House appropriations subcommittee favorably reports FY2026 national security, State Department funding bill after partisan debate

The House Appropriations subcommittee on National Security, Department of State, and Related Programs voted 8-5 to favorably report the fiscal year 2026 appropriations bill to the full committee after a contentious markup that split largely along party lines.

The bill would reduce funding by roughly 22% from the fiscal year 2025 enacted level and includes explicit funding and policy provisions aimed at prioritizing what supporters called U.S. national security interests. The measure, as described during the markup, provides $3,300,000,000 in security assistance for Israel, $500,000,000 in foreign military financing for Taiwan, and creates two new accounts described in the bill as the “America First Opportunity Fund” and a “National Security Investment Program.” The measure would also withhold or prohibit funds for a number of international organizations and programs listed in the text before the subcommittee.

Subcommittee remarks and members’ exchanges laid out starkly different views of the bill’s effect. The subcommittee chair (name not specified in the transcript) described the package as a reorientation of foreign assistance “to advance the national security interest of The United States,” and said the bill “drastically” reduces spending to rein in debt while prioritizing partners in the Western Hemisphere, the Middle East and the Indo‑Pacific. The chair characterized the measure as implementing a White House “America First” approach and highlighted provisions that prohibit funding to entities and programs the bill drafters consider ineffective.

Ranking Member Ms. Frankel, the subcommittee’s top Democrat, said she opposed the bill. “I rise in fierce opposition to the Republican FY26 State Foreign Operations and Related Programs Bill, a reckless, shortsighted blueprint for American retreat,” Ms. Frankel said, arguing the package would “slash international affairs funding by 22%” and cut humanitarian assistance “by 42%,” with consequences she described as “deadly” in places facing famine, conflict and public‑health crises. Frankel and other Democrats said the measure removes funding for long‑standing programs and international institutions and would undercut U.S. diplomatic capacity, USAID operations and global health efforts such as PEPFAR.

Tom Cole, chairman of the full Appropriations Committee, praised the subcommittee’s work and described the bill as “a critically important step toward building a renewed and sharpened approach to United States foreign policy while also responsibly reducing spending.” He said the measure reaffirms support for allies and advances oversight intended to eliminate waste and fraud.

Other members who spoke highlighted particular provisions: speakers noted prohibitions on funding for the United Nations regular budget and for several U.N. bodies and agencies named in the markup, limitations on participation by U.S. funding in programs the bill’s sponsors associate with the People’s Republic of China, and continued support for several defense‑oriented partners in key regions. Supporters also emphasized longstanding pro‑life provisions and expanded oversight language intended to prevent use of U.S. assistance for abortions.

Opponents raised operational and humanitarian concerns repeatedly: they said the administration’s prior cuts and personnel changes at State and USAID have already reduced capacity, that the bill’s funding reductions would shutter life‑saving programs, and that restrictions on agencies such as the World Health Organization and the U.N. Population Fund risked harming women and children in crisis settings. Multiple Democrats emphasized that international affairs spending historically comprises a small share of federal outlays while delivering strategic benefits.

On a motion to report the bill favorably to the full committee, the subcommittee recorded a roll call. The clerk announced the tally as eight ayes and five noes; the motion was reported favorably. The subcommittee chair asked unanimous consent to permit staff to make technical conforming changes to the bill and report; that request was granted. The chair said copies of the bill and report with technical and conforming changes would be delivered to full committee members’ offices no later than three business days before the full committee meeting.

The favorable report sends the bill to the full Appropriations Committee for consideration and possible amendment. The transcript does not record any further floor or full‑committee schedule or whether the White House would accept, alter or implement the bill’s provisions.