Overview

Annual Department of State, Foreign Operations, and Related Programs (SFOPS) appropriations support a range of U.S. activities around the world, including the operation of U.S. embassies; diplomatic activities; development, security, and humanitarian assistance; U.S. participation in multilateral organizations; and certain U.S. export promotion activities. The SFOPS appropriation closely aligns with the International Affairs budget function (150), which typically represents about 1% of the annual federal budget (Figure 1).¹

Figure 1. International Affairs as a Portion of the Federal Budget, FY2023 Estimate

Source: Prepared by CRS using Office of Management and Budget FY2023 Budget Historical Table 5.1.

The Biden Administration's budget request for FY2023, released on March 28, 2022, proposed $66.00 billion in new budget authority for SFOPS accounts, or $65.94 billion when including proposed rescissions of prior year funding.² The request, including rescissions, represented a 17.2% increase from FY2022 enacted base appropriations. In September and November 2022, the Administration proposed $9.10 billion and $15.50 billion, respectively, in emergency supplemental funding for SFOPS accounts to respond to the war in Ukraine and combat COVID-19 and mpox globally.³ The Administration's total request for FY2023 (including the supplemental requests) represented a 6.0% increase from total FY2022 enacted appropriations (including emergency supplemental funds to address crises in Afghanistan and Ukraine). Including proposed supplemental funding, the request was higher than every other SFOPS request from the past decade in current U.S. dollars (Table 1).

Emergency Funds

Congress periodically has appropriated funding designated as "emergency" to address a range of activities outside of pre-established budget caps. From FY2012-FY2021, SFOPS appropriations included funding designated as "Overseas Contingency Operations" (OCO), a type of emergency funding initially used by Congress in the "frontline" states of Afghanistan, Pakistan, and Iraq.⁴ OCO funding was also one of the mechanisms by which Congress sought to fund various activities while still adhering to discretionary spending caps established by the Budget Control Act of 2011 (BCA; P.L. 112-25). Congress and successive Administrations expanded OCO's use considerably in funding level and scope, with OCO funds supporting a broader range of programs, including many that were considered to be base budget programs, in the later years. The BCA discretionary caps expired in FY2021; the Administration did not request and Congress did not enact any OCO-designated funding in FY2022.

Congress has also enacted emergency funds outside of OCO to address unanticipated situations both during the regular budget cycle in annual appropriations bills and in off-cycle supplemental measures. From FY2021 to FY2023, Congress enacted emergency SFOPS funding as part of annual omnibus appropriations, three off-budget supplemental funding measures, and three Continuing Resolutions (Table B-1). Such funding was enacted primarily to address needs related to the Coronavirus Disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic abroad; humanitarian assistance for Afghanistan and Afghan refugees; and security, humanitarian, and economic assistance for Ukraine and countries and populations affected by the war in Ukraine.

Emergency and OCO-designated funding for SFOPS accounts has fluctuated from year to year, at times accounting for a significant portion of total annual SFOPS appropriations (Figure 2). In FY2017, OCO-designated SFOPS funding peaked at $20.80 billion, or 36.1% of SFOPS funds that year. For FY2022 and FY2023, appropriated emergency supplemental funding totaled $29.19 billion and $21.07 billion, representing 34.2% and $26.0% of total appropriated SFOPS funding, respectively.

Figure 2. SFOPS Funding, FY2012-FY2023

Sources: CRS using data from annual SFOPS Congressional Budget Justifications and supplemental requests, P.L. 117-43, P.L. 117-70, P.L. 117-103, P.L. 117-128; P.L. 117-180; P.L. 117-328.

Congress has provided FY2023 emergency SFOPS funding through two legislative vehicles to date. The Ukraine Supplemental Appropriations Act, 2023 (FY2023 USAA; see Division B of the law), was attached to a continuing resolution ( P.L. 117-180) enacted on September 30, 2022, to continue funding federal agencies temporarily in FY2023 (more info below). The measure provided a total of $12.3 billion for Ukraine, including $4.5 billion in SFOPS funding for direct financial support for the government of Ukraine.⁵ The Additional Ukraine Supplemental Appropriations Act, 2023 (FY2023 AUSAA; see Division M of the law), was attached to the Consolidated Appropriations Act, 2023, that Congress enacted in December. The measure provided a total of $47.3 billion for Ukraine, including $16.57 billion in SFOPS emergency funding.

Congressional Action

House Legislation. On June 29, 2022, the House Appropriations Committee approved its FY2023 SFOPS bill, which would have provided a total of $65.18 billion in new budget authority for SFOPS accounts ($64.73 billion after rescissions). Of that total, the bill provided $18.01 billion for Department of State and Related Agency accounts and $47.16 billion for Foreign Operations and Related Programs accounts. No further action was taken on the bill.

Senate Legislation. FY2023 SFOPS legislation, S. 4662, was introduced in the Senate on July 28, 2022. The proposal was not considered or approved by Congress at any level, and is not included in the tables and figures in this report, with the exception of Table A-1 in Appendix A.

Continuing Resolutions. No regular appropriations acts for FY2023, including for SFOPS, were enacted before FY2023 began on October 1, 2022. To prevent a lapse in appropriations, a continuing resolution, P.L. 117-180, was enacted on September 30, 2022, to continue funding federal agencies in FY2023, largely at FY2022 levels, until December 16, 2022.⁶ This legislation also included $4.5 billion in FY2023 SFOPS emergency funds as part of the broader Ukraine Supplemental Appropriations Act, 2023 (Division B of the legislation). Congress enacted two additional CRs to prevent a lapse in appropriations: P.L. 117-229, which was in effect through December 23, 2022, and P.L. 117-264, which ran through December 30, 2022. Neither bill included supplemental SFOPS funds.

Consolidated Appropriation. The Senate and House, on December 22 and 23, respectively, passed the Consolidated Appropriations Act, 2023, which was signed by President Biden on December 29 and became P.L. 117-328. The act included $76.42 billion in SFOPS funds, net of rescissions, including $59.85 billion in base funding and an additional $16.57 billion in emergency supplemental SFOPS monies for Ukraine and countries and populations affected by the war in Ukraine. The base amount appropriated represented a 6.4% increase from FY2022 base enacted appropriations and a 9.2% decrease from the President's base request.

State Department Operations and Related Agency Funding Highlights

The Biden Administration's FY2023 base request (excluding supplemental funding) sought $18.58 billion in funding for the Department of State and Related Agency appropriations accounts. As part of its September 2022 request for emergency SFOPS supplemental funding, the Administration called for an additional $50 million for these accounts to bolster the State Department's efforts to combat COVID-19 and $5 million to support its response to the mpox virus.⁷ When combining base and supplemental funding, the Administration's $18.63 billion request exceeded the FY2022 enacted funding total of $18.04 billion (also including all base and emergency funding) by 3.3%. When considering base budget funding only, the Administration's request was 8.0% above the FY2022 funding total. The Biden Administration identified several key priorities it intended to fund through these accounts in FY2023, including

• enabling the State Department to meet critical staffing gaps and attract and retain a diverse workforce;
• ensuring the safety and security of the overseas workforce;
• paying U.S. assessed contributions to international organizations and international peacekeeping missions on time and in full; and
• modernizing the State Department's information technology to improve efficiency, collaboration, data analysis capabilities, and information security.⁸

House Legislation. H.R. 8282, the FY2022 House SFOPS appropriations bill, would have provided approximately $18.02 billion for the State Department and Related Agency appropriations accounts. This funding level would have totaled about 4.7% more than the base funding Congress provided in FY2022, 0.1% less than FY2022 total funding (which includes OCO and emergency funds), and 3.0% less than the Biden Administration's FY2023 base request for these accounts.

Continuing Resolutions. The initial CR, P.L. 117-180, which funded the federal government through December 16, 2022, provided budget authority for the Diplomatic Programs account at a rate for operations of approximately $9.23 billion. This rate for operations exceeded the base appropriation Congress provided for this account in the FY2022 SFOPS law by $50 million. The subsequent CRs, which funded the federal government through December 30, 2022, did not include any funding provisions specific to the Department of State and Related Agency appropriations accounts.

Consolidated Appropriation. The consolidated appropriations measure, P.L. 117-328, included $17.39 billion in base funding for the State Department and Related Agency appropriations accounts. This funding level was 6.4% lower than the President's base request and 1.0% above the FY2022 enacted base funding level. Among the accounts for which Congress provided the largest funding increases relative to the FY2022 enacted base levels were the Capital Investment Fund (+29.7%) and Emergencies in the Diplomatic and Consular Service (+12.7%). Funding for other accounts, including Contributions to International Organizations (-13.5%), decreased when compared with FY2022 base funding. Division M of the consolidated appropriations measure, the Additional Ukraine Supplemental Appropriations Act, 2023, included an additional $152.6 million in supplemental funding for these accounts. When factoring in supplemental funding, the $17.54 billion in total budget authority Congress provided for these accounts for FY2023 was 5.9% lower than the Administration's request and 2.8% below the total FY2022 enacted level.

Diplomatic Programs

The Diplomatic Programs account is the State Department's principal operating appropriation and funds several programs and functions, including

• most domestic and overseas Foreign Service and Civil Service personnel salaries;
• the State Department's recruitment, training, and diversity, equity, inclusion, and access programs;
• public diplomacy programs;
• operating costs at U.S. overseas posts, including embassies and consulates; and
• the operations and programs of the State Department's strategic and managerial units, including the Bureaus of Budget and Planning, Information Resource Management (the State Department's information technology bureau), and Legislative Affairs, as well as the new Bureau of Cyberspace and Digital Policy.⁹

The Biden Administration's FY2023 request for the Diplomatic Programs account totaled $9.69 billion (including all base and supplemental funding), or about 2% more than the $9.54 billion Congress appropriated in FY2022 (also including all base and supplemental funding). The Biden Administration requested that Congress make the entirety of this appropriation (with the exception of the Worldwide Security Protection, or WSP, component, which Congress generally makes available until expended) available for expenditure for two fiscal years (also known as "two-year funding"). For FY2022, Congress made 15% of this appropriation (excluding WSP and supplemental funding) available for two fiscal years, with budget authority for the remainder of the funds expiring at the end of the fiscal year for which they were appropriated. However, the Biden Administration cited "ongoing crises, future of work, and domestic facilities projects, and the endemic posture due to COVID-19" to justify its request that Congress make all FY2023 funds available as two-year funding.¹⁰

The Biden Administration's request expanded on its ongoing efforts to strengthen the State Department's workforce.¹¹ It sought resources for an additional 629 Foreign Service and Civil Service positions, 619 of which the Administration intended to fund through the Diplomatic Programs account.¹² Focus areas of proposed new positions included implementation of the Administration's Indo-Pacific Strategy and countering the malign influence of state and non-state actors.¹³ Also within the request was funding for an additional 250 Foreign Service and Civil Service positions to expand the State Department's Professional Development and Training Float ("training float," or component of employees participating in training and professional development programs rather than serving in policy assignments).¹⁴ Expansion of the training float might enable the State Department to provide opportunities for more staff to participate in training and learning modules while maintaining the personnel strength needed to advance U.S. national security and foreign policy interests.

The Biden Administration also sought $65.6 million within its request for Diplomatic Programs for diversity, equity, inclusion, and access (DEIA) programs for staff in support of several executive orders President Biden has issued that are intended to advance DEIA in the federal workforce. Such programs included a new initiative to modernize the State Department's recruitment practices to better ensure the department is able to attract a diverse workforce, increased paid internship opportunities, and a new Civil Service diversity fellowship program. Furthermore, the Administration requested 30 additional State Department positions focused on DEIA efforts.¹⁵

House Legislation. H.R. 8282, if enacted, would have provided $89,000 less for the Diplomatic Programs account than the Biden Administration requested.¹⁶ The bill did not implement the Biden Administration's request that all non-WSP Diplomatic Programs funding be made available as two-year funding. Instead, it mirrored the FY2022 appropriations law (Division K of P.L. 117-103) in making 15% of the Diplomatic Programs appropriation available for two fiscal years, with budget authority for the remaining funds expiring at the end of FY2023.¹⁷ H.R. 8282 fully funded the Administration's request for additional State Department Foreign Service and Civil Service positions and the expansion of the State Department's training float. The House Appropriations Committee report accompanying this bill expressly prioritized staffing increases in areas including Central America sanctions issues, management and oversight of security assistance programs, and cybersecurity.¹⁸ The committee report also stated that the bill included funding for "not less than the budget request" to expand the State Department's DEIA programming, including recruitment, retention, and professional development initiatives.¹⁹ The report specifically allocated not less than $18 million for paid internships (a figure which equaled the Biden Administration's request) and also required the State Department to submit reports to Congress describing all of its workforce diversity activities and, separately, barriers to equity in Foreign and Civil Service staff promotions.²⁰

Consolidated Appropriation. When factoring in supplemental funding, P.L. 117-328 included $9.61 billion for the Diplomatic Programs account, which was a 0.8% decrease from the Biden Administration's total request. With regard to base funding only, the law's provision of $9.46 billion was around 1.8% less than the request. As with the House bill, the law did not implement the Biden Administration's request for all non-WSP Diplomatic Programs base funding to be made available as two-year funding; it instead made 15% of the appropriation available as such (with budget authority for the remaining funds expiring at the end of FY2023), which was consistent with recent congressional practice in past SFOPS appropriations laws. The law further provided $3.42 billion for the Human Resources funding category of the Diplomatic Programs account, which is used to fund Foreign and Civil Service salaries, among other purposes. This totaled about $20 million less than both the Administration's request and the House bill. The Joint Explanatory Statement (JES) accompanying the law noted that it "include[d] funding for additional Foreign Service officers and Civil Service positions" and required the Secretary of State to consult with Congress regarding proposed staffing increases.²¹ Neither the law nor the JES directly mentioned the Administration's request to expand the State Department's training float but they did not expressly preclude the State Department from obligating funds to do so. Although neither the law nor the JES provided an aggregate funding level for State Department DEIA programming, the JES noted that the law provided "funding for workforce diversity initiatives," including not less than $6 million each for the Charles B. Rangel International Affairs Program and the Thomas R. Pickering Foreign Affairs Graduate Fellowship Program.²² The JES further allocated $7.2 million for the State Department's Office of Diversity and Inclusion, which exceeded the Administration's request of about $7.0 million for this office.²³ Like the House committee report, the JES allocated $18.0 million for paid internships, which equaled the Administration's request.²⁴

Diplomatic Security

The WSP allocation within the Diplomatic Programs account and the Embassy Security, Construction, and Maintenance (ESCM) account are often referred to as the "diplomatic security accounts" within SFOPS. WSP funds the Bureau of Diplomatic Security (DS), which is tasked with implementing the State Department's security programs to protect U.S. embassies and other overseas posts, diplomatic residences, and domestic State Department offices.²⁵ Other bureaus that receive funding through WSP include the Bureau of Information Resource Management, which shares responsibility with DS for protecting the State Department's information technology assets. The ESCM account funds the Bureau of Overseas Buildings Operations, which is responsible for providing U.S. diplomatic and consular missions overseas with secure, safe, and functional facilities.²⁶

The Biden Administration requested approximately $5.77 billion for the diplomatic security accounts: $3.81 billion for WSP and $1.96 billion for ESCM. The Administration's request was 1.9% less than the funding Congress provided for these accounts in FY2022 (including supplemental funding; see Table 3 and footnote below).²⁷

For FY2023, the Biden Administration sought WSP funding for 64 additional positions, including 30 new Civil Service positions to focus on areas including security clearance processing and cybersecurity initiatives.²⁹ The request also identified several cybersecurity initiatives and enhancements, including enterprise vulnerability scanning and network intrusion detection modernization, which the Biden Administration intended to prioritize. While the request reflected a $538 million reduction due to suspended operations at the U.S. Embassy in Afghanistan, it also called for nearly $42 million to implement an agreement the United States reached with Qatar to provide some consular services to U.S. citizens in Afghanistan and monitor the condition of U.S. diplomatic facilities there.³⁰ With regard to ESCM, the request included the State Department's $940 million ESCM funding share of the Capital Security Cost Sharing and Maintenance Cost Sharing Programs (CSCS/MCS), which fund the construction and maintenance of U.S. diplomatic posts. The Administration maintained that this request, when combined with contributions from other agencies with overseas personnel, would fund these programs at the $2.2 billion level recommended by the State Department Accountability Review Board convened after the 2012 terrorist attack against U.S. personnel in Benghazi, Libya.³¹

House Legislation. If enacted, the FY2023 House SFOPS bill would have funded the diplomatic security accounts at levels equal to the Biden Administration's request. While the bill did not directly address many of the security programs the Biden Administration prioritized, the committee report noted that WSP resources were intended to support "enhanced high threat protection, security technology, [and] cyber and information security," along with protective services for senior State Department officials and foreign dignitaries visiting the United States.³² The bill also provided funding equal to what the Biden Administration requested for WSP salaries, which may have allowed the State Department to move forward with creating additional WSP positions described in the FY2023 request.³³ The committee report allocated $940 million provided within ESCM for the State Department's CSCS/MCS funding requirements, which equaled the Biden Administration's request.³⁴ The House bill further included notification and reporting requirements similar to those made part of past SFOPS appropriations laws that would have enabled Congress to conduct oversight of ongoing overseas diplomatic facility construction projects.³⁵

Consolidated Appropriation. The consolidated appropriations measure included $3.81 billion for WSP and $1.96 billion for ESCM, for a total of approximately $5.77 billion in diplomatic security funding. This aggregate funding level was equal to the Biden Administration's request and totaled about $180,000 more than the FY2022 enacted level (excluding the $110 million in supplemental funding Congress provided for diplomatic security in FY2022). While neither the law nor the JES expressly endorsed or funded many of the diplomatic and cyber security programs the Biden Administration highlighted in its request, the law did not directly prohibit the State Department from pursuing these initiatives. Like the House bill, the consolidated appropriations measure fully funded the Biden Administration's request for WSP salaries and thus enabled the State Department to proceed with its security-focused hiring plans. The JES also allocated the $940 million in ESCM monies the Administration requested for CSCS/MCS to fund construction and maintenance projects at U.S. overseas posts.³⁶ The law further carried over many of the oversight provisions and reporting requirements included in the House bill, including those that required the State Department to share detailed information with Congress prior to obligating funds for the acquisition of property or the award of new construction contracts for U.S. diplomatic facilities.³⁷

Assessed Contributions to International Organizations and Peacekeeping Missions

The Contributions to International Organizations (CIO) account is the funding vehicle for the United States' payments of its annual assessed contributions (membership dues) to 43 international organizations. These include the United Nations (U.N.) and organizations in the U.N. system (among them the World Health Organization, or WHO, and the Food and Agriculture Organization, or FAO) and regional organizations such as the North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO).³⁸ Separately, the United States pays its assessed contributions to U.N. peacekeeping missions through the Contributions for International Peacekeeping Activities (CIPA) account.³⁹ The United States provides additional funding to international organizations through various SFOPS humanitarian and multilateral assistance accounts.

The Biden Administration's FY2023 SFOPS request included a combined $3.99 billion for these accounts. This request comprised a 26.1% increase from the FY2022 enacted funding level. Table 4 illustrates recent funding for each account.

Among other priorities, the Biden Administration's request sought $150 million to begin paying U.S. arrears (overdue assessed contributions) to the United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization (UNESCO) with the intention of rejoining the organization. The United States previously withheld funding to UNESCO after the organization admitted the Palestinians as a member in 2011 pursuant to U.S. laws prohibiting funding to U.N. entities that take such actions. The United States later withdrew from UNESCO in 2018.⁴⁰ The Biden Administration also sought a waiver to allow it to expend these funds, which Congress previously refrained from providing when the Administration included funding for UNESCO in its FY2022 request.⁴¹ The FY2023 request further called for nearly $58 million to support increased funding for NATO's civil budget, which funds personnel expenses, operating costs, and program expenditures at the NATO Headquarters in Brussels, Belgium.⁴² The Biden Administration asserted that increased funding for the civil budget would enable NATO to "maintain its technological and operational edge in the evolving strategic and security environment that includes threats and challenges such as a more aggressive and assertive Russia and China, the need for strengthened cybersecurity, and threats posed by emerging and destructive technologies."⁴³

With regard to CIPA, the Biden Administration maintained that its FY2023 request would advance its intention to fund the United States' U.N. peacekeeping commitments at its current assessed rate of 26.94%. This assessment exceeds the enacted 25% cap on U.S. contributions Congress has kept in place since the 1990s due to concerns that assessed rates are too high.⁴⁴ The Administration also once again requested language to authorize the State Department to pay assessed contributions above the 25% statutory cap; Congress refrained from including such a measure in the FY2022 SFOPS appropriations law despite the State Department's request.⁴⁵ The FY2023 request also included $620 million for the State Department to pay some peacekeeping arrears accrued from FY2017 to FY2020 due to the 25% cap and an additional $110.3 million to pay arrears from the 2021-2022 peacekeeping year (also due to the cap).⁴⁶ The Biden Administration similarly sought additional funding as part of its FY2022 request for CIPA to pay down arrears accumulated over the previous four years, yet Congress funded CIPA at a level much closer to the FY2021 appropriation for that account.⁴⁷

House Legislation. The House SFOPS bill included a combined $3.46 billion for CIO and CIPA, or about 13.3% less than the Biden Administration's request and 9.4% more than the FY2022 funding provided by Congress. This lower overall figure relative to the Administration's request was attributable entirely to CIPA, as the House bill funded CIO slightly above (about 0.09% more) the request. The House bill included waiver authority similar to what the Administration requested that, if exercised, would have allowed the State Department to begin paying U.S. arrears to UNESCO.⁴⁸ While neither the bill nor the committee report directly addressed NATO in the context of CIO, the bill's provision of slightly more funding than the Biden Administration requested for this account appeared to allow the State Department to fund NATO's civil budget at requested levels. With regard to CIPA, the committee report noted that this bill included "more than $200 million" to enable the State Department to begin paying down peacekeeping arrears.⁴⁹ This appeared lower than the funding the Biden Administration requested for this purpose. H.R. 8282 further included language similar to what the Biden Administration requested that would have authorized the State Department to pay assessed peacekeeping contributions above the 25% statutory cap, which the committee report maintained would have enabled the State Department to use FY2023 funds to pay the full share of the United States' assessed peacekeeping costs.⁵⁰ The bill also would have required that any State Department payment of peacekeeping arrears shall be subject to prior consultation with Congress and stipulated that no CIPA funding may be used for the procurement of Russian equipment unless the Secretary of State reported to Congress on a case-by-case basis that this prohibition "would pose a substantial risk to human health or welfare."⁵¹

Consolidated Appropriation. The consolidated appropriations law (P.L. 117-328) provided a total of $2.92 billion for CIO and CIPA, or about 26.8% less than the Biden Administration's request and 7.6% below the FY2022 enacted level. The difference between the funding levels requested by the Administration and provided in the law owed largely to CIPA (see Table 4). Neither the law nor the JES set aside any CIPA funds for the payment of peacekeeping arrears. Moreover, the law did not provide the waiver authority the Administration requested to enable the State Department to use FY2023 funds to pay assessed peacekeeping contributions above the 25% statutory cap. While the law did not include the aforementioned restriction on the use of CIPA funds for the procurement of Russian equipment that was part of the House bill, the JES directed the Secretary of State to work with the United Nations to reduce its reliance on Russian equipment and transmit a report to Congress detailing steps to be taken in this regard.⁵² With respect to CIO, the law included waiver authority similar to what the Biden Administration requested and identical to that provided in the House bill that enabled the President to waive statutory restrictions that precluded U.S. funding to UNESCO.⁵³ Should President Biden exercise this waiver authority, the Administration may begin paying arrears in order to rejoin UNESCO, as detailed in the State Department's budget request.⁵⁴ While the law and the JES did not address NATO in the context of CIO, the law did not prohibit the United States from funding NATO's civil budget.

Foreign Operations Highlights

SFOPS Foreign Operations accounts comprise the majority of U.S. foreign assistance included in the international affairs budget; the remainder is enacted in the Agriculture appropriations bill, which provides funding for the Food for Peace Act, Title II (FFP) and McGovern-Dole International Food for Education and Child Nutrition Programs.⁵⁵ The FY2023 request for base Foreign Operations was $47.42 billion, an increase of 15.8% over FY2022 enacted base funding. Including supplemental requests, the total Foreign Operations request for FY2023 was $71.97 billion, representing a 3.8% increase from total FY2022 enacted funding. The total foreign assistance request, including food aid provided for in the agriculture appropriation and supplemental appropriations, was $73.94 billion. See Table 5 for a more detailed breakdown of foreign assistance funding by type.

The Administration asserted that the FY2023 budget request would, among other priorities, support U.S. efforts to combat COVID-19 abroad, invest in climate mitigation and adaptation programs, lead global humanitarian assistance vis-a-vis other donors in countries such as Ukraine and Afghanistan, address root causes of migration, and defend democratic institutions globally.⁵⁶ The request also included funding to increase USAID Direct Hire staff by 200 (100 Civil Service and 100 Foreign Service) and invest in agency systems to support the proposed overall increase in funding and program operations. For more detail on selected sectors, see "Foreign Operations Sectors" below.

House Legislation. The House SFOPS bill for FY2023 would have provided a total of $49.2 billion for foreign assistance, nearly level with the Administration's request. The bill included a 20% increase in funding for export promotion and a nearly 12% increase for global health programs. All other types of foreign assistance would have seen level funding or modest decreases (-5% for Humanitarian Assistance and -1% for both USAID Administration and Multilateral Assistance) compared to the Administration's request. When compared to FY2022 enacted base funding, the House bill represented a nearly 15% overall increase with the largest increases provided to Multilateral Assistance (+96.7%) and Export Promotion (+67.0%). When compared to the FY2022 total enacted level, including emergency supplemental funding, the House bill represented a decrease of 31.0% with three foreign assistance types severely reduced (-52.0% for Humanitarian Assistance, -47.2% for Non-Health Development Assistance, and -36.1% for Security Assistance).

Continuing Resolutions. The first CR, P.L. 117-180, enacted to fund the federal government through December 16, 2022, included $4.5 billion in supplemental funding for non-health development assistance (Division B of the law). As requested by the Administration, Congress directed that such funds be made available for direct financial assistance to the Government of Ukraine.

Consolidated Appropriation. P.L. 117-328 provided $45.12 billion in base foreign assistance, a 0.9% decrease from the President's request and a 0.5% increase from the FY2022 enacted base. When compared to FY2022 enacted base levels, the largest increases were to Export Promotion (+127.9%), Multilateral Assistance (+16.4%), and Global Health Programs (+7.4%). Only Humanitarian Assistance received a slight decrease when compared with FY2022 base levels (-1.1%). The act also included $16.47 billion in supplemental funding for Ukraine through the Additional Ukraine Supplemental Appropriations Act, 2023 (Division M of the law).

Foreign Operations Sectors

Global Health Programs (GHP)⁵⁷

The Administration requested $10.58 billion for base Global Health Programs (GHP) funding for FY2023. This represented a 7.6% increase from FY2022 enacted funding levels. The largest increases were for family planning and reproductive health programs (+9.2%), raising U.S. contributions to the multilateral Global Fund to Fight AIDS, Tuberculosis, and Malaria (Global Fund, +28.2%), and bolstering global health security (+43.6%)—the latter of which included strengthening health systems worldwide and enhancing their capacity to fight diseases with pandemic potential, such as COVID-19.⁵⁸ The Administration maintained historical practices of requesting the bulk (74%) of GHP funds for fighting HIV/AIDS, tuberculosis (TB), and malaria through the U.S. President's Emergency Plan for AIDS Relief (PEPFAR) and the Global Fund (see Table 6). The Administration sought decreases in five subaccounts: bilateral HIV/AIDS funding through the State Department (-0.5%), Maternal and Child Health (-1.2%), Nutrition (-3.2%), Tuberculosis (-5.7%), and Vulnerable Children (-9.1%).

Notably, the request included a proposal to make available $6.5 billion in "mandatory" funding "to make transformative investments in global health security and pandemic and other biological threat preparedness" over five years.⁵⁹ The Administration did not count these funds in its FY2023 international affairs budget request total. It is unclear from what subaccounts these funds would have been drawn and what portion of this funding would have been needed to be appropriated given references to related funding in previous fiscal years. For example, the budget proposal included within the $6.5 billion pledges by the Administration to the Coalition for Epidemic Preparedness and Innovation (CEPI) and other stakeholders in previous fiscal years, and amounts provided through P.L. 117-2, the American Rescue Plan Act (ARPA), subject to congressional approval. The Administration also counted $1.05 billion of the FY2023 global health security request ($775 million from USAID and $250 million from the Department of State) towards the multi-year funding authority.

In September 2022, the Administration requested $595 million in emergency supplemental funds for mpox virus responses abroad.⁶⁰ Of the requested funds, $25 million was for State and $570 million was for USAID. In November 2022, the Administration proposed an additional $1 billion "to control the spread of the COVID-19 pandemic and potential new variants."⁶¹ Such funds were requested to be divided between State ($75 million), for health system strengthening efforts through PEPFAR, and USAID ($925 million) to support pandemic preparedness and health system strengthening efforts, including those carried out through the U.S. COVID-19 Global Response and Recovery Framework, Global VAX, and the Emergency Reserve Fund, among others. Including the supplemental requests, proposed GHP funding for FY2023 totaled $12.17 billion, a 23.8% increase from FY2022 enacted levels.

House Legislation. The House SFOPS bill for FY2023 would have provided a total of $10.977 billion for Global Health Programs, an increase of 3.8% over the President's request. The measure would have provided more than the President requested for most global health subaccounts, with the exception of Neglected Tropical Diseases (NTDs), which would have received $2 million less than the budget request. When compared to the FY2022 enacted level, the bill represented an increase of 11.7% and provided level or increased funding for all subaccounts. While the House bill did not mention the Administration's request for mandatory spending, the report accompanying the bill expressed the Committee's support for CEPI and the World Health Organization's ACT-Accelerator and urged USAID "to integrate global health security programming with other health programming at the country level."⁶² Additionally, the Committee noted that while it did not establish a Health Resilience Fund as the Administration requested, it would provide the requested $10.0 million under the "Other Public Health Threats" subaccount.

Consolidated Appropriation. P.L. 117-328 provided a total of $10.561 billion for Global Health Programs, representing a 0.1% decrease from the President's base request and a 13.2% decrease from the total request. The act provided level or more funding than the President's base request for most global health subaccounts, with the exception of Family Planning/Reproductive Health (-8.4%) and Global Health Security (-10.4%). When compared with the FY2022 enacted level, total GHP funding represented a 7.4% increase with level or increased funding for each global health subaccount.

Global Humanitarian Assistance⁶³

The projected numbers of people displaced or requiring humanitarian assistance and protection globally in 2023 are the highest on record, and experts say the numbers are likely to increase.⁶⁴ The U.S. government has consistently provided about one-third of total global humanitarian assistance to support those affected by conflict and natural disasters. Such assistance is generally appropriated through global humanitarian accounts administered by USAID and the State Department, including the International Disaster Assistance (IDA), Migration and Refugee Assistance (MRA), and Emergency Refugee and Migration Assistance (ERMA) accounts in the SFOPS appropriation, and the Food for Peace, Title II account (FFP) in the Agriculture appropriation.

The Biden Administration's FY2023 base budget request called for $10.45 billion in humanitarian assistance to support displaced and vulnerable persons and to invest in migration management, including $4.70 billion for IDA, $3.91 billion for MRA, $100 million for ERMA, and $1.74 billion for FFP. The FY2023 budget request was about 4% above the Administration's FY2022 request of $10.1 billion and just over 18% above the base funding ($8.56 billion) enacted for humanitarian assistance accounts in FY2022. In November 2022, the Biden Administration submitted to Congress a request for emergency supplemental funding for the ongoing response to the war in Ukraine, including a total of $500 million for humanitarian accounts—$250 million each for IDA and MRA—bringing the total FY2023 request to $10.95 billion.⁶⁵ Enacted emergency supplemental funding (primarily in response to the Afghanistan and Ukraine crises) increased humanitarian funding in FY2021 from $9.57 billion (base) to $11.5 billion and in FY2022 from $8.56 billion (base) to $20.46 billion (Figure 3).

Figure 3. Humanitarian Assistance by Account, FY2021-FY2023 (In billions of U.S. dollars)

Sources: CRS using data from the FY2023 SFOPS Congressional Budget Justification; P.L. 117-43; P.L. 117-70; P.L. 117-103; P.L. 117-128; H.R. 8282; P.L. 117-328. Notes: IDA = International Disaster Assistance; MRA = Migration and Refugee Assistance; ERMA = Emergency Refugee and Migration Assistance; FFP = Food for Peace Act, Title II.

House Legislation. The House SFOPS bill for FY2023 would have provided $8.1 billion for global humanitarian assistance through the IDA, MRA, and ERMA accounts. Together with FFP (which is funded through the agriculture appropriation), the amount would have been $9.9 billion,⁶⁶ which was roughly 6% less than the Administration's FY2023 base request and about 14% above the base humanitarian funding enacted in FY2022. The SFOPS report accompanying the bill highlighted several issues related to children in humanitarian emergencies, including child malnutrition, protection, and education. Under IDA, it also stressed the potential use of airdrops, support for programs addressing gender-based violence, the role of local and national NGOs in the humanitarian response, and the continued use of the Emergency Food Security Program. For MRA, the Committee noted its support, but not specific funding allocations, for aid to specific populations, including vulnerable migrants in Mexico; Rohingya, Tibetan, and Uyghur refugees; and Venezuelan migrants and refugees.

Consolidated Appropriation. P.L. 117-328 provided $11.09 billion for global humanitarian assistance, representing a 5.5% increase over the President's FY2023 base request and a less than 1% increase over the Administration's total request with emergency supplemental funding measures included. The act provided base funding of $8.66 billion (similar to base funding levels enacted in FY2022) with amounts about level or less than the President's base FY2023 request, including $3.90 billion for IDA, $2.91 billion for MRA, $100,000 for ERMA, and $1.75 billion for FFP. The act also provided $2.52 billion in supplemental funding (Division M of the law), including $937.9 million for IDA, $1.54 billion for MRA, and $50 million for FFP, with specific allocations for the Ukraine humanitarian response and for countries affected by the Ukraine conflict. For total global humanitarian assistance funding, including supplemental funds, the FY2023 enacted levels represented a 45.9% decrease compared to enacted levels in FY2022.

Security Assistance

Security assistance accounts fund a range of activities, including supplying weapon systems to allies, supporting partners in counternarcotics efforts, and providing human rights training to foreign military personnel, among other things. For FY2023, the Administration requested a base of $9.0 billion for security assistance accounts, representing a 1.1% increase from FY2022 enacted base funding. In November 2022, the Administration requested a further $905 million in supplemental emergency funding in response to the war in Ukraine. Including those funds, the total FY2023 security assistance request was $9.90 billion, which represented a 29.7% decrease from the total FY2022 enacted level (Figure 4). The FY2022 enacted total included $5.2 billion in emergency funding for security assistance for Ukraine and allies in the region, of which $4.65 billion was for Foreign Military Financing (FMF), $430 million was for International Narcotics Control and Law Enforcement (INCLE), and $100 million was for Nonproliferation, Anti-Terrorism, Demining and Related Programs (NADR). The largest proposed increase for base security assistance in FY2023 was for INCLE, which would have seen a 5.4% increase from FY2022 enacted base funding. The Administration asserted that the proposed funds would support global programming that would "reflect a heightened emphasis on advancing U.S. objectives on anticorruption and [would] consolidate important investments in combating transnational organized crime (TOC) and other national security threats by addressing the opioid crisis, financial crimes, cybercrime, wildlife trafficking, and police peacekeeping."⁶⁷

Figure 4. Security Assistance by Account, FY2021-FY2023 (In billions of current U.S. dollars)

Sources: CRS using data from the FY2023 SFOPS Congressional Budget Justification; P.L. 117-103; P.L. 117-128; H.R. 8282; P.L. 117-328. Notes: NADR = Nonproliferation, Anti-terrorism, Demining and Related Programs; PKO = Peacekeeping Operations; IMET = International Military Education and Training; FMF = Foreign Military Financing; INCLE = International Narcotics Control and Law Enforcement.

House Legislation. The House SFOPS bill for FY2023 would have provided a total of $9.0 billion for security assistance accounts, essentially level with the President's base request for FY2023 and slightly higher than FY2022 enacted base funding.

Consolidated Appropriation. The Consolidated Appropriations Act, 2023, included a total of $9.50 billion for security assistance accounts. Of those funds, $8.94 was for base funding and $560 million was for supplemental funding to respond to the war in Ukraine. The base appropriation was 0.4% higher than the enacted FY2022 base and 0.7% lower than the President's base request. The total appropriation for security assistance in FY2023 represented a 32.5% decrease from FY2022 total enacted levels and a 4.1% decrease from the President's total request.

Development Assistance, Export Promotion, and Related Assistance

Approximately one-third of the FY2023 foreign operations request was for non-health development sectors (e.g., education, food security, and the environment), independent agencies (e.g., the Peace Corps and Millennium Challenge Corporation), multilateral assistance, and export promotion and development finance agencies.

Non-health Development Sectors

As in prior years, the Administration's request for FY2023 did not specify dollar amounts for many non-health development sectors but offered detail on program priorities within certain sectors. (For FY2021 and FY2022 enacted levels for select development sectors, see Table 7). Consistent with the Administration's broader foreign operations priorities, focus areas within the non-health development sectors for FY2023 included climate mitigation and adaptation, addressing root causes of migration, defending democratic institutions, promoting education and food security, and spurring economic growth, particularly in countries that experienced severe economic downturns as a result of the COVID-19 pandemic.

House Legislation. The House bill for FY2023 would have provided increases for all selected non-health development sectors when compared to FY2022 enacted levels. The largest increases were provided for the environment (+43.6%), reconciliation programs (+20.0%), food security (+18.7%), and gender equality (+16.1%) sectors.

Consolidated Appropriation. P.L. 117-328 provided level or increased funding for all non-health development sectors when compared with FY2022 enacted levels. Increases were provided for the gender equality and women's empowerment (+16.1%), democracy programs (+11.5%), trafficking in persons (+9.4%), and education (+5.2%) sectors.

Independent Agencies

The Biden Administration's budget proposal for FY2023 included $1.43 billion for independent agencies, a 1.9% increase from FY2022 enacted levels. Both the Peace Corps and Millennium Challenge Corporation would have seen funding increases under the request (+4.9% and +2.0%, respectively) when compared to FY2022 enacted levels, and the Inter-American Foundation (IAF) and U.S. African Development Foundation (USADF) would have seen funding decreases (-9.5% and -17.5%, respectively).⁶⁸

House Legislation. The House bill for FY2023 would have provided a total of $1.44 billion for independent agencies, nearly level with the President's request. The bill included level funding for the Peace Corps as compared to the request, a moderate decrease for MCC (-1.6%), and significant increases for IAF (+23.7%) and USADF (+36.4%). When compared to the FY2022 enacted level, the House's FY2023 bill would have provided an overall increase of 2.4% for independent agencies with IAF and USADF again receiving the greatest funding increases (+11.9% and +12.5%, respectively).

Consolidated Appropriation. The Consolidated Appropriations Act, 2023, included a total of $1.45 billion for independent agencies, a modest increase from both the President's request (+1.5%) and the FY2022 enacted level (+3.4%). Both Peace Corps and MCC received level funding when compared with FY2022 enacted levels and IAF and USADF received increases of 11.9% and 12.5%, respectively.

Multilateral Assistance

The Administration proposed a near doubling of funding for multilateral assistance for FY2023 when compared to FY2022 base enacted levels and a 56.3% increase when compared to total FY2022 enacted levels. The FY2022 enacted total included a total of $650 million in emergency supplemental funds provided in the AUSAA (P.L. 117-128): $500 million for the European Bank for Reconstruction and Development and $150 million for the Global Agriculture and Food Security Program. The Administration's proposed increase in multilateral funding for FY2023 was largely a result of requested investments in the Green Climate Fund (GCF) and Climate Investment Funds, which the Administration contended would "accelerate progress toward meeting the goals of the Paris Agreement by assisting developing countries in reducing greenhouse gas emissions, adapting to climate change and building resilience, and investing in sustainable infrastructure."⁶⁹ The Administration had proposed funding for both the GCF and Climate Investment Funds for FY2022; both the House-passed and Senate drafted SFOPS bills for FY2022 included funds for the GCF ($1.60 billion and $1.45 billion, respectively), however the FY2022 consolidated appropriation did not include any funding for GCF or the proposed Climate Investment Funds.⁷⁰

The request included other substantial changes to multilateral assistance accounts when compared to FY2022 enacted levels. These included a significant increase to the International Development Association (+42.8%); significant decreases to the Asian Development Fund (-18.2%), African Development Fund (-18.9%), and the International Monetary Fund (-80.4%); and a zeroing out of the Global Agriculture and Food Security Program.

House Legislation. The House bill for FY2023 included a total of $4.67 billion for multilateral assistance accounts, a 1.2% decrease from the President's request. The decrease was largely due to the House bill not accepting the President's proposed contributions to Climate Investment Funds; all other multilateral accounts were funded at the President's request, with the exception of International Organizations and Programs, which would have seen a 29.5% increase. When compared to FY2022 total enacted funding for multilateral assistance, the House measure provided a 54.5% increase with the most significant increases to the Clean Technology Fund (+180.0%), the International Development Association (+42.8%), and International Organizations and Programs (+40.0%).

Consolidated Appropriation. P.L. 117-328 included $2.76 billion for multilateral assistance accounts, a 41.5% decrease from the Administration's proposal. This was largely due to Congress not accepting the President's request for contributions to the Green Climate Fund and Climate Investment Funds. When compared with base enacted funds for FY2022, the FY2023 enacted level was a 16.4% increase with subaccount increases for the Global Agriculture and Food Security Program (+100.0%), International Development Association (+42.%), and International Organizations and Programs (+20.2%). When compared with the total enacted funds for FY2022, however, the FY2023 enacted level represented an 8.4% decrease, largely due to decreases in funding for the Global Agriculture and Food Security Program and European Bank for Reconstruction and Development, both of which had received supplemental funding in FY2022 to address the war in Ukraine.

Regional Assistance

As with prior year budget requests, the Administration did not propose regional funding allocations that captured all appropriations accounts. For example, funding for humanitarian assistance was proposed for what are referred to as "global" accounts, wherein funding would be allocated throughout the fiscal year based on assessed needs and U.S. humanitarian priorities.

The Administration proposed regional funding for certain accounts. These included GHP; DA; ESF; Assistance to Europe, Eurasia, and Central Asia (AEECA); and all five security assistance accounts. Compared to FY2021 actuals (including emergency funding), for FY2023, the Administration proposed the largest increase in funding for the Western Hemisphere (+58.4%), followed by Europe and Eurasia, South and Central Asia, and East Asia and the Pacific; the proposal reduces funding from FY2022 levels for both sub-Saharan Africa and the Near East (Figure 5). The Administration also set out priorities for certain regions, including addressing the root causes of migration and bolstering civil society and governance in Central America; countering Russia's malign influence and supporting Ukraine and other regional allies in Europe and Eurasia; and advancing the Indo-Pacific strategy.

Figure 5. Regional Assistance, FY2021 Actual vs. FY2023 Request (In billions of current U.S. dollars)

Source: CRS using FY2023 SFOPS Congressional Budget Justification. Notes: FY2021 is the most recent year for which "actual" data are available. FY2021 Actual includes emergency funding.

House Legislation. The House legislation and accompanying report did not provide comprehensive regional allocations, but did specify assistance levels for several countries and regions. The legislation directed that $3.3 billion be made available for Israel, $1.7 billion for the implementation of the Indo-Pacific Strategy, $1.4 billion for Egypt, $487.4 million for Colombia, and $132.0 million for Georgia. Notably, the House bill did not include a designated funding level for Ukraine as existed in previous fiscal years.

Consolidated Appropriation. P.L. 117-328 did not include comprehensive country- and region-specific allocations. As in prior year appropriations, though, the measure included directives for some countries and regions. For example, the law specified that not less than $3.3 billion shall be made available for Israel, not less than $1.8 billion for the Indo-Pacific Strategy, and not less than $1.4 billion for Egypt, among other designations. As noted above, Division M of the bill also provided supplemental appropriations related to the war in Ukraine, including $16.4 billion in foreign operations accounts. These funds largely were not allocated by country or region but are likely to increase aid to Europe and Eurasia significantly in FY2023.

General Provisions

The SFOPS General Provisions (generally Title VII of the bill) set policy; direct, condition, and restrict appropriated funding; and outline notification and reporting requirements among other functions. As many programs and activities supported by SFOPS appropriations do not receive regular reauthorization, legislative language related to policy priorities is often found in the General Provisions title. While some sections remain unchanged from year to year, others are dynamic, indicating Members' use of the General Provisions—and the SFOPS appropriations measure more broadly—to address current and emerging global issues.

For FY2023, the Administration requested legislative language in a number of areas to address its policy priorities. Selected examples of such requests included the following:

• Consular and Border Security Programs. The Biden Administration requested General Provisions pertaining to consular fees the State Department collects and deposits into the Consular and Border Security programs account to fund consular services.⁷¹ One proposal would have authorized the State Department to adjust machine-readable visa fees to account for the costs it incurs for consular services for which there is currently no fee or surcharge collected, or for which the State Department is required to remit the applicable fee or surcharge to the Treasury. The State Department requested an additional General Provision that would, among other measures, amend the fee collection and expenditure authorities for passport and immigrant visa surcharges to encompass a broader array of consular services.⁷²
• Global Engagement Center Extension. The authorizing statute for the State Department's Global Engagement Center (GEC), which is responsible for leading inter-agency efforts to recognize, understand, expose, and counter foreign state and non-state propaganda and disinformation efforts aimed at the United States and its allies and partners, currently provides that the GEC will terminate on December 23, 2024.⁷³ The Biden Administration requested a General Provision that would extend this date to December 31, 2027.⁷⁴
• Build Back Better World (B3W) Fund. The Administration requested that Congress make available up to $350 million of Title III funds for a new B3W Fund that would provide for "assistance, including through contributions, to address climate, health and health security, digital connectivity, and gender equity."⁷⁵ Such funds would have been in addition to SFOPS funding made available for such purposes elsewhere in the bill.

House Legislation. The House measure introduced new general provisions and adjusted a number of general provisions from prior year appropriations bills. Selected examples included renaming funds previously appropriated for "Women's Leadership" as the "Madeleine Albright Women's Leadership Program"; adjusting standard notification requirements to include information not previously required; and requiring new or updated reporting on topics such as activities related to democracy and gender equality, the prioritization of funding to marginalized groups, and security assistance coordination. The House measure did not accept certain Administration proposals, including the aforementioned consular fee proposals, the requested B3W Fund, and the extension of the GEC's statutory mandate.

Consolidated Appropriation. P.L. 117-328 included a number of the general provision adjustments included in the House legislation, including the renaming of the Madeleine Albright Women's Leadership Program and certain notification and reporting requirements. The law did not accept certain Administration proposals, including the aforementioned consular fee proposals, the requested B3W Fund, and the extension of the GEC's statutory mandate.

Outlook

Although Congress enacted full year appropriations for FY2023 in December 2022, appropriations for FY2023 may not be complete. Members may continue to debate the need for additional funding in the remaining months of FY2023. Congress is most likely to debate supplemental appropriations in the context of Russia's continued war in Ukraine and its global impacts; however, unanticipated crises may also prompt Congress to consider new appropriations legislation for FY2023.

Appendix A. SFOPS Funding by Account

Appendix B. Emergency Supplemental Funds

Appendix C. International Affairs Budget

The International Affairs budget, or Function 150, includes funding that is not in the Department of State, Foreign Operations, and Related Programs (SFOPS) appropriation; in particular, international food assistance programs (Food for Peace Act, Title II (FFP) and McGovern-Dole International Food for Education and Child Nutrition programs) are in the Agriculture Appropriations, and the Foreign Claim Settlement Commission and the International Trade Commission are in the Commerce, Justice, Science appropriations. In addition, the SFOPS appropriation measure includes funding for certain international commissions that are not part of the International Affairs Function 150 account.

Appendix D. International Affairs Components

Figure D-1. International Affairs Components

Source: Created by CRS.