Two bipartisan measures moving through Washington are putting a new spotlight on how the federal government spends taxpayer money.
Two bipartisan measures moving through Washington are putting a new spotlight on how the federal government spends taxpayer money, with lawmakers seeking greater transparency for previously undisclosed spending agreements and major projects that run billions of dollars over budget or years behind schedule.
President Donald Trump signed the Stop Secret Spending Act into law earlier this month, closing a reporting gap involving federal spending arrangements known as Other Transaction Agreements, or OTAs. The separate Billion Dollar Boondoggle Act has cleared both chambers of Congress and was formally enrolled Sept. 18.
Rachel O'Brien, deputy public policy editor at Open the Books, joined The National News Desk to explain what the measures could mean for taxpayers.
"Both appropriately named," O'Brien said.
The Stop Secret Spending Act requires OTAs to be disclosed through USAspending.gov, the federal government's public database that tracks contracts, grants, loans and other expenditures.
OTAs are flexible agreements that federal agencies can use outside some of the traditional requirements governing contracts, grants and cooperative agreements. The arrangements can help agencies move quickly on research, development and other projects, but critics have argued that their lack of disclosure made it difficult for taxpayers to see where billions of dollars were going.
"This is where you can see all federal spending, grants, contracts and loans," O'Brien said of USAspending.gov. "Except there was this secret spending called an other transaction agreement that's not posted there."
The Stop Secret Spending Act, which Trump approved Sept. 11, amends federal transparency law to require OTA information to be reported. It also requires the government to publish annual information about federal spending that remains exempt from disclosure, including the amount withheld and the justification for keeping it from public view.
"These executive agencies that use these transactions have to explain why they're using them and how much," O'Brien said.
The Government Accountability Office previously found that more than $40 billion in OTA obligations from fiscal years 2020 through 2022 were not reported on USAspending.gov. More recently, Sen. Joni Ernst, R-Iowa, said the Pentagon alone awarded $25.5 billion in OTAs over a two-year period and committed to another $44 billion through those agreements.
O'Brien pointed to the COVID-19 pandemic as an example of circumstances in which the flexibility offered by OTAs can serve a legitimate purpose.
"The GAO found that the DoD, HHS and Homeland [Security], they obligated at least $12.5 billion in these other transaction agreements specifically for COVID, to give them the flexibility to quickly respond during the pandemic, to get vaccines manufactured," O'Brien said.
But she argued that the arrangements can become problematic when used more broadly without the transparency attached to conventional federal contracts.
"These other transaction agreements, they essentially skip steps," O'Brien said. "It loosens normal contracting requirements that other spending has to abide by."
"It makes sense in an emergency," she added. "But in many cases, they're not being used in emergencies, and it leaves this spending open to extra waste or inefficiencies."
O'Brien described the previous system as "the Wild West of spending."
The second measure, the Billion Dollar Boondoggle Act, targets a different problem: taxpayer-funded projects with massive cost overruns or lengthy delays.
The legislation would require an annual public report identifying federally funded projects that are at least $1 billion over budget or at least five years behind schedule. The report would include information explaining the delays and cost increases. The Senate unanimously passed the measure in December 2025, and the House approved it earlier this month.
"We've all heard about various projects that are way over budget, way delayed," O'Brien said. "This would require, if a project is over $1 billion over budget and more than five years delayed, the details have to be posted."
"Taxpayers want to have answers," she added.
Ernst, one of the measure's sponsors, previously released a report identifying more than a dozen federal projects with a combined $162.9 billion in cost overruns.
Two prominent transportation projects came up during the discussion: California's high-speed rail system and Honolulu's Skyline rail project.
California voters approved nearly $10 billion in bonds for a high-speed rail system in 2008. The project's initial estimates envisioned a roughly $33 billion system connecting Los Angeles and San Francisco. California's 2024 business plan subsequently estimated the full Phase 1 system could cost between $89 billion and $128 billion. The project's 2026 business plan continues to lay out plans for completing an initial operating segment while seeking additional revenue and investment.
"We've all heard about the California high-speed rail," O'Brien said, citing it as an example of the kind of large project that has faced scrutiny over costs and delays.
Honolulu's rail system has also seen its costs rise dramatically. The project was estimated at about $5 billion when construction began in 2011, while its current official budget stands at roughly $10.08 billion. A recent risk analysis suggested the total could reach about $10.19 billion, including financing costs. The system's planned route has also been shortened as officials attempted to control costs.
"Those are two very expensive examples of projects that are billions of dollars over budget," O'Brien said. "We need answers on these projects."
O'Brien said the purpose of the new transparency requirements is not simply to identify projects that have gone wrong, but to give taxpayers enough information to understand why costs increased and deadlines slipped.
"These projects, they do look attractive at first, but the costs balloon quickly once the contracts are signed," O'Brien said.
Both efforts have drawn bipartisan support.
The Stop Secret Spending Act was sponsored in the Senate by Ernst with Democratic Sen. Gary Peters of Michigan among its cosponsors, while Republican Rep. Barry Moore of Alabama and Democratic Rep. Jimmy Panetta of California led the House version. The Senate approved the measure unanimously before it ultimately reached Trump's desk.
The Billion Dollar Boondoggle Act likewise cleared the Senate unanimously and passed the House by voice vote.
O'Brien called the measures straightforward attempts to make the federal government more accountable for the money it spends.
"Just keep track of it. Just report it," O'Brien said.
For taxpayers, she said, the principle behind both measures is simple.
"Common sense, bipartisan," O'Brien said. "Both of these bills passed both houses with bipartisan support."
