Technical corrections only. The changes between v2 and v3 reflect the bill's progression through the legislative process, updating its status from a bill reported in the Senate to an act passed by the Senate. No substantive policy changes were made to the text of the bill.
Billion Dollar Boondoggle Act of 2025
- Sponsor
- Sen. Ernst, Joni [R-IA]
- Committees
- Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs Committee (primary), Small Business and Entrepreneurship Committee
- Last action
- Sep 16, 2026
Bottom line
The Billion Dollar Boondoggle Act of 2025 seeks to increase transparency and accountability for large, underperforming federal projects by requiring and publicizing detailed annual reports on their delays and cost overruns.
What it actually does
This bill mandates that the Director of the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) establish guidance for federal agencies to annually report on 'covered projects.' These projects are defined as those either more than five years behind schedule or at least $1 billion over their original cost estimate. The required information includes project descriptions, scope changes, original and current timelines and costs (adjusted for inflation), explanations for delays and cost overruns, and details on any performance bonuses awarded. OMB must then compile this information into an annual report for Congress and publish it on its website.
Proponents argue
Proponents argue that this bill is a crucial step towards greater fiscal responsibility and government accountability. By shining a light on major federal projects that are significantly over budget or behind schedule, it will empower Congress and the public to identify inefficiencies, hold agencies and contractors accountable, and inform future spending decisions. They believe increased transparency will deter waste and encourage better project management, ultimately saving taxpayer dollars.
Opponents contend
Opponents might contend that while the intent is laudable, this bill could create an additional bureaucratic burden on federal agencies, diverting resources from project management to reporting. They may argue that existing oversight mechanisms are sufficient or that the definitions of 'covered project' are too broad or too narrow, potentially missing critical issues or capturing projects that have legitimate reasons for delays or cost increases. Some might also suggest that the report could be used for political grandstanding rather than genuine reform.
The bill is short and straightforward, allowing a reader to grasp its core intent and mechanisms quickly, likely within the time given for initial review.
Section 1
Short Title: Billion Dollar Boondoggle Act of 2025
This section establishes the official short title of the Act as the 'Billion Dollar Boondoggle Act of 2025.' This title provides a clear, memorable, and somewhat provocative name for the legislation, indicating its focus on wasteful or mismanaged government spending.
Supporters argue
Supporters argue that a strong, memorable short title like this helps to clearly communicate the bill's purpose to the public and policymakers, emphasizing its focus on accountability for large, mismanaged projects.
Critics contend
Critics might argue that such a title is overly pejorative or sensationalist, potentially prejudging projects before their full context is understood, and could contribute to a negative perception of all government spending.
Tradeoffs
The tension lies between using a title that is impactful and memorable versus one that is strictly neutral and descriptive. The chosen title prioritizes impact.
Section 2(a)
Definitions of 'Covered Agency' and 'Covered Project'
This section defines key terms for the Act. A 'covered agency' includes most Executive agencies and independent regulatory agencies. A 'covered project' is a project funded by such an agency that meets one of two criteria: it is more than 5 years behind its original completion schedule, or its cost has increased by at least $1 billion (adjusted for inflation) compared to its original estimate. It also clarifies that 'project' refers to various time-limited endeavors, excluding direct spending.
Section 2(b)(1)
Annual Information Submission Requirements for Covered Agencies
This provision mandates that the Director of OMB issue guidance requiring covered agencies to annually submit detailed information on each of their covered projects. This information must include a brief description (purpose, location, contract number, initiation year, federal share, key contractors), an explanation of any scope changes, original and current completion dates, original and current cost estimates (CPI-adjusted), reasons for delays or cost increases (including appropriations impact), and details of any awards or bonuses given for the project.
Section 2(b)(2)
Annual Report to Congress and Public Posting
This provision requires the Director of OMB to submit an annual report to Congress containing all the information collected from agencies on covered projects. Furthermore, OMB must post this annual report on its public website. This ensures that both legislative bodies and the general public have access to the detailed data on underperforming federal projects.
The definition of 'covered project' includes a cost overrun threshold of 'not less than $1,000,000,000 more than the original cost estimate for the project' and specifies that this original cost estimate must be 'adjusted to reflect increases in the Consumer Price Index for All Urban Consumers, as published by the Bureau of Labor Statistics.'
Section 2(a)(2)(B)
Why it matters:This is standard legislative practice for defining terms precisely. The CPI adjustment is a technical detail crucial for accurate measurement but easily overlooked by a casual reader focusing on the headline dollar amount.
Case for: Supporters would argue that adjusting for inflation is critical for an accurate assessment of cost overruns. Without this adjustment, a project that simply kept pace with inflation over many years might be unfairly labeled as 'over budget,' distorting the true picture of mismanagement.
Case against: Critics might argue that while technically accurate, the CPI adjustment adds a layer of complexity to the calculation that could make it harder for the public to understand or verify, potentially obscuring the raw dollar figures of cost growth.
Estimated impact: Ensures that only real, inflation-adjusted cost overruns of $1 billion or more are reported, preventing projects from being flagged solely due to general economic inflation.
The definition of 'project' explicitly excludes endeavors 'not funded through direct spending (as defined in section 250(c) of the Balanced Budget and Emergency Deficit Control Act of 1985 (2 U.S.C. 900(c))).'
Section 2(a)(4)
Why it matters:This is common legislative drafting practice to avoid re-defining terms already established in other statutes. However, it requires external knowledge to understand which types of spending are excluded.
Case for: Proponents would argue that this exclusion is necessary to focus the bill on discretionary spending projects, which are typically subject to annual appropriations and more direct management oversight. Direct spending, often mandatory programs like entitlements, operates under different budgetary rules and oversight mechanisms.
Case against: Critics might argue that excluding direct spending projects, especially large infrastructure or social programs that could also experience significant delays or cost overruns, creates a loophole. They might contend that all taxpayer-funded projects, regardless of their funding mechanism, should be subject to this level of scrutiny.
Estimated impact: Limits the scope of the bill to discretionary spending projects, potentially excluding large mandatory spending programs from reporting requirements.