Diplomatic Security, Embassy Construction, and the Role of Congress (CRS Report for Congress)
| Release Date |
Revised Oct. 22, 2024 |
| Report Number |
IF11338 |
| Report Type |
In Focus |
| Authors |
Cory R. Gill, Edward J. Collins-Chase |
| Source Agency |
Congressional Research Service |
| Older Revisions |
-
Premium Oct. 23, 2019 (2 pages, $24.95)
add
|
Summary:
As the executive branch’s lead foreign affairs agency, the
U.S. Department of State (DOS) plans, constructs, and
manages U.S. embassies, consulates, and other overseas
posts and provides for the security of such posts and U.S.
personnel who occupy them. DOS’s Bureaus of Diplomatic
Security (DS) and Overseas Buildings Operations (OBO)
share responsibility for these functions. Congress has
viewed constructing and securing U.S. posts as interrelated
and appropriates funding for such purposes through the
Worldwide Security Protection item of the Diplomatic
Programs appropriations account and, separately, the
Embassy Security, Construction, and Maintenance account.
Congress represents the sum of such funding as “embassy
security” or “diplomatic security” funding (for detail on
annual funding levels, see Figure 1).
Over the past five decades, Congress has passed laws
intended to orient DOS’s diplomatic security and embassy
construction priorities and practices. Such laws include the
Omnibus Diplomatic Security and Antiterrorism Act of
1986 (P.L. 99-399), which Congress passed following
terrorist attacks against U.S. facilities and personnel in
Beirut, Lebanon in 1983 and 1984; this law authorized the
modern-day Bureau of Diplomatic Security and the
Diplomatic Security Service. The Secure Embassy
Construction and Counterterrorism Act of 2022 (SECCA
2022; Division I, Title XCIII, Section 9301 of P.L. 117-
263) later sought to enable DOS to construct more costeffective overseas posts that facilitate U.S. diplomatic
efforts to advance American interests and “outperform
[U.S.] adversaries.” Since at least 2021, congressional
action has focused on both addressing concerns over the
costs of constructing overseas posts and what some have
perceived as a DOS security posture that emphasizes risk
avoidance at the expense of risk management.
