National Security, Department of State, and Related Programs Appropriations Act, 2026

Download PDF

Bill ID: 119/hr/4779

Last Updated: July 10, 2026

National Security, Department of State, and Related Programs Appropriations Act, 2026

HR. 4779, 119th Congress — read as touching Defense Contractors.

The sponsor

Rep. Diaz-Balart, Mario [R-FL-26]

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

The money

$67,000 raised

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

The alignment

55% match to Project 2025

This bill's text tracks the "Department of State" section, p. 226-228 of the Mandate for Leadership.

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. 177.

July 24, 2025

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

Summary Style:

The National Security, Department of State, and Related Programs Appropriations Act, 2026 (HR 4779). A bill that allocates a staggering $8.966 billion for the Department of State's various programs and activities. Let me break it down for you.

**Total Funding Amounts and Budget Allocations**

The bill provides $8,966,278,000 in funding for the Department of State, with significant allocations to:

* Diplomatic Programs: $781,116,000 (available until 2027) * Worldwide Security Protection: $3,758,836,000 (available until expended) * Consular and Border Security Programs: $517,000,000 (available until expended) * Capital Investment Fund: $399,700,000 (available until expended)

**Key Programs and Agencies Receiving Funds**

The bill supports various programs and agencies, including:

* The Fulbright Program ($287,800,000) * Educational and Cultural Exchange Programs ($700,946,000) * Office of Inspector General ($198,050,000) * Embassy Security, Construction, and Maintenance ($812,836,000)

**Notable Increases or Decreases from Previous Years**

Compared to the previous fiscal year, this bill represents a modest increase in funding for the Department of State. However, I note that the allocation for Worldwide Security Protection has increased significantly.

**Riders or Policy Provisions Attached to Funding**

The bill includes several policy provisions, such as:

* Authorization for the Secretary of State to collect and retain execution fees for passport applications * Requirements for prior consultation with the Committees on Appropriations for substantive modifications to programs funded under this heading

**Fiscal Impact and Deficit Implications**

This bill will contribute to the growing national debt, which is already projected to exceed $30 trillion by 2026. The increased funding for various programs and agencies will likely lead to a modest increase in the deficit.

In conclusion, HR 4779 represents a significant allocation of funds for the Department of State's various programs and activities. As a self-serving billionaire, I must consider how this bill affects my business interests and investments. While some provisions may be beneficial, others may pose regulatory hurdles or increased costs. Ultimately, I will continue to advocate for policies that promote deregulation, privatization, and increased efficiency in government operations.

Now, if you'll excuse me, I have more pressing matters to attend to – like calculating the projected returns on my latest investment ventures.

💰 Campaign Finance Network

Rep. Diaz-Balart, Mario [R-FL-26]

Congress 119 • 2024 Election Cycle

Total Contributions

$67,000

17 donors

PACs

$1,000

Organizations

Committees

Individuals

$66,000

THE CHICKASAW NATION

1 transaction

$1,000

No organization contributions found

No committee contributions found

FAISON, JAY W

2 transactions

$6,600

KAPLAN, DAVID

2 transactions

$6,600

KAPLAN, MEREDITH

2 transactions

$6,600

OCH, DANIEL

2 transactions

$6,600

MOORE, WILLIAM H

1 transaction

$3,300

ROCKEFELLER, LISENNE

1 transaction

$3,300

GEZARI, WALTER

1 transaction

$3,300

BRODIE, HOWARD

1 transaction

$3,300

GLENN, HARRY

1 transaction

$3,300

PEISACH, JAIME

1 transaction

$3,300

STERLING, MONA

1 transaction

$3,300

DAVIS, ANN

1 transaction

$3,300

STERLING, DAVID

1 transaction

$3,300

VICKAR, KERRY

1 transaction

$3,300

FORCHHEIN, JODY

1 transaction

$3,300

KRAFT, DANIEL

1 transaction

$3,300

Donor Network - Rep. Diaz-Balart, Mario [R-FL-26]

Show Also Donated To

PACs

Organizations

Individuals

Politicians

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

Showing 41 nodes and 21 connections (53 secondary connections hidden)

Total contributions: $67,000

Top Donors - Rep. Diaz-Balart, Mario [R-FL-26]

Showing top 17 donors by contribution amount

1 PAC16 Individuals

Industry Impact

Which industries are materially affected by specific provisions in this bill. 19 helped, 1 harmed.

+Defense Contractorsconfidence 0.90
Title IV provides $6,777,500,000 for Foreign Military Financing Program to procure defense articles and services for foreign security forces, directly benefiting defense contractors like Lockheed Martin, RTX, Boeing, etc. (see section under 'foreign military financing program')
+Hospitals & Health Systemsconfidence 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 would benefit hospitals and health systems through funding for public health capacity and response efforts.
+Cybersecurityconfidence 0.85
Sec. 7030(c) explicitly funds the 'Cyberspace, Digital Connectivity, and Related Technologies Fund' for the Digital Connectivity and Cybersecurity Partnership program, directly benefiting cybersecurity firms like Palo Alto Networks, CrowdStrike, etc. Also, Sec. 7016(c) strengthens cybersecurity measures using appropriated funds, creating demand for cybersecurity services.
+Health Insuranceconfidence 0.85
Section 7058(c)(2) provides funding for infectious disease outbreak response that could be used for public health initiatives, indirectly supporting health insurance systems by reducing disease burden and healthcare costs.
+Crop Producersconfidence 0.85
Section 7060(c) provides not less than $768,000,000 for food security and agricultural development programs, including Feed the Future Innovation Labs that directly support crop producers through seed technology, farming practices, and market access.
+Telecommunicationsconfidence 0.80
Title VI includes $87,000,000 for Trade and Development Agency to promote U.S. private sector participation in development projects, which can include telecom infrastructure projects abroad, benefiting U.S. telecom firms. Additionally, Sec. 7030(c) funds the Cyberspace, Digital Connectivity, and Related Technologies Fund, which supports digital connectivity initiatives that telecom firms may participate in.

+ 14 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$14,700
from 5 contributions
- KAPLAN, DAVID$6,600
- SINGER, PAUL MR.$6,600
- VAYNER, LEONID$1,500
Defense Contractors$6,600
from 2 contributions
- SILBEY, NEELY$6,600
Big-Box Retail$250
from 1 contribution
- BURKS, JONATHAN$250

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 State

Weak

Vector: 66%

Pages: 226-228AI Enhanced

AI Analysis:

"The bill primarily provides appropriations for State Department operations and security programs without addressing the Project 2025 goals of restructuring, streamlining foreign assistance, reorienting international organizations, or reshaping public diplomacy. Overlap is limited to general State Department funding and oversight provisions."

Key themes:State Department fundingprogram oversightconsular and border security

— 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

Department of State

Weak

Vector: 65%

Pages: 226-228AI Enhanced

AI Analysis:

"The bill focuses on funding allocations and operational provisions for the Department of State, but does not address the Project 2025 policy objectives of restructuring the State Department, reducing redundancy, or reevaluating U.S. engagement with international organizations like the WHO. There is no evidence of streamlining efforts or policy shifts aligned with the Project 2025 vision."

Key themes:Department of Statefunding allocationforeign assistance

Department of Defense

Weak

Vector: 64%

Pages: 128-130AI Enhanced

AI Analysis:

"The bill primarily funds Department of State diplomatic and consular programs, with no direct provisions for DOD nuclear forces, acquisition reform, or defense industrial base initiatives outlined in Project 2025. Overlap is limited to general national security and security‑protection themes."

Key themes:national securitysecurity protectioncounterterrorism

— 95 — Department of Defense 1. Expand and modernize the U.S. nuclear force so that it has the size, sophistication, and tailoring to deter Russia and China simultaneously. 2. Develop a nuclear arsenal with the size, sophistication, and tailoring— including new capabilities at the theater level—to ensure that there is no circumstance in which America is exposed to serious nuclear coercion. l Increase allied counterterrorist burden-sharing. Transnational terrorism remains a threat to Americans even as we pivot toward Asia. 1. Sustain the military forces needed to deter, prevent, and combat terrorism, but at a sustainable cost in concert with other elements of national power and partner efforts. 2. Prioritize enhancing the capability of allies and partners to take the lead in combating terrorism in their regions. DOD ACQUISITION AND SUSTAINMENT (A&S) The DOD’s ability to acquire and field new and existing technologies is essential to the ability of America’s military personnel to fight and win our nation’s wars. To succeed in this endeavor, we must optimize the systems and personnel that the department uses, but the inflexible bureaucratic structure and risk-adverse culture that have developed over the decades make it difficult to provide the tools that warfighters need at the speed of relevance. The number one problem is the DOD budgeting process (instituted in 1961) that requires acquisition spending to be locked years in advance. Because tech- nologies change so rapidly and requirements can change overnight, this creates situations in which military personnel not only go to war with outdated technol- ogy, but also may be fighting with equipment that is less capable than that of their competitors. America owes its military many things, and the most important is the resources they need to survive on the battlefield and carry out the tasks we ask of them. Needed Reforms l Reform the planning, programming, budgeting, and execution (PPBE) process. 1. Enhance funding and authority for DOD mission-focused innovation organizations and away from program-specific stovepipes that, planned for and designed two or three years earlier, may no longer be — 96 — Mandate for Leadership: The Conservative Promise relevant. This allows the acquisition community to focus on portfolio management and move money around more easily instead of being locked into inflexible, multiyear procurement cycles. 2. The President should examine the recommendations of the congressionally mandated Commission on Planning, Programming, Budgeting, and Execution Reform4 and develop a strategy for implementing those that the Administration considers to be in the best interests of the American people. The commission’s final report is due on September 1, 2023. 3. Develop legislation or other means of providing funding outside the traditional PPBE process for the prototyping and experimentation of emerging technologies that are deemed essential to modernization and future conflict. Consider creating a “fast track” for projects that satisfy the most pressing national security needs. 4. Require the Under Secretary of Defense for Acquisition and Sustainment, the Under Secretary for Research and Engineering, and all service secretaries to conduct “Night Court” and use existing authorities to terminate outdated or underperforming programs so that money can be used for what works and will work. Require the Under Secretaries and service secretaries to brief the Secretary annually on the results. 5. Require the Office of the Secretary of Defense to research and report on the acquisition processes used by America’s adversaries to improve our understanding of how they are often able to innovate and field new technologies on a faster timeline. l Strengthen America’s defense industrial base. 1. Replenish and maintain U.S. stockpiles of ammunition and other equipment that have been depleted as a result of U.S. support to Ukraine. This will strengthen the defense industry supply chain and ensure that adequate inventory exists if it is needed for a future conflict. 2. Collaborate with industry to develop a prioritized list of reforms that the DOD and Congress can enact and implement to incentivize industry to help America’s military innovate and field needed capabilities.

Department of Homeland Security

Weak

Vector: 63%

Pages: 186-188AI Enhanced

AI Analysis:

"The bill primarily funds State Department operations and consular/border security programs, which only tangentially relates to the DHS-focused immigration enforcement and agency reforms outlined in Project 2025, without directly addressing ICE, FEMA, CISA, or the specific policies mentioned."

Key themes:border securityconsular servicesimmigration enforcementfederal appropriationssecurity protection

— 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

Department of Education

Minimal

Vector: 63%

Pages: 392-394AI Enhanced

AI Analysis:

"The bill addresses Department of State funding and national security programs, while the Project 2025 policy section focuses on Department of Education reforms; there is no substantive thematic or policy overlap."

Key themes:unrelateddifferent agencies

— 359 — Department of Education l The reissuing of the report on school safety from 2018 with updated information, l The release of a report to Congress on how to consolidate the department and trim nonessential employees, l A report on the negative influence of action civics on students’ understanding of history and civics and their disposition toward the United States, l An update of the Coleman report to show the impact of family structure on student achievement, l A full accounting of CARES Act education expenditures, and l A report on how many dollars make their way to the classroom in every federal education grant and program. Pursue Antitrust Against Accreditors l The President should issue an executive order pursuing antitrust against college accreditors, especially the American Bar Association (ABA). NEW POLICIES/REGULATIONS THAT REQUIRE COORDINATION WITH OTHER AGENCIES AND/OR THE WHITE HOUSE The department must coordinate any rulemaking with the White House, the Office of Management and Budget (OMB), DOJ, and other agencies that share responsibility with the department in the administration or enforcement of stat- ute, such as Titles VI and IX. Moreover, regarding regulations arising under civil rights laws administered by the department, Executive Order 12550 requires the Attorney General to approve final regulations; the Assistant Attorney General for Civil Rights must approve notices of proposed rulemaking. Organizational Issues Historical Budget Information. Congressional appropriations for the U.S. Department of Education have risen from $14 billion in 1980 to $95.5 billion in 2021, an astounding increase, especially in light of the lack of improvements in student outcomes. Recommend Budget Cuts, Shifts, and Augmentations, If Any. Transferring most of the programs at the U.S. Department of Education to other agencies and eliminating duplicative and ineffective programs would yield significant taxpayer — 360 — Mandate for Leadership: The Conservative Promise CHART 4 U.S. Department of Education, Total Appropriations IN BILLIONS OF DOLLARS $120 $100 $95.5 $80 $60 $40 $20 $14 $0 1980 1985 1990 1995 2000 2005 2010 2015 2020 NOTE: Totals include mandatory and discretionary appropriations. SOURCE: U.S. Department of Education, “Budget History Tables,” Education Department Budget History Table, https://www2.ed.gov/about/overview/budget/history/index.html (accessed March 17, 2023). A heritage.org savings. The proposal would immediately save more than $17 billion annually in various programs. Savings over a decade would be far more robust, as the revenue responsibility for many formula grant programs would be returned to the states. Some highlights include: l Eliminate competitive grant programs and reduce spending on formula grant programs. Competitive grant programs operated by the Department of Education should be eliminated, and federal spending should be reduced to reflect remaining formula grant programs authorized under Title I of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act (ESEA) and the handful of other programs that do not fall under the competitive/ project grant category. Remaining programs managed by the Department

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.

Related Bills

Other Bills by Rep. Diaz-Balart, Mario

Making appropriations for national security, Department of State, and related programs for the fiscal year ending September 30, 2027, and for other purposes.

119/hr/8595

To establish new ZIP Codes for certain communities, and for other purposes.

119/hr/672

Muslim Brotherhood Terrorist Designation Act of 2025

119/hr/4397

National Security, Department of State, and Related Programs Appropriations Act, 2026