HR-5166-119
Placed on the Union Calendar, Calendar No. 193.
Sponsored by David Joyce (R-OH)
What it does
This bill would appropriate roughly $28 billion in discretionary funding for the Department of the Treasury, the Internal Revenue Service, the Executive Office of the President, the judiciary, and dozens of other federal agencies for fiscal year 2026 (October 1, 2025 – September 30, 2026). It sets specific funding levels for IRS taxpayer services ($2.78B), IRS enforcement ($3B), IRS technology ($3.75B), and the Community Development Financial Institutions Fund ($276.6M), among many others. It also includes policy riders that block certain agency actions — including prohibiting Treasury from developing a central bank digital currency, freezing IRS firearms purchases at 2022 levels, blocking a free IRS e-filing service without congressional approval, and directing reports on a Strategic Bitcoin Reserve.
Who benefits
Taxpayers who use IRS help lines and filing assistance services, which receive dedicated funding. Low-income filers served by the Tax Counseling for the Elderly Program and Community Volunteer Income Tax Assistance grants. Small businesses and community lenders in low-income and persistent-poverty areas served by the CDFI Fund. Native American, Native Hawaiian, and Alaska Native communities receiving targeted CDFI lending support. Individuals with disabilities who benefit from CDFI investment set-asides. Victims of tax-related identity theft, who receive dedicated Taxpayer Advocate funding. Federal employees across Treasury, the Executive Office of the President, the judiciary, and other covered agencies whose salaries and operations are funded. Private tax preparation companies, who benefit from the prohibition on a free IRS e-filing service. Cybersecurity contractors serving Treasury ($99M cybersecurity account). Sanctions enforcement targets of adversary nations, indirectly, through AI-enhanced sanctions detection funding.
Who is hurt
Taxpayers who would prefer a free, government-run electronic filing option, which the bill would block without multi-committee approval. Small businesses and homeowners associations subject to beneficial ownership reporting rules, which the bill restricts FinCEN from enforcing in certain circumstances. Organizations that had anticipated updated IRS guidance on 501(c)(4) social welfare standards, which the bill freezes at 2010 levels. Entities engaged in certain Cuba-related travel and transactions, which the bill restricts Treasury from licensing. Environmental, social, and governance (ESG)-focused advisory interests, as the bill bars Treasury from forming ESG advisory committees. Federal workers who may face hiring or bonus restrictions tied to tax compliance checks. Agencies and programs that rely on flexible IRS enforcement funding, which the bill caps and restricts from transfer to the enforcement account.
Supporters argue
Supporters argue that this bill funds essential government operations while imposing meaningful accountability on the IRS and Treasury. They contend that specific provisions — such as prohibiting ideological targeting of taxpayers, freezing IRS firearms purchases, and blocking a central bank digital currency — protect civil liberties and limit executive overreach. They also argue that directing funds toward low-income taxpayer clinics, the Taxpayer Advocate Service, and CDFI lending in persistent-poverty communities demonstrates a commitment to serving vulnerable populations, while the prohibition on a free IRS e-filing service without congressional approval preserves legislative oversight over a major new government program.
Opponents argue
Opponents argue that the bill's policy riders go well beyond routine appropriations and embed substantive policy changes that should be debated as standalone legislation. They contend that blocking a free IRS e-filing service protects private tax preparation industry profits at taxpayers' expense, and that freezing 501(c)(4) guidance at 2010 standards leaves nonprofit regulation in legal limbo. They also argue that restricting FinCEN's enforcement of beneficial ownership reporting — a tool designed to combat money laundering and shell company abuse — weakens anti-corruption safeguards, and that the flat prohibition on a central bank digital currency study forecloses legitimate policy research Congress itself may later need.
Constitutional context
The Appropriations Clause (Art. I, §9, cl. 7) gives Congress exclusive authority to direct federal spending, and this bill exercises that power broadly. Several policy riders — particularly the block on IRS 501(c)(4) rulemaking and the FinCEN beneficial ownership enforcement restriction — raise questions under the major questions doctrine (West Virginia v. EPA, 2022) and post-Loper Bright independent judicial review, as courts may scrutinize whether existing statutory authority supports the agency actions being blocked or permitted.
Checks and balances
Congress gains direct policy control through spending riders that constrain executive agency action; the executive branch retains implementation discretion within funded accounts, and courts retain authority to review whether agency actions blocked or permitted by the riders are consistent with underlying statutes.
Historical precedent
Annual Financial Services and General Government Appropriations Acts have been enacted each fiscal year since the modern appropriations process was established; FY2025 and prior versions followed the same structure of funding Treasury, IRS, and EOP operations while including policy riders on IRS conduct and agency authority.