Boyle Demands White House Comply with the Law, Restore Public Access to Budget Data

WASHINGTON, DC – Today, Congressman Brendan F. Boyle (PA-02), Ranking Member of the House Budget Committee, released the following statement in response to the White House’s removal of public records of apportionments from its website. Apportionments — legally binding plans issued by the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) — govern how federal agencies spend funds appropriated by Congress. Removing public access to these records is not only a violation of the law, but also a serious blow to transparency and accountability in federal spending.

“The law is clear: data showing how the administration spends taxpayer dollars must be public. This isn’t optional — it’s a legal requirement. By removing these records from public view, the administration isn’t just avoiding transparency — they’re breaking the law.

What’s especially troubling is who stands to benefit. The same people who constantly talk about open government — Donald Trump, Elon Musk, and their allies — are now working to hide how federal funds are being used. They claim to want to root out waste, fraud, and abuse, yet they’re dismantling one of the key tools Congress and the public rely on to ensure accountability. This raises serious questions about what they’re trying to hide. Is this an attempt to conceal efforts to unilaterally defund essential programs the middle class relies on, in order to redirect taxpayer dollars to benefit Elon Musk and Trump’s other billionaire donors?

Congress — not unelected billionaires — controls federal spending. House Democrats will use every oversight tool at our disposal to hold this administration accountable and ensure the American people know exactly how their tax dollars are being spent.”

Background:

• The White House is legally required to maintain a public database of all apportionments (PL 117-103 as amended by PL 117-328).
• These reforms improved public oversight and strengthened Congress’s power of the purse following the first Trump administration’s illegal withholding of funds.
• Public access to apportionment information is a bipartisan desire. Last June, Republicans on the House Appropriations Committee suggested making the OMB apportionment site more user friendly, improving the public's access to the information.
• Despite dubious claims from the White House that this information is being withheld to protect national security, current law already allows the apportionment database to exclude classified material. Also, the White House’s assertion that preliminary information was being disclosed is simply false. The law is clear: once an apportionment is approved by OMB, it must be posted to the database within two days.
• The overarching purpose of the apportionment process is to prevent deficiencies — i.e., to make sure agencies use time-limited appropriations at an appropriate pace (so that, for example, a program does not run out of money before the fiscal year is over) and use appropriations available for an indefinite time period effectively and economically.  
• Apportionments generally divide amounts by specific time period or among projects or activities. They may contain footnotes, which provide additional direction to agencies and are also legally binding. After funding has been apportioned, agencies decide how to further allocate it, provided that such decisions are consistent with the apportionment and enacted law.

###