Joni Ernst (R-IA)
Stopping Fraudulent Payments Act
A Republican bill with 1 Republican cosponsor · See the cosponsor
Last activity — Read twice and referred to the Committee on Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs.
In committee
Introduced and handed to a committee in the chamber it started in.
The committee holds it, and most bills are never heard from again. A hearing or a committee vote would be news; silence is the usual outcome, and it kills the bill without anyone voting against it.
Its path through Congress
- Introduced
- In Committee
What this bill would do
The Stopping Fraudulent Payments Act allows government agencies and the Treasury to temporarily pause, condition, or split payments if there is an elevated risk of fraud or improper payment. Agencies must notify payees within two days of such an action and provide a way for them to contest the decision. Most paused payments must be issued within 30 days, or within 7 days if a payee successfully contests the action. The law also protects government employees from personal liability when acting in good faith under these rules.
Yes· 3 of 5
- Scored +5
Does this make the government pay for what it commits to?
Enhances oversight of federal payments through fraud-risk indicators and corrective action.
- Scored +3
Does this reduce what the federal government spends?
Reduces waste by stopping fraudulent or improper disbursements of federal funds.
- Scored +3
Does this give the federal government more power?
Increases the Treasury's authority to order the pausing of payments across agencies.
The opposite· 3 of 9
- Scored -3
Would households on low incomes be better off under this?
Low-income households are most vulnerable to temporary payment delays during fraud reviews.
- Scored -2
Would people with disabilities be better off under this?
Individuals dependent on government disability payments are highly sensitive to payment delays.
- Scored -2
Would retired people be better off under this?
Retirees relying on federal payments may experience hardship during temporary pauses.
Who it would affect, and how
Potential Positive Impacts for People
-
Protection of Public Funds: By allowing agencies to pause payments that present an elevated risk of fraud or improper payment, the bill aims to prevent financial loss to the Government (Sec. 2(a)).
-
Partial Payment Access: To the extent possible, agencies must allow "routine, historically consistent payment" amounts to go through while only holding the high-risk or anomalous portion of a payment (Sec. 2(e)).
-
Right to Contest: The bill requires agencies to use a process where a payee can contest factual inaccuracies or provide clarifying information during the review period (Sec. 2(d)(2)).
-
Defined Timelines: There are strict limits on how long payments can be held, requiring issuance within 30 days of the corrective action or 7 days after a payee contests the action, provided the risk is cleared (Sec. 2(d)(3)).
Potential Negative Impacts for People
-
Payment Delays: Individuals or groups may experience temporary delays in receiving funds if their payment is flagged by a "fraud-risk indicator" or identified as an improper payment (Sec. 2(a)).
-
Burden of Proof: Payees may be required to participate in a corrective action review process to provide clarifying information to receive their funds (Sec. 2(d)(2)).
Groups and Interests Ranking
Every group the model scored this bill for, from -10 to +10. Tap or hover a score for the reason it gave.
- Demographic And Interest Groups
- Would households on low incomes be better off under this? — Low-income households are most vulnerable to temporary payment delays during fraud reviews. Would people with disabilities be better off under this? — Individuals dependent on government disability payments are highly sensitive to payment delays. Would retired people be better off under this? — Retirees relying on federal payments may experience hardship during temporary pauses. Would farmers be better off under this? — Agricultural subsidies could be temporarily delayed during fraud verification. Would people over 65 be better off under this? — Seniors relying on fixed government payments may be negatively impacted by temporary payment delays. Would students be better off under this? — Student grant or loan disbursements could be delayed by fraud reviews. Would veterans be better off under this, taking everything together? — Veterans receiving benefits may face temporary delays if payments are flagged.
- Economy And Finance
- Does this make the government pay for what it commits to? — Enhances oversight of federal payments through fraud-risk indicators and corrective action. Does this reduce what the federal government spends? — Reduces waste by stopping fraudulent or improper disbursements of federal funds. Does this reduce what the federal government owes? — Aims to reduce national debt by preventing fraudulent payments and financial loss to the government.
- Governance And Ideology
- Does this make what the government does easier for the public to see? — Requires annual reports to Congress on the results and savings of paused payments. Does this give the federal government more power? — Increases the Treasury's authority to order the pausing of payments across agencies. Does this protect the right to fair treatment by the courts? — Introduces a temporary suspension of funds prior to final determination, though a contest process exists.
- Social Issues And Justice
- Is this likely to lift people out of poverty? — Potential for temporary delays in critical payments to low-income individuals if flagged for fraud.
- 8/4/2026
- 1 Cosponsor added.
- 6/10/2026
- Read twice and referred to the Committee on Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs.
- Introduced in Senate
One bill Congress.gov lists as related to this one — companions in the other chamber, earlier versions, and bills this one absorbed or was folded into.
David McCormickRepublican · Pennsylvania