Reader Comment – FY 2026 CISA Budget

Yesterday, a long-time reader and former Chemical Security Inspector sent me a message on LinkedIn about a document he had run across. The DHS Fiscal Year 2026 Budget in Brief was published in July of last year and outlined some of the details of the President’s proposed budget for FY 2026. Even with a Republican controlled Congress, the proposed Budget was not going to survive contact with the legislators, which is why I provide so little coverage of the related documents here.

David pointed me at a specific portion of document, and I am glad that he did, and now wish that I had commented about it at the time. The paragraph is in the CISA portion of the budget summary and it reads:

“Chemical Security Anti-Terrorism Standards ... ($40.0 million), (178 full-time equivalents)

“Due to the sunsetting of the Chemical Security Anti-Terrorism Standards program and the delay in implementing the Secure Handling of Ammonium Nitrate provisions of the Homeland Security Act, this budget reduces the Chemical Security Inspectors and other Headquarters-based staff, as well as eliminates voluntary ChemLock programs.”

We knew, of course, that the CFATS funding was going to be cut, the President never liked the program (45 proposed eliminating the program in 2020.) And because of some bureaucratic games, the CSI were part of the CISA regional offices rather than in CISA proper, there was some hope for keeping some level of the chemical security expertise in those offices after CFATS died, so ‘reduces’ sounds better than ‘eliminates’.

What is most concerning to me is the clause of the quote, eliminating ChemLock. Many of us in the chemical security community hoped to see that program take up the mantel of chemical security so that facilities had some sort of federal support. I even proposed a way to make the voluntary ChemLock program more effective by providing incentives for participation. Apparently, in the Administration’s collective mind, ChemLock was too tainted by CFATS to be allowed to continue.

Fortunately, in a real twisted way, some level of chemical security spending is almost certainly going to be included in the FY 2026 spending for DHS. The reason for that is that there will not be a separate DHS spending bill (too many controversies surrounding DHS components), nor is it likely to be included in another minibus. So we are almost certainly going to see DHS funding included in a full year continuing resolution, and that CR will continue (that’s the ‘C’ in CR) spending levels set before CFATS was allowed to expire. That funding will mostly get reprogrammed (most likely to immigration enforcement), but some vestige of chemical security will get funded, including (hopefully) ChemLock.

Still, when all is said and done, we really need Congress to step up and pass some sort of chemical security authorization bill. Standing CISA back up would be difficult from both a legislative and regulatory perspectives, but maybe a formal authorization of an upgraded (but still voluntary) ChemLock program could be possible.