Exclusive: A segment of the Congressional Budget Office (CBO), which provides economic insights to lawmakers, has raised concerns about its impartiality due to a predominance of liberal affiliations within its ranks.
The American Accountability Foundation, a conservative research nonprofit, discovered that a large portion of the CBO’s health analysis division comprises individuals who are either Democrats or donors to Democratic causes.
Out of 32 staff members in this department, 26—indicating 84%—were identified as having a “clearly” established liberal bias, which includes being registered Democrats or significant Democratic supporters. This information surfaced in a memo, especially relevant ahead of potential scrutiny regarding President Donald Trump’s budget proposals.
The heads of NPR and PBS are scheduled to engage with GOP lawmakers during a forthcoming Doge Subcommittee hearing
“The CBO presents itself as ‘nonpartisan’, yet it seems to mask its role as a secretive left-wing think tank,” said AAF President Tom Jones in a statement. “In reality, the CBO is institutionally progressive, with 84% of its specialized medical staff being registered Democrats. This same staff includes prominent figures who support extreme candidates like Elizabeth Warren and Hillary Clinton, leading to a skewed presentation of legislation to the public.”
Jones accused the CBO’s personnel of not just voting leftward but also utilizing their influence to advance progressive policies.
The Doge Subcommittee is calling upon the leaders of NPR and PBS to provide testimony regarding federal funding of “systemically biased content.”
“Liberal groupthink has evidently taken over the health analysis department,” the memo indicated. “Policymakers should approach the declarations and evaluations from the CBO with skepticism, as they likely stem from politically biased agendas, not objective analysis, which is similar to assessments from organizations like the Center for Progress in America.”
The health analysis division evaluates federal programs, including those managed by Medicare, Medicaid, and health insurance exchanges. This team is responsible for producing reports on significant policy issues and plays a vital role in estimating changes to healthcare programs, as noted on the CBO’s website.
The report also observed that the CBO aims to bolster its reputation as an unbiased scorekeeper, despite a well-established history. Last year alone, the term “nonpartisan” was added to the CBO’s title in 1,358 different news articles, drawing attention to its so-called neutrality.
Trump’s FCC Speaker targets NPR, PBS for investigations ahead of Congressional funding threats
“The CBO has crafted a narrative through mainstream media that it is simply a neutral scorekeeper, but this is misleading, distracting from its inherently progressive origins,” Jones asserted. “They’ll do everything in their power to obstruct and stall the Trump administration’s policies.”
CBO regulations prohibit staff from engaging in political activities that could imply political alignment or support.
“The specific stance taken doesn’t matter as much as the potential damage to the CBO’s reputation for impartiality resulting from its associations with political advocacy,” the site states.
The agency claims it doesn’t hire based on political affiliations.
A survey showed that the Health Analytics Director, Chapin White, is a donor to Democratic campaigns, having contributed $300 to John Kelly’s failed presidential bid in 2004, according to Federal Election Commission data.
White’s introduction of Fox News to the CBO was met with no comments from the office.
According to FEC findings, one analyst has contributed to numerous Democratic candidates, including former President Joe Biden and others in Congress. Many CBO employees either donated to registered Democrats or backed Democratic candidates, as highlighted by the think tank.
Much of the data analyzed by the AAF comes from public campaign finance records or voter registration databases. Many CBO staff report residing in Virginia without partisan affiliations. However, Virginia law complicates access to historical voter records, making it hard to predict voting behaviors in either Democratic or Republican primaries.
Still, the AAF asserts it has secured Virginia voting history information through reliable third-party sources.
“Four staff members were not able to provide voting history or registration details to the AAF, which raises questions about whether those flagged as having ‘definitive partisan bias data’ have been asked if they would participate in a Democratic or Republican primary,” the AAF remarked.
