What did dhs spend their budget on where they are asking congress to allocate more funds
Executive summary
The Department of Homeland Security’s FY2026 request and related appropriations documents show large continuing expenditures for disaster response, operations across components (CBP, ICE, TSA, Coast Guard), and proposed multiyear investments—while seeking additional congressional authority and funding for major disasters, personnel, and capital investments [1] [2] [3]. The administration’s budget request and House/Senate appropriations language reveal tensions: big increases for FEMA’s Disaster Relief Fund alongside cuts or eliminations to certain grants and oversight offices that Congress is being asked to accept or reverse [1] [2] [4].
1. Disaster response dominates: a $26.5 billion majors request
The single largest line item driving DHS spending and its ask to Congress is the Disaster Relief Fund majors account—$26.5 billion requested in the FY2026 Budget in Brief to address ongoing Stafford Act disasters, an increase of about $4.0 billion from the prior year’s baseline [1]. That same disaster accounting appears in appropriations drafts: House documents and summaries identify roughly $26.47 billion as an allocation adjustment for major disaster response and recovery activities, demonstrating both the Department’s and Congress’s recognition of disaster funding as a central, above-the-line pressure point [5] [6].
2. Net discretionary totals and where baseline money goes
DHS frames its FY2026 request as providing about $63.6 billion in adjusted net discretionary funding even as overall departmental totals vary with off-budget and reconciliation items, and the Congressional Research Service notes roughly $3.9 billion outside standard appropriation categories that complicate cross-comparisons [2] [3]. That discretionary envelope funds core operations—border security, immigration enforcement, aviation and surface transportation security, cyber and infrastructure protection, and the Coast Guard’s civilian and military personnel costs—while also absorbing FEMA disaster allocations that carry special statutory exemptions [3] [2].
3. Seeking multiyear reconciliation authority and big supplemental asks
Beyond the base request, DHS seeks multiyear budget authority packaged in reconciliation—documents cite more than $175 billion in additional multiyear authority, of which at least an estimated $43.8 billion would be allocated in 2026 if enacted—pointing to a strategy of shifting major investments into a separate legislative vehicle rather than purely annual appropriations [2]. Congressional scoring and CBO analyses of the FY2026 appropriations bills underscore that such off-cycle authorities and emergency designations materially change how much new discretionary spending shows up in any one year [7] [3].
4. Specific component asks and internal reprogramming
DHS’s budget materials show targeted internal transfers and asks—for example, a $1.2 million transfer relating to Countering Weapons of Mass Destruction detection systems into Secret Service activities tied to protective missions, and broader language about investing in protective personnel, technology, and training if reconciliation funds are provided [1]. At the same time, appropriations language and committee summaries illustrate constraints Congress considers—such as a proposed cap limiting ICE detention spending to $3.8 billion—signalling friction over how DHS components may spend any new funds [8].
5. Cuts and eliminations: grants and oversight under pressure
While asking Congress for more funds in some areas, DHS’s FY2026 package also proposes to reduce or eliminate a range of non-disaster grants and programs—explicitly zeroing out the Shelter and Services Program ($650M), Emergency Food and Shelter ($117M), certain training grants, and even the National Domestic Preparedness Consortium ($91M), among others [2]. Separately, the proposed appropriations bill would formalize prior cuts to internal oversight offices—drastically reducing CRCL funding and zeroing the Immigration Detention Ombudsman—creating a paradox of increased operational spending concurrent with diminished oversight capacity [4].
6. Political and procedural friction: shutdown risk and allocations
The push-pull between DHS’s requests and Congress’s bills has procedural stakes: mainstream reporting and CBO analyses note that FY2026 DHS funding is entangled with broader minibus appropriations and cloture math in the Senate, and that stripping DHS language could imperil votes needed to avoid wider shutdowns even as DHS retains some operating capacity via prior “One Big Beautiful Bill” authorities [9] [7]. These dynamics shape what Congress may actually approve—full appropriations, caps on detention spending, or acceptance of large emergency disaster allocations [8] [9].