What GAO Found Criminal investigators at military criminal investigative organizations (MCIO) must complete federal and service-specific criminal investigative training (see figure). MCIOs include the Department of the Army Criminal Investigation Division, Naval Criminal Investigative Service, and Air Force Office of Special Investigations—within the Department of Defense (DOD)—as well as the Coast Guard Investigative Service within the Department of Homeland Security (DHS). Training for Military Criminal Investigative Organizations' Criminal Investigators MCIOs track the completion of some service-specific and advanced criminal investigative training to determine investigators' progress through training. However, MCIOs do not have guidance with requirements or procedures to track completion of criminal investigative training. As a result, MCIOs may not have full information on investigators' completed training. Tracking training completion ensures compliance with requirements and allows organizations to track progress consistent with identified goals and objectives. Without such information, MCIOs may not have complete information on the qualifications met or retained by their criminal investigators. MCIOs evaluate their service-specific basic training courses through periodic course reviews and feedback collected from participants and their supervisors. However, MCIOs do not conduct program-wide evaluations to determine the effectiveness of their criminal investigative training. Plans for regular program-wide evaluation with time frames for review, measures of effectiveness, and documented results would provide MCIOs with the ability to demonstrate how their criminal investigative training programs develop criminal investigators and contribute to MCIOs' missions. DOD has multiple offices with responsibilities for law enforcement and criminal investigative programs. However, DOD does not regularly monitor and evaluate criminal investigative training programs because responsibility for oversight remains unclear. Without final guidance designating DOD offices' responsibilities for criminal investigative training programs, DOD oversight of the MCIOs' investigative training programs may be incomplete, unclear, or delayed. This could limit DOD's ability to support MCIOs as they develop their programs to ensure criminal investigators are fully qualified to carry out their investigative missions. Why GAO Did This Study Criminal investigators at MCIOs investigate serious and complex crimes involving military service members and civilian personnel. An independent committee, established by the Army in response to the disappearance and murder of a Fort Hood, Texas, soldier, identified deficiencies in criminal investigators' experience and training to handle complex cases and accomplish investigative missions. Senate Report 118-58, accompanying a bill for the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2024, includes a provision for GAO to review criminal investigators' training. This report assesses the extent to which (1) MCIOs provide and track the completion of investigative training, (2) MCIOs evaluate investigative training effectiveness, and (3) DOD oversees criminal investigative training. GAO reviewed relevant policies, analyzed data and documents on MCIO training, and interviewed cognizant MCIO, DOD, and DHS officials.

What GAO Found Airport service workers support the U.S. commercial air transportation industry by loading cargo and baggage, cleaning aircraft and terminals, assisting passengers with disabilities, driving shuttle buses, and providing food and beverages, among other functions. The revenue generated by businesses associated with these workers can provide insight into their economic contributions. For example, Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) data show that in 2023, the nation’s busiest 138 commercial service airports earned approximately $5.9 billion in revenue from ground transportation and parking services, and $2.3 billion from terminal concessions. These earnings accounted for nearly 30 percent of those airports’ annual operating revenue. GAO’s analysis of airport service workers’ economic characteristics found that they are generally better off than service workers in all industries and worse off than air transportation workers overall (a population that includes workers like flight attendants and mechanics). For example, the median wage for airport service workers paid hourly was estimated to be $19.74 (in 2024 dollars), according to 2018 through 2024 Current Population Survey data. This wage was higher than that of service workers in all industries and lower than that of air transportation workers overall. Median Wages for Selected Hourly Workers, 2018-2024 (in 2024 dollars) Notes: For the purposes of this report, airport service workers are private sector employees in 36 selected occupations within the air transportation industry. Air transportation workers overall include all private sector employees in the air transportation industry, such as flight attendants and mechanics. Service workers in all industries are private sector employees—in all industries combined—working in the same 36 selected occupations as airport service workers. GAO’s wage analysis only includes workers who reported that they were paid hourly. GAO’s analysis also found that approximately 7 percent of airport service workers lived at or below the poverty line when they responded to the U.S. Census Bureau’s American Community Survey from 2018 through 2022. The same analysis found 15 percent of service workers in all industries lived at or below the poverty line, as did 4 percent of air transportation workers overall. Why GAO Did This Study The U.S. air transportation industry is a key component of the nation’s economy, enabling the movement of goods and passengers throughout the nation and the world. The FAA Reauthorization Act of 2024 included a provision for GAO to conduct a comprehensive review of domestic airport service workers, including their role in, importance to, and impact on the aviation economy. This report provides information about selected airport service workers’ economic contributions to airports and their economic characteristics, among other topics. To describe airport service workers’ economic contributions to airports, GAO analyzed 2023 data from FAA’s Certification Activity Tracking System. GAO also reviewed economic impact reports representing 26 large hub airports (defined as airports that have 1 percent or more of the annual national passenger boardings). In addition, GAO interviewed FAA officials and representatives from 12 organizations, including airports, airlines and other employers, and labor unions. To describe the workers’ economic characteristics, GAO analyzed the U.S. Census Bureau’s American Community Survey 5-year data from 2018 through 2022. GAO also analyzed 2018 through 2024 data from the Current Population Survey, which is sponsored jointly by the U.S. Census Bureau and the Bureau of Labor Statistics. For each of these data sources, GAO analyzed the most recently finalized data available at the time of its analysis. For more information, contact Danielle Giese at giesed@gao.gov.

What GAO Found After the enactment of the Children’s Health Insurance Program Reauthorization Act (CHIPRA) of 2009, large tax rate differences among similar smoking tobacco products led to market shifts among these products. Specifically, CHIPRA increased tax rate differences between roll-your-own and pipe tobacco and between small cigars and some large cigars, creating opportunities for tax avoidance and leading manufacturers and consumers to substitute lower-taxed tobacco products for higher-taxed ones. These trends have continued, and the generally lower-taxed products—pipe tobacco and large cigars—have remained the top products in their respective markets. Examples of Cigarette and Cigar products Federal revenue from tobacco excise taxes has decreased from about $14 billion in fiscal year 2014 to $9 billion in fiscal year 2024 as sales of smoking tobacco products have declined. In addition, the extent to which the increased use of e-cigarettes and oral nicotine pouches has affected the market for traditional smoking tobacco products is unknown. Federal revenue would likely increase if Congress were to increase the tax rate for pipe tobacco to match the current rate for roll-your-own tobacco. GAO estimated that if the tax rate for pipe tobacco were the same as the roll-your-own tobacco rate, the federal government could collect at least $1.5 billion dollars in additional revenue for both products from fiscal year 2025 through fiscal year 2029. Similarly, federal revenue would likely increase if the minimum tax rate for large cigars were the same as the small cigar rate. However, a precise estimate is challenging to determine because of limited information about the retail prices of large cigars and consumer response to increased taxes. Further, companies have filed more drawback claims since the Trade Facilitation and Trade Enforcement Act of 2015 modernized and generally expanded eligibility for the drawback program, according to CBP officials. Drawbacks are refunds of up to 99 percent of duties, taxes, or fees paid on imports and may be requested by companies that export similar, qualifying goods. CBP refunded a total of $312 million in federal taxes through drawbacks for smoking tobacco products from fiscal year 2019 through fiscal year 2024. Since fiscal year 2020, companies have requested increasing amounts of drawback refunds for these products. In fiscal year 2024, these drawback refund requests totaled approximately $392 million. Why GAO Did This Study By increasing gaps in the tax rates for smoking tobacco products that are similar to each other, CHIPRA created opportunities for tax avoidance through the substitution of lower-taxed tobacco products for higher-taxed ones. Specifically, CHIPRA increased the federal excise tax rate on small cigarettes and set equivalent rates on roll-your-own tobacco and small cigars, which can be close substitutes for factory-made cigarettes. Although CHIPRA also increased the federal excise tax rates for pipe tobacco and large cigars, the tax rates for cigarettes, roll-your-own tobacco, and small cigars are generally higher. In 2012, 2014, and 2019, GAO reported that sales of lower-taxed pipe tobacco and large cigars saw immediate and significant growth following CHIPRA. In addition, GAO estimated the amount of revenue lost by the federal government because of these market shifts. As part of GAO’s work on duplication, overlap, fragmentation, cost savings, and revenue enhancement in response to a provision in statute, GAO examined, among other things, (1) how much additional revenue the federal government could collect if tobacco tax rate disparities were eliminated and (2) how much revenue the federal government refunds to companies  through qualified drawback claims for taxes paid on tobacco imports that are later exported or destroyed. GAO analyzed sales and revenue data about smoking tobacco products from the Department of the Treasury and Customs and Border Protection (CBP), interviewed industry experts and agency officials, and summarized literature about these products and alternatives. GAO also modeled the effects on revenue of equalizing the tax rates for pipe tobacco and roll-your-own tobacco and establishing a minimum tax rate for large cigars equal to the small cigar tax rate. In addition, GAO analyzed CBP data about drawback refunds requested and finalized for smoking tobacco products.

What GAO Found As of August 2025, EXIM was not monitoring the end use of any dual-use export because all such transactions had been repaid in full. EXIM did not finance any new exports under its dual-use authority in fiscal year 2024, according to EXIM authorization data and EXIM officials. Why GAO Did This Study EXIM's mission is to support the export of U.S. goods and services overseas through loans, loan guarantees, and insurance, thereby supporting U.S. jobs. In 1994, Congress passed legislation authorizing EXIM to facilitate the financing of U.S. exports of defense articles and services with both civilian and military applications, provided that the bank determines such dual-use items are nonlethal and primarily meant for civilian end use. Included in the same act was a provision for GAO, in consultation with EXIM, to report annually on the end uses of dual-use exports financed by EXIM during the second preceding fiscal year. This report (1) examines the status of EXIM's monitoring of dual-use exports that it continued to finance in fiscal year 2023, as of August 2025, and (2) identifies any new dual-use exports that EXIM financed in fiscal year 2024. To address these objectives, GAO reviewed EXIM documentation and data on dual-use exports and interviewed EXIM officials. For more information, contact Nagla’a El-Hodiri at elhodirin@gao.gov.

What GAO Found In June 2024, GAO identified 34 priority recommendations for the Department of the Treasury. Since then, Treasury implemented four of those recommendations. Treasury's actions were part of continuing efforts to improve its controls for General Fund reporting and preparing the consolidated financial statements of the U.S. government. In addition, GAO removed two recommendations related to pandemic emergency rental assistance, because they no longer warrant priority attention. In July 2025, GAO identified four additional priority recommendations for Treasury, bringing the total number to 32. These recommendations involve the following areas: reducing fraud and improper payments, ensuring cybersecurity and information privacy, improving federal financial management, mitigating foreign investment risks, improving program oversight, and protecting workers' retirement savings. Treasury's continued attention to these issues could lead to significant improvements in government operations. Why GAO Did This Study Priority open recommendations are the GAO recommendations that warrant priority attention from heads of key departments or agencies because their implementation could save large amounts of money; improve congressional and/or executive branch decision-making on major issues; eliminate mismanagement, fraud, and abuse; or ensure that programs comply with laws and funds are legally spent, among other benefits. Since 2015, GAO has sent letters to selected agencies to highlight the importance of implementing such recommendations. For more information, contact Michelle Sager at sagerm@gao.gov.

What GAO Found The Technology Business Management (TBM) framework focuses on organizations using a standard taxonomy to describe and report IT costs, resources, and solutions. GAO previously reported in 2022 that the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) and General Services Administration (GSA) took steps in 2017 to lead government-wide TBM adoption, but progress and results were limited. Specifically, OMB's initial 2017 plans required agencies to report IT spending in layer one's nine categories (e.g., facilities and power, hardware, and software) and layer two's 11 categories (e.g., applications, data centers, and networks). However, as GAO previously reported, 5 years after its initial plans, OMB had not expanded requirements to include the rest of the taxonomy. In its 2022 report, GAO made seven recommendations to OMB and GSA to establish requirements for completing the taxonomy and to address other concerns central to demonstrating that TBM is an Administration priority. However, as of March 2025, one of the seven recommendations has been partially implemented while five have not been implemented, including requiring taxonomy completion. Given OMB's lack of guidance, most agencies had not developed a plan for implementing TBM and had not fully established a reliable cost allocation methodology. Specifically, 15 of 26 agencies GAO reviewed did not have a plan for implementing TBM while 18 agencies had either partially implemented or not implemented a reliable cost allocation methodology (see fig.). Extent to Which 26 Federal Agencies Implemented Selected Leading Technology Business Management (TBM) Practices Regarding costs to implement TBM and any resulting benefits, 12 of 26 agencies provided GAO with their total reported costs. These individual agency costs ranged from approximately $1.5 million to $28.9 million. According to these agencies, the costs were associated with government labor, contractors, tools/licenses, or training for all or part of the time spanning fiscal years 2017 through 2023. Further, agencies reported some benefits, such as increased transparency into IT spending, but did not identify any cost savings. OMB's lack of action and guidance over the last 8 years has led to substantial TBM delays. While costs continue to mount, full TBM implementation is stalled. Action is required now to determine the future of TBM in the federal government. Why GAO Did This Study In 2017, OMB announced its intention to improve insights into IT spending through government-wide adoption of the Technology Business Management framework. This framework provides a standard taxonomy that is organized into four layers (cost pools, IT resources, solutions, and business units and capabilities). It is intended to show an organization's total IT spending from financial, technology, and business perspectives. GAO was asked to review federal agencies' TBM implementation. GAO's objectives were to (1) summarize its 2022 TBM report and the implementation status of recommendations it made, (2) evaluate the extent to which agencies have implemented selected leading TBM practices, and (3) identify agency costs and benefits attributed to TBM. GAO reviewed its prior report on TBM and assessed actions taken to implement its seven recommendations. GAO also evaluated the extent to which 26 federal agencies implemented two leading TBM practices. Further, GAO interviewed agency officials regarding selected practices and reporting of TBM implementation costs and benefits.

The U.S. Government Accountability Office (GAO) and the Council of the Inspectors General on Integrity and Efficiency (CIGIE) maintain the GAO/CIGIE Financial Audit Manual (FAM). For more information, please visit the main FAM page, or contact Dawn B. Simpson at SimpsonDB@gao.gov.