What This Bill Does
H.R. 428, the "Bonuses for Cost-Cutters Act of 2025," would expand federal authority to pay cash awards to employees who identify wasteful spending that leads to savings. It amends title 5 of the U.S. Code to define "wasteful expenses," raise the maximum award tied to these disclosures from $10,000 to $20,000, and require agencies to report disclosures and awards publicly. The bill also adds oversight steps involving agency Chief Financial Officers, the Office of Personnel Management, and the Government Accountability Office. In practice, it affects federal employees and agency budget officials, with the goal of turning internal cost-saving tips into formal, rewarded disclosures.
- Raises the cash award ceiling for qualifying disclosures from $10,000 to $20,000.
- Defines "wasteful expenses" as amounts in salaries-and-expenses or operations-and-maintenance accounts that the CFO says are not required.
- Requires agency heads to notify the President so savings can be proposed for rescission under title X of the 1974 budget law.
- Directs agencies to publish information on disclosures of wasteful expenses and the number and amount of awards.
- Requires OPM annual certification and GAO reports starting 3 years after enactment and every 3 years for 6 years.
Who This Bill Affects
For a typical member of the public, this bill would not change taxes, benefits, or eligibility directly. Its effect would be through federal agencies: employees who identify wasteful spending could receive awards up to $20,000, and agencies would have to document disclosures, awards, and possible rescissions. If the program identifies real savings, it could modestly improve government efficiency; if not, it mainly adds a new internal reporting and award process.
See how this bill affects you — sign in for a personalized analysisWho Supports & Opposes This
- Federal employees who spot inefficiency Supporters would say the bill gives workers a stronger incentive to report spending that is truly unnecessary. Doubling the award cap to $20,000 could make it more worthwhile for employees to come forward with useful cost-saving information.
- Budget watchdogs and fiscal conservatives They would argue that agencies should be rewarded for finding money that is not needed for its intended purpose. The rescission referral process and GAO reporting could help turn internal savings into real budget reductions.
- Agency managers focused on efficiency Managers may see value in a formal process for identifying wasteful expenses before funds are spent. The CFO review requirement could help standardize decisions and make savings easier to document.
- Federal employees concerned about retaliation or bureaucracy Some workers may worry that encouraging disclosures of "wasteful" spending could create tension with supervisors or lead to disputes over what counts as wasteful. They may also see the new reporting and certification rules as adding bureaucracy without guaranteeing savings.
- Agencies with limited administrative capacity Agencies without a Chief Financial Officer would have to designate another employee to make determinations, and all agencies would have new disclosure, reporting, and certification obligations. That could mean extra administrative work and inconsistent implementation across departments.
- Appropriators and program managers They may object that rescission proposals based on employee disclosures could complicate budget execution. If funds are reclassified as wasteful too aggressively, agencies might lose flexibility to manage accounts during the year.
Key Implications
-
“"cash award to any employee... whose identification of wasteful expenses... has resulted in cost savings"”
Employees are not rewarded for simply complaining; the disclosure has to lead to actual savings. That ties the award to measurable budget impact and gives agencies a reason to verify the claim before paying.
-
“"the term `wasteful expenses' means amounts made available for salaries and expenses accounts..."”
The bill focuses on specific federal budget accounts rather than every kind of spending. In practice, it targets money already appropriated to agencies that the CFO decides is no longer needed for the stated purpose.
-
“"inserting `Chief Financial Officer'"”
The CFO becomes a central gatekeeper in the process. That means the award and rescission pathway depends heavily on internal financial officials, not just the employee’s judgment.
-
“"notify the President for purposes of proposing the expenses for rescission"”
Identified savings are meant to move into the formal rescission process under the budget law. This creates a path from internal agency review to possible congressional cancellation of budget authority.
-
“"submit to Congress an annual certification"”
OPM would have to check whether each agency’s award program complies with the statute every year. That adds a layer of federal oversight and makes the program easier for Congress to monitor.
Latest Status
June 8, 2026
The title of the measure was amended. Agreed to without objection.
Take Action
Get more from BillBoard
Free tools to understand, respond to, and track this bill.
Ask AI about this billData sourced from api.congress.gov.