The Settlement Agreement Information Database Act of 2026 directs federal agencies to publish searchable, machine‑readable records and copies of specified settlement agreements and deferred prosecution agreements. It defines which agreements are “covered” (including those with $10 million+ in explicit obligations, those that appoint a monitor or special master, or those involving non‑federal governments), sets data standards, and preserves existing confidentiality and FOIA exemptions.
The bill centralizes visibility into high‑cost or supervised settlements, requires OMB (the Director) to issue implementation guidance in coordination with the Attorney General, and forces agencies to report annually on any covered agreements they withhold and the exemptions relied upon. For practitioners, the Act creates new publication and recordkeeping duties, a short timetable for rollout, and potential compliance costs tied to redactions and retroactive uploads back to 2015 where practicable.
At a Glance
What It Does
Requires each federal agency that enters into a qualifying settlement to create and maintain a public online database with standardized, searchable data elements and (unless exempt) copies of the agreement. OMB must issue guidance within one year and agencies have two years to stand up databases.
Who It Affects
Federal agencies that enter into high‑value or monitored settlements; parties to those settlements (corporations, states, municipalities, monitors); OMB and DOJ for implementation and oversight; counsel, compliance officers, and civil‑liberties researchers who will use the data.
Why It Matters
It pushes large, supervised, or multi‑jurisdictional settlements into the public record and sets common technical and descriptive standards for how settlement information is published — changing how oversight, research, and media scrutiny find and consume settlement data.
More articles like this one.
A weekly email with all the latest developments on this topic.
What This Bill Actually Does
The bill creates a new statutory duty for agencies to publish information about certain settlement agreements. It defines “covered settlement agreements” to include agreements that explicitly obligate at least $10 million in payments, those that appoint a special master or monitor, agreements that involve a State or other non‑federal government, or any agreement the OMB Director designates using additional criteria.
Several categories are excluded from coverage, such as actions involving the United States Trustee Program, internal federal personnel actions (including EEO, OSC, and MSPB matters), non‑prosecution agreements and plea bargains, tax matters under the Internal Revenue Code, and matters eligible under chapter 46 of title 18.
For each covered settlement, an agency must publish a categorized, searchable list and — to the extent practicable and not exempt — a copy of the agreement. The bill specifies a set of data elements that agencies should include where practicable: whether the claim is civil or criminal, execution dates, statutes alleged to be violated, attorney fee amounts, explicitly obligated payments and penalties, payments actually made, projected duration, and identification of non‑federal governments named in the agreement.
Agencies must stand up these public databases within two years of enactment.OMB (the Director), working with the Attorney General, must issue implementation guidance within one year. That guidance must set publication dates (at least annual updates), define common data elements and a nonproprietary, machine‑readable format, prescribe a consistent URL naming convention, set criteria for additional covered‑agreement designations, and offer a certification process for existing agency databases.
If multiple agencies are parties to an agreement or one agency acts on behalf of another, the guidance provides a process to determine which agency’s database will publish the agreement.The statute recognizes limits on disclosure: agencies do not have to publish materials subject to confidentiality provisions or withheld under FOIA section 552, and classified information remains protected. Agencies must submit an annual report to Congress and post publicly the number of covered agreements fully exempted from publication and the specific legal bases for withholding (including which FOIA exemptions apply).
Lastly, the bill applies prospectively and, where practicable, to covered agreements entered into since January 1, 2015 that remain in effect.
The Five Things You Need to Know
The bill defines a “covered settlement agreement” to include any settlement that explicitly obligates $10,000,000 or more at execution, any agreement that appoints a special master or monitor, any settlement involving a State or local government, or any other agreement the OMB Director designates.
Agencies must establish a public, searchable, machine‑readable database of covered settlements within two years and publish specified data elements and copies of agreements unless exempted.
OMB must issue guidance within one year (in coordination with the Attorney General) setting common data elements, a nonproprietary format, update cadence (at least annual), URL conventions, and criteria for additional covered agreements.
Agencies do not have to publish agreements or portions that are barred by confidentiality provisions, FOIA section 552 exemptions, or classification, and must annually report to Congress the count of fully exempted covered agreements and the exemptions claimed.
The Act applies to covered agreements entered on or after enactment and, to the extent practicable, to agreements dated back to January 1, 2015 that remain in effect.
Section-by-Section Breakdown
Every bill we cover gets an analysis of its key sections.
Short title
Designates the statute as the 'Settlement Agreement Information Database Act of 2026.' This is formal but matters practically because it frames subsequent references in OMB guidance and agency rulemaking documents.
Who and what counts as a covered settlement
Provides the operative definitions: agency (by reference to title 44), covered settlement agreement (four alternative triggers including the $10M threshold, appointment of a monitor, non‑federal party, or Director designation), exclusions (e.g., U.S. Trustee Program, federal personnel matters, non‑prosecution/plea deals, tax code matters, certain criminal statutes), and originating agency. For implementers, the exclusions narrow disclosure obligations and will be central in decisions about redaction and whether an agreement is even eligible for publication.
Agency duty to publish searchable records and copies
Requires each agency that has entered into a covered settlement to establish and maintain a public online database within two years. Agencies must publish a categorized, searchable list of covered settlements and, when practicable and not exempt, the full agreement. The bill also enumerates discrete data items agencies should include (claim type, execution dates, alleged statutes, fee amounts, explicit monetary obligations, penalties, payments made, projected duration, and non‑federal government parties), which pushes agencies to capture structured metadata rather than only posting PDF files.
OMB to set data standards, cadence, and URL conventions
Directs the OMB Director, coordinated with the Attorney General, to issue guidance within one year that must specify publication timelines (at least annual updates), common data elements, a platform‑independent machine‑readable format, and a uniform resource locator standard (examples like agencyname.gov/settlements). The guidance also must set criteria the head of an agency can use to designate additional settlements as covered and provide a certification process for preexisting agency databases. Practically, this centralizes technical interoperability and gives OMB authority to shape how comparable and reusable the datasets will be across agencies.
Annual reporting requirement on non‑disclosure
Requires agencies to submit and publish an annual report listing the number of covered settlements fully exempted from publication and, for each, the legal basis for withholding. When an agency invokes FOIA exemptions to withhold an agreement, the report must identify which exemptions were used. This creates a public audit trail of nondisclosure decisions intended to enable congressional oversight and external scrutiny of over‑withholding.
Legal limits and retroactive scope
Affirms that publication on a database does not alter the legal terms of a settlement, does not create novel judicial review rights, and does not require disclosure of records an agency could withhold under FOIA or classified material. The statute applies prospectively and, where practicable, to covered agreements from January 1, 2015 onward that remain in effect, meaning agencies must assess and, in many cases, backfill prior settlements — a significant operational task with legal considerations where older agreements included confidentiality clauses.
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
- Congress and oversight bodies — Gain standardized, centralized access to metadata and copies of large or supervised settlements for investigatory and budgetary oversight.
- Researchers, journalists, and public‑interest organizations — Get machine‑readable datasets that enable analysis of settlement trends, enforcement priorities, and monetary flows across agencies.
- State and local governments named in federal settlements — Increased public clarity about the terms and obligations when they are parties to federal agreements, supporting local compliance and budgeting.
- Compliance officers and in‑house counsel at regulated entities — A single, standardized source for comparable settlement terms that helps benchmarking, risk assessment, and remediation planning.
Who Bears the Cost
- Federal agencies (program and legal staff) — Must inventory covered settlements, implement or upgrade IT systems for searchable, machine‑readable publication, perform redactions, and sustain periodic updates, creating staffing and budgetary burdens.
- Settling parties (corporations, states, local governments) — Face greater transparency and potential reputational exposure, which may affect negotiation leverage and trigger additional disclosure or confidentiality dispute costs.
- OMB and DOJ — Required to draft detailed guidance, coordinate interagency technical standards, and adjudicate designation criteria, imposing governance and resource obligations.
- Agencies obliged to backfill pre‑2015 agreements — The retroactivity clause forces agencies to review legacy deals, negotiate redactions where confidentiality clauses exist, and decide whether to invoke exemptions, a time‑intensive legal process.
Key Issues
The Core Tension
The central dilemma is accountability versus confidentiality: lawmakers want standardized public access to high‑value or supervised settlements to improve oversight and public understanding, but compelling disclosure risks revealing legitimately sensitive information, increasing administrative burdens, and changing the incentives and candor that underpin settlement negotiations.
The bill sits at the intersection of transparency and confidentiality, and several implementation challenges are embedded in the text. First, the FOIA and confidentiality carveouts preserve the executive branch’s ability to withhold information, but they also shift the burden onto agencies to document and justify each non‑disclosure in an annual report.
That reporting requirement may increase litigation and FOIA appeals as outside parties contest claims of exemption or over‑redaction.
Second, the bill mandates machine‑readable, standardized data elements while allowing OMB discretion to set additional criteria for what qualifies as a covered settlement. Consistent technical standards across dozens of agencies with different legacy IT environments will be hard to achieve quickly.
Agencies will face tradeoffs between publishing immediately (with heavy redaction and inconsistent formats) and delaying publication to create clean, interoperable datasets. Retroactive application to agreements since 2015 introduces further complexity: older settlements often include negotiated confidentiality terms that may conflict with the Act’s publication intent and will require inter‑party negotiations or legal determinations about what can be released.
Finally, the statute’s rule of construction disclaims any change to legal rights or judicial remedies from publication, but public disclosure itself can have practical consequences — reputational, contractual, or financial — that affect future settlement bargaining dynamics. Agencies and parties may alter negotiation strategies (for example, preferring plea bargains or non‑public resolutions) to avoid public exposure, potentially shifting enforcement outcomes in ways the statute does not directly address.
Try it yourself.
Ask a question in plain English, or pick a topic below. Results in seconds.