Senator Joni Ernst of Iowa has long been a vocal critic of what she describes as wasteful government spending, but in September 2025, she took her campaign for fiscal responsibility to new heights. With a pair of legislative proposals targeting both government credit card abuse and controversial federal research grants, Ernst has ignited a spirited debate in Washington over accountability, oversight, and the boundaries of federally funded innovation.
At the heart of Ernst’s latest efforts is the Deactivating and Eliminating Cards Linked to Inactive or Nonexistent Employees (DECLINE) Act, a bill designed to prevent former federal employees from continuing to use government-issued credit cards after leaving their posts. According to a Department of Government Efficiency (DOGE) audit released in April 2025, the federal government maintained a staggering 4.6 million active credit cards, despite employing only about 3 million people. That means, as The Post reported, there were more cards in circulation than there were employees to use them—an arrangement ripe for abuse.
The DOGE audit painted a troubling picture: federal credit cards racked up roughly $40 billion in spending over more than 90 million transactions in the last fiscal year alone. While many of these purchases were legitimate, watchdogs found thousands of transactions at "high-risk locations"—including casino ATMs, nightclubs, and bars. The Pentagon’s inspector general reported that, within the past year, the Department of War was billed for about 8,000 credit card transactions at casino ATMs, and 3,246 transactions at nightclubs and bars, some of which occurred during high-profile events like the Super Bowl and New Year’s Eve.
Senator Ernst, who announced last week that she will not seek reelection in 2026, minced no words in a statement to The Post: “Taxpayers should not be footing the bill for bureaucrats to swipe away at casinos, night clubs and bars. It is long past time to DECLINE these absurd payments and ensure that when a federal employee stops working, their taxpayer-funded credit card does too. Bygone bureaucrats shouldn’t be allowed to treat government credit cards like gifts cards.”
The DECLINE Act (S. 2794) would require federal agencies to establish formal processes for collecting and deactivating charge cards from employees who leave, whether through discharge, retirement, or separation. Under the bill, the agency’s chief financial officer would be responsible for ensuring that departing employees return their cards, remove them from digital wallets, and that the cards are immediately deactivated and reported to the issuing financial institution. The legislation also mandates annual reviews of charge card usage, including audits of the number of cards issued and deactivated, internal controls, late fees, and compliance with management reporting.
Examples of credit card abuse cited by Ernst and watchdog agencies make clear why the bill has gained traction. In one case, a Fort Benning military cardholder charged $30,000 for personal goods after retiring, with the charges going unnoticed by federal authorities. Another incident involved an Army recruiter who handed his government card to a friend, resulting in $13,000 spent on food and automotive parts. The Justice Department has also prosecuted cases where a Drug Enforcement Administration employee created fake employees to obtain credit cards, and a Texas National Guardsman who stole fuel credit cards was fined $75,000.
According to a January 2025 Department of Defense inspector general report, monitoring of government charge cards remains spotty at best. The report found $387,642.66 in transactions at high-risk merchants, including casino ATMs and mobile application stores, and $112,484.69 spent at bars, lounges, and nightclubs during holidays and major sporting events. Perhaps most concerning, agency program coordinators often lacked active user accounts to properly oversee these transactions, a lapse that enabled $1.2 billion in spending across 3.9 million transactions to escape effective scrutiny.
In parallel with her push for the DECLINE Act, Senator Ernst has also taken aim at what she calls "woke nonsense" in federal research funding. On September 17, 2025, she introduced the INNOVATE Act, legislation targeting the Small Business Innovation Research (SBIR) and Small Business Technology Transfer (STTR) programs. These programs, commonly dubbed "America’s seed feed," provide grants to small businesses developing technology for national security and other government priorities.
Ernst’s bill would eliminate funding for diversity, equity, and inclusion (DEI) initiatives within SBIR-STTR, including grants for "transgender apps" and similar projects. She argued in a statement to Breitbart News, “The SBIR-STTR programs are supposed to help develop critical technology supporting our national security, not fund woke nonsense. Funding transgender apps instead of game-changing innovation is exactly why I have said the status quo of the SBIR-STTR programs is unacceptable. My INNOVATE Act institutes long-overdue reforms by eliminating DEI, safeguarding American intellectual property from Chinese espionage, and most importantly, prioritizing our warfighters.”
Under the Biden administration, ten percent of the SBIR-STTR application review process weighted grants’ promotion of inclusive and equitable research. This led to several controversial grants, including nearly $1.4 million from the National Institutes of Health for a mobile app promoting sexual health among young Black men who have sex with men, and $1.6 million for a “Trans Women Connected” sexual health app. Ernst and her allies contend that such grants divert resources from critical national security innovation, while supporters of DEI funding argue that these programs address significant public health needs and promote equity in research.
The INNOVATE Act would refocus SBIR-STTR funding on rural small businesses and remove DEI considerations from the grant process. However, when Ernst attempted to move the bill forward on the Senate floor, Democrats blocked it, opting instead for a "clean" one-year extension that preserves current DEI funding. Supporters of the extension argue that DEI initiatives foster a more inclusive research environment and address systemic disparities, while critics like Ernst maintain that the focus should remain squarely on technological advancement and national security.
Beyond her legislative efforts on credit card oversight and research funding, Ernst has consistently advocated for broader government reforms. She has called for audits on telework abuse, introduced bills to end the use of official time for union activities, and proposed relocating federal employees outside Washington, D.C. to reduce locality pay. Her approach, while sometimes controversial, has earned her both praise and criticism from across the political spectrum.
As the debate over government spending and research priorities continues, Ernst’s proposals have placed her at the center of a national conversation about the balance between innovation, accountability, and the role of government in shaping social policy. Whether her legislative initiatives ultimately become law or not, they have already sparked renewed scrutiny of how taxpayer dollars are spent—and who gets to decide what counts as waste versus investment.
With her impending departure from the Senate looming, Ernst’s final legislative chapters may well set the tone for future discussions about government efficiency and the priorities that guide federal spending.
