Because the spending database records the timing of each apportionment, it can reveal delays that coincide with rescission proposals. Image: Mark Van Scyoc/Shutterstock.com
By: FEDweek StaffThe Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit last month ordered OMB to restore its public apportionments website, ruling that the agency’s March shutdown of the congressionally mandated transparency tool violated federal law.
Senate Appropriations Committee Vice Chair Patty Murray (D‑Wash.) called the restoration a “partial” victory, saying some required data may still be missing. she added that the OMB must also post any apportionment records issued while the site was offline, including the dates, amounts, and conditions attached, to ensure the database reflects the complete set of information required by law.
“It should never have required months in court for this administration to begin complying with a truly basic and straightforward transparency requirement,” she said, urging the OMB to post all withheld records and meet the statutory two‑day deadline for future updates.
The decision upheld a lower‑court order enforcing provisions in the Consolidated Appropriations Acts of 2022 and 2023, which require the OMB to post each apportionment decision within two business days and maintain the system for the full fiscal year. The database shows when and how the OMB releases appropriated funds to federal agencies—records that are legally binding under the Antideficiency Act and, according to the Government Accountability Office, not exempt from disclosure as “predecisional” or “deliberative.”
In addition to restoring public access, the ruling revives a tool that can reveal how apportionment practices intersect with other budget laws and deadlines. One example is the “pocket rescission,” a budget action recognized under the Congressional Budget and Impoundment Control Act of 1974.
A pocket rescission can occur when the president sends Congress a rescission proposal late in the fiscal year, leaving fewer than 45 legislative days before Sept. 30. If Congress does not approve the request within that period, the funds may lapse at year’s end without being spent.
Because the database records the timing of each apportionment, it can reveal delays that coincide with rescission proposals. That information allows Congress, the GAO and the public to compare release dates against statutory deadlines and determine whether funds are at risk of expiring before obligation.
The plaintiffs—Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington and Protect Democracy—called the decision a win for congressional “power of the purse” and public accountability. Protect Democracy said the restored data is critical as the administration “continues to illegally withhold funding from federal agencies—including funds agencies must spend by Sept. 30.”
Shutdown Rumblings as Congress Returns with Full Slate, Little Time
Trump Calls for 1 Percent Federal Raise; Higher Military Rate for Some
Order Rebuking Union Contracts Expanded by Six More Agencies
DoD Announces Civilian Volunteer Detail in Support of Immigration Enforcement
National Guard Order Calls for Hiring More Fed LEOs, Military Unit Under Interior, DHS, Justice
See also,
The Best Ages for Federal Employees to Retire
How to Challenge a Federal Reduction in Force (RIF) in 2025
Will Social Security Be Around in Ten Years? What Federal Employees Should Know
Should I be Shooting for a $1M TSP Balance? Depends…
FERS Retirement Guide 2025 – Your Roadmap to Maximizing Federal Retirement Benefits
