In an era where partisan rhetoric too often outshouts prudent policy, the integrity of Congress’s internal referees—the Government Accountability Office (GAO) and the Congressional Budget Office (CBO)—has never been more essential. Yet these two cornerstone institutions are increasingly under fire, particularly from some congressional Republicans who argue that these offices serve political, not objective, ends. Reflecting this unwarranted criticism, the House Legislative Branch Appropriations bill, which passed out of committee on June 30, proposes to cut GAO’s funding in half.
That narrative couldn’t be further from the truth. The GAO and CBO are not partisan actors. They are Congress’s own tools for informed decision-making, grounded in fact-based analysis, nonpartisan expertise, and public accountability. Weakening them weakens Congress itself.
The Role of the Honest Broker
Created in 1921 and 1974 respectively, GAO and CBO serve distinct but complementary roles: the GAO functions as Congress’s chief watchdog, auditing the federal government and ensuring programs are administered efficiently and lawfully. The CBO, meanwhile, provides independent cost estimates for legislation and baseline projections that shape everything from tax reform to health care policy.
Neither office tells Congress what to do. CBO informs lawmakers what it would mean to do it. GAO tells Congress what it has done and whether the legislation it has passed are meeting the intended objectives. That is the essence of being an honest broker—GAO and CBO don’t decide policy; they analyze its consequences.
When Everyone’s Mad, They’re Probably Doing Something Right
One of the clearest signs that the CBO is doing its job fairly is when it is getting criticized by both sides of the aisle.
The CBO’s reputation as an honest broker was tested by the Democrats in the early 1990s, when President Bill Clinton’s administration pushed back hard against CBO analyses—first on its stimulus projections, and later on whether the Clinton health plan would add to the federal deficit. With Democrats holding the majority in Congress, the White House exerted intense pressure on the CBO Director at the time, Robert Reischauer – a Democrat, to revise the agency’s conclusions. Congressional Republicans, expecting a partisan tilt from the director, assumed Reischauer would yield. Instead, Reischauer upheld CBO’s core mission: delivering objective analysis regardless of political consequences.
Fast forward to today, and the shoe is on the other foot. Congressional Republicans have launched fierce attacks on the CBO’s analysis of their latest tax and spending proposal—dubbed the “One Big Beautiful Bill Act” that was signed into law on July 4, 2025. CBO found that the bill would add $4 trillion to the deficit, including increased interest, over a decade, largely because the tax cuts far outweigh the spending reductions. That didn’t sit well with some GOP leaders, who accused the CBO of bias and claimed it failed to account for how tax cuts might boost the economy. House Speaker Mike Johnson even called the agency “historically totally unreliable” and claimed it was “run by Democrats”—despite the fact that the current CBO director, Phillip Swagel, is a Republican appointed through a bipartisan process.
Accountability Without Allegiance
The criticism that GAO and CBO are somehow partisan betrays a misunderstanding—or dismissal—of their structure and mission. These institutions are led by professionals appointed through bipartisan or nonpartisan processes, guided by transparent methodologies, and held accountable by oversight processes that span party lines.
The GAO, for instance, is headed by the Comptroller General of the United States—appointed by the president from a list provided by a bipartisan congressional commission, serving a 15-year term. The CBO’s director is jointly appointed by the Speaker of the House and the Senate President Pro Tempore, again typically in consultation with both parties.
To impugn their motives is not simply unfair—it’s corrosive. Because once Congress decides that its own nonpartisan experts can’t be trusted, there is little left to anchor budget debates to reality.
Institutional Sabotage
The more fundamental concern isn’t the attacks themselves, but their cumulative damage to Congress’s institutional capacity. The legislative branch already operates at a knowledge disadvantage compared to the executive. GAO and CBO are among the strongest sources of serious internal analysis available to Congress. As such, they defend Congressional prerogatives against Executive branch encroachment. Undermining them compounds the imbalance, making Congress more reliant on external actors—from advocacy groups with a specific point of view to industry lobbyists—who do not necessarily serve the public interest.
Moreover, when lawmakers discredit budget scores or ignore independent evaluations for short-term political wins, they implicitly tell future staff and analysts: “Your work isn’t valued.” That discourages talent, accelerates turnover, and shrinks the very pool of experts we depend on to decipher complex fiscal tradeoffs.
If Not Them, Then Who?
The heart of this issue is not whether one disagrees with a particular estimate or report. It’s about what happens when the process itself is delegitimized. If we no longer accept the idea of neutral analysis, then we’re left with dueling political narratives untethered to facts.
To be sure, the GAO and CBO aren’t flawless. Methodologies evolve. Assumptions are debated. But the answer to disagreement is transparency and rigor—not abandonment and disparagement. In fact, both offices regularly refine their models, publish working papers, and invite technical feedback. Their commitment to methodological honesty is precisely what gives them credibility.
This isn’t just a wonky turf war. Undermining Congress’s scorekeepers has real-world consequences. When lawmakers dismiss CBO projections in order to advance a bill without acknowledging its fiscal impact, they risk expanding deficits without transparency. When GAO audits are sidelined, waste and mismanagement fester unchecked.
The public loses twice—once in money, again in trust.
Rebuilding Respect
Defending GAO and CBO isn’t about glorifying bureaucracy. It’s about preserving the democratic infrastructure that enables Congress to govern wisely. If members of Congress—on any side of the aisle—truly want to restore credibility to the legislative branch, they should begin by respecting the institutions that make good governance possible.
