Congress & Government
New Laws Create Identity-Theft Assistance and Reporting for Major Federal Project Overruns
One law requires a single Social Security contact for identity-theft victims; another mandates annual disclosure of federally funded projects far behind schedule or over budget.
Two targeted laws take effect
President Donald Trump signed two congressional measures Wednesday addressing separate problems in federal administration. H.R. 5345 directs the Social Security Administration to establish a single point of contact for people whose Social Security number has been misused or whose card has been lost. S. 766 requires an annual report identifying federally funded projects that are more than five years behind schedule or more than $1 billion above their original cost estimate.
A simpler path for identity-theft victims
People dealing with misuse of a Social Security number often interact with multiple offices while also contacting financial institutions, credit bureaus and law enforcement. A designated contact can reduce repeated explanations and conflicting instructions. Implementation will determine whether the promise becomes practical. The agency needs trained staff, secure case tracking, clear escalation rules and accessible service for people with disabilities or limited internet access. A contact point cannot substitute for timely action.
What the service should coordinate
The Social Security Administration can help with number and card issues, but identity theft may also involve tax records, employment files, benefits and credit. Victims need accurate guidance about which problems the agency can resolve and which require the Internal Revenue Service, Federal Trade Commission or private creditors. The new system should provide written case identifiers and status updates while protecting sensitive information. Success should be measured by resolution time and repeat contacts, not call volume alone.
Reporting projects in serious trouble
The second law targets unusually delayed or expensive federal projects. An annual list can help Congress and agencies identify patterns in procurement, design changes, permitting, contractor performance and unrealistic original budgets. The thresholds are intentionally high: more than five years late or more than $1 billion over the initial estimate. That focuses attention on major failures, though smaller projects can still waste substantial money and should remain subject to ordinary oversight.
Transparency needs comparable data
A useful report should state the original scope, baseline schedule, approved budget, current estimate, reason for changes and responsible agency. Without common definitions, officials could reset baselines or divide projects to avoid appearing on the list. Context also matters: a cost increase caused by an expanded mission is different from an overrun delivering the original scope. Agencies should identify corrective actions rather than merely naming a project once a year.
What Congress should monitor
Both laws depend on execution after the signing ceremony. Lawmakers can request implementation deadlines, staffing plans and public performance measures. Identity-theft assistance should protect individual privacy, while project reporting should be easy for taxpayers to search and compare. Inspectors general and the Government Accountability Office can test the accuracy of reported information. These are modest administrative reforms, but consistent implementation could reduce personal hardship and expose costly problems before they worsen. Public dashboards and complaint procedures would allow lawmakers to see whether the new requirements improve service rather than merely create another layer of paperwork. Agencies should publish baseline service times and project estimates before implementation so later reports show genuine improvement rather than a change in definitions.
Reporting note: This article draws on public records and verified reporting; material claims are attributed in the text.