Peace Corps Faces Budget Cut in House FY2026 Appropriations BillHouse National Security, State Department, and Related Programs Appropriations bill allocates $410.5 million for Peace Corps
The House Appropriations Committee has recently approved a modest but notable reduction in Peace Corps funding for fiscal year 2026, cutting the agency's budget by $20 million as part of broader reductions to international programs. Budget DetailsThe House National Security, State Department, and Related Programs (NSRP) Appropriations bill allocates $410.5 million for the Peace Corps in FY2026, representing a 5 percent decrease from the FY2025 enacted level of $430.5 million. Notably, this represents a $20 million cut from the Administration's request, which sought to maintain funding at current levels of $430.5 million. Of the total allocation, $7.8 million is designated for the Office of the Inspector General, while the remainder will fund Peace Corps operations worldwide. Details of the Peace Corps provisions can be found on page 46 of the full House Appropriations Committee Print Report, with the complete bill text available here. A Perfect Storm: More Than Just Budget CutsBeyond the direct $20 million reduction, Peace Corps faces what insiders describe as a "perfect storm" of related cuts that could severely impact operations: Health Program Partnership Crisis: The House bill's reductions to global health programs directly threaten Peace Corps health sector work. With overall global health funding reduced by 5 percent (-$512 million), volunteers working in health may find their programming partnerships disrupted. Small Projects Assistance Eliminated: The elimination of the Small Projects Assistance (SPA) Fund removes a crucial tool that Peace Corps volunteers have historically used to implement community-driven development projects. The SPA program, which has been the largest and longest-running partnership between USAID and Peace Corps since 1983, provided over $44 million in funding since 2000 for grassroots, locally-directed initiatives. With USAID now integrated into the State Department, this funding stream—essential for small-scale community projects that define much of Peace Corps's development impact—faces elimination. Staff Reductions Through RIFs: The combination of reduced core funding and broader cuts to international affairs agencies is expected to trigger Reductions in Force (RIFs) affecting both headquarters operations and in-country support for volunteers. Congressional Priorities and DirectivesDespite the cuts, the House Appropriations Committee report reveals several key priorities for Peace Corps operations: Geographic Focus: The committee encourages expansion in strategically important regions, specifically supporting Peace Corps plans to expand operations in Pacific Island Countries (PICs) and encouraging evaluation of reestablishing operations in Cabo Verde. Cybersecurity Concerns: Lawmakers expressed significant concern about Peace Corps information security, noting "lack of progress toward meaningful improvements." The committee emphasized that robust cybersecurity is "a critical component of the safety and security of volunteers" and directed the agency to prioritize investments in information security infrastructure. Volunteer Safety Reporting: The committee mandated that Peace Corps submit a detailed cost analysis of implementing Safety and Security Instruction (SSI) 410 within 90 days of enactment, including expenses by type and host country. Former Congressman Farr: "Really Discouraging" Budget PrioritiesFormer Congressman Sam Farr, who served both as a Peace Corps Volunteer in Colombia (1964-66) and later as a strong advocate for the agency in Congress, has issued sharp criticism of the House funding decisions, calling them "really discouraging" and highlighting a troubling shift in congressional priorities. The Critical Point: Farr emphasizes that "the White House didn't cut the Peace Corps Budget, Congress did." The Administration requested level funding at $430.5 million, but the House Appropriations Committee chose to cut $20 million to help fund massive increases elsewhere. A Stark Contrast: Farr's critique centers on a glaring inconsistency in congressional priorities. While Peace Corps faces a $20 million cut from the Administration's request, the Millennium Challenge Corporation (MCC) received a massive $706 million boost—from $224 million requested to $930 million allocated. "All that money ought to go to the Peace Corps," Farr stated, questioning why MCC received such generous treatment "without any justification, only because it was a Bush Initiative." He noted that MCC operates "without any evaluation. No alumni, no lobbying" while addressing poverty in developing countries. Breaking Historical Precedent: Farr's concern is particularly acute because "the trend has been for Congress to add to the White House ask" for Peace Corps. This $20 million cut represents a concerning reversal. "We should be worried when our Congress Members are cutting the amounts this White House has asked for the Peace Corps," he warned. The Broader Pattern: Analysis of the House bill reveals the pattern Farr identified: Congress systematically boosted security-related programs above Administration requests while cutting soft power programs below requested levels. International Security Assistance received 64 percent (+$3.9 billion) above the request, while diplomatic and development programs faced reductions. A Call for Cost-Effectiveness Analysis: Most significantly, Farr called for "a third party cost effective analysis of all the funding levels for all the State Department Related Agencies"—something that has never been done. "I'm sure we'd come out on top with recommended budget increases," he noted, highlighting Peace Corps's unique advantages: a network of returned volunteers who become lifelong advocates, grassroots development work, and proven cost-effectiveness. Budget Context: Modest Cuts Amid Severe ReductionsThe Peace Corps reduction represents a relatively modest cut compared to dramatic reductions proposed for other international programs. The House bill reduces the overall International Affairs Budget by 23 percent (-$13.9 billion) compared to FY2025 levels:
In this context, the Peace Corps's 5 percent reduction suggests the program maintains relatively strong congressional support despite the overall emphasis on reducing international spending. What's Next in the Appropriations ProcessSeveral critical steps remain before Peace Corps's final FY2026 budget is determined: September Timeline: When Congress returns after Labor Day, the House can begin floor consideration of the appropriations bill. However, passage is not guaranteed given the partisan committee approval (35-27 party-line vote). Senate Action Pending: The Senate Appropriations Committee has not yet marked up its version, which must happen before bicameral negotiations can begin. The Senate typically takes a more moderate approach to international affairs funding. Continuing Resolution Likely: With the fiscal year ending September 30, 2025, and major differences expected between chambers, Congress will likely need a continuing resolution to avoid government shutdown while negotiations continue. Conference Committee Challenges: Major differences await resolution, including funding levels, policy restrictions, and the House's elimination of programs the Senate may want to restore. The Administration has strongly opposed the House approach, raising the possibility of a presidential veto. Implications for Peace Corps OperationsExtended Uncertainty: Peace Corps will likely operate under continuing resolution funding for several months, limiting new initiatives and long-term planning during its critical post-pandemic rebuilding phase. Cascading Effects: The cumulative impact extends far beyond the headline $20 million reduction. Volunteers may be asked to do more with dramatically fewer resources, potentially affecting both service quality and community impact. Final Budget Unknown: The actual FY2026 budget could end up anywhere between the House's $410.5 million and potentially higher Senate numbers, depending on conference negotiations and political compromises. The extended appropriations process underscores the value of former Congressman Farr's call for comprehensive cost-effectiveness analysis—providing concrete data to support Peace Corps funding arguments during these challenging political negotiations. His critique serves as a rallying cry for the returned volunteer community to engage more actively in budget advocacy, something he suggests Peace Corps has historically lacked compared to other international development programs. Disclaimer: The views, opinions, and perspectives expressed in this newsletter are solely those of the author and do not necessarily represent or reflect the official policy, position, or views of the Peace Corps agency or the United States government. |