There is no well-supported ranking of the biggest “boondoggles” in the enacted law. The clearest high-cost lead in the available estimates is military housing—but the figures come from analysis of an earlier, House-passed version and do not prove waste. A fair assessment has to separate projected costs from public value, and the enacted law’s score from estimates of earlier versions or hypothetical scenarios.
What counts as a boondoggle?
“Boondoggle” is a judgment, not a federal budget category. For this article, a provision merits that label only when substantial public cost is paired with weak evidence of public benefit, avoidable alternatives, poor execution, or inadequate oversight. A large price tag is a reason to investigate, not a verdict.
That distinction matters because a budget estimate answers a fiscal question: how a law is projected to affect spending, revenues, or deficits against a stated baseline. It does not establish whether a program is needed, whether it is well managed, or whether its benefits justify its cost.
How much does the law add to the deficit?
The headline estimates often cited for the bill describe different versions and use different accounting measures. CBO’s cost-estimate catalog distinguishes the House and Senate proposals from Public Law 119-21, enacted July 4, 2025, and lists a separate estimate for the enacted law. CBO’s estimate catalog is the place to check which version a figure covers.
Quick wins for a faster PC:
Repair Windows errors before they cause bigger problemsFix Now →Scan for outdated or missing drivers - takes under a minuteDriver Scan →Clear out junk files and repair common Windows errorsFree Scan →#1 Best Overall
- American History
- Textbook used for College
For the House-passed version, approved May 22, 2025, CBO and the Joint Committee on Taxation estimated a $2.4 trillion increase in primary deficits over 2025–2034, excluding macroeconomic and debt-service effects. CBO’s separate dynamic estimate for that version said economic effects would reduce primary deficits by $85 billion while higher interest costs would add $441 billion, for an estimated $2.8 trillion increase in deficits over 2025–2034. These are not interchangeable measures or the enacted law’s score. CBO’s dynamic estimate explains the House-version figures and how revenue estimates from JCT are incorporated.
A separate CBO scenario for the House-passed bill considered making 16 tax provisions scheduled to expire at the end of 2028 or 2029 permanent. In that hypothetical scenario, the changes would add $1.4 trillion to primary deficits and $687 billion in debt-service costs over 2025–2034, for a cumulative deficit effect of $4.5 trillion. This is not the score of the enacted bill as written. CBO’s permanence scenario sets out that assumption.
Which provisions are the strongest candidates for scrutiny?
Military housing: a costly lead, not a proven waste
The House report’s CBO analysis considered additional authority for privatized military housing. For family housing, it estimated that the authority could permit one additional project by 2029, with a projected project cost of $500 million and $450 million in additional direct spending over 2025–2034. For unaccompanied housing, it projected one project in each year from 2027 through 2029, an average project cost of $270 million, and $780 million in direct spending over 2025–2034.
| House-passed provision | Projected projects | Estimated project cost | Estimated direct spending, 2025–2034 |
|---|---|---|---|
| Additional family housing | One project by 2029 | $500 million | $450 million |
| Unaccompanied housing | One project in each year from 2027 through 2029 | $270 million average per project | $780 million |
These are estimates for the House-passed text, not confirmed costs under Public Law 119-21. The report notes uncertainty about project timing, number, and cost; the enacted-law estimate should be checked before treating the figures as final-law costs. The House report’s CBO discussion provides the underlying analysis.
Do these 3 things before closing this tab:
1Clear out junk files and repair common Windows errors2Scan for outdated or missing drivers - takes under a minute3Repair Windows errors before they cause bigger problemsThe estimates make housing a legitimate subject for oversight, but they do not establish whether the projects are worthwhile. That judgment depends on evidence about service members’ housing needs and existing conditions, available alternatives, privatization and procurement terms, oversight, and whether the projects are delivered as promised.
Medicaid: a major projected cut, not evidence of a spending boondoggle
CBO’s 2026–2036 outlook attributes a projected $1.2 trillion reduction in Medicaid outlays over 2026–2035 to the 2025 reconciliation law’s changes to eligibility requirements, enrollment processes, and financing. It also projects 13.1 million fewer Medicaid enrollees in 2035. These are projections, not observed outcomes. They describe the scale and distribution of a policy trade-off; reduced spending alone does not show that a provision is wasteful or beneficial. CBO’s current outlook gives the estimates and their context.
Rank #4
The CFPB cap: an example of scored savings
The enacted law lowered the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau’s funding cap from 12% to 6.5% of the Federal Reserve’s fiscal year 2009 operating expenses, with the enacted calculation accounting for prior employment cost indexes. CRS estimated the resulting FY2025 cap at roughly $446 million, compared with $823 million under the original Dodd-Frank formula. CRS reported that CBO estimated the provision would reduce the deficit by $2 billion over 10 years. CRS’s summary of enacted Title III describes the change and figures.
Those figures show a scored savings provision, not whether the lower cap is good policy. That assessment would also require evidence about the bureau’s responsibilities, the effects on its work, and the public value of the services affected.
Recommended Free Tools
How to judge a claim that a provision is wasteful
When evaluating any candidate, keep the fiscal estimate and the value judgment separate. Ask:
Quick Recap
- Is the figure for the enacted law, an earlier bill version, or a hypothetical scenario—and what period does it cover?
- What public benefit is the provision intended to deliver, and what evidence supports the need?
- Are there less costly alternatives, and what other priorities would the spending displace?
- Who receives the benefits and who bears the costs or loses services?
- What oversight, implementation risks, or uncertainty could change the result?
- Has later evidence shown that the promised benefit was delivered?
Product prices and availability are accurate as of the date/time indicated and are subject to change. Any price and availability information displayed on Amazon at the time of purchase will apply.
