Tell the Government Once Act
- Sponsor
- Rep. Kim, Young [R-CA-40]
- Committees
- Ways and Means Committee (primary)
- Last action
- Oct 22, 2026
Bottom line
The "Tell the Government Once Act" aims to streamline the process of updating address information with federal agencies, potentially reducing administrative burden for individuals and agencies, while emphasizing privacy and security.
What it actually does
This bill establishes a pilot program, titled the "Tell the Government Once Act," which creates a voluntary online service for individuals to notify multiple federal agencies of a change in their mailing or residential address through a single, authenticated platform. Participating agencies, initially including the IRS, SSA, VA, and USPS, are required to update their records based on these notifications, unless fraud is detected, and must send a confirmation notice to the old address.
Proponents argue
Supporters argue that this bill will significantly improve government efficiency and customer service by simplifying a common administrative task for millions of Americans. By providing a single, secure portal, it reduces the need for individuals to contact multiple agencies separately, saving time and reducing the likelihood of missed communications or payments due to outdated addresses. It also promises cost savings for agencies by reducing undeliverable mail.
Opponents contend
Critics might raise concerns about the security of a centralized address notification system, even with strong authentication, fearing potential data breaches or misuse of information, despite the bill's explicit privacy safeguards. Some may also question the actual cost savings, arguing that the development and maintenance of such a system, along with agency reimbursement, could strain existing agency budgets, especially given the 'no additional funds' clause.
The bill is concise and clearly written, making it accessible for a quick and thorough understanding by any interested reader.
Section 2(a)
Establishment of Online Change of Address Form
This provision directs the Administrator of General Services (GSA) to create a secure online form. Individuals can use this form to send a single notification of a change in their mailing or residential address to multiple federal agencies they select. The system requires strong user authentication and identity verification, leveraging an existing federal single sign-on platform, and provides confirmation of receipt to the user.
Supporters argue
Supporters argue this provision directly addresses a common frustration for citizens by centralizing a repetitive task, enhancing government service delivery, and ensuring critical communications reach individuals more reliably.
Critics contend
Some might argue that creating a new federal system, even with existing authentication, introduces new points of failure or complexity, and that existing agency-specific update mechanisms, while less convenient, are already established and understood.
Tradeoffs
The tension lies between the convenience of a centralized system for users and the potential for increased complexity or security risks associated with integrating multiple agency systems into one portal.
Section 2(b) and 2(c)
Mandatory Agency Updates and Privacy Safeguards
This provision mandates that covered agencies receiving an address change notification through the GSA form must update their records, unless they determine the information is fraudulent or unauthorized. Agencies must also send a confirmation notice to the *old* address. Crucially, the GSA Administrator is prohibited from charging fees or retaining user information beyond transmission, and covered agencies cannot share or use the notification data for any purpose other than updating records, though they can use the *updated* records according to other laws.
Section 2(d) and 2(g)
IRS Integration and Pilot Program Sunset
This provision specifically directs the Treasury Secretary to issue regulations ensuring that notifications sent via the GSA form are treated as valid change-of-address notifications for IRS purposes, provided security standards are met. It also establishes a clear sunset date for the entire program: either five years after the form is launched or three years after the bill's enactment if the form isn't established by then, ensuring it operates as a pilot.
States that no additional funds are authorized to be appropriated for the purpose of carrying out this Act.
Section 2(i)
Why it matters:This is standard legislative practice for bills intended to be carried out using existing agency appropriations, but it can also be a way to pass legislation without a new budget line item, potentially straining existing agency resources.
Case for: Proponents would argue this demonstrates fiscal responsibility, ensuring the program is implemented within current budgetary constraints and does not add to the national debt through new spending.
Case against: Critics might argue that requiring agencies to implement a new, complex online service and associated processes without dedicated new funding could lead to under-resourcing, delayed implementation, or diversion of funds from other critical agency functions.
Estimated impact: This clause means the GSA and participating agencies must absorb the costs of developing, operating, and maintaining the service, as well as the reimbursement mechanism, from their existing budgets.
While initially listing IRS, SSA, VA, and USPS, the bill allows for other agencies to become 'covered agencies' if the GSA Administrator enters into a written agreement with that agency's head, and provides 60 days' notice to Congress and public notice with an opportunity for comment.
Section 2(j)(3)(E)
Why it matters:This is a common legislative technique to provide flexibility for program expansion without requiring new legislation for each addition, but it can also mean significant future policy changes are made administratively rather than through direct congressional debate.
Case for: Proponents would argue this provides necessary flexibility for the program to grow and adapt, allowing more agencies to join the service over time as its benefits become clear, without legislative delays.
Case against: Critics might express concern that this mechanism allows for significant expansion of the program's scope and data integration without direct congressional approval for each new agency, potentially bypassing a more thorough review of privacy and security implications.
Estimated impact: This provision allows the program to potentially expand beyond the initial four agencies, increasing its reach and impact on federal operations and citizen interactions over time.