The Homeland Security Capabilities Preservation Reporting Act of 2026 would amend section 7102(b) of the James M. Inhofe National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2023 to require recurring reports on how jurisdictions transition after they lose eligibility for Urban Area Security Initiative (UASI) funding. Under the bill, the first report deadline stays at 18 months after enactment of the underlying law, and then the reporting must continue every three years thereafter. It mainly affects the Department of Homeland Security and the cities or regions that fall out of UASI eligibility. The bill does not create a new grant program or add funding; it changes reporting frequency.
What This Bill Does
- Requires a report "not later than 18 months" after enactment of the underlying law and then "every three years thereafter".
- Amends section 7102(b) of the James M. Inhofe National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2023.
- Applies to jurisdictions that are no longer eligible for Urban Area Security Initiative (UASI) funding.
- Does not appropriate new money or create a new grant program.
- Directs continued oversight of the transition away from UASI support.
Who This Bill Affects
If you live in or work for a city, county, or region that has lost or may lose UASI eligibility, this bill would mean more regular federal scrutiny of how the transition is going. That could help local officials and residents by keeping Congress informed about preparedness gaps, but it does not add any new grant dollars or guarantee replacement funding. For most Americans outside those affected jurisdictions, the practical effect would be minimal because the bill only changes how often DHS must report on a narrow set of local transitions.
See how this bill affects you — sign in for a personalized analysisWho Supports & Opposes This
- local emergency managers in formerly eligible urban areas They may want recurring federal reports because losing UASI funding can create planning gaps, and periodic oversight can highlight whether regions are staying prepared after their eligibility changes. The reports could help identify where transition support or coordination is still needed.
- state and city homeland security officials Officials responsible for emergency readiness often prefer a predictable review cycle because it keeps Congress and DHS focused on whether critical capabilities are being preserved. The bill can help document best practices for transitioning out of a grant stream.
- members of Congress focused on oversight Supporters can argue that if jurisdictions lose a major preparedness funding source, Congress should not rely on a one-time review. Regular reporting makes it easier to track whether the change is harming readiness over time.
- federal budget watchdogs They may object that the bill adds a recurring reporting mandate without providing any new preparedness funding. From their perspective, it increases administrative work without directly improving emergency capabilities.
- Department of Homeland Security administrators Agency staff may view the new repeated reporting schedule as another compliance task that consumes time and personnel. They could argue the department should spend more resources on grants and operational support than on recurring paperwork.
- local governments facing multiple federal reporting requirements Cities and counties that already manage many federal grant obligations may worry that more reporting does not address the underlying funding loss. For them, the bill could feel like oversight layered on top of an unresolved budget gap.
Key Implications
-
“"every three years thereafter"”
This turns a one-time review into a recurring oversight obligation. For affected jurisdictions, Congress would keep receiving updated information on how they are adjusting after losing UASI eligibility.
-
“"jurisdictions no longer eligible for Urban Area Security Initiative funding"”
The bill targets places that have fallen out of a specific homeland security grant category. It does not expand eligibility; it focuses on the aftermath of losing funding.
-
“"Not later than 18 months after the date of the enactment..."”
The underlying reporting timeline starts with an 18-month deadline, and this bill preserves that first checkpoint. The change is that the review does not stop there.
Official Source & Bill Facts
BillBoard checks this page against public Congress.gov metadata, then adds plain-English analysis where available.
- Bill
- HR 8874
- Congress
- 119th Congress
- Official title
- Homeland Security Capabilities Preservation Reporting Act of 2026
- Policy area
- Government & Elections
- Latest action
- Ordered to be Reported by the Yeas and Nays: 30 - 0. (June 24, 2026)
- Last updated
- June 25, 2026
Latest Status
June 24, 2026
Ordered to be Reported by the Yeas and Nays: 30 - 0.
Related Bills
Take Action
Get more from BillBoard
Free tools to understand, respond to, and track this bill.
Ask AI about this billData sourced from api.congress.gov.