Department of Homeland Security Appropriations Act, 2027
Download PDFSponsored by
Rep. Amodei, Mark E. [R-NV-2]
ID: A000369
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. 605.
June 11, 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 monstrosity, shall we?
The Department of Homeland Security Appropriations Act, 2027, is a $290 billion exercise in bureaucratic self-preservation. The bill allocates funds to various agencies and programs, with the Office of the Secretary and Executive Management receiving a whopping $290 million for "operations and support." Because, clearly, the Secretary's office needs more money to... well, do whatever it is they do.
The Management Directorate gets a cool $1.67 billion for "vehicle fleet modernization" and other expenses, because who doesn't love a good fleet of gas-guzzling SUVs? The Federal Protective Service, meanwhile, will continue to protect federally owned buildings with an unspecified amount of funding, because security fees are just that exciting.
Now, let's talk about the real winners here: the contractors. The bill allocates $65 million for procurement, construction, and improvements, which is just a fancy way of saying "corporate welfare." And, of course, the Office of Inspector General gets $227 million to... well, inspect things, presumably.
Notable increases include a 10% boost in funding for the Office of Intelligence and Analysis, because who doesn't love a good game of surveillance-state whack-a-mole? The bill also includes a rider requiring the Secretary to submit a report on grants and contracts awarded without full and open competition, which is just a clever way of saying "we're going to keep doing what we've always done, but now with more paperwork."
As for fiscal impact, this bill will undoubtedly contribute to the ever-growing national debt, because who needs fiscal responsibility when you can just print more money? The deficit implications are staggering, but hey, at least the politicians will get to pat themselves on the back for "supporting our brave men and women in uniform" (or whatever other platitudes they use to justify this nonsense).
In conclusion, this appropriations bill is a symptom of a deeper disease: the chronic inability of our elected officials to prioritize actual national security over pork-barrel politics and crony capitalism. It's a never-ending cycle of waste, corruption, and bureaucratic bloat, and we're all just along for the ride. So, buckle up, folks, and enjoy the show!
Related Topics
💰 Campaign Finance Network
Rep. Amodei, Mark E. [R-NV-2]
Congress 119 • 2024 Election Cycle
No PAC contributions found
No committee contributions found
Donor Network - Rep. Amodei, Mark E. [R-NV-2]
Hub layout: Politicians in center, donors arranged by type in rings around them.
Showing 22 nodes and 26 connections
Total contributions: $113,800
Top Donors - Rep. Amodei, Mark E. [R-NV-2]
Showing top 21 donors by contribution amount
Industry Impact
Which industries are materially affected by specific provisions in this bill. 10 helped,5 harmed.
- −Private Prisons & Immigration Detention confidence 0.90
Sec. 218(a) prohibits using funds to continue detention service contracts if performance evaluations are less than 'adequate', imposing costs on private prison contractors.
- +Health Insurance confidence 0.90
Section 205 prohibits CBP from preventing individuals from importing prescription drugs from Canada for personal use, which benefits health insurers by reducing drug costs for insured individuals.
- +Pharmaceuticals confidence 0.90
Section 205 allows importation of prescription drugs from Canada for personal use, increasing market access for pharmaceutical manufacturers selling in Canada.
- −Law Enforcement & Surveillance Tech confidence 0.85
Sec. 211(a) prohibits using funds for procurement or deployment of surveillance tower systems that are not autonomous, harming surveillance tech vendors.
- −Defense Contractors confidence 0.80
Sec. 535 prohibits using funds to enter into contracts with entities identified under section 1260H of the William M. (Mac) Thornberry National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2021 or any subsidiary, affecting defense contractors.
- +Cybersecurity confidence 0.80
Sec. 301 authorizes funds for Cybersecurity and Infrastructure Security Agency to procure or provide access to cybersecurity threat feeds for federal, state, local, tribal, territorial entities, fusion centers, and Information Sharing and Analysis Organizations, benefiting cybersecurity firms.
+ 9 more industries not shown.
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 and the Project 2025 policy are unrelated, as the bill focuses on Department of Homeland Security appropriations, while the policy discusses transportation infrastructure and the Department of Transportation. There is no meaningful alignment between the two."
— 620 — Mandate for Leadership: The Conservative Promise and formula grants, known as obligations, annually in areas ranging from transit systems to road construction to universities and has lent or subsidized more than $60 billion since the Transportation Infrastructure Finance and Innovation Act (TIFIA) program,3 now managed by the Build America Bureau, was created in 1998. This evolved role as a major, and often primary, funding and financing source is far from the department’s original policy framework. It also removes incentives for state and local officials to ensure that investments are worthwhile, because federal money removes the need to get public buy-in to build and maintain infrastructure projects as funding becomes “someone else’s money.” Despite the department’s tremendous resources, congressional mandates and funding priorities have made it difficult for DOT to focus on the pressing trans- portation challenges that most directly affect average Americans, such as the high cost of personal automobiles, especially in an era of high inflation; unpredictable and expensive commercial shipping by rail, air, and sea; and infrastructure spend- ing that does not match the types of transportation that most Americans prefer. Transforming the department to address the varied needs of all Americans more effectively remains a central challenge. DOT is particularly difficult to manage because its 11 major components—nine modal administrations, the Office of the Secretary, and the Office of the Inspector General—all have their own sets of personnel including administrators, deputy administrators, chiefs of staff, and general counsels. Most grants flow through the modes, such as the Federal Highway Administration, Federal Transit Administra- tion, and Federal Aviation Administration. The Office of the Secretary contains its own grantmaking operation that funds research and some special grants, as well as a major lending operation, the Build America Bureau, that functions as an infrastructure bank. The Office of the Sec- retary has department-wide offices for such functions as Budget and Financial Management, the General Counsel, Policy, the Office of Research and Technology, Government Affairs, Administration, the Office of the Chief Information Officer, Small and Disadvantaged Business Utilization, Public Affairs, Drug and Alcohol Policy and Compliance, and Civil Rights. The modal administrations include the: l Federal Aviation Administration (FAA); l Federal Highway Administration (FHWA); l Federal Railroad Administration (FRA); l National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA); l Federal Transit Administration (FTA); — 621 — Department of Transportation l Great Lakes St. Lawrence Seaway Development Corporation (GLS); l Maritime Administration (MARAD); l Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration (FMCSA); and l Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration (PHMSA). DOT’s fundamental problem is that instead of being able to focus on providing Americans with affordable and abundant transportation, it has become saddled with congressional requirements that reduce the department to a de facto grant- making organization. Yet there is little need for much of this grantmaking, for two reasons: l New technology enables private companies to charge for transportation in many areas, which could transform how innovation is financed. It is vital to consider the role of user fees and other pricing innovations with regard to transportation infrastructure. Airport landing fees for aircraft, toll charges on roads and bridges, and per-gallon taxes on gasoline and diesel fuel are all examples of user charges that affect the decisions of transportation system users. These changes could shift our nation’s transportation away from being a top–down system that is misaligned with the needs of so many Americans. Increasing private-sector financing could revolutionize travel and increase everyday mobility to its greatest potential in a way that Americans prefer. Doing so would keep transportation decisions out of the hands of bureaucrats in Washington, D.C., who are far removed from local problems and preferences. l If funding must be federal, it would be more efficient for the U.S. Congress to send transportation grants to each of the 50 states and allow each state to purchase the transportation services that it thinks are best. Such an approach would enable states to prioritize different types of transportation according to the needs of their citizens. States that rely more on automotive transportation, for example, could use their funding to meet those needs. Meanwhile, many Americans continue to confront serious challenges with their day-to-day transportation, including costs that have increased dramati- cally in recent years. DOT in its current form is insufficiently equipped to address those problems. DOT’s discretionary grant-making processes should be abol- ished, and funding should be focused on formulaic distributions to the states, which know best their transportation needs and are incentivized to think of the
Introduction
AI Analysis:
"The bill and the Project 2025 policy have no meaningful alignment as they address unrelated topics, with the bill focusing on Department of Homeland Security appropriations and the policy discussing financial regulation, national security, and foreign investment."
— 704 — Mandate for Leadership: The Conservative Promise Congress should make the Department of Defense (DOD) a CFIUS co-chair with the Department of Treasury. Making DOD an official CFIUS co-chair along with Treasury will establish a balanced committee process by elevating national security interests to an equal stature. The committee is currently imbalanced toward the interests of corporate America because Treasury is the sole chair of CFIUS and, in practice, runs a process that is not fully transparent and which biases it from the national security interests represented by DOD and the Intelligence Community (IC). For example, Treasury representatives will consult with the Commerce Depart- ment and the United States Trade Representative—which tend to favor permitting covered transactions to occur with little to no mitigation requirements—and these representatives will then obscure the results and purposes of such sidebar meet- ings from DOD and IC representatives. This hampers DOD, IC, and sometimes even State Department representatives from full participation in the process or from advocating national security interests as well as they should. Greenfield Investments. Congress should close the loophole on greenfield investments and require CFIUS review of investments in U.S.-based greenfield assets by Chinese-controlled entities to assess any potential harm to U.S. national and economic security. In the 2018 Foreign Risk and Review Modernization Act (FIRRMA),51 one important category of foreign transactions left out of the bill was greenfield investments, particularly by Chinese state-owned enterprises (SOEs). Greenfield investments by Chinese SOEs pose a unique threat, and they should be met with the highest scrutiny by all levels of government. Greenfield investments result in the control of newly built facilities in the U.S., and they were not addressed in FIRRMA primarily because governors and state governments embrace them. That is understandable; they typically bring the promise of creating American jobs. However, the goal of such Chinese SOEs is to siphon assets, technological innovation, and influence away from U.S. businesses in order to expand the global presence of the Chinese Communist Party. While the Chinese government keeps its domestic markets largely insulated from foreign influence, it regularly invests in the U.S. and other countries under the “green- field” model. Firms fully owned by China’s Communist regime are increasingly buying land, building factories, and taking advantage of state and local tax breaks on American soil. Treasury should examine creating a school of financial warfare jointly with DOD. If the U.S. is to rely on financial weapons, tools, and strategies to prosecute international defensive and offensive objectives, it must create a specially trained group of experts dedicated to the study, training, testing, and preparedness of these deterrents. Recent experience has demonstrated that the U.S. cannot depend on the rapid development and deployment of untested, academically developed finan- cial actions, stratagems, and weapons on an ad hoc basis. — 705 — Department of the Treasury Treasury must also seriously evaluate U.S. foreign direct investment in China. Particular focus should be paid to investments in CCP or other state-owned enter- prises, investments that result in technology transfers from the U.S. to China, investments that enhance China’s military capacity, and investments that pose risks to critical U.S. supply chains by sourcing critical components or feedstocks in China. An enhanced reporting system is warranted, and greater legal authority and restrictions are appropriate. IMPROVED FINANCIAL REGULATION One of the priorities of the incoming Administration should be to restructure the outdated and cumbersome financial regulatory system in order to promote financial innovation, improve regulator efficiency, reduce regulatory costs, close regulatory gaps, eliminate regulatory arbitrage, provide clear statutory authority, consolidate regulatory agencies or reduce the size of government, and increase transparency. Merging Functions. The new Administration should establish a more stream- lined bank and supervision by supporting legislation to merge the Office of the Comptroller of the Currency, the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation, the National Credit Union Administration, and the Federal Reserve’s non-monetary supervisory and regulatory functions. U.S. banking law remains stuck in the 1930s regarding which functions finan- cial companies should perform. It was never a good idea either to restrict banks to taking deposits and making loans or to prevent investment banks from taking deposits. Doing so makes markets less stable. All financial intermediaries function by pooling the financial resources of those who want to save and funneling them to others that are willing and able to pay for additional funds. This underlying principle should guide U.S. financial laws. Policymakers should create new charters for financial firms that eliminate activ- ity restrictions and reduce regulations in return for straightforward higher equity or risk-retention standards. Ultimately, these charters would replace government regulation with competition and market discipline, thereby lowering the risk of future financial crises and improving the ability of individuals to create wealth. Dodd–Frank Revisions. Congress should repeal Title I, Title II, and Title VIII of the Dodd–Frank Act.52 Title I of Dodd–Frank created the Financial Stability Oversight Council, a kind of super-regulator tasked with identifying so-called systemically important financial institutions and singling them out for especially stringent regulation. The problem, of course, is that this process effectively iden- tifies those firms regulators believe are “too big to fail.”53 Title VIII of Dodd–Frank gives the FSOC similarly broad special-designation authority for specialized financial companies known as financial market utilities.54 Title II of Dodd–Frank established the controversial provision known as orderly
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. Amodei, Mark E.
Similar Topics
A bill to require a briefing on increasing procurement of strategic and critical materials from sources in the United States.
A joint resolution providing for congressional disapproval of the proposed foreign military sale to the Government of Israel of certain defense articles and services.
Establishing the congressional budget for the United States Government for fiscal year 2025 and setting forth the appropriate budgetary levels for fiscal years 2026 through 2034.