Dear Homeland Security Friends,
Each year, the major party in Congress expresses a goal to bring the annual spending bills to the respective House and Senate floors before the August recess period and to meet the statutory deadline for completion by September 30th midnight (before the new fiscal year commences on October 1st). This “regular order” is rarely if ever accomplished in modern times, and this year appears to be no different.
At best, Senate Appropriations Committee Chair Susan Collins (R-ME) hopes to bring 4 of the 12 annual spending bills to the floor before the August recess. Passage will require 60-votes in the Senate — requiring bipartisan support that may not be forthcoming this year, as Senate Democrats are fuming over the just passed partisan-driven $9 billion recission package requested by the Administration that “clawed back” previously approved funding allocated for public broadcasting and foreign aid.
The House, for its part, has passed just two spending bills thus far (Military Construction-VA and Defense), likely the only bills expected to secure a few Democratic votes to advance. At best, one or two additional bills might advance to the House floor before the recess period commences. Five of the remaining bills have not even been considered or approved to advance at the committee level as of this writing. The bills that have advanced out of committee have done so on strictly party-line votes and the majority party has only the slimmest advantage and no room to lose Republican votes on the outstanding bills.
The House Appropriations Committee marked up and advanced its version of the FY 2026 Homeland Security spending bill on June 24th. It included recommended funding of $335 million for the Nonprofit Security Grant Program – after a bipartisan managers’ amendment to add $30 million above the Homeland Security Subcommittee’s initial recommended level of $305 million was approved. The increase was approved in proximity to two deadly attacks on the Jewish community in Washington, DC and Boulder, CO. This bill has not been scheduled for floor action.
The Senate Appropriations Committee has not scheduled a markup of its version of the Homeland Security bill and has not shared any insights or details into their plans. At this time, we do not know what they are considering for NSGP funding.
Typically, if the House and Senate include the same funding recommendations for any given program account, the agreed upon level is locked in for the remainder of the process. In circumstances where the amounts differ, the final spending level would be negotiated and agreed to at a later stage in the process called a “Conference Committee” made up of representatives nominated from each spending committee. Often in recent years, the conference has taken place informally, behind closed doors and just between the “4 corners” (made up of the respective chairs and ranking members of each spending committee).
Based on the slow progress this year (for FY 2026 spending) in both chambers, it is likely that Congress will resort to implementing one or more “Continuing Resolutions” (CRs) that temporarily extend funding at the existing fiscal year’s levels until final spending for the new fiscal year can be finalized.
In a typical year, these extensions run until mid- to late-December. In an election year, such as this year, the CRs for FY 2025 extended until mid-March of the calendar year, almost 6 months into the present fiscal year. In these situations, the regular order breaks down, and the spending bills get packed into either one giant “omnibus” spending bill or into two or more “minibus” packages. Unpopular among the rank-and-file Members of Congress.
This year, even this process proved impossible to achieve and Congress ended up enacting for the first time ever a year-long CR for all 12 spending bills, keeping in place most program funding levels and policy directives established in the FY 2024 spending bill. This kept NSGP funding at $274.5 million, the level Congress appropriated for the program in FY 2024, absent the additional one-time $390 million Congress also appropriated for NSGP within the National Security Supplemental (NSS) spending bill of 2024.
While we wait to see how FY 2026 spending plays out, implementation of the current FY 2025 NSGP program is at a standstill, and the commitment of the remaining balance (nearly one-third) of the 2024 NSGP-NSS funding is up in the air. Add to this, the Administration has indicated, without a release of plans, justification, objectives, or timelines, its intention to dismantle the Federal Emergency Management Agency as we know it, which administers the NSGP program and several other counterterrorism grant programs to the states and localities.
There are both micro and macro issues at play. Micro: Maximizing the NSGP funding levels for Fiscal Year 2026. Macro: Releasing program funding that has been appropriated but not obligated (with a deadline looming) and protecting the program from potential/likely damaging impacts from the potential dismantling of FEMA.
My concern is that NSGP advocates are focused primarily if not solely on the micro issue and are not advocating sufficiently on the macro issues to the immediate- and long-term detriment of the NSGP program. The reaction to recent, elevated threats to the faith-based community and nonprofit sector, particularly within the Jewish community, has mostly been calls to further increase annual program funding.
Frankly, this press to seek additional funding is a perennial advocacy request/talking point and not resulting, per se, from present security factors or assessments. The macro issues are new and destabilizing and potentially ruinous of the program if left unabated.
Advocating on the macro issues is therefore essential — to reestablish the free flow of NSGP grant information, the re-engagement of stakeholder relationships with DHS/FEMA, the release of frozen FY 2025 funding (starting with the release of the Notice of Funding Opportunity and opening the application process), and the protection of NSGP as a centralized, stand-alone (with direct funding) federal program available to all 56 states and territories (under the same uniform guidance and criteria) – is vital.
Advocating for the micro issue to ensure appropriate and reliable levels of program funding are available to meet stakeholder needs is also important – the target level of $500 million for FY 2026 is based on a reflection of recent funding-to-need shortfalls.
The macro and micro issues must be addressed together. To accomplish this, grassroots, grass-tops, and direct and coalitional advocacy is warranted, as are creating opportunities for free press articles, editorials, and even paid opinion pieces to educate and elevate the concerns about the funding and program perils facing NSGP (and the several state and local counterterrorism programs administered by FEMA that work in concert to protect our communities).
A centralized, cooperative advocacy program should be established with haste to push the faith-based and nonprofit sector security advocacy agenda.
I believe it is the responsibility of every stakeholder of the NSGP program to call on their respective national and local organizational bodies and associations to take immediate action. In the Jewish community this may include the coordination of Jewish Federations of North America and their local federations (the original lead organization behind the establishment of NSGP), the ADL, American Jewish Committee, the Conference of Presidents, Jewish Community Relations Councils, JCC Association, Hillel International, continuum of religious movements (i.e., Orthodox Union, Agudath Israel, Union of Reform Judaism and others), and the Network of Jewish Human Services Agencies, among them.
They should join in coalition with other religious (and nonprofit) stakeholders, as has been done as far back as in support of the establishment of the program more than twenty years ago, including Christian, Muslim, Sikh, and Hindu organizations, among them.
I won’t lie, NSGP is in stasis and near paralysis and it is not enough to simply ask for more program funding in the next fiscal year, at this late juncture in fiscal year 2025 and with the overall wellbeing of the program at stake. I, therefore, urge you to take immediate action and to press upon your respective communal leaders and representatives to increase and expand the focus of their advocacy and engagement on the matter with congressional leaders and NSGP supporters in both chambers; governors, state and local emergency managers, law enforcement and first responder stakeholders, and with the Administration.
Best,
Rob Goldberg
Principal
Goldberg & Associates, LLC
In partnership with Sphere State