U.S. Federal Investigations And Seizures Of Voting Records – Analysis

 May 27, 2026

 Congressional Research Service (CRS).

By Jimmy Balser

This article provides background on the constitutional and statutory framework underlying federal investigations of elections, summarizes investigations by the Trump Administration and legal action surrounding demands for and seizures of state and county voting records, and offers considerations for Congress. 

Constitutional Background

States have the initial and principal responsibility for administering elections in the United States, including in determining voter eligibility. The federal government maintains a significant role in elections, such as in enforcing federal laws protecting election integrity.

The states’ primary role in congressional elections is partially set out in Article I, Section 4, Clause 1, of the U.S. Constitution, the Elections Clause: “The Times, Places and Manner of holding Elections for Senators and Representatives, shall be prescribed in each State by the Legislature thereof[.]” The Elections Clause also references Congress’s power to “at any time by Law make or alter” state regulations, which the Supreme Court has sometimes described as an “override” authority. Article I, Section 2, Clause 1, the Voter Qualifications Clause, further empowers the states to decide who is qualified to vote in federal congressional elections. For presidential elections, Article II, Section 1, Clause 4, provides that Congress may determine the “Time” of choosing presidential electors and the day the electors shall cast their votes. The states hold the power to appoint presidential electors to the Electoral College and decide how those appointments are made under Article II, Section 1, Clause 2, the Electors Clause.

Congress does not have general regulatory authority over state and local elections, but it may still exercise its power over them in several contexts. For example, Congress has authority to prevent unconstitutional voter discrimination in a state or local election. In addition to its Article I powers, Congress’s authority to legislate regarding these issues derives principally from the Fourteenth and Fifteenth Amendments. Relying on its Spending Clause authority under Article I, Congress also may condition the receipt of federal funds for state or local elections on compliance with federal requirements.

The Constitution does not articulate a specific role in federal elections for the President. However, the Take Care Clause, in Article II, Section 3, Clause 1, provides that the President “shall take Care that the Laws be faithfully executed.” The clause imposes a duty that implicates powers to enforce the laws that Congress enacts, including the enforcement of statutory criminal prohibitions.

Select Statutory Background

While states and localities generally determine their own election practices, Congress has set minimum requirements in federal law. For example, the National Voter Registration Act of 1993 (NVRA) provides that states must “conduct a general program that makes a reasonable effort to remove the names of ineligible voters from the official lists of eligible voters” due to death or residency change. The NVRA contains public disclosure provisions requiring states to maintain and make available for public inspection certain records concerning the implementation of programs for ensuring the accuracy of voter rolls. The Attorney General may bring civil actions to enforce the NVRA. 

The Help America Vote Act of 2002 (HAVA) sets additional requirements, including that states maintain “in a uniform and nondiscriminatory manner, a single, uniform, official, centralized, interactive computerized statewide voter registration list” containing the names and registration information of all registered voters. HAVA further requires states to ensure voter registration records are “accurate and are updated regularly,” to make “a reasonable effort to remove registrants who are ineligible to vote,” and to ensure eligible voters are not removed in error. HAVA provides that the Attorney General may bring a civil action against any state or jurisdiction “as may be necessary to carry out the uniform and nondiscriminatory election technology and administration requirements[.]” 

The Civil Rights Act of 1960 (CRA) requires election officers to retain and preserve records “relating to any application, registration, payment of poll tax, or other act requisite to voting in such election” for 22 months, and to provide the Attorney General such records “for inspection, reproduction, and copying” upon demand in writing with a statement of the basis and the purpose of the demand.

Recent Executive Branch Actions

The Trump Administration has issued executive orders (E.O.s) with the stated purpose of protecting the integrity of elections and initiated investigations into the 2020 and 2024 presidential elections, including by demanding statewide voter registration lists with detailed voter registrant information and ballot records. 

Executive Orders

In March 2025, President Trump issued E.O. 14248, “Preserving and Protecting the Integrity of American Elections.” The E.O. includes several Administration policies with regard to state voter registration lists and other election records. For example, Section 2(b) of the E.O. requires, among other things, that “the Department of Homeland Security, in coordination with the DOGE [Department of Government Efficiency] Administrator,” review federal immigration databases alongside state voter registration lists and other state records “concerning voter list maintenance activities,” including by subpoena. Section 5 further orders the Attorney General to consider withholding federal grants from states that do not enter into information-sharing agreements or otherwise refuse to cooperate with enforcement of the E.O. While provisions of the E.O. have since been enjoined from implementation by multiple federal courts, Section 2(b) and Section 5 are outside of the scope of those injunctions. One federal district court declared that in the course of implementing Section 2(b), the Administration must comply with the requirements of the Privacy Act, “including its requirement that agencies provide at least 30 days’ notice and opportunity for comment for any new or intended ‘routine use’ of information stored in an agency’s system of records.” For further information on the March 2025 E.O. and legal challenges, consult this Legal Sidebar.

In March 2026, President Trump issued E.O. 14399, “Ensuring Citizenship Verification and Integrity in Federal Elections.” The E.O. requires, among other things, that federal officials compile and transmit to each state a “State Citizenship List” for upcoming federal elections, and prioritize investigations and prosecutions of state and local officials who issue ballots to individuals not eligible to vote. Two dozen states have filed a legal challenge to the E.O., arguing that the E.O. would unconstitutionally “usurp” power over elections belonging to the states and Congress. 

Investigations of Voter Registration Lists

Citing the President’s March 2025 E.O. along with the NVRA, HAVA, and CRA, the Department of Justice (DOJ) has requested voter information from most states, the District of Columbia, and some local governments, and sued to enforce compliance with various demands. In complaints against states and their election officials, DOJ alleged that the states had failed to provide copies of the statewide voter registration lists, information concerning the implementation of programs and activities for ensuring accuracy, and other election records. In the underlying requests and the complaints, DOJ demanded detailed voter registrant information, including registrants’ “full name, date of birth, residential address, and either their state driver’s license number or the last four digits of their Social Security number.” In various complaints, DOJ alleged that failure to comply with the requests violated the NVRA, HAVA, and the CRA. Several federal district courts have dismissed DOJ’s suits seeking voter registration data. Some of the decisions have reasoned that while federal laws set certain requirements with regard to registration, they do not compel the disclosure of the voter records demanded by DOJ. DOJ has appealed decisions, and cases in other states remain pending as of the date of this writing. Other states have reached agreements to share voter lists, some of which have been challenged by civil rights groups.

In another dispute, a DOJ lawsuit alleged that the North Carolina State Board of Elections (NCSBE) violated HAVA by using a voter registration form prior to 2024 that did not require an applicant to provide a driver’s license number or the last four digits of their Social Security number. The NCSBE reached a settlement in September to reregister voters missing this information. 

Investigations and Seizures of Ballots 

On January 28, 2026, DOJ’s Federal Bureau of Investigation seized over 600 boxes containing the 2020 election ballots of more than 500,000 voters in Fulton County, Georgia. The search warrant and supporting affidavits alleged violations of Title 52, U.S. Code, Sections 20701 and 20511—criminal prohibitions relating to recordkeeping under the CRA and election interference under the NVRA, respectively—and sought records including “[a]ll physical ballots from the 2020 General Election in Fulton County”; “[a]ll tabulator tapes for every voting machine used in Fulton County”; “[a]ll ballot images produced during the original ballot count” and the recount; and “[a]ll voter rolls[.]” 

Fulton County election officials filed a motion in federal court seeking the return of the seized election records, arguing that the federal government’s search lacked probable cause and violated the Fourth Amendment and other legal requirements, and that the factors under Rule 41(g) of the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedurerequired a return of seized property. The district court denied the motion, finding that the plaintiffs had not met the exacting standard required under circuit caselaw for granting a motion to return seized property. The court noted that the seizure of ballots of a closed and certified election did not interfere with the ability to conduct the past election, nor “will hinder the State’s ability to conduct future elections.”

Officials in Arizona have stated they complied with a subpoena seeking 2020 Maricopa County election records. In April 2026, DOJ demanded all 2024 election “ballots (including absentee and provisional), ballot receipts, and ballot envelopes” from Wayne County, Michigan, citing the CRA and election fraud laws. Wayne County has replied that it does not have custody of the records.

Considerations for Congress

Congress may amend existing statutory authorities, like the CRA, NVRA, or HAVA, or create new federal election authorities within the bounds of the Constitution as interpreted by the Supreme Court. H.R. 22, the SAVE America Act, which passed the House on April 10, 2025, would amend the NVRA to establish additional state voter list maintenance requirements, among other provisions. Congress may also facilitate federal investigations of elections by encouraging greater information sharing between state, local, and federal officials. In light of challenges in protecting election systems, Congress may consider creating new requirements for securing election records and limiting the appropriate use of such data. Congress may consider limiting the federal role in elections, such as by restricting the circumstances under which the executive branch can obtain and consolidate voter information. Congress may also provide additional resources and guidance to state and local election officials.

• About the author: Jimmy Balser, Legislative Attorney

• Source: This article was published by the Congressional Research Service (CRS).

Cheaper, Alternative U.S. Health Plans Are Having A Moment, But Critics Urge Caution – Analysis

May 27, 2026 
KFF Health News
By Sarah Kwon

When Melanie Miller saw that her health insurance premium payment was set to nearly triple to $914 a month this year, she stopped shopping on the Affordable Care Act marketplace.

The 59-year-old retired teacher, who recently moved from Ohio to Michigan, now pays $341 a month for a pair of plans, one that covers routine and urgent care and another that pays fixed amounts for hospital stays. Neither meets federal standards for comprehensive coverage.

Though she practices yoga and is healthy, Miller said she still feels “vulnerable.” If she lands in the hospital, her plan pays a flat $2,000, a fraction of the $30,000 price tag of an average hospital stay.


“I don’t gamble. But I may as well,” she said. “This is gambling.”

Congress’ decision late last year not to extend enhanced marketplace tax credits has boosted the appeal of alternatives to comprehensive insurance — plans like Miller’s, which have lower premiums but don’t meet ACA standards for coverage or consumer protections. Unlike plans sold on the exchanges, these options — some sold by major insurers, others by small companies or nonprofits — can deny claims with few or no legal rights for consumers to appeal. The plans are not required to cover “essential health benefits,” such as preventive care, and can impose annual or lifetime caps on benefits.

There is debate over whether these options help or harm patients. Consumer advocates dismiss them as “junk insurance,” while proponents say restricting alternatives to pricey marketplace plans risks driving up the number of uninsured. Some states, including Kansas and Florida, and the federal government itself have eased regulations on such plans or created incentives to join them, while other states, including California and Massachusetts, have tried to deter enrollment in alternative insurance. Those regulatory guardrails, however, are now being stress-tested as premiums blow out household budgets.

Alternative insurance takes many forms, including short-term policies, which were designed to bridge temporary gaps in coverage and often exclude preexisting conditions, and fixed-indemnity plans, which pay a flat rate per service regardless of how high costs go and are intended for supplemental use. Arrangements in which people pool their money to cover one another’s bills, including faith-based “healthcare sharing ministries,” also provide a cheaper alternative to the marketplace options. Because they are not considered insurance under federal or state law, they are not legally bound to pay for even eligible medical bills.

Enrollment data for alternative plans is mostly confidential, but several indicators point to shifts in the market. Recent estimates suggest marketplace enrollment declined about 20%from 2025, and a KFF survey of people on the exchanges last year found that 5% switched to private, nonmarketplace individual coverage, including plans that don’t comply with the ACA. Covered California, the state’s marketplace, plans to survey former enrollees to find out where they went.

Insurance industry insiders also report that, amid the expiration of subsidies, alternative plans are making a marketing push. Colorado insurance broker Samantha Albritton said that before ACA open enrollment, she saw more marketing from fixed-indemnity plans than in previous years. One healthcare sharing plan, Zion HealthShare, had more than 75,000 members in February — a 50% increase since last June, it said in a statement.

Critics of these alternative plans say the major issues occur when people use them as primary insurance and don’t realize the coverage is inadequate until they need it most. “Humans have bodies that can fail them,” said Amy Killelea, an assistant research professor at Georgetown University’s Center on Health Insurance Reforms.

To avoid a $553 monthly premium hike this year, retired teacher Melanie Miller replaced her Affordable Care Act coverage with two alternative plans, one that covers preventive services and another that pays fixed amounts for hospital care. She considers her limited hospital coverage a calculated risk given her good health but is now weighing whether to drop the preventive care policy, given her struggles to find in-network providers in her area. “I have not had a good experience with it,” she said.


Killelea and other health insurance experts say that the fine print on these plans can be difficult to parse and that enrollees don’t have the protections of traditional insurance to fall back on. A 2023 peer-reviewed study found that after reading a summary of a sample short-term policy’s benefits and a disclosure that the plan was not ACA-compliant, only half of participants understood that prescription drugs were not covered.

When Jade Ramsey was 24, she declined insurance from her employer due to the cost of the premiums. After experiencing fatigue and unexplained bruising, she sought low-cost coverage from Southern Guaranty Insurance Company through a policy similar to a fixed-indemnity plan.

Two weeks after enrolling, Ramsey, who lives in Arizona, was unable to walk. An emergency room visit led to a six-day hospital stay and a $143,823 bill in 2021. She was diagnosed with acute lymphoblastic leukemia. Her insurer denied coverage for this and other bills, labeling the cancer a preexisting condition and offering no other recourse after rejecting her appeal, she said.

Those bills landed in collections, and her credit score nose-dived. Ramsey said she once visited the ER with chest pain she attributed to the stress of the six-figure debt. She eventually qualified for Medicaid, and her credit score has since recovered even though she never paid off the debt. She said collection agencies still call, but she ignores them.

Southern Guaranty Insurance Company did not respond to requests for comment.

Proponents of alternative insurance argue that stifling these more affordable options will just increase the ranks of those without any coverage.

“People should be able to spend their own money financing healthcare the way that works best for them,” said Brian Blase, president of Paragon Health Institute, an influential conservative think tank. Paragon pushed for ending the enhanced marketplace tax credits, arguing they fueled improper enrollment by heightening incentives for unscrupulous brokers to sign people up without their knowledge.

Robert Godfrey of Clearwater, Florida, appreciates having choices. When Godfrey’s monthly premium payment was slated to jump from $879 to around $1,250 this year, the 64-year-old hair salon owner switched to a $320-a-month membership with Zion HealthShare. Rarely needing medical care, Godfrey viewed the shift to a cheaper plan as a pragmatic choice. “Thank God I’m healthy,” he said.

Robert Godfrey, a hair salon owner, says he doesn’t need healthcare beyond preventive services and has never hit his deductible. So last year, when the expiration of enhanced federal subsidies was going to push his marketplace premium payment up 40% — to around $1,250 a month — he walked away. He called it an “outrageous increase.” Just months away from becoming eligible for Medicare, Godfrey opted for a cheaper alternative: a $320-a-month healthcare sharing plan. These arrangements, in which members pool their funds to cover one another’s medical costs, aren’t legally obligated to pay for expenses.

The Trump administration has relaxed regulations on some alternative plans. Last year, federal agencies stopped enforcing Biden-era rules on how long short-term plans could last and how they could be marketed, then offered states a marginal advantage in the competition for a share of $50 billion in federal rural health funding if they followed suit.


In a statement, CMS spokesperson Christopher Krepich said the administration is focused on ensuring “access to affordable coverage options, strengthening competition, and reducing unnecessary regulatory burdens, while maintaining appropriate consumer protections.”

State oversight of alternative insurance is a patchwork. In much of the nation, these plans face few restrictions. Many states, including Florida, Arizona, and Indiana, have eased limits on short-term plans in the wake of the Trump administration’s moves, allowing them to be renewed for up to three years in total.

In Kansas, lawmakers overrode the governor’s veto to pass a bill in March providing a tax break for people who enroll in healthcare sharing ministries. In her veto, Democratic Gov. Laura Kelly warned that these ministries are unregulated, “which opens the door to all sorts of fraud and abuse.” Kansas House Speaker Daniel Hawkins countered in a news release that “House Republicans believe families should have more flexibility and more control over their healthcare decisions, not fewer options and higher costs.”

Oklahoma weighed a similar bill earlier this year, though it did not pass.

Not all states are friendly toward alternative plans. Over a dozen ban short-term policies or have rules restrictive enough to deter insurers from selling them. California and Massachusetts are among the states with the most stringent rules, banning short-term plans and requiring clear warnings to people considering a healthcare sharing ministry in certain circumstances. Both also tax adults who forgo comprehensive coverage, while subsidizing marketplace premiums to encourage enrollment.

Still, the higher premiums will test these guardrails, said Héctor Hernández-Delgado, a director at the National Health Law Program, which advocates for quality healthcare for low-income people. He worries that consumers lured by the plans’ low prices could “be worse off down the road,” saddled with burdensome medical debt.

Now in remission, Ramsey urges those considering cheaper insurance to do careful research. “Make sure it’s covering what you need to be covered,” she said. “It could be too good to be true.”

This article was published at KFF Health News is a national newsroom that produces in-depth journalism about health issues and is one of the core operating programs at KFF—an independent source of health policy research, polling, and journalism. Learn more about KFF.

Reykjavik Redux: Iceland Reopens EU Debate

Reykjavik, Iceland

May 27, 2026 
EurActiv
By David Mac Dougall

(EurActiv) — With less than 100 days until Iceland votes on whether to restart EU membership talks, the island remains deeply divided, with both camps only now beginning to mobilise their campaigns ahead of the summer ballot.

The national referendum on joining the EU takes place on 29 August and the two intractable opposing political sides have yet to fully make their case.

On the “yes” side: a government coalition that sees a geopolitical imperative for EU membership and on the other side, the “no” campaign sees a loss of sovereignty, and worse, loss of control over Iceland’s agriculture and fishing industries.

The polls, like the country, are split. A recent survey in the Morgunblaðið daily newspaper found a narrow majority in favour of continuing EU accession talks, 52% to 48%; while a poll in the business weekly Viðskiptablaðið asking whether Iceland should join the EU found 54% against and 46% in favour.

“Public support for continuing the negotiations has actually gone down since the referendum was announced in March,” said Maximilian Conrad, a professor who teaches European integration and political theory at the University of Iceland.

“Voters want to know what is in the membership package, what’s in it for Iceland.”
Campaigning begins

The “no” campaign got off to a brisk start with a flurry of supportive columns in friendly newspapers. The “yes” campaign has been waiting to get recent municipal elections out of the way before cranking into action.

“It is not in our interests to be part of the EU,” Guðlaugur Þór Þórðarson, who was Iceland’s foreign minister from 2017 to 2021, told Euractiv.

His conservative Independence Party is not only staunchly against EU membership, but also against even discussing the prospect of joining.

“It’s no secret what it means to be a member of the EU,” he says, reeling off a well-rehearsed list of areas where his side of the campaign says Iceland would be worse-off. He argued that Iceland would lose significant legislative and executive powers under EU membership, with EU law and courts overriding national sovereignty.

According to the former minister, Iceland already enjoys most of the EU’s trade advantages through existing agreements, including a bilateral free trade deal with China and broader access via European Free Trade Association agreements such as with India.

Þórðarson highlights the issue of tariffs in particular, claiming that eighty percent of Iceland’s trade deals have “zero tariffs in Iceland” but says “only twenty or twenty-five percent of EU trade deals have zero tariffs.”

The biggest problem area for the “no” campaign centres around agriculture and fisheries.

“We are very strict when it comes to traditional Icelandic agriculture, and it means we can protect those few thousand jobs we have,” Þórðarson said.

“If we were part of the EU that would all be gone,” he said, arguing that EU trade policy is not designed for Icelandic trade policy and it “never will be”.
The ‘yes’ campaign

The “yes” campaign, led by Iceland’s Social Democrat prime minister Kristrún Frostadóttir and her three-party coalition government, also acknowledges that agriculture and fisheries are the most sensitive subjects for voters.


“We cannot escape the fact that Iceland has special circumstances, and we cannot be under the same rules as the rest of the EU for agriculture and import of fresh livestock,” said Dagbjört Hákonardóttir, an MP from the ruling Social Democrats who sits on the Foreign Affairs Committee in Iceland’s Parliament.

“In some cases, derogations are needed, and in some cases the status quo allows for a vivid interpretation of the rules.”

Hákonardóttir pointed out that under the EU’s Common Agricultural Policy, there are special rules for Nordic countries which were brought in after Sweden and Finland joined in 1995.

The CAP rules are adjusted for Arctic regions to take into account short growing seasons and long harsh winters, allow ongoing state subsidies to support farmers, and are intended to counter population decline while maintaining security of supply for domestic food production.

The “yes” campaign argues Icelandic farmers would qualify for special Arctic exemptions under the EU’s Common Agricultural Policy, rather than follow the same rules as producers elsewhere in the bloc.

Fisheries, the “yes” campaign acknowledges, is another very sensitive red line area.

“The EU has a lot to learn from us. We have a huge fisheries zone which would de facto fall under the EU’s Common Fisheries Policy, but we must have the final say on how much fish we are going to be catching and so forth, not the EU,” Hákonardóttir said.
Previous accession talks

A “yes” vote in August would reopen EU accession negotiations suspended in 2013 after talks between Iceland and the bloc stalled under a previous Social Democrat government.


Hákonardóttir said any renewed process would be approached as “a fresh start” with a new negotiating strategy.

Despite the sharp divisions over EU membership, Iceland remains one of the world’s strongest democracies, and consistently scoring among the highest countries for rule of law and civil liberties.

Towards A BRICS Urban Audit Compact – Analysis

May 27, 2026 
Observer Research Foundation
By Dhaval Desai

Addressing the recent BRICS Supreme Audit Institutions (SAI) Summit in Bengaluru, the Comptroller and Auditor General (CAG) of India emphasised that accountability must be at the heart of India’s urban transformation. The CAG’s perspective highlights a reform agenda that goes well beyond bureaucratic reform. It recognises a newer understanding that cities in the Global South require governance approaches that assess whether public expenditure actually improves citizens’ lives rather than focusing solely on whether funds were spent in compliance with the regulations and legal norms.

This distinction is significant for the BRICS, which together represent nearly half the world’s population and some of the world’s fastest-expanding urban regions. While their cities drive economic growth, they also confront congestion, housing shortages and informal settlements, flooding and extreme heat, poor mobility, pollution, environmental degradation, and inadequate public services—issues which impact both economic productivity and social cohesion.

The Limitations of Compliance Audits

Public-sector audits in most developing countries remain confined to a procedural silo, prioritising compliance to curb malpractices and irregularities rather than emphasising outcome-based evaluation of public programmes. For example, a metro rail project may comply with procurement norms and still fail to reduce a city’s travel times. A smart city dashboard may be technically operational but grossly underutilised. Investments in sanitation programmes may not resolve waste disposal challenges and poor access to sanitation. Although critical, such oversight, therefore, may not be sufficient for developing economies, where cities are at the forefront of economic growth and climate action. The question thus is no longer whether funds were spent correctly but whether expenditure improved citizens’ daily lives.

The International Organization of Supreme Audit Institutions’ (INTOSAI) International Standards of Supreme Audit Institutions (ISSAI) clearly distinguish compliance audits from performance audits focused on effectiveness and public value. This is precisely where the CAG’s emphasis on “ease of living” and outcome-oriented auditing becomes pertinent. India is conducting an audit of 101 cities from the citizens’ perspective, examining quality of life, sustainability, and access. This perception audit, the CAG said, attempts to place citizens, rather than files, at the centre of accountability.
A Reality Check for India’s Audits

Such a transition is an urgent imperative for India, where performance audits of urban missions, while exposing procedural irregularities, also signify that governments consider infrastructure creation as an end in itself. For example, the audit of the Smart Cities Mission in Dehradun revealed several “irregularities” in the implementation of expensive “smart solutions.” But more than procedural and financial irregularities, such audits also reveal a disconnect between spending on mega infrastructure and actual urban outcomes. Similarly, a CAG audit of the Atal Mission for Rejuvenation and Urban Transformation (AMRUT) in Kerala has pointed to weaknesses in planning, monitoring, and evaluation. Several cities reported project delays, underutilised assets, and inadequate assessment of service improvements.

In this scenario, outcome-based auditing can fundamentally transform public policy. If audits begin measuring reductions in commute times rather than only expenditure on road length added and metro lines installed, or improvements in water availability rather than kilometres of pipelines laid, governments can implement policies that are citizen-centric rather than contractor- or department-focused.

Such an approach would alter the incentives of urban bureaucracies. Today, municipal and state agencies are mainly rewarded for financial discipline and project completion, rather than being rigorously assessed on long-term operational sustainability or measured on outcomes that improve the quality of life. Outcome-oriented audits can thus become crucial instruments of governance reform rather than merely post-facto investigations.

Global Lessons in Outcome-Oriented Public Auditing

International experience demonstrates the value of such transitions. For example, the United Kingdom’s National Audit Office’s 2025-30 strategy, “Trust-Value-Impact,” moves beyond the traditional accounting compliance and reporting to an outcomes-based approach, evaluating public programmes based on value-for-money outcomes and service effectiveness. Similarly, Brazil’s Tribunal de Contas da União (TCU) has pioneered an innovative public expenditure assessment tool by using the multidimensional poverty index, integrating social outcomes into public policies, and measuring the impact of these policies on the living conditions of vulnerable and low-income groups. China, too, has also increasingly tied local administrative evaluation to measurable urban indicators such as pollution reduction, urban transport efficiency, and public service delivery.

For BRICS, this convergence around outcome-oriented auditing presents an opportunity for a broader urban governance compact. Mumbai, São Paulo, Johannesburg, Shanghai, Cairo, and Jakarta face similar challenges. Informal housing, environmental degradation, transport congestion, climate vulnerability, and infrastructure financing deficits cut across national boundaries.

Such shared challenges create space for a more ambitious city-to-city cooperation within BRICS, which goes beyond ceremonial exchanges. For example, the 2014 Mumbai-Shanghai Sister City Agreementsought to create a framework for cooperation between two of Asia’s biggest financial and port cities, including dialogues on urban development, transportation, fintech, and enhanced economic exchanges. Durban and Rio de Janeiro have engaged through global climate and coastal governance forums of the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC), the Rio+20 process, and several other urban climate networks. Johannesburg and Indian metropolitan agencies have similarly discussed sustainable urban mobility, climate adaptation, and metropolitan governance at multilateral city networks, such as ICLEI and C40 Cities. Yet most of these arrangements remain episodic.

Most sister-city agreements, too, have limited policy relevance. They facilitate cultural festivals, travel for delegations, and ceremonial signing of memoranda. However, these symbolic exchanges fail to foster meaningful cooperation. In this scenario, BRICS cities must create operational partnerships tied to measurable urban outcomes. For example, a coastal resilience partnership between Mumbai and Rio de Janeiro, both port cities, could examine flood adaptation, hillside settlement management, and climate vulnerabilities. Bengaluru and Shenzhen could likewise collaborate on urban digital governance and the integration of municipal technologies. Delhi and São Paulo could jointly study bus electrification and multimodal public transport integration, while Johannesburg and Ahmedabad could exchange heat mitigation strategies.

A BRICS Urban Accountability Framework

Such partnerships can become far more meaningful if linked to audit-backed accountability frameworks. Establishing a BRICS Urban Audit Platform can lay the foundation for participating cities to periodically benchmark their outcomes in climate adaptation and public service delivery. Instead of competing through conceptual rankings, cities could learn from each other’s evidence-based experiences. SAIs of BRICS countries could then evolve into facilitators of urban policy learning rather than merely auditors of financial accounts and procedural compliance.

Visible improvements in daily life justify policy decisions. For citizens, it is not about the legitimacy of projects; rather, it is about buses arriving on time, the efficacy of stormwater drains during monsoons, affordable housing, and accessible healthcare. While the objectives of traditional auditing systems to curb corruption and ensure procedural integrity are vital, urban governance today requires an additional layer of accountability: accountability for outcomes.
From Auditing to Urban Reform

The recent BRICS SAI Summit recognises this vacuum. If institutionalised and implemented with intent, outcome-oriented auditing could help not just the BRICS grouping but all developing economies of the Global South instil accountability for public capital expenditure and also improve urban liveability.

For India, this transition is especially critical. Indian cities already contribute over 60 percent of the country’s GDP and will become even more critical to national growth as India strives to fulfil its Viksit Bharat 2047 agenda. Yet the legacy urban governance architecture of fragmented decision-making, weak municipal capacity, inadequate data systems, and poor inter-agency coordination continues to undermine urban outcomes. While citizen-centric auditing alone cannot solve these structural weaknesses, it can fundamentally change what governments prioritise from “How much was spent?” to “What changed for citizens?”. More than an accounting reform, this is a democratic mandate.

About the author: Dhaval Desai is a Senior Fellow and Vice President at the Observer Research Foundation.

Source: This article was published at the Observer Research Foundation.