Public Spending Misuse

Recent developments in the record

The latest dated events in this file. Open an event for its cited sources and evidence limits.

1. Oct 19, 2026
   OPM's administrative-leave rule prints at 91 FR 65924 effective November 18, with the leave still booked in the same undifferentiated category GAO asked OPM to split →records release · 3 source records

   Read summary and limits

   The final rule OPM filed for public inspection on October 16 printed in the Federal Register of Monday, October 19, 2026 at 91 FR 65924-65940, and its DATES line now names November 18, 2026 as the effective date - the date this desk had counted from the inspection copy's unfilled bracket, now stated by the document itself. The printed text carries the same substance: leave given in connection with deferred resignation programs and other workforce realignment initiatives is listed among the acceptable uses of administrative leave, an agency may but need not place a reduction-in-force-affected employee on administrative leave during the notice period, and an employee's acceptance of deferred-resignation benefits is added to the nonexclusive list of valid reasons an agency may decline a resignation withdrawal, with avoidance of adverse action proceedings still not a valid reason. What the printed rule does not add is any new accounting: its Paperwork Reduction Act section states it imposes no reporting or recordkeeping requirements, and the only tracking it discusses puts the leave in agency timekeeping and payroll systems as administrative leave - the same undifferentiated category that led GAO, in its September audit putting 2025 paid administrative leave at $9.5 billion with about $6.7 billion tied to the deferred resignation program, to report that OPM cannot state the cost of workforce-reduction leave and to recommend a separate category for it. This desk compared the inspection copy against the printed text word for word and found no substantive difference other than the filled DATES line; nothing in the printed rule closes GAO's recommendation.

   Evidence limits. A printed rule and an audit, not a finding of improper payment, waste or misconduct by any agency, official or employee. That the rule adds no recordkeeping is read from its own Paperwork Reduction Act statement, and that it does not address GAO's recommendation is an observation about this document's text, not a statement about what OPM has done elsewhere or about the recommendation's status in GAO's database, which this desk did not check. GAO's dollar figures are payroll-derived estimates with its own stated limits. Whether the leave this rule codifies is lawful is contested in the comments and settled by neither document, and publication does not settle it. The agreement between this desk's computed November 18 and the printed November 18 is recorded as agreement on this one document only.

2. Oct 16, 2026
   OPM files a final rule codifying deferred-resignation administrative leave, and states in the same document that it adds no reporting or recordkeeping →records release · 2 source records

   Read summary and limits

   OPM's final rule amends 5 CFR part 630 subpart N and the related reduction-in-force and resignation rules to list leave given under a deferred resignation program or another workforce realignment initiative among the acceptable uses of administrative leave under 5 U.S.C. 6329a, and to give an agency sole and exclusive discretion over a request to withdraw a resignation, with receipt of deferred-resignation benefits a valid reason to refuse. OPM says it is codifying policies already in effect, including a Governmentwide cap of 12 weeks per instance for workforce-realignment leave from calendar year 2026 absent joint OPM and OMB approval of more - a 6-month threshold was approved for fiscal 2026 agreements - and for that reason projects no incremental cost, putting 2025 deferred-resignation separations at over 6 percent of the workforce and the leave's one-time cost at under 3 percent of basic payroll. Of 30 comments, several argued the leave routes around reduction-in-force safeguards and the statutory caps on voluntary separation incentives; OPM disagreed, declined to withdraw the provisions, and said a retrospective accounting of the 2025 programs was beyond this rulemaking's scope. This desk reads the rule against GAO's September audit on the same leave, which put 2025 paid administrative leave at $9.5 billion with about $6.7 billion tied to the deferred resignation program, reported that OPM cannot state the cost of workforce-reduction leave because it sits in the same category as ordinary administrative leave, and left open a recommendation that OPM create a separate category for it. The rule's Paperwork Reduction Act section states that it 'does not impose any reporting or recordkeeping requirements', and where it does discuss tracking - leave under a settlement agreement - it says the usage 'will be tracked as administrative leave in agency timekeeping and payroll systems', the same undifferentiated category. The rule does not address GAO's recommendation and nothing read here closes it.

   Evidence limits. A rule and an audit, not a finding of improper payment, waste or misconduct by any agency, official or employee: employees on this leave were placed on it under a program OPM directed, and GAO's figures are payroll-derived estimates with its own stated limits. Whether the leave this rule codifies is lawful is contested in the comments and settled by neither document. That the rule adds no recordkeeping is read from its own Paperwork Reduction Act statement; the status of GAO's recommendation is GAO's to record, and this desk did not check its recommendations database.

3. Oct 6, 2026
   GAO: CMS has put $10 billion of a $50 billion rural health program out to all 50 states, and most of the oversight GAO measured is still a plan →audit report · 1 source record

   Read summary and limits

   GAO reported on the first year of the Rural Health Transformation program, created by Public Law 119-21 in July 2025 and run by CMS as cooperative agreements with states. CMS released a notice of funding opportunity in September 2025, created an Office of Rural Health Transformation in December 2025 that, according to CMS officials, had onboarded 24 of 30 planned staff as of July 2026, and awarded $10 billion for the program's first budget period, which runs to October 30, 2026. Every state received $100 million in baseline funding, half the $10 billion, with the rest scored on rural characteristics and a technical score that counted the strength of proposed initiatives, Medicaid data quality and dual-eligible integration, and whether a state had adopted or would commit to policy actions CMS selected — among them restricting SNAP benefits on non-nutritious foods, adding nutrition to physicians' continuing medical education, and reestablishing the Presidential Fitness Test in schools. Allotments ranged from $147 million for New Jersey to $281 million for Texas. GAO found CMS's planned post-award monitoring generally consistent with selected requirements in 2 C.F.R. part 200, and said in the same breath that it is too early to know whether the implementation will meet them: as of July 2026 CMS had held bimonthly meetings and completed 21 site visits, but had reviewed no state reports, was still finalising the reporting forms and seeking OMB approval for them, and did not plan to begin auditing states' use of funds until 2027. The remaining $40 billion is to be allotted over four years on numerical scores CMS derives from states' own progress reporting; the first annual report was due August 31, 2026, covering December 29, 2025 through July 31, 2026, while the report's endnote 9 puts the first quarterly report due November 29, 2026. CMS may withhold, reduce or recover funding for unallowable costs, unapproved changes to initiatives, failure to finalise a committed policy action by its deadline, or improper management of funds, after giving a state 90 days to address the violation — and the statute bars administrative or judicial review of allotments, withholdings, reductions and recoveries, with CMS still deciding whether the HHS Departmental Appeals Board has any role. Three stakeholder groups GAO interviewed said states had too little time to show progress before budget period 2 scoring. GAO made no recommendations and HHS offered technical comments only.

   Evidence limits. A program-implementation report, not a finding of waste, fraud, abuse or misuse by CMS or any state, and not an audit of any state's spending. GAO's consistency finding is about plans against selected requirements, and GAO itself says it is too early to judge the implementation. The counts attributed to CMS officials are CMS's, not GAO's measurements. Nothing here says any dollar was improperly spent.