- Federal agenciesEncourages federal employee tax compliance, potentially increasing tax collections.
- Federal agenciesProvides Congress and the public aggregated data on agency-specific tax delinquencies.
- Potential benefitAllows agencies to screen applicants to reduce personnel financial risk and misconduct.
Tax DODGER Act
Read twice and referred to the Committee on Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs.
The bill requires the Treasury to publish an annual report measuring federal civilian and military current and retired employees who have delinquent tax debt or unfiled returns, broken down by category and agency. It adds a new subchapter to Title 5 making individuals with "seriously delinquent tax debt" ineligible for appointment or continued federal employment unless they meet certification or authorization requirements, and allows agencies to review public records, request IRS disclosures, and take personnel actions for willful nonfiling or willful understatement.
Privacy/public disclosure versus desire for accountability
Relative to its intended legislative type, this bill is a substantive statutory change that is generally well‑structured: it integrates with existing law, defines key terms and exclusions, assigns responsibilities to identifiable officials, and creates reporting and oversight channels.
The bill requires the Treasury to publish an annual report measuring federal civilian and military current and retired employees who have delinquent tax debt or unfiled returns, broken down by category and agency.
It adds a new subchapter to Title 5 making individuals with "seriously delinquent tax debt" ineligible for appointment or continued federal employment unless they meet certification or authorization requirements, and allows agencies to review public records, request IRS disclosures, and take personnel actions for willful nonfiling or willful understatement.
The Office of Personnel Management must issue implementing regulations with due-process protections; confidentiality limits use of information.
Targeted federal workforce rule with moderate administrative costs and safeguards; plausible to advance but faces privacy, labor, and procedural hurdles.
Relative to its intended legislative type, this bill is a substantive statutory change that is generally well‑structured: it integrates with existing law, defines key terms and exclusions, assigns responsibilities to identifiable officials, and creates reporting and oversight channels. The bill is specific in many operative respects but leaves several implementation and resourcing details to future regulation or agency discretion.
Privacy/public disclosure versus desire for accountability
Who stands to gain, and who may push back.
These are examples from the analysis, not a ranked list of the most-affected groups.
- Potential burdenPublicized reports could harm privacy and reputations of current and retired employees.
- Potential burdenCreates administrative and IT costs for Treasury, OPM, and agencies to implement reporting.
- Potential burdenCould shrink the applicant pool and complicate hiring for specialized or military roles.
Why the argument around this bill splits.
Privacy/public disclosure versus desire for accountability
Likely supportive of the principle that public employees should pay taxes, but concerned about privacy, public shaming, and disproportionate harms to lower‑income employees and veterans.
Would demand strong hardship exceptions, narrow scope, and protections for due process and privacy before supporting.
Some impacts (recruitment, disparate effect) are speculative and uncertain.
Views the bill as a reasonable accountability measure if carefully implemented.
Wants clarity on report content, costs, timelines, and strict privacy/confidentiality rules before supporting.
Likely to favor targeted fixes and funding to reduce administrative burdens.
Likely to view the bill favorably as strengthening accountability and protecting taxpayers by preventing employees with serious unpaid taxes from holding federal positions.
Sees the reporting and vetting provisions as tools to enforce tax laws and improve trust in government.
The path through Congress.
Reached or meaningfully advanced
Reached or meaningfully advanced
Still ahead
Still ahead
Still ahead
Targeted federal workforce rule with moderate administrative costs and safeguards; plausible to advance but faces privacy, labor, and procedural hurdles.
- Estimated implementation costs and budget offsets are not provided
- Potential legal challenges over privacy or employment law are unknown
Recent votes on the bill.
No vote history yet
The bill has not accumulated any surfaced votes yet.
Go deeper than the headline read.
Privacy/public disclosure versus desire for accountability
Targeted federal workforce rule with moderate administrative costs and safeguards; plausible to advance but faces privacy, labor, and proce…
Relative to its intended legislative type, this bill is a substantive statutory change that is generally well‑structured: it integrates with existing law, defines key terms and exclusions, assigns responsibilities to id…
Go beyond the headline summary with full stakeholder mapping, legislative design analysis, passage barriers, and lens-by-lens tradeoff breakdowns.