The report, released on August 11, assessed 139 governments and the Palestinian Authority based on their fiscal transparency practices during 2025. Of those reviewed, 73 met the minimum requirements, while 67 did not. Fourteen of the governments that fell short were found to have made significant progress toward meeting the standards. Uzbekistan was not among them.

The department’s assessment found that Uzbekistan had made progress in several areas. The government published its proposed budget, enacted budget and budget execution report on time, while the documents provided sufficiently detailed information on planned revenues and expenditures and included spending broken down by ministry. Major extrabudgetary accounts were also disclosed.

The country’s military and intelligence budgets were subject to parliamentary or civilian oversight, while the supreme audit institution met international standards on independence and published substantive findings.

The report also noted that Uzbekistan has a legal framework governing the issuance of licenses for natural resource extraction, and that the rules were generally followed. Basic information on such contracts was publicly available. The country’s sovereign wealth fund also had a legal basis.

However, the US assessment identified several areas where Uzbekistan fell short of the minimum requirements.

The government did not fully disclose information on debt obligations, including the debts of major state-owned enterprises. It also did not publish the terms of sovereign loans extended to foreign borrowers – a criterion introduced in the 2026 assessment.

The report further found that detailed information on revenues from natural resource extraction was unavailable and that available information on public procurement had not been published.

The US Department of State recommended that Uzbekistan include information on transfers to state-owned enterprises in its budget documents, fully disclose debt obligations, publish the terms of external loans and make public information on government procurement.

Central Asian comparison

The assessment produced mixed results across Central Asia. Kazakhstan and Kyrgyzstan were among the countries that met the minimum fiscal transparency requirements, while Tajikistan and Turkmenistan, like Uzbekistan, failed to meet them.

Uzbekistan had been classified as making significant progress in the previous report after disclosing its extrabudgetary accounts. Although the country met that requirement in the latest assessment, the tightening of the criteria, along with continued shortcomings in debt disclosure and public procurement, kept it outside the group that met the minimum standards.

Why the US conducts the assessment

The Fiscal Transparency Report is required under US congressional appropriations legislation. The review is intended to assess how governments receiving US assistance disclose and manage public finances, while encouraging greater accountability and reducing risks associated with the use of public funds.

The State Department says fiscal transparency can strengthen market confidence, improve oversight of public debt and reduce opportunities for opaque financial arrangements, including those involving natural resources. The department also notes that the assessment does not constitute an evaluation of corruption itself – a government can fail to meet the fiscal transparency requirements without the finding necessarily indicating significant corruption.

Failing to meet the standards does not automatically result in a reduction in US assistance. However, the assessment can be taken into account in funding decisions and may influence how international financial institutions and investors perceive a country.

The US has assessed Uzbekistan against fiscal transparency standards for many years, with earlier reports identifying shortcomings in areas including budget disclosure, debt obligations, natural resource revenues and public procurement.