratic wish lists. The real disease here isn't terrorism or national insecurity – it's the chronic case of fiscal irresponsibility that afflicts our elected officials. And we're the ones who will be left to pay the bill.
Related Topics
💰 Campaign Finance Network
Rep. Diaz-Balart, Mario [R-FL-26]
Congress 119 • 2024 Election Cycle
No organization contributions found
No committee contributions found
Donor Network - Rep. Diaz-Balart, Mario [R-FL-26]
Hub layout: Politicians in center, donors arranged by type in rings around them.
Showing 18 nodes and 21 connections
Total contributions: $67,000
Top Donors - Rep. Diaz-Balart, Mario [R-FL-26]
Showing top 17 donors by contribution amount
Industry Impact
Which industries are materially affected by specific provisions in this bill. 16 helped,2 harmed.
- +Pharmaceuticals confidence 0.95
Section 7058(c)(2) allows up to $200,000,000 for combating infectious disease outbreaks, which would directly benefit pharmaceutical companies through funding for vaccines, treatments, and medical countermeasures. Additionally, Section 7058(c)(3) references the Emergency Reserve Fund which could be used for pharmaceuticals and other products for child survival, malaria, and tuberculosis.
- +Defense Contractors confidence 0.90
Title IV includes $6,752,500,000 for Foreign Military Financing Program, which provides grants for defense articles and services to foreign security forces, directly benefiting defense contractors like Lockheed Martin, RTX, etc. (see section under 'foreign military financing program')
- +Hospitals & Health Systems confidence 0.90
Section 7058(c)(2) allows up to $200,000,000 of funds from Global Health Programs, National Security Investment Programs, International Humanitarian Assistance, Democracy Fund, and Millennium Challenge Corporation to combat infectious disease outbreaks, which could benefit hospitals and health systems through funding for public health capacity and emergency response.
- +Agribusiness confidence 0.85
Section 7060(d) provides not less than $720,000,000 for food security and agricultural development programs, including not less than $175,000,000 for international agricultural research, which directly benefits large agribusiness conglomerates like ADM, Cargill, and Bunge.
- +Crop Producers confidence 0.85
Section 7060(d) provides not less than $720,000,000 for food security and agricultural development programs, including not less than $175,000,000 for international agricultural research, which directly benefits crop producers through improved seeds, farming techniques, and market access for corn, wheat, soybeans, and cotton.
- +Telecommunications confidence 0.80
Title I includes $540,000,000 for international communications activities, including grants for radio, internet, and television broadcasting, and up to $72,720,000 for satellite transmissions and global network distribution, benefiting telecom and satellite companies (see 'international communications activities' section)
+ 12 more industries not shown.
Who funds the sponsor on these industries
For each industry this bill affects, here's what the sponsor (Rep. Diaz-Balart, Mario [R-FL-26]) 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
- Private Equity & Hedge Funds$14,700from 5contributions
- KAPLAN, DAVID$6,600
- SINGER, PAUL MR.$6,600
- VAYNER, LEONID$1,500
- Surface Transportation$7,180from 5contributions
- HOLMES, JOHN$2,500
- LOOMER, BRIAN K$2,400
- WHITE, WALTER$1,000
- PEREZ, RAMSES$780
- FLORIO, JOSHUA$500
- Defense Contractors$6,600from 2contributions
- SILBEY, NEELY$6,600
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.
Introduction
AI Analysis:
"The bill provides funding for the Department of State and related programs, which is tangentially related to the Project 2025 policy's focus on restructuring the State Department and promoting American interests, but it does not directly address the policy's objectives. The bill's primary focus is on allocating funds rather than implementing structural reforms or strategic changes."
— 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
Introduction
AI Analysis:
"The bill provides funding for the Department of State and related programs, which is tangentially related to the Project 2025 policy's focus on restructuring the State Department and reforming foreign assistance programs. However, the bill does not directly address the policy's key recommendations, such as streamlining the department or consolidating foreign assistance authorities."
— 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 — 194 — Mandate for Leadership: The Conservative Promise can be carried out with and without congressional approval. Timelines for action on these fronts should be developed accordingly, but speed should be a priority. l Consolidate foreign assistance authorities. Foreign assistance is a critical foreign policy tool that is too often disconnected from the federal government’s practice of foreign policy. Bureaucrats spend significant energy resisting the use of non-emergency foreign assistance to leverage positive results for the United States, even though it is a perfectly reasonable proposition. The coordination of foreign assistance dollars is also difficult because the foreign assistance budget and foreign loan issuance authorities are divided across numerous Cabinet departments, smaller agencies, and other offices. The next Administration should take steps to ensure that future foreign assistance clearly and unambiguously supports the President’s foreign policy agenda. For example, the next administrator of the U.S. Agency for International Development, which is technically subordinate to the State Department, should be authorized to take on the additional role of Director of Foreign Assistance with the rank of Deputy Secretary and oversee all foreign assistance. This role—which existed briefly during the George W. Bush Administration before it was eliminated by the Obama Administration—would empower the dual-hatted official to better align and coordinate with the manifold foreign assistance programs across the federal government. The next Administration should also evaluate whether these multiple sources of foreign assistance are in the national interest and, if not, develop a plan to consolidate foreign assistance authorities. l Make public diplomacy and international broadcasting serve American interests. A key part of U.S. foreign policy is the ability to communicate with not only governments but with the peoples of the world. Indeed, in some ways, communicating directly with the public is more important than communicating with governments, particularly in times of governmental conflict or disagreement. Public diplomacy has historically been, and remains, vital to American foreign policy success. Unfortunately, U.S. public diplomacy, which largely relies on taxpayer-funded international broadcasting outlets, has been deeply ineffective in recent years. The U.S. government’s first foray into international broadcasting started with the Voice of America radio broadcast in 1942, which was intended as
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.
Related Bills
Other Bills by Rep. Diaz-Balart, Mario
Similar Topics
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