The High-Speed Rail inspector general’s 29-page investigation found hundreds of thousands of dollars in questionable consultant travel and reports that a contract manager said CEO Ian Choudri requested approvals for noncompliant trips. AB 1608, folded into the state transportation budget trailer bill, now requires inspectors general to publish full reports while allowing temporary redactions when disclosure poses a "substantial and articulable" risk. Any withholding must be disclosed publicly, reassessed at least every 120 days and released once the risk is resolved.
Watchdog Report Shows California’s High-Speed Rail Law Expands Public Reporting — While Allowing Limited, Temporary Redactions
Critics dubbed it California's high-speed rail "anti-transparency bill." A watchdog report reveals why it isn't.
Late-night luxury rides to nightclubs, gyms, a tiki bar and an escape room — all billed to California taxpayers. A new 29-page investigation from the High-Speed Rail inspector general documents hundreds of thousands of dollars in unallowable and wasteful consultant travel, and it reports that a contract manager said the agency’s CEO requested approvals for trips that didn’t comply with rules.
Why the report matters
Much of this scrutiny centers on a recent law tied to Assembly Bill 1608 and folded into the state transportation budget trailer bill. The measure now requires the inspector general to publish completed audit and investigation reports — a major shift from the prior requirement to publish only an annual summary. At the same time, the law permits the inspector general to temporarily withhold specific information when disclosure would create a "substantial and articulable risk," such as threats to information security, physical safety, fraud-detection systems, or pending litigation.
How the law was shaped
Ben Belnap, California’s first inspector general dedicated solely to high-speed rail, began publishing full reports even before the law explicitly required it. Concerned stakeholders — including the First Amendment Coalition (FAC) and an unnamed Republican lawmaker — worked with Belnap and Assembly Transportation Chair Lori Wilson to add guardrails to the confidentiality language. FAC’s Ginny Lareau later said the final version better balances public access with legitimate confidentiality needs.
"We are both for transparency," Belnap told reporters, describing his conversations with FAC about how narrow language could be misinterpreted if left unguarded.
Limits on withholding: What the law requires
The statute does not allow indefinite secrecy. If the inspector general withholds information, the office must:
- Publicly disclose that material — or part of a report — has been withheld and explain why.
- Publish any segregable portions of the report that do not contain the sensitive details.
- Reassess the withholding at least every 120 days.
- Release the withheld information once the underlying risk is resolved.
Why some critics remain skeptical
Critics — including some Republican lawmakers who labeled the bill an "anti-transparency" measure — worry the definition of "weaknesses" could be interpreted broadly, giving the inspector general significant discretion. The law allows certain confidential materials to be shared with select officials: the governor and the chairs of the Assembly and Senate transportation committees. That provision drew criticism because committee vice chairs, who are often from the minority party, are not listed as recipients.
The consultant travel case as an early test
The newly released report illustrates how the law can work in practice. Rather than hiding details, the inspector general published a full account of destinations, expense amounts, approval irregularities and internal decision-making. The report documents that managers could and did identify many noncompliant expenses; investigators were not forced to withhold technical vulnerabilities that contractors could exploit. Because the full report is public, taxpayers can assess whether withheld information would have been warranted.
Records request and next steps
CBS California Investigates has requested the underlying invoices, receipts, rideshare records, travel approvals and related correspondence cited in the inspector general’s report. The High-Speed Rail Authority used an initial 10-day response window and then invoked a 14-day extension; it says it will decide by Oct. 12 whether to produce the records. The inspector general’s new reporting framework will be tested further as future reports are released and any withholdings are disclosed and re-evaluated.
Bottom line: The law codifies mandatory public reporting of completed inspector general investigations while allowing narrowly defined, time-limited redactions when disclosure would create a significant risk. The consultant travel report — published in full — gave Californians more detail than the prior annual-summary routine and provides an early example of how the new balance between transparency and confidentiality may operate.
Help us improve.
