HR-8206-119
Referred to the Committee on Appropriations, and in addition to the Committee on the Budget, for a period to be subsequently determined by the Speaker, in each case for consideration of such provisions as fall within the jurisdiction of the committee concerned.
Sponsored by Chip Roy (R-TX)
What it does
This bill would provide full-year appropriations for the Department of Homeland Security for fiscal year 2026, funding agencies including U.S. Customs and Border Protection (~$11.3B), the Transportation Security Administration (~$10.6B), the Coast Guard (~$13.5B), the U.S. Secret Service (~$3.1B), the Cybersecurity and Infrastructure Security Agency (~$2.6B), and the Federal Emergency Management Agency (~$5.7B). It would also extend a continuing resolution to keep other federal agencies funded at existing levels, and includes a third division titled the "SAVE America Act" whose provisions are referenced but not fully reproduced in the available text. The bill sets specific spending conditions, reporting requirements, and operational restrictions across DHS components.
Who benefits
DHS personnel and contractors who would receive continued operational funding. Travelers and the flying public who benefit from TSA screening and airport security upgrades. Coastal communities and maritime industries served by the Coast Guard. State and local governments receiving homeland security grants (e.g., $494M in State Homeland Security Grants, $584M in Urban Area Security Initiative funds). Nonprofit organizations receiving up to $300M in security grants. Amtrak and public transit agencies receiving security assistance. Port operators receiving port security grants. Individuals importing personal-use prescription drugs from Canada (up to a 90-day supply). Pregnant and postpartum individuals in CBP custody who benefit from mandated health standards. Communities near borders benefiting from Operation Stonegarden funding. Tribal governments receiving dedicated homeland security grant funding.
Who is hurt
Taxpayers broadly, who bear the cost of the appropriations. Agencies or programs whose prior explanatory statement guidance on ICE and CBP Border Security Operations is explicitly zeroed out (set to $0), potentially disrupting planned spending. Foreign-flagged maritime operators who face restrictions on Strategic Petroleum Reserve crude oil transport waivers. Individuals who might have benefited from a border crossing fee study or new fee structure (prohibited by Sec. 204). DHS components whose new pilot programs face additional documentation and reporting requirements before funds can be obligated. Coast Guard personnel and programs subject to Force Design 2028 restrictions until briefings are completed. Senior government officials (including Members of Congress, Cabinet secretaries, and White House staff) who lose any exemption from TSA passenger and baggage screening under Sec. 209.
Supporters argue
Supporters argue that this bill provides essential, stable funding for the agencies that protect the homeland, secure borders, respond to disasters, and safeguard transportation — functions that affect every American. They contend the bill includes meaningful accountability measures, such as mandatory reporting on non-competitive contracts, quarterly budget briefings, and Inspector General oversight of prior-year spending, which strengthen congressional control over how DHS spends taxpayer dollars. Supporters also point to targeted provisions — body-worn cameras for enforcement agents, health protections for pregnant detainees, and equal TSA screening for senior officials — as evidence that the bill balances security funding with civil liberties and transparency.
Opponents argue
Opponents argue that the bill's explicit zeroing-out of the explanatory statement guidance for ICE and CBP Border Security Operations — while still appropriating billions to those agencies — creates ambiguity about how funds will actually be directed, potentially circumventing the normal appropriations process. They contend that the inclusion of a separate "SAVE America Act" division, whose full text is not reproduced, may embed significant policy changes without adequate public scrutiny or standalone debate. Critics may also argue that the bill's continuing resolution component perpetuates a pattern of short-term, piecemeal government funding that prevents long-term agency planning and contributes to administrative inefficiency.