The bill amends Title 14 to create a Coast Guard Center of Expertise in Indo‑Pacific Maritime Governance focused on training, education, and research to build regional state capacity; it authorizes the Commandant to pursue joint arrangements with a foreign host and to draw on other federal agency data and personnel. Separately, it requires detailed, public-facing planning and budgeting for Coast Guard activity in the Pacific and three short-term reports on a standing maritime group, forward operating bases, and Coast Guard attachés.
Why it matters: the text formalizes a sustained, bureaucratic approach to expanding U.S. Coast Guard engagement across the Indo‑Pacific by institutionalizing capacity‑building, interagency resource pulls, and annual transparency to Congress—without itself providing new appropriations. For operators, diplomats, and budget offices, the bill reallocates how planning, diplomatic agreements, and interagency contributions will be surfaced and assessed moving forward.
At a Glance
What It Does
Adds a new §324 to Title 14 creating a Coast Guard Center for Indo‑Pacific maritime governance modeled after International Law Enforcement Academies and DoD institutes; permits foreign‑hosted operation agreements. It also inserts two new sections (5116 and 5117) requiring annual Pacific operations plans and line‑item budget displays, and mandates three near‑term reports on a standing maritime group, forward bases, and attachés.
Who It Affects
Primary actors are the U.S. Coast Guard Commandant and Coast Guard operational units; the Departments of State and Defense as consultation partners; any federal agency asked to provide data or detail personnel; Indo‑Pacific partner governments or universities that might host the Center or forward bases; and six congressional committees receiving reports.
Why It Matters
The bill shifts the Coast Guard from ad hoc Pacific activity toward an institutionalized, partner‑focused posture with routine congressional visibility into objectives, capability gaps, and budget needs—potentially driving future acquisitions, basing, and diplomatic effort decisions.
More articles like this one.
A weekly email with all the latest developments on this topic.
What This Bill Actually Does
The bill creates a Coast Guard Center of Expertise in Indo‑Pacific Maritime Governance whose mission is education, training, and research on maritime governance and on building partner capacity. The Commandant must stand up the Center and may seek a bilateral agreement to operate it with a foreign country; those agreements can include the host country providing facilities, administrative services, funding, or arranging university partnerships.
The Center can request access to other federal agencies’ data and may receive detailed personnel from those agencies to support its work.
On planning and oversight, the Commandant must deliver an annual Pacific operations plan beginning December 31, 2025, produced in consultation with State and Defense, that lists objectives tied to State and DOD missions, assesses Coast Guard capabilities, identifies where more presence is needed, projects demand for engagement over the coming 10 years, and summarizes staff, shore infrastructure, logistics, and technology needs. The plan must be unclassified with the option for a classified annex and will be briefed to specified congressional committees each year.Budget transparency is addressed by a companion annual budget display, first due February 15, 2026, which requires account‑level line items for procurement, RDT&E, operations and maintenance, and military personnel tied to projected Pacific demand.
That display is also unclassified with allowance for a classified annex and carries the same briefing schedule to Congress.The bill also compels three near‑term analytic products: a feasibility study (within 120 days) on creating a standing Indo‑Pacific maritime group modeled on NATO’s standing maritime forces; a one‑year report on establishing forward operating bases in the region that must list candidate locations, costs, approvals, and a plan to complete basing by January 1, 2030; and a six‑month report on current Coast Guard attachés in Indo‑Pacific embassies with recommendations and resource needs to expand that footprint. Each deliverable is designed to inform Congress about operational options, but the statute does not itself appropriate funds to implement the proposals.
The Five Things You Need to Know
Section 324 creates a Center of Expertise in Indo‑Pacific Maritime Governance for education, training, and research and directs the Commandant to model it after International Law Enforcement Academies and Department of Defense institutes.
The Center may request other federal agencies to grant access to data, archives, and to detail personnel to support its mission.
The Commandant must submit an annual operations plan for the Pacific beginning Dec. 31, 2025, that includes objectives, a capability assessment, identified areas needing increased presence, and a 10‑year projection of demand.
The Commandant must submit an annual, account‑level budget display for Pacific operations beginning Feb. 15, 2026, showing line‑item breakdowns for procurement, RDT&E, O&M, and military personnel (unclassified with a possible classified annex).
The bill requires three near‑term reports: a 120‑day feasibility study on a standing Indo‑Pacific maritime group; a 1‑year report on forward operating bases including costs and a timeline to complete by Jan. 1, 2030; and a 6‑month report on Coast Guard attachés and plans to increase them.
Section-by-Section Breakdown
Every bill we cover gets an analysis of its key sections.
Short title
Simply names the statute the 'Pacific Ready Coast Guard Act.' This is a standard placement of the Act's title and carries no operational effect beyond identifying the bill.
Center of Expertise in Indo‑Pacific Maritime Governance
Establishes a Coast Guard‑run Center focused on maritime governance best practices and building partner capacity. The Commandant must build the Center using existing models (International Law Enforcement Academies and DoD institutes), and may negotiate with a foreign country to host or jointly operate the Center with options for the host to provide facilities, funding, or university partnerships. The section also creates an interagency pathway: leaders of federal agencies may provide the Center access to agency data and detail personnel when requested, which creates a statutory basis for shared staffing and data exchange.
Annual Pacific operations plan and budget display
Adds two reporting obligations. §5116 requires an annual operational plan (first due Dec. 31, 2025) prepared with State and Defense that lists objectives, capability assessments, locations needing more presence, 10‑year demand projections, limiting factors, and a resource summary (staff, shore infrastructure, logistics, technology). §5117 requires an annual budget display (first due Feb. 15, 2026) tied to those projections, with detailed, account‑level line items across procurement, RDT&E, O&M, and personnel. Both reports are to be unclassified with optional classified annexes and are accompanied by congressional briefings.
Report on feasibility of a standing Indo‑Pacific maritime group
Directs a near‑term (120‑day) assessment on whether a standing maritime group—modeled after NATO’s standing maritime forces—would enhance cooperation on humanitarian operations, anti‑piracy, emergency response, maritime domain awareness, and illegal/unreported fishing. The report must analyze operational benefits and how such a group would enable Coast Guard collaboration with partners; it is an informational study rather than authorization to create the force.
Report on establishing forward operating bases
Requires a one‑year study, developed with Indo‑Pacific Command, identifying capability gaps and candidate locations (including mobile bases), costs, required non‑monetary approvals and cooperation agreements, and a timeline to establish listed bases by January 1, 2030. This provision forces the Coast Guard to produce a concrete basing plan but does not itself appropriate construction or host‑nation funding, nor does it change base access authorities.
Report on Coast Guard attachés in Indo‑Pacific embassies
Orders a six‑month report, in consultation with State, enumerating active Coast Guard attachés, identifying embassies that would benefit from more attachés, and detailing a plan (and resources/approvals needed) to increase attaché presence. This ties diplomatic representation to operational planning and identifies personnel and funding hurdles for expanding embassy‑based Coast Guard capacity.
This bill is one of many.
Codify tracks hundreds of bills on Defense across all five countries.
Explore Defense in Codify Search →Who Benefits and Who Bears the Cost
Every bill creates winners and losers. Here's who stands to gain and who bears the cost.
Who Benefits
- U.S. Coast Guard leadership and career planners — gains institutional mechanisms to plan and defend resource requests with annual operations plans and budget displays tied to projected Pacific demand.
- Indo‑Pacific partner coast guards and navies — receives expanded access to training, governance best practices, and potential joint programs via the Center, improving partner capacity for law enforcement and humanitarian response.
- Department of State and regional diplomats — benefit from a more coordinated, Coast Guard‑led capability that aligns maritime engagement to diplomatic objectives and provides on‑the‑ground attachés and basing options.
- Academic institutions in host countries — may secure partnerships to host the Center or provide administrative support, creating research, training, and service contract opportunities.
- Congressional oversight committees — obtain yearly, structured visibility into objectives, gaps, and detailed budget lines for Pacific operations, improving legislative oversight of regional posture.
Who Bears the Cost
- U.S. Coast Guard operational units and headquarters — will absorb planning, staffing, and administrative burdens to produce plans, maintain the Center, and prepare detailed budget displays, potentially without immediate new appropriations.
- Departments asked to lend data or personnel — federal agencies may need to divert staff or datasets to the Center when requested, creating interagency resource pressures and administrative coordination costs.
- Department of Defense and Department of State — may see increased demand for coordination, shared resources, and alignment of missions that could require additional funding or shifts in priorities.
- Potential foreign host governments and local institutions — hosting the Center or forward operating bases will require administrative support, facilities, or funding commitments, along with negotiating legal and status arrangements.
- Taxpayers / appropriations committees — while the bill does not appropriate funds, implementation of recommendations (bases, detachments, or standing groups) will drive future budget requests and potential increases in appropriations.
Key Issues
The Core Tension
Congress directs the Coast Guard to expand and institutionalize its Indo‑Pacific role through a dedicated Center, annual planning, and concrete basing and force options, yet it stops short of providing appropriations or resolving host‑nation authorities—forcing a trade‑off between aspirational regional engagement and the practical limits of funding, diplomatic agreements, and operational security.
The bill creates multiple new planning and reporting obligations without authorizing appropriations for the initiatives it envisions. That gap puts the Coast Guard in the position of producing detailed 10‑year demand projections and detailed budget displays that may exceed available funding, forcing a political or programmatic choice later between recommended posture changes and existing domestic or homeland missions.
The statutory ability to request agency data and detailed personnel helps the Center stand up quickly, but it raises interagency frictions: agencies will need to prioritize staff allocations, reconcile classification and privacy rules, and manage operational security when sharing sensitive datasets.
Diplomatic and legal implementation is also underspecified. Joint operation with a foreign host and forward operating bases require host‑nation agreements, status‑of‑forces arrangements, and budget commitments from partners; these steps often take years and depend on State Department negotiation.
The bill requires a timeline to establish bases by Jan. 1, 2030, which may be optimistic given real‑world permitting, construction, and sovereignty negotiations. Finally, the push for unclassified plans and public budget displays improves transparency but creates an ongoing tension between congressional oversight and operational security: the statute permits classified annexes, but balancing what to disclose will be politically and bureaucratically fraught.
Try it yourself.
Ask a question in plain English, or pick a topic below. Results in seconds.