H.R. 757, the Stop Wasteful Advertising by the Government (SWAG) Act, prohibits Federal agencies from using Federal funds to purchase, acquire, or distribute promotional merchandise (“swag”) and from manufacturing or using mascots to promote agencies, programs, or agendas, subject to a handful of statutory exceptions. The bill also requires each agency to include its prior fiscal year public relations and advertising expenditures in its annual budget justification to Congress and permits agencies to report an estimated return on investment.
The statute defines key terms (including a long, explicit list of examples of swag and a broad definition of advertising), carves out exemptions for recruitment (military and Federal employment), the Census Bureau, mascots already declared United States property, and agency programs that can demonstrate a positive return on investment, and directs OMB to issue implementing regulations within 180 days. The measure shifts oversight from ad hoc review to an annual, line‑item disclosure and hands OMB rulemaking control of many definitional and procedural questions.
At a Glance
What It Does
The bill bars agencies from using Federal funds to buy or distribute free promotional items described as 'swag' and from creating or using mascots for promotional purposes, while requiring agencies to disclose PR and advertising spending in their annual budget justifications. It creates specific statutory exceptions (e.g., recruitment, the Census) and directs OMB to issue regulations within 180 days of enactment.
Who It Affects
All Executive Branch agencies as defined in 5 U.S.C. 551, agency communications and procurement offices, contractors that produce promotional merchandise and agency mascots, and congressional appropriations and oversight committees that receive the new disclosures. Military recruiting and the Census Bureau are explicitly exempted for covered activities.
Why It Matters
The bill changes how agencies justify and document public‑facing communications and branding expenditures, potentially curtailing certain outreach tools while increasing congressional visibility into PR budgets. Implementation details—especially OMB's forthcoming regulations—will determine how broadly the prohibitions apply to grants, cooperative agreements, and contractor‑funded outreach.
More articles like this one.
A weekly email with all the latest developments on this topic.
What This Bill Actually Does
The SWAG Act sets a straightforward rule: federal agencies may not spend taxpayer money to buy or hand out free promotional merchandise intended to advertise or promote an agency, program, or agenda. The statute avoids jargon by listing many common items (from stickers and shirts to mugs and stress balls) and treats 'advertising' as placement in any media intended to inform or persuade.
The bill pairs the prohibition with a reporting requirement: agencies must report prior‑year public relations and advertising spending in the budget materials they send to Congress, and may include an estimated return on investment for that spending.
Not every giveaway or character is swept away. The bill preserves spending tied directly to an agency's mission that demonstrably generates a positive return on investment, items used for recruiting either into the Armed Forces or for federal employment, and census‑related distribution by the Census Bureau.
It also leaves intact mascots declared property of the United States by law and mascots used for military recruitment or military academy athletics. Those carve‑outs mean some long‑standing practices—recruiting campaigns, certain military uses, and census operations—remain available to agencies.Crucially, the bill leaves major implementation questions to OMB.
Within 180 days OMB must issue regulations that will define how agencies interpret 'positive return on investment,' determine whether 'Federal funds' includes grants and cooperative agreements, and explain how agencies should present PR spending in budget justifications. The text of H.R. 757 itself does not create a civil penalty or criminal sanction for violations; enforcement will depend on oversight by OMB and Congress and on how appropriations riders and agency accountants classify expenses.Practically, communications shops and procurement teams will need to reassess existing contracts and outreach strategies.
Contractors that manufacture merchandise or design mascots may see demand fall or shift toward non‑Federal funding sources. Conversely, agencies that can document measurable program gains from promotional efforts retain flexibility under the bill's ROI exception, but they will bear the evidentiary burden of demonstrating those gains in budget materials.
The Five Things You Need to Know
The bill prohibits agencies from using Federal funds to purchase, acquire, or distribute 'swag'—a defined list of promotional merchandise that includes items such as cups, shirts, stickers, and stress balls.
The bill bars agencies from using Federal funds to manufacture or employ mascots to promote an agency, program, or agenda, with narrow statutory exceptions.
Each agency must report prior fiscal‑year public relations and advertising spending to Congress as part of its annual budget justification, and may include an estimated return on investment.
Statutory exceptions preserve swag and mascot use when tied to a mission‑critical program that generates a positive return on investment, for Armed Forces and federal employment recruitment, and for Census Bureau distribution.
OMB must issue implementing regulations within 180 days, but the statute does not establish explicit civil or criminal penalties—oversight and classification choices will drive enforcement.
Section-by-Section Breakdown
Every bill we cover gets an analysis of its key sections.
Short title
Designates the Act's popular name: the 'Stop Wasteful Advertising by the Government Act' or 'SWAG Act.' This is purely nominal but signals the policy framing Congress intends to invoke when agencies and OMB interpret the statute.
Definitions that set scope
Provides operative definitions for 'advertising,' 'agency' (borrowing 5 U.S.C. 551), 'mascot,' 'public relations,' 'return on investment,' and an exhaustively enumerated list of 'swag' examples, while excluding brochures for informational purposes, diplomatic gifts, and certain military awards. These definitions matter because they determine whether common items and activities—like informational pamphlets, grant‑funded outreach, or logoed gear sold in gift shops—fall inside the ban.
Core prohibitions and reporting requirement
Subsection (a) imposes the two primary bans: no Federal funds to purchase or distribute swag and no Federal funds to manufacture or use mascots for promotional purposes. Subsection (b) requires agencies to include prior‑year public relations and advertising spending in their annual budget justification to Congress and permits inclusion of an estimated ROI. Practically, agencies must collect and summarize PR expenditures on a fiscal‑year basis and present them to appropriations and oversight committees.
Targeted exceptions (swag and mascots)
Carves out limited cases: swag purchases are allowed when tied to mission objectives and shown to yield a positive ROI, for recruitment into the Armed Forces or federal employment, and for Census Bureau operations. Mascot exceptions include mascots declared U.S. property by law and those used for military recruitment or academy athletics. These exceptions preserve established national‑security and enumerative operational activities while requiring agencies to justify other uses.
OMB rulemaking timeline
Directs the Director of OMB to issue regulations to implement the Act within 180 days. That rulemaking will determine key practical questions left open by the statute—how to measure ROI, whether grants and cooperative agreements are covered as 'Federal funds,' documentation standards for budget justifications, and compliance procedures.
This bill is one of many.
Codify tracks hundreds of bills on Government across all five countries.
Explore Government in Codify Search →Who Benefits and Who Bears the Cost
Every bill creates winners and losers. Here's who stands to gain and who bears the cost.
Who Benefits
- Taxpayers and oversight officials — increased transparency and a statutory mechanism to question and limit branding expenditures that lawmakers view as nonessential.
- Congressional appropriations and oversight committees — gains a regularized line item and data point (PR/advertising spend and optional ROI) to inform budgeting and oversight decisions.
- Mission‑focused agency programs that can demonstrate measurable outcomes — these programs may retain the ability to use promotional items if they document a positive return on investment, preserving targeted outreach tools.
- Department of Defense recruiting and the Census Bureau — both receive explicit statutory carve‑outs that protect mission‑critical recruitment and census outreach activities from the general ban.
Who Bears the Cost
- Agency communications and outreach offices — must redesign outreach strategies, collect new budgetary data, and justify previously routine giveaways under ROI standards.
- Procurement offices and existing contractors that supply promotional merchandise and mascot services — may lose Federal contracts or see contract scope narrowed as agencies comply with the prohibition.
- Office of Management and Budget — faces a near‑term regulatory drafting and oversight burden to define ambiguous terms and enforcement approaches within 180 days.
- Public‑facing programs that rely on small giveaways to reach underserved or hard‑to‑reach populations (for example, certain public‑health, disaster preparedness, and conservation outreach efforts) — risk losing an inexpensive engagement tool absent a clear ROI pathway.
Key Issues
The Core Tension
The bill pits a legitimate interest in curbing perceived wasteful government branding against the operational need for flexible, effective public outreach: tighter limits and strict ROI tests could stop frivolous giveaways but might also eliminate inexpensive, high‑impact tools agencies use to reach vulnerable or hard‑to‑reach populations; the statute’s ambiguous standards force agencies and OMB to choose between fiscal stringency and mission effectiveness.
The statute leaves several consequential questions unresolved and hands them to OMB rulemaking. 'Return on investment' is central to the bill's exceptions but the text provides no metric, timeframe, or evidentiary standard; agencies will need either a flexible, qualitative standard or a rigid quantitative test, and that choice will materially affect which programs qualify. The definition of 'Federal funds' is also unsettled: does it include grants, cooperative agreements, pass‑through funds to state or local partners, or only direct agency procurement dollars?
Agencies may respond by reclassifying expenses or shifting costs to partners to preserve outreach activities.
The bill creates no express enforcement mechanism (no statutory penalty or private right of action). Enforcement will therefore rely on OMB guidance, internal agency fiscal controls, and congressional oversight using appropriations and GAO reviews.
That design invites compliance variation across agencies and raises the risk of inconsistent application: some agencies may broadly interpret the ROI exception, others may take a conservative approach that curtails effective outreach. Finally, the broad advertising definition risks capturing legitimate informational campaigns; if OMB issues rules that are too expansive, agencies could see their ability to communicate public‑health advisories, safety recalls, or other non‑commercial messages unintentionally constrained.
Try it yourself.
Ask a question in plain English, or pick a topic below. Results in seconds.