The KOTEL Act (H.R. 4983) strips Section 414 of the Omnibus Diplomatic Security and Antiterrorism Act of 1986 (22 U.S.C. 4862) from the U.S. Code. That section currently prohibits the use of federal funds for site acquisition, development, or construction of any facility in Israel, Jerusalem, or the West Bank; the bill repeals that prohibition.
The change does not itself appropriate money or create a new funding authority, but it eliminates a statutory constraint that has shaped how State, USAID, Defense, and other federal programs operate in those territories for four decades. For practitioners this means more operational flexibility to place or improve U.S.-funded facilities — subject, however, to appropriations law, other statutes, agency rules, and the political and diplomatic reactions that follow such decisions.
At a Glance
What It Does
The bill repeals 22 U.S.C. 4862 — the statutory prohibition on using federal funds for site acquisition, development, or construction of facilities in Israel, Jerusalem, and the West Bank. It does not authorize or appropriate new funds.
Who It Affects
Primary actors affected include the Department of State, USAID, the Department of Defense (where construction intersects security or bases), GSA and federal contractors who build overseas facilities, and recipients of U.S. foreign assistance in the relevant territories.
Why It Matters
Removing a long-standing statutory ban alters the legal landscape that has constrained U.S. construction and development projects in those territories since 1986. That shift changes procurement opportunities, agency planning, and the political calculus around where U.S. funds may be used.
More articles like this one.
A weekly email with all the latest developments on this topic.
What This Bill Actually Does
H.R. 4983 is short and surgical: it deletes a single statutory provision that has barred federal funds from being used for acquisition, development, or construction of any facility in Israel, Jerusalem, or the West Bank. The bill itself is not a spending measure — it creates no new appropriation and does not compel agencies to spend.
Instead, it removes a categorical prohibition so that agencies can consider using funds already appropriated for authorized programs in those geographic areas.
Practically, the repeal changes the set of legal constraints agencies consult when planning overseas facilities. State, USAID, and other agencies will still need applicable appropriation language, must follow existing procurement and grant rules, and must satisfy environmental, security, and host‑nation approval processes.
Other statutes or riders that appear in annual appropriations acts — which routinely add or retain restrictions — remain separate levers Congress can use to limit or direct spending.The operational consequences are concrete: federal recipients and contractors can now bid for projects or be considered for site work in places that were previously off-limits under 22 U.S.C. 4862. That could include diplomatic security upgrades, consular facilities, development infrastructure or other projects tied to authorized foreign assistance.
But each potential project will still need a legal basis for the money used, and agencies will need to weigh diplomatic and reputational effects before proceeding.Finally, repeal raises questions that are not resolved inside the bill. Agencies will have to update internal guidance, compliance checkpoints, and contractual terms; Congress retains the power to reimpose restrictions through riders; and third parties—foreign governments, NGOs, and litigants—may react to U.S.-funded work in politically sensitive locations.
The bill is therefore a narrow statutory reset with potentially broad operational ripple effects, not an immediate change in spending patterns by itself.
The Five Things You Need to Know
The bill repeals Section 414 of the Omnibus Diplomatic Security and Antiterrorism Act of 1986 (codified at 22 U.S.C. 4862).
Repeal removes the statutory bar on using federal funds for site acquisition, development, or construction of any facility in Israel, Jerusalem, or the West Bank.
The KOTEL Act does not appropriate funds or create a new spending authority; any projects still require a legal appropriation or existing statutory funding source.
The repeal takes effect on enactment and immediately changes the legal constraint agencies must consider when deciding whether existing appropriations may be used in those territories.
Implementation will trigger administrative steps—revising agency guidance, procurement solicitations, grant terms, and security/environmental reviews—before projects can proceed.
Section-by-Section Breakdown
Every bill we cover gets an analysis of its key sections.
Short title
Names the statute the 'Keeping Official Territories Eligible for Land-use Act' or 'KOTEL Act.' This is purely a naming clause; it carries no substantive legal effect but signals the sponsor's framing of the repeal.
Repeal of 22 U.S.C. 4862
Directly repeals Section 414 of the Omnibus Diplomatic Security and Antiterrorism Act of 1986 (22 U.S.C. 4862). The operational effect is that the explicit statutory prohibition on the use of federal funds for site acquisition, development, or construction in Israel, Jerusalem, or the West Bank no longer exists. Because the repeal is categorical, it removes the need for agencies to treat that particular statute as a bar when interpreting whether funds may be applied to projects in those locations.
What repeal lets agencies do — and what still limits them
The bill does not change other statutory controls: annual appropriations riders, export-control statutes, sanctions, procurement law, environmental review requirements, or host-country agreements remain in force. Removing 22 U.S.C. 4862 simply changes the universe of statutory prohibitions; agencies still need an appropriations basis for any expenditure and must comply with all other legal and policy requirements before committing funds. The immediate administrative tasks after enactment would include updating legal guidance, grant and contract templates, and internal compliance checklists.
This bill is one of many.
Codify tracks hundreds of bills on Foreign Affairs across all five countries.
Explore Foreign Affairs 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
- Department of State and USAID program managers — gain legal flexibility to site, build, or renovate diplomatic, consular, or development-related facilities in locations previously blocked by the statute, allowing operational planning without that specific legal prohibition.
- Federal contractors and construction firms with overseas experience — open up new bidding opportunities where statutory constraints had previously excluded U.S. funds, increasing potential contracts for design, construction, and security upgrades.
- U.S. military and security programs that rely on host-nation infrastructure or facilities — may find it easier to fund permitted projects that improve access, force protection, or logistics in areas previously inaccessible under the specific ban.
- Local recipients or partners in Israel and the West Bank seeking U.S.-funded infrastructure support — potentially eligible for projects if an appropriations basis and intergovernmental approvals align.
Who Bears the Cost
- Federal agencies (State, USAID, DOD, GSA) — face immediate administrative costs to revise guidance, update procurement processes, and perform new legal and policy reviews before permitting projects in affected territories.
- Congressional appropriators and oversight committees — shoulder increased political and oversight burdens as decisions to use funds in sensitive locations draw scrutiny and may require additional reporting or riders in future appropriations.
- U.S. contractors and NGOs — while benefiting from new opportunities, they also bear reputational and contractual risks if projects in disputed or politically sensitive areas provoke litigation, sanctions from third parties, or reputational harm.
- Affected foreign and local communities — may incur political or security consequences if U.S.-funded projects alter local balances or are perceived as taking sides in territorial disputes; those consequences can translate into additional cost or risk for project implementation.
Key Issues
The Core Tension
The central dilemma is between operational flexibility for U.S. agencies to use already-appropriated funds where they see fit and the political, legal, and diplomatic risks that flow from enabling U.S.-funded construction in territories with contested status; removing a legal ban eases administration but simultaneously raises exposure to oversight, reputational costs, and international controversy.
The bill's simplicity is also its biggest source of uncertainty. Repealing a single statutory prohibition changes the legal menu but leaves unchanged the primary tool that actually governs spending: appropriations.
In practice, many U.S. overseas projects are limited or enabled by annual riders and earmarks in appropriations bills; Congress can preserve or reintroduce constraints there faster than by statute. Agencies therefore gain legal room to operate but not a guaranteed flow of money.
Implementation logistics create additional frictions. Any project in these territories will still trigger procurement rules, environmental reviews (NEPA or comparable reviews for assistance programs), diplomatic clearances, security assessments, and possible host-nation agreements.
That means real-world timelines, costs, and risk assessments could still block many projects even after repeal. Finally, the repeal intersects with foreign-policy signaling: using U.S. funds for construction in disputed areas can be interpreted internationally in ways that invite diplomatic pushback or litigation by third parties, creating downstream legal and political costs that the statute does not address.
Try it yourself.
Ask a question in plain English, or pick a topic below. Results in seconds.