The bill
Department of Homeland Security Appropriations Act, 2026
HR. 4213, 119th Congress — read as touching Cybersecurity.
Sponsored by
Rep. Amodei, Mark E. [R-NV-2]
ID: A000369
Follow the money
The bill
HR. 4213, 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
26 itemised contributions to this sponsor, pulled from FEC filings.
The alignment
This bill's text tracks the "Introduction" section, p. 226-228 of the Mandate for Leadership.
Track this bill's progress through the legislative process
Latest Action
Placed on the Union Calendar, Calendar No. 139.
June 25, 2025
📍 Current Status
Next: The bill will be reviewed by relevant committees who will debate, amend, and vote on it.
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 $246 billion. Because what's a few hundred billion dollars among friends, right? The Office of the Secretary gets a cool $246 million for "operations and support," while the Management Directorate receives a staggering $1.65 billion for the same purpose. I'm sure it's all completely necessary and not at all a slush fund.
**Key Programs and Agencies Receiving Funds**
The usual suspects get their fair share of pork: the Office of Intelligence and Analysis ($360 million), the Federal Protective Service (revenues and collections from security fees, because who needs transparency?), and the Office of Inspector General ($223 million). I'm sure these agencies will use this funding to protect America from the real threats: terrorists, cyber attacks, and... um, whatever else they claim.
**Notable Increases or Decreases**
A 10% increase in funding for the Management Directorate? How convenient. And a $30 million allocation for "procurement, construction, and improvements" that remains available until 2030? Sounds like someone's planning a nice little legacy project.
**Riders or Policy Provisions Attached to Funding**
Oh boy, where do I even start? Section 101 requires the Secretary of Homeland Security to submit a report on grants and contracts awarded without full competition. How quaint. As if anyone expects actual transparency from this administration. And let's not forget the obligatory "monthly budget and staffing report" provision (Section 102), because Congress loves micromanaging.
**Fiscal Impact and Deficit Implications**
The Congressional Budget Office will have a field day with this one. I'm sure they'll find all sorts of creative ways to justify the increased spending, but let's be real: this bill is a fiscal time bomb waiting to happen. The national debt will continue to balloon, and we'll all get to enjoy the thrill ride of watching our grandchildren inherit a crippling financial burden.
In conclusion, HR 4213 is just another symptom of Washington's chronic disease: an addiction to spending, a lack of accountability, and a complete disregard for the long-term consequences. It's business as usual in the nation's capital, where politicians play doctor with the economy while the rest of us foot the bill.
Rep. Amodei, Mark E. [R-NV-2]
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 49 nodes and 26 connections (59 secondary connections hidden)
Total contributions: $113,800
Showing top 21 donors by contribution amount
Which industries are materially affected by specific provisions in this bill. 9 helped, 4 harmed.
Title III provides $2,237,159,000 for Cybersecurity and Infrastructure Security Agency operations and support and $501,047,000 for procurement, construction, and improvements, directly benefiting cybersecurity contractors and technology firms.
Sec. 205 allows individuals to import prescription drugs from Canada for personal use, which could undermine domestic drug pricing and sales, directly harming pharmaceutical manufacturers.
Title II, Sec. 206 prohibits waivers of navigation and vessel-inspection laws for crude oil transportation from the Strategic Petroleum Reserve unless the Secretary of Homeland Security ensures use of U.S. flag vessels, which benefits domestic maritime shipping and defense contractors involved in vessel operations and security.
Multiple titles include procurement, construction, and improvements funding (e.g., Title II: $898,118,000 for CBP, $35,000,000 for ICE; Title III: $501,047,000 for CISA, $158,419,000 for FEMA; Title IV: $18,300,000 for FLETC, $40,000,000 for S&T Directorate), benefiting construction and engineering firms.
Sec. 205 prohibits using funds to prevent individuals from importing prescription drugs from Canada, which could reduce domestic prescription drug sales and negatively impact health insurers' pharmacy benefit costs and formularies.
Title II funds ICE detention operations ($6,402,677,000 for enforcement, detention, and removal) and allows reprogramming for detention needs (Sec. 218), benefiting private prison contractors that provide detention services to ICE.
+ 7 more industries not shown.
This bill shows semantic similarity to the following sections of the Project 2025 policy document.
— 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
— 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
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.
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