California's 'Anti-Transparency' Rail Law Proves More Complex Than Critics Claim

Ben Belnap, California's first inspector general dedicated solely to high-speed rail, faced a problem that most government watchdogs never have to solve: he was publishing reports that state law did not actually require him to publish. For nearly two decades before taking this job, he had worked at the State Auditor's Office, the kind of meticulous investigator who once built a board game to teach staff how to conduct audits. When he and colleagues launched the new inspector general's office, they quickly discovered that existing law required only an annual summary of findings—not the full investigative reports themselves. Belnap published them anyway, operating in a legal gray zone that the Newsom administration chose not to challenge.

That informal arrangement ended this year when a consultant travel investigation put the question to a real test. The inspector general's office uncovered hundreds of thousands of dollars in wasteful expenses: late-night luxury rides to nightclubs, gyms, a tiki bar, and an escape room, all charged to California taxpayers. Some of these expenses were approved by High-Speed Rail CEO Ian Choudri himself. A contract manager told investigators she had been directed to sign off on noncompliant travel specifically because Choudri had requested it. Without a legal mandate to publish the full 29-page report, the public might have seen only a summary—and that summary would not have appeared until the following year. Instead, the detailed investigation became public this month, laying bare the destinations, the approval problems, and the internal decision-making that led to the findings.

This outcome hinged on a new law that had become unexpectedly controversial. Assembly Bill 1608, later enacted as part of the transportation budget trailer bill, did two things simultaneously: it required the inspector general to publish every completed audit, review, and investigation, and it gave the inspector general authority to temporarily withhold certain sensitive information. Republicans called it an "anti-transparency bill, painted as a transparency bill." The First Amendment Coalition, which advocates for government transparency, initially opposed it too. But the law also came with guardrails that distinguished it from a simple confidentiality grant. If the inspector general withholds information, he must publicly disclose that something was withheld and explain why. He must release any portions of the report that can reasonably be separated from the sensitive material. He must reassess the withholding at least every 120 days. And once the underlying risk is resolved, the information must be released.

Belnap invited the First Amendment Coalition's Ginny Lareau to the negotiating table to address her concerns. She described scenarios in which the confidentiality language could be interpreted more broadly than intended. "She's giving me scenarios of what it could mean, and I said, 'Oh, I don't intend that at all,'" Belnap recalled. An unnamed Republican lawmaker also played a key role in developing guardrails, even though she ultimately did not support the bill. Together with Assembly Transportation Chair Lori Wilson, who authored the legislation, they refined the framework that became law. Lareau now says it "more properly balances the people's right to know with legitimate confidentiality needs."

The consultant travel investigation illustrates why those guardrails matter. If investigators had discovered that High-Speed Rail could not detect fraudulent travel charges, publishing exactly how contractors could exploit that weakness before the authority fixed it could have given other contractors a roadmap for defrauding the state. Under the new law, the inspector general could temporarily withhold those technical details while telling the public that information related to a vulnerability was being withheld, why, and when it would be reassessed. But in this case, the inspector general did not need to withhold anything. The report exposed decisions surrounding expenses the authority was already capable of identifying—not hidden flaws that contractors could exploit. Because the full report is public, taxpayers can see that distinction themselves.

One Republican criticism remains harder to dismiss. If the inspector general withholds part of a report, confidential information may be shared with certain officials, including the governor and the chairs of the Assembly and Senate transportation committees. Since Democrats have controlled both houses of the Legislature since the 1990s, committee chairs are generally Democrats. The law does not require sharing confidential information with the committee vice chairs, who are generally Republicans. Sen. Tony Strickland, the Republican vice chair of the Senate Transportation Committee, raised the concern during a legislative hearing: "If it was truly transparent, wouldn't you want the vice chairs of these committees... to be notified on all this information?" Wilson noted that the listed officials are people who "may" receive confidential information—the inspector general does not automatically send every withheld report to the transportation committee chairs. Belnap said he did not write that part of the legislation; it was a decision made by the bill's author based on weighing various factors.

Critics also argue that the word "weaknesses" is broad. The law allows the inspector general to withhold information that would describe or reveal weaknesses posing a "substantial and articulable risk" to the project or state operations. The law provides examples including information security, physical security, fraud detection controls, and pending litigation, but does not limit what an inspector general might consider a weakness. That gives discretion to the office. Yet the law also requires the inspector general to release the portions of the report that do not reveal a weakness, publicly explain what is being withheld, and reassess the decision every 120 days. Until now, the inspector general could effectively withhold anything indefinitely. The real transparency question is not whether the law allows some confidentiality—it does—but whether those limits, paired with mandatory full reports and public disclosure of what is withheld, ultimately give taxpayers more or less information.

The consultant travel investigation provides an early answer. The public received a detailed report documenting travel expenses, internal approval problems, and the inspector general's findings. Under the prior law, the office could have satisfied its statutory obligation with an annual summary. That no longer depends on the discretion of whoever occupies the inspector general's office. Future inspectors general must publish their completed reports, and if they withhold part of one, the public will know. The first major report published under the new framework gave Californians substantially more information than state law previously required—a concrete measure of what the law Republicans dubbed "anti-transparency" actually delivered.