A substantial chunk of money under the $2.2 trillion stimulus law doesn't carry any public disclosure requirements, the Washington Post reported.

The Small Business Administration isn't required to publicly share which companies are getting loans from a $350 billion fund.

Critics of the setup argue it could lead to instances of potential fraud or waste.

Visit Business Insider's homepage for more stories.

The American public may never know the identities of businesses that are set to draw hundreds of billions of dollars in federal aid under the CARES Act signed into law by President Trump last month.

As first reported by the Washington Post, the $2.2 trillion stimulus legislation does carry disclosure requirements for a chunk of the taxpayer money that's going to businesses. But there's no language carrying that over to the $350 billion fund for small firms.

The legislation doesn't mandate the Small Business Administration to disclose which companies are receiving federal aid — even as some loans could reach $10 million in total.

The Post reported the SBA has already logged 487,000 applications for $125 billion in emergency loans.

The Federal Reserve is also required to disclose who gets a loan and how much they receive. But Fed Chair Jerome Powell can still request that information be kept confidential, making it available only for congressional leaders.

Disclosure requirements vary by the type of spending under the law.

Read more: Terri Spath's funds kept client money safe during the coronavirus rout, financial crisis, and tech bubble. Here's how she's done it, and how she's already prepared to make big profits in the aftermath.

Supporters of the setup allowing some secrecy argue some firms may be reluctant to apply for the money if that information became public. They say businesses don't want to reveal they're in dire financial straits in the midst of an unprecedented economic shutdown.

But critics argue not disclosing the information to the public raises a battery of issues related to possible waste or fraud.

"You can only truly measure the success or failure of programs if you know where the money is going," said Neil Barofsky, the former Inspector General of the last bailout, told the Post. "As a matter of basic governance, there should be disclosure of recipients of government bailout money."

Some of the information could still be made available through Freedom of Information Act requests.

President Trump, though, has taken steps to weaken oversight of the CARES Act. Last week, he removed the head of the federal panel Congress had set up to oversee how the White House implements the law. Trump had previously declared the special inspector general couldn't report to Congress without "presidential supervision."

Other proponents of government transparency also argue it's imperative to know whether businesses that receive aid benefited from lobbying or special connections that put them one step ahead.

Read more: A Wall Street chief strategist explains why stocks could repeat an ugly crash that's only occurred once since World War II