Merkley Leads Budget Democrats in Demanding OMB Director Vought Provide Answers on Use of His $100 Million Slush Fund

Merkley Leads Budget Democrats in Demanding OMB Director Vought Provide Answers on Use of His $100 Million Slush Fund

Vought Secured a Massive Windfall for his Agency in the Republican Big, Ugly Betrayal Law

WASHINGTON, D.C. - Today, U.S. Senator Jeff Merkley (D-OR), Ranking Member of the Seante Budget Committee, led Budget Committee Democrats in calling on Office of Management and Budget (OMB) Director Russell Vought to provide answers to Congress and the American people on what he has used or is planning to use the $100 million slush fund that Republicans gifted his office when they passed the Big, Ugly Betrayal law last July.

The provision, which was vague and did not specify the use of the funds or how Congress would conduct oversight of the dollars, stated that the $100 million appropriation to OMB would be "for purposes of finding budget and accounting efficiencies in the executive branch," to be available through Fiscal Year 2029. Excluding this provision, OMB's annual budget is currently $129 million.

"[...] the statutory language governing this appropriation is alarmingly broad. The phrase 'finding budget and accounting efficiencies in the executive branch' is undefined in statute, is not accompanied by reporting requirements, and places few limits on permissible uses. Without clear guardrails, transparency, and congressional visibility, this funding risks functioning as an OMB discretionary reserve pool or 'slush fund' rather than a targeted, accountable investment tied to measurable efficiencies," Budget Committee Democrats wrote.

"These concerns are heightened by the fact that OMB has already apportioned the entirety of the $100 million appropriation, with no explanatory footnotes, despite the funds being available through FY 2029 and despite the absence of any public explanation of how such a rapid, full apportionment aligns with the statute's purpose. The decision to immediately apportion the full amount-rather than phasing apportionments based on defined projects, timelines, or demonstrated needs-raises serious questions about whether this funding is being treated as a de facto slush fund available at the discretion of the Director, rather than as a narrowly constrained appropriation subject to meaningful oversight," the senators continued.

In addition to Ranking Member Merkley, Senate Budget Committee Democratic members Patty Murray (D-WA), Ron Wyden (D-OR), Bernie Sanders (I-VT), Sheldon Whitehouse (D-RI), Mark Warner (D-VA), Tim Kaine (D-VA), Chris Van Hollen (D-MD), Ben Ray Luján (D-NM), and Alex Padilla (D-CA) joined the letter.

The full letter can be found HERE and below.

Dear Director Vought:

As members of the Senate Committee on the Budget, which has jurisdiction over the Office of Management and Budget (OMB), we are writing regarding your agency's spend plans for its substantial appropriation in P.L. 119-21, the Republican reconciliation bill.

Specifically, Sec. 90103 appropriated $100 million to OMB available through the end of fiscal year (FY) 2029 "for purposes of finding budget and accounting efficiencies in the executive branch."^[1] As of the time of this letter, OMB's current annual budget-first established by Congress in the FY 2024 appropriations cycle and carried forward by subsequent continuing resolutions-is $129 million.^[2] As such, this one-time $100 million increase in funding for OMB is relatively massive, even as the statutory language governing it is incredibly broad. This appropriation is also unprecedented when viewed against OMB's historical funding levels. After adjusting for inflation, OMB's annual budget authority has generally ranged between approximately $120 million and $145 million (in 2025 dollars) for more than four decades.^[3] At no point in that period has Congress provided OMB with an additional, one-time appropriation approaching this magnitude on top of its base budget.

At the same time, the statutory language governing this appropriation is alarmingly broad. The phrase "finding budget and accounting efficiencies in the executive branch" is undefined in statute, is not accompanied by reporting requirements, and places few limits on permissible uses. Without clear guardrails, transparency, and congressional visibility, this funding risks functioning as an OMB discretionary reserve pool or "slush fund" rather than a targeted, accountable investment tied to measurable efficiencies.

These concerns are heightened by the fact that OMB has already apportioned the entirety of the $100 million appropriation, with no explanatory footnotes, despite the funds being available through FY 2029 and despite the absence of any public explanation of how such a rapid, full apportionment aligns with the statute's purpose.^[4] The decision to immediately apportion the full amount-rather than phasing apportionments based on defined projects, timelines, or demonstrated needs-raises serious questions about whether this funding is being treated as a de facto slush fund available at the discretion of the Director, rather than as a narrowly constrained appropriation subject to meaningful oversight.

Given OMB's central role in shaping executive branch budget execution, apportionments, and agency operations, it is imperative that Congress understand precisely how these funds will be used, what controls will govern them, and how OMB will ensure that expenditures remain consistent with congressional intent and the law. Simply put, an administration that has touted itself as the "most transparent in history"^[5] must provide evidence that these funds are not simply a slush fund to be employed in accordance only with the Director's whims; indeed, congressional oversight of such an open-ended appropriation is a core function of the Congress, and, in this case, of the Budget Committee.

To that end, we request that you provide answers to the following questions by February 3, 2026.

1. How does OMB plan on spending the funding appropriated by Sec. 90103? Please provide a detailed table of the categories of programs, activities, and contracts that OMB plans to fund and the amounts for each.
2. Has OMB spent any of the funding in accordance with this appropriation? If yes, please provide a detailed table of the funding, including the dates, amounts, and purposes of the expenditures.
3. How does OMB interpret the statutory phrase "finding budget and accounting efficiencies in the executive branch"? What criteria will OMB use to determine if spending falls within this purpose?
4. How can Congress be assured that all obligations and expenditures are narrowly related to "finding budget and accounting efficiencies in the executive branch?
5. Will the funding be used to increase OMB's staffing levels, including detailees and contractors? If yes, please specify the positions and their functions.
6. How do you justify increasing OMB's budget while simultaneously slashing funding for other agencies, including the Department of Health and Human Services, the Department of Education, and the Department of Veterans Affairs?

Sincerely,

###