What GAO Found The Small Business Administration’s (SBA) Economic Injury Disaster Loans (EIDL) provide necessary working capital to help small businesses affected by a disaster meet financial obligations until normal operations resume. Relatively low snowfall and warm winters are not included in the statutory definition for “major disaster” contained in the Robert T. Stafford Disaster Relief and Emergency Assistance Act (Stafford Act) or the definition of “disaster” in the Small Business Act. The Stafford Act establishes the programs and processes through which the federal government, led by the Federal Emergency Management Agency, provides major disaster assistance, and the Small Business Act authorizes SBA’s disaster loan program. While both acts include examples of qualifying disasters, neither act explicitly includes relatively low snowfall or warm winters. Similarly, warm winters and low snow are not sudden events, nor do they create physical damage, which is the basis for requests for major disaster declarations under the Stafford Act. However, small businesses suffering substantial economic losses related to these weather events may be eligible for SBA assistance during a drought—a deficiency of precipitation compared with normal conditions, over an extended period of time, usually a season or more, resulting in a water shortage. Drought is listed as a disaster type under these acts, though usually declared by the Secretary of Agriculture. Ski Resort with Limited Snowfall Small businesses affected by relatively low snowfall or warm winters may qualify for EIDLs related to drought declarations made under certain authorities. The Small Business Act authorizes SBA to provide loans to alleviate substantial economic injury under five different types of disaster determinations, such as a presidential declaration of a major disaster or a drought declaration made by the Secretary of Agriculture. However, relatively low snow and warm winters may not be connected to a drought. Should Congress consider expanding access to the EIDL program for small businesses affected by relatively low snowfall or warm winters, GAO identified important considerations. For example, Congress could add relatively low snowfall and warm winter as eligible disaster types to relevant statutory frameworks and establish criteria for determining when such conditions qualify for assistance. Implementing regulations would likely need to be amended to define how such events would qualify for federal disaster assistance. Providing economic support for small businesses affected by relatively low snowfall or warm winters could create a precedent to provide federal support, including EIDLs, for businesses adversely affected by other weather variations, such as extended heat waves that limit outdoor recreation activities. Over time, this support could increase federal exposure and put a strain on resources. Why GAO Did This Study U.S. ski areas experienced a 9 percent decrease in visits (about 9 million visits) from the prior 10-year average during the 2025–2026 season, according to preliminary data from the National Ski Areas Association. Industry representatives attributed the decrease to inconsistent snowfall and unusually warm conditions across western states, which can cause precipitation to fall as rain rather than snow. Unlike many natural disasters, relatively low snowfall or warm winters cause more economic than physical harm. For example, ski resorts, ice fishing providers, or hospitality businesses that support those industries may experience revenue losses because they are unable to operate or have significantly fewer customers rather than because their facilities sustain physical damage. The Joint Explanatory Statement accompanying the Financial Services and General Government Appropriations Act, 2026, includes a provision for GAO to review how small businesses affected by relatively low snowfall and warm winters can seek and receive federal relief. This report addresses the extent to which these businesses may be eligible for assistance under the EIDL program and policy considerations for Congress related to a potential expansion of the program. GAO reviewed the Small Business Act, the Stafford Act, and their implementing regulations, as well as the Department of Agriculture’s documentation on its drought-declaration process. GAO also interviewed officials from SBA offices primarily responsible for the disaster loan program and Federal Emergency Management Agency officials who oversee the agency’s disaster response. For more information, contact Courtney LaFountain at lafountainc@gao.gov.

What GAO Found The Space Force is the smallest military service, with about 15,400 total personnel in fiscal year 2025. The Space Force largely inherited its workforce from other services and has completed some assessments as it seeks to right-size its force to meet growing missions. However, it determines personnel requirements based on a mix of analyses that are not consistent across Space Force units. Further, some units operate under personnel requirements that are outdated and do not reflect mission growth. The Space Force has not established a process or guidance to consistently and accurately determine its personnel needs to accomplish its missions. Relatedly, although it has estimated the number of contractor personnel supporting it, the Space Force does not have a process or guidance to accurately measure the number of contractor personnel and the nature of work they perform. Establishing such processes would help the Space Force better account for personnel needed to meet its evolving missions. Even as the Space Force has continued to grow its workforce, officials have identified personnel shortfalls as a primary workforce challenge. GAO’s analysis found a 25 percent shortfall when comparing assigned personnel with total personnel requirements for fiscal year 2025. GAO also found that the Space Force is partly addressing personnel challenges, but its efforts are not guided by a comprehensive strategic workforce plan. Without such a plan, the Space Force may not be able to systematically plan for and manage a workforce that meets current and future mission needs. Total Space Force Personnel Requirements and Assigned Personnel in Fiscal Year 2025 GAO’s analysis found a 22 percent shortfall in the number of support personnel the Air Force provides to the Space Force, which may increase risk to Space Force missions. Comprehensively evaluating, and revising as needed, the current arrangement of Air Force-provided support to the Space Force would help the Department of the Air Force make informed changes to address challenges and more effectively manage risks to space operations. Why GAO Did This Study In December 2019, the Space Force was established as a separate military service. It was created in recognition of the need to gain and maintain U.S. superiority in the increasingly contested space domain. In the 6 years since its establishment, the Space Force has been steadily growing and reorganizing its workforce as space-based threats grow and its missions increase. Senate Report 118-188 includes a provision for GAO to assess the Space Force’s workforce planning. GAO’s report addresses, among other objectives, the extent to which the Space Force has determined its personnel needs; the Space Force has identified and addressed challenges in meeting them; and the Air Force has provided adequate personnel to support the Space Force. GAO analyzed Space Force personnel data, reviewed applicable guidance, and conducted site visits to five Space Force bases.

What GAO Found Border Patrol—a component of U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP)— established a program in 2017 to help rescue individuals in distress and reduce deaths along the border. The program includes various efforts such as placing rescue beacons and 911 placards in remote areas. Border Patrol Sectors Operating Programs to Reduce Deaths and Rescue Individuals Attempting to Illegally Enter the U.S., as of April 2026 CBP used data in its fiscal year 2025 report to Congress that Border Patrol recorded using practices and systems that have not changed since our April 2025 report on these activities. However, CBP’s fiscal year 2025 report did not include all required information about rescue beacons. A Border Patrol official told GAO that the agency inadvertently omitted some information and was not aware it was required to report the remainder. Border Patrol’s internal operating procedures state that the program manager is responsible for completing the annual report to Congress, but they do not specify the reporting requirements. Documenting these requirements would help ensure CBP includes all required information in its annual reports and increase transparency about its efforts to reduce deaths and rescue individuals in distress along the border. Border Patrol has taken several steps to evaluate its program to help reduce deaths and rescue individuals, in response to GAO’s two prior recommendations (GAO-25-107548). For example, it developed an evaluation plan that defined the scope, methodology, and timeline for an evaluation and identified information needed to complete it, consistent with GAO’s first recommendation. For the second recommendation, Border Patrol has conducted site visits, interviews, and a survey of staff, according to officials. Border Patrol has additional evaluation-related activities planned and expects to complete a program assessment by September 2026. Such an evaluation would help the agency determine if the program is meeting its intended purpose. Why GAO Did This Study Border Patrol responds to reports of individuals attempting to illegally enter the U.S. between ports of entry who may be missing or in distress. In fiscal year 2024, CBP reported Border Patrol responded to 3,302 rescue events. The Missing Persons and Unidentified Remains Act requires CBP to submit an annual report to Congress including the number and location of unidentified remains. The act also requires CBP to report information on rescue beacons, including their numbers and locations. CBP submitted its most recent report in August 2025. The act includes a provision for GAO to annually review how CBP collects the data it reports to Congress and measures the effectiveness of its program to help reduce deaths and locate and rescue individuals attempting to illegally enter the U.S. who are in distress. This report focuses on CBP’s activities since GAO’s April 2025 report. GAO assessed CBP’s (1) data collection for its fiscal year 2025 report to Congress and (2) efforts to measure program effectiveness. GAO reviewed Border Patrol documentation, including internal operating procedures, system guides, and program evaluation plans. GAO compared CBP’s fiscal year 2025 report to the act’s requirements and to prior annual reports. GAO also interviewed Border Patrol officials about their data collection and evaluation processes and practices.

What GAO Found Certain types of waste are particularly pervasive or difficult to clean up with existing technologies. Microbes (e.g., bacteria, fungi) can be engineered to break down pollutants more effectively. For example, researchers have inserted genes into bacteria that allow the bacteria to break down contaminants, such as phenol or hydrocarbons, in water and soil. At present, there are no examples of commercially available engineered microbes for waste cleanup. Example areas where engineered microbes could be deployed for waste cleanup Through expert interviews and document reviews, GAO identified two policy goals related to this biotechnology—demonstrating safety and effectiveness and developing a market. GAO identified challenges hindering these goals, including: Insufficient testing infrastructure and standards. The current testing infrastructure and standards are insufficient to scale experimentation beyond the lab or to assess the safety and effectiveness of engineered microbes. Regulatory catch-22. According to experts, when authorizing experimental release, the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) requests information that is difficult to obtain without experimental release. EPA officials told GAO that information from published studies or lab data can suffice for permitting experimental release. Unclear regulatory roles and responsibilities. According to GAO’s research, developers lack clarity about the regulatory process for engineered microbes. For example, it is often not clear to developers which agency is responsible for regulating a given engineered microbe and why. EPA officials told GAO, however, that they get very few questions regarding jurisdiction. Public concerns. Developers may hesitate to invest in research and development of the technology if there is not sufficient public support. Public concerns include the potential for persistence in the environment, possible health effects, and discomfort with manipulating and patenting genetic material. See tables 1–5 in this report for additional policy options and details. Based on review of scientific reports, agency documents, and expert interviews, GAO developed 10 options that policymakers could consider if they wish to advance the two goals identified above (demonstrating safety and effectiveness of or developing a market for engineered microbes for waste cleanup). GAO also considered the policy goal of pursuing alternatives to this biotechnology and developed three options policymakers could consider to achieve that goal (not shown on this page; see chapter 5). The following table shows selected policy goals and policy options. See tables 2–8 in the full report for additional policy options and details. Selected policy goals and policy options related to engineered microbes for waste cleanup Policy Goal: Demonstrating safety and effectiveness Policy option Establish databases to share noncompetitive field trial data among developers (report page 21) Opportunities Could decrease risk in technology development and accelerate product development. Could reduce testing burden on developers. Considerations Efforts may be limited by developers’ willingness to share proprietary data. Specific data about government owned sites may be sensitive. Policy option Update legal requirements and associated guidance documents (report page 23). Opportunities Could provide a scaled approach to regulations for small-scale research and better enable research on engineered microbes for environmental release. Updated regulations may remove the requirement to conduct a regulatory review based on intergeneric genetic changes. Considerations Updates may not be necessary if agencies can provide better guidance or a coordinating office (see below) to help developers navigate the regulations. Changes may add significant time or burden on regulatory agencies. Policy Goal: Developing a market Policy option Establish a national office for biotechnology coordination (report page 26). Opportunities Could serve as a first point of entry for developers of biotechnologies seeking information on how regulations apply to them. Could provide greater clarity on and assistance with navigating the regulations that apply to specific biotechnology products, including engineered microbes. Could reduce burden on agencies by taking on specific functions, such as public outreach and coordination among agencies. Congressional action could provide more stability than executive action, which can be rescinded by a new administration. Considerations Could add another step, further delaying the regulatory review process. Will require resources. Agencies may object to another entity making legal determinations about which agency has regulatory authority in a given matter. Each agency would still have to follow their individual statutory requirements. Policy option Provide community education (report page 29). Opportunities Could improve public literacy and understanding of new technologies, promoting informed decision making about the use of engineered microbes. Could improve public understanding of the effects of waste and contamination in the environment, which may increase interest in cleanup efforts. Considerations May require substantial resources to implement. May not be as effective as efforts that prioritize engagement.   Why GAO Did This Study Contamination of land and water with waste chemicals poses significant threats to human health, the economy, and the environment. Research has shown that microbes can be engineered to break down these chemicals, potentially offering promise for cleanup in multiple sectors, including defense, mining, agriculture, and manufacturing. GAO conducted an assessment of current and emerging engineered microbe technologies for waste cleanup. This report examines (1) the status, benefits, and risks of engineered microbes for waste cleanup, (2) the challenges of developing or using engineered microbes for waste cleanup, and (3) options policymakers could consider to achieve various goals related to this biotechnology. To conduct this work, GAO reviewed scientific reports and federal agency documents. GAO also interviewed federal agency officials and 25 other experts from academia, industry, and nonprofit organizations. GAO is identifying policy options in this report. For more information, contact Sarah Harvey at HarveyS@gao.gov.

What GAO Found As of September 2025, the Coast Guard reported about $448 million in environmental liabilities related to its shore infrastructure. This includes about $228 million for structures, like housing, presumed to be contaminated with asbestos-containing material or lead-based paint based on their age. It also includes about $220 million in cleanup projects at sites with a known or suspected release of contaminants. Several factors create uncertainty that could potentially lead to hundreds of millions of dollars of additional cleanup costs that the Coast Guard has not communicated to Congress. For example, the Coast Guard has identified properties which may be contaminated with “forever chemicals” (per- and polyfluoroalkyl substances [PFAS]), which could increase its fiscal exposure by hundreds of millions of dollars more than it reports. Providing additional context on the potential or likely fiscal exposure associated with contaminants the Coast Guard has identified would give Congress better insight into the total potential fiscal exposure. Coast Guard’s Reported $448 Million Environmental Liability for Shore Infrastructure, Fiscal Year 2025 Note: The Coast Guard reviews its environmental liability data each quarter to ensure properties are not counted in more than one category. The Coast Guard has not fully incorporated risk-informed decision-making in its management of the environmental liabilities program. For example, the Coast Guard has not developed performance measures or evaluated outcomes for the program as GAO’s framework for risk-informed decision-making recommends. According to GAO’s framework, agencies should develop an analysis plan and evaluate outcomes based on clearly defined objectives and performance measures, among other things. The Coast Guard has not fully met these risk-informed steps, largely because it has not developed a long-term strategy to define the objectives of its environmental liabilities program. Developing a strategy could help the Coast Guard make risk-informed decisions about the long-term management of its growing portfolio of environmental liabilities and achieve financial benefits—for example, by using analysis to strategically sequence cleanup projects. Why GAO Did This Study The Coast Guard has a $28 billion inventory of shore infrastructure assets, such as boat stations and lighthouses. Many of these assets have environmental contamination due to past practices. Federal agencies are required to estimate and report their anticipated cleanup costs—also known as environmental liabilities—related to environmental contamination. GAO was asked to review the Coast Guard’s environmental liabilities for its shore infrastructure assets. This report examines, among other things, (1) the Coast Guard’s environmental liabilities for shore infrastructure in recent years, including factors contributing to uncertainty in those liability estimates, and (2) the extent to which the Coast Guard uses risk-informed decision-making to manage its environmental liabilities program. GAO analyzed Coast Guard policies, guidance, and data related to the Coast Guard’s environmental liabilities for shore infrastructure and compared these with GAO’s risk-informed decision-making framework for managing environmental hazards. GAO also interviewed agency officials to identify and describe factors related to uncertainty in its estimates.

What GAO Found In May 2025, GAO identified eight priority recommendations for the General Services Administration (GSA). Since then, GSA has implemented two recommendations and we have removed the priority designation from one recommendation. In June 2026, GAO identified an additional six priority recommendations, bringing the total to 11. GAO is highlighting the following three areas that warrant timely and focused attention: Managing federal real property, Improving agency shared services, and Improving oversight of federal awards. Addressing GAO's recommendations in these areas would improve GSA's ability to manage the federal government's vast real property holdings, help federal agencies as they adopt shared services strategies, and help federal award recipients and auditors identify or resolve findings associated with hundreds of millions of dollars in federal spending per year. Taking action to implement all of GAO's open priority recommendations would help enhance the efficiency and effectiveness of operations across GSA. 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 make progress toward addressing a high risk or duplication issue, among other benefits. Since 2015, GAO has sent letters to selected agencies to highlight the importance of implementing such recommendations. For more information, contact Heather Krause at krauseh@gao.gov.

What GAO Found In May 2025, GAO identified 5 priority recommendations for the U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA). Since then, USDA has implemented two of those recommendations. In June 2026, GAO identified an additional 3 priority recommendations, bringing the total to 6. GAO is highlighting the following three areas that warrant timely and focused attention: Improving IT modernization, Deterring SNAP retailer fraud, and Improving data sharing on foreign investment in U.S. agricultural land. Addressing GAO's recommendations in these areas would (1) enhance USDA efforts to measure its IT performance, maximize efficiencies, and better meet the needs of farmers, ranchers, and foresters; (2) deter SNAP benefit trafficking and safeguard federal funds; and (3) help the Committee on Foreign Investment in the United States reduce the likelihood of missing potential risks to national security. Taking action to implement all of GAO's open priority recommendations would help enhance the efficiency and effectiveness of operations across USDA. 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 make progress toward addressing a high risk or duplication issue, among other benefits. Since 2015, GAO has sent letters to selected agencies to highlight the importance of implementing such recommendations. For more information, contact Allison Bawden at BawdenA@gao.gov.

What GAO Found In 2023, the Department of Defense (DOD) directed the military departments—Army, Navy, and Air Force—to update their policies on clinical quality management to align with Defense Health Agency (DHA) procedures to ensure high-quality care in operational settings. In December 2024, GAO reported that the military departments had not yet issued policies, specifically on provider credentialing and privileging, and recommended that they do so. As of March 2026, GAO found that Army and Air Force had not issued updated policies, while Navy issued several policies on aspects of clinical quality management. GAO maintains that the military departments’ updates to these policies will facilitate a more consistent approach to clinical quality in operational settings. These updates may require more time, as the military departments incorporate additional changes resulting from DOD’s October 2025 implementation of a universal provider privileging program (i.e., the process of reviewing a provider’s qualifications and granting permission to deliver specific services). Examples of Operational Settings Include Navy Hospital Ships and Army Field Hospitals For patient safety events and health care risk management investigations, Army and Air Force officials stated that their departments generally follow the processes outlined in DHA’s procedures manual as their policies are being updated. GAO also found that Navy’s policies—which have been updated—align with DHA’s procedures. Patient safety events are incidents or conditions that could have resulted, or did result, in harm to a patient, such as a medication error or a wrong-site surgery. Events are entered into a patient safety reporting system and investigated accordingly. Health care risk management activities primarily involve provider quality assurance investigations, which could originate from suspected provider misconduct, among other reasons. Army and Air Force leverage DHA for assistance for investigations; Navy relies on its medical staff for support. Why GAO Did This Study DOD health care providers deliver critical health care services in settings where military operations take place. These operational settings include hospital ships, field hospitals, and aircraft carriers. To guide efforts to promote health, prevent harm, and provide high-quality care in the military health system, DHA issued a clinical quality management framework in 2019. This framework consists of programs such as provider credentialing and privileging, patient safety, and risk management. Military departments are responsible for updating their policies to align with DHA’s framework and implementing these programs in operational settings. A House Report accompanying the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2023 includes a provision for GAO to review how the military departments ensure clinical quality in operational settings. GAO reported in GAO-25-106445 on provider credentialing and privileging and recommended that the military departments issue updated policies, which they indicated would be included in overall clinical quality management policies for operational settings. In this report, GAO describes (1) the status of these military department policies on clinical quality management, (2) how the military departments report and manage patient safety events, and (3) how the military departments conduct health care risk management investigations. GAO interviewed DHA and military department officials and reviewed relevant program documentation. GAO also reviewed available operational patient safety event data reported for fiscal years 2022 through 2024, the most recent available data at the time of this review. These data were not included due to DOD’s concerns about the sensitivity of these data. For more information, contact Sharon M. Silas at silass@gao.gov.

What GAO Found Training and development programs help federal agencies achieve their mission and goals by improving individual and, ultimately, organizational performance. This report is a guide that federal agencies can use to ensure their training and development investments are targeted strategically. In recent years, training and development have shifted from primarily classroom-based instruction to more integrated, blended learning approaches that reflect changes in the workplace and advances in technology. In addition, there is a greater focus on aligning learning to agency mission needs and outcomes, with coaching and mentoring playing an important support role in development. The training and development process can loosely be segmented into four broad, interrelated components: (1) planning, (2) design and development, (3) implementation, and (4) evaluation. As shown in the figure, these components form an integrated cycle. Decisions made in early stages influence later outcomes, while evaluation results should feed continuously into future planning and design. Effective agencies treat evaluation as an ongoing activity rather than a discrete, end-of-process step. Four Components of the Training and Development Process GAO also identified nine core characteristics that make a training and development process effective and strategically focused on achieving results, such as improved customer service or public safety. These characteristics include ensuring stakeholder involvement throughout the process and effectively allocating resources to maximize training investments. Additionally, new technology advancements, including digital learning and artificial intelligence, are further shaping how training is designed, delivered, and evaluated. Why GAO Did This Study Federal agencies operate in an increasingly complex environment characterized by evolving missions, fiscal constraints, technological change, and shifting workforce demographics. In this context, the ability of agencies to achieve results depends significantly on the skills, competencies, and adaptability of their employees. In March 2004, GAO issued a guide for assessing strategic training and development efforts across the federal government. GAO has updated this guide to provide a current framework to help agencies, among other things, evaluate their training and development programs—specifically, to assess whether these programs are aligned with mission priorities, efficiently implemented, and demonstrably contributing to improved performance. This guide also provides a common structure for oversight bodies to assess agency practices consistently and systematically. GAO consulted with 24 knowledgeable government officials and subject matter specialists in the private sector, academia, and nonprofit organizations. To validate and update the key practices in our 2004 report, GAO reviewed relevant literature on strategic training and development. GAO used this literature to help identify practices that have emerged over the past 20 years and to help identify the subject matter specialists. These specialists validated the practices described in the 2004 report and identified new or modified practices. For more information, contact Dawn Locke at locked@gao.gov.

What GAO Found The Department of Defense (DOD) used multiple strategies to fund support for southern border operations since the start of fiscal year 2025 and into fiscal year 2026. Specifically, DOD realigned $1.74 billion in funding from amounts appropriated for fiscal year 2025 from various funding categories; transferred $608 million from or through DOD’s Drug Interdiction and Counter-Drug Activities, Defense account; relied on military construction authorities to fund border barrier projects using $300 million from within existing military construction appropriation accounts; began obligating amounts from $1 billion appropriated in Public Law 119-21, commonly known as the One Big Beautiful Bill Act; and began providing some support to the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) in fiscal year 2026 that is eligible for reimbursement. As of March 31, 2026, DOD has reported obligating $2.64 billion for southern border operations since the start of fiscal year 2025. These costs include DOD-directed activities, such as securing DOD-administered lands along the border, known as National Defense Areas, and constructing permanent border barriers. These costs also include DOD support to DHS in response to requests for assistance. Of the $2.64 billion DOD obligated, DOD reported $305 million is eligible for reimbursement by DHS. DOD Southern Border Operations and Costs The Office of the Under Secretary of Defense (OUSD) (Comptroller) and the military services established a process for tracking southern border costs that included issuing guidance and business rules for pulling data from the military services’ financial ledgers into Advancing Analytics—known as Advana—DOD’s enterprise-level management system used for reporting. In addition, OUSD (Comptroller) officials stated they are working to finalize standard operating procedures that would codify DOD’s process to manage and execute costs of southern border operations and provide continuity in the event of personnel turnover. Why GAO Did This Study The nearly 2,000-mile-long U.S. border with Mexico is a critical point of entry for millions of people annually. However, it is also vulnerable to illegal border crossings, smuggling of drugs and contraband, and organized crime. In January 2025, the President declared a national emergency at the southern border and directed DOD to assist DHS in obtaining complete operational control of the border. GAO was asked to review DOD’s costs to support operations at the southern border. Senate Report 119-39 accompanying a bill for the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2026 also includes a provision for GAO to examine similar issues. This report examines (1) how DOD has funded support for operations, (2) how much DOD has reported in costs, and (3) how DOD has tracked costs for its southern border operations since the start of fiscal year 2025. GAO analyzed DOD documentation and guidance regarding funding sources and cost tracking processes. GAO analyzed cost summary reports for fiscal years 2025 and 2026. GAO also met with DOD officials and commands obligating the most funding for southern border operations. GAO provided a draft of this report to DOD for review and comment. DOD did not provide official comments. DOD provided technical comments, which GAO incorporated as appropriate. For more information, contact Rashmi Agarwal at agarwalr@gao.gov.

What GAO Found Millions of consumers rely on the assistance of health insurance agents and brokers to purchase health insurance plans through federal and state Marketplaces established by the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act. The federal Marketplace is maintained by the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services (CMS). To assist consumers in the federal Marketplace, agents and brokers must be licensed to sell health plans and be registered with the Marketplace, among other things. CMS conducts routine validation checks to help ensure that federal Marketplace agents and brokers are licensed. The agency also restricts access to its systems to only registered agents and brokers. However, those CMS controls do not protect consumers from unauthorized activity by unscrupulous agents and brokers. Specifically, CMS processes to ensure consumer consent for agent or broker actions are weak, does not restrict access to consumer Marketplace records to the agent or broker already associated with a consumer’s enrollment, and does not inform consumers of all agent or broker actions. In 2024, CMS implemented new procedures to better ensure agents and brokers obtain consumers’ consent prior to certain actions. However, GAO found that the procedures do not prevent all unauthorized actions because they are not always used, and CMS takes limited steps to confirm the identity of the consumer. Together these weaknesses leave consumers vulnerable to unauthorized agent or broker activity. The number of consumer complaints of unauthorized enrollments and plan switches grew more than fourfold from 2023 through 2025. Number of Consumer Complaints Tied to Confirmed Unauthorized Enrollments and Plan Switches in the Federal Marketplace, Calendar Years 2023 Through 2025 GAO examined three selected state-based Marketplaces and found they have controls that go beyond those used by CMS, such as requiring one-time passcodes to verify consumer consent to agent or broker actions. CMS told GAO that the agency is exploring options to potentially implement new controls for the open enrollment period for plan year 2027 but had not yet made decisions regarding any new controls. Without effective controls, consumers remain at risk. Why GAO Did This Study Recent federal fraud cases highlight concerns about certain agents and brokers in the federal Marketplace making unauthorized enrollments and plan changes to receive compensation from health plan issuers. As previously reported based on ongoing investigative work, GAO found at least 160,000 federal Marketplace applications in plan year 2024 had likely unauthorized changes. GAO was asked to review program integrity practices in health insurance Marketplaces. This report examines the extent to which CMS has controls to ensure (1) agents and brokers in the federal Marketplace are licensed and registered, and (2) consumers authorize, and are informed of, agent and broker activity. To perform this evaluation, GAO compared CMS controls to federal regulations and CMS policies and procedures by reviewing CMS documentation and interviewing CMS officials. GAO also interviewed organizations representing stakeholders—including agents and brokers, state insurance regulators, and consumers—and reviewed documentation and interviewed officials from three selected state-based Marketplaces—California, Georgia, and New Mexico—about their controls.

What GAO Found Millions of consumers rely on the assistance of health insurance agents and brokers to purchase health insurance plans through federal and state Marketplaces established by the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act. The federal Marketplace is maintained by the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services (CMS). To assist consumers in the federal Marketplace, agents and brokers must be licensed to sell health plans and be registered with the Marketplace, among other things. CMS conducts routine validation checks to help ensure that federal Marketplace agents and brokers are licensed. The agency also restricts access to its systems to only registered agents and brokers. However, those CMS controls do not protect consumers from unauthorized activity by unscrupulous agents and brokers. Specifically, CMS processes to ensure consumer consent for agent or broker actions are weak, does not restrict access to consumer Marketplace records to the agent or broker already associated with a consumer’s enrollment, and does not inform consumers of all agent or broker actions. In 2024, CMS implemented new procedures to better ensure agents and brokers obtain consumers’ consent prior to certain actions. However, GAO found that the procedures do not prevent all unauthorized actions because they are not always used, and CMS takes limited steps to confirm the identity of the consumer. Together these weaknesses leave consumers vulnerable to unauthorized agent or broker activity. The number of consumer complaints of unauthorized enrollments and plan switches grew more than fourfold from 2023 through 2025. Number of Consumer Complaints Tied to Confirmed Unauthorized Enrollments and Plan Switches in the Federal Marketplace, Calendar Years 2023 Through 2025 GAO examined three selected state-based Marketplaces and found they have controls that go beyond those used by CMS, such as requiring one-time passcodes to verify consumer consent to agent or broker actions. CMS told GAO that the agency is exploring options to potentially implement new controls for the open enrollment period for plan year 2027 but had not yet made decisions regarding any new controls. Without effective controls, consumers remain at risk. Why GAO Did This Study Recent federal fraud cases highlight concerns about certain agents and brokers in the federal Marketplace making unauthorized enrollments and plan changes to receive compensation from health plan issuers. As previously reported based on ongoing investigative work, GAO found at least 160,000 federal Marketplace applications in plan year 2024 had likely unauthorized changes. GAO was asked to review program integrity practices in health insurance Marketplaces. This report examines the extent to which CMS has controls to ensure (1) agents and brokers in the federal Marketplace are licensed and registered, and (2) consumers authorize, and are informed of, agent and broker activity. To perform this evaluation, GAO compared CMS controls to federal regulations and CMS policies and procedures by reviewing CMS documentation and interviewing CMS officials. GAO also interviewed organizations representing stakeholders—including agents and brokers, state insurance regulators, and consumers—and reviewed documentation and interviewed officials from three selected state-based Marketplaces—California, Georgia, and New Mexico—about their controls.

What GAO Found The Inflation Reduction Act of 2022 (IRA) provided $125 million in supplemental appropriations to the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS) to rebuild and restore units of the National Wildlife Refuge System (NWRS) and state wildlife management areas. Among other things, the appropriations are intended to increase the resiliency of habitats and infrastructure to withstand weather events. As of April 1, 2026, FWS had obligated 99.6 percent of the appropriations, primarily for financial awards to state agencies and other partners for the design, implementation, and monitoring of nine projects across 23 states and more than 75 NWRS units. For example, a northern forest project aims to restore forests, improve wildlife habitat, and reduce flood risks in the Northeast and Midwest. FWS has expended about $48.9 million, or 39 percent, of its appropriations. FWS officials told GAO that, so far, the IRA projects have resulted in the restoration of more than 5,000 acres of wetlands and 16,000 acres of other habitats. Work on U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service’s Inflation Reduction Act of 2022 Project in North Carolina To select projects for IRA funding, FWS officials stated that the agency identified NWRS areas with planned, but unfunded, activities that aligned with the purpose of the IRA appropriations, such as to increase the resiliency of NWRS areas to weather events. FWS also prioritized projects in parts of the country that had not previously received supplemental appropriations, such as for disaster assistance, and where FWS could collaborate with long-standing partners, including state and local agencies, to expand the geographic scope of work. Once projects were selected, FWS’s regional offices used existing processes and partnerships to determine activities to undertake, such as building water control structures to reduce flood risks and fences to improve bison management. FWS then used standard agency policies and procedures, such as recipient risk guidance, to issue financial awards and contracts to carry out activities. To oversee IRA projects, FWS developed an implementation plan with objectives for meeting the purpose of the IRA appropriations. For example, the plan calls for projects to improve the capacity to recover from extreme weather events. FWS tracked data, such as acres restored, but did not establish performance goals for measuring progress toward the objectives. By developing and using performance goals for assessing progress toward the objectives in its IRA implementation plan, FWS can better develop and use evidence to assess the extent to which the IRA projects are achieving intended results, and change course if they are not. Why GAO Did This Study FWS, within the U.S. Department of the Interior, manages NWRS, a national network of 856 million acres of land and water dedicated to protecting fish and wildlife habitats and providing outdoor recreation opportunities, such as hunting and fishing. IRA appropriations for NWRS and state wildlife management areas are available to FWS for obligation through September 2026 and amount to over 23 percent of NWRS’s typical annual appropriations. FWS uses grants, cooperative agreements, and contracts to fund partners, including federal and state agencies and nonprofits. GAO was asked to review FWS’s use of its IRA appropriations. This report (1) describes how FWS has obligated and expended IRA appropriations for NWRS and state wildlife management areas; (2) describes how FWS selected, prioritized, and funded projects for these appropriations; and (3) examines how FWS provided oversight for these projects to ensure they achieve intended results. GAO reviewed FWS obligations and expenditures data through April 1, 2026; FWS documents about its use and oversight of IRA appropriations; and recipients’ single audit reports. GAO interviewed selected financial award and contract recipients based on factors such as geographic variation, as well as FWS and Interior officials. GAO also compared FWS efforts with federal guidance and key practices, such as for performance management.

What GAO Found The Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) is working to modernize its IT systems to increase efficiency and accuracy of claims processing for disability compensation. However, past GAO reports have found that VA faces long-standing challenges in managing its disability compensation program and implementing innovative technologies. For example, GAO found gaps in VA’s oversight of the quality of exams provided by contracted medical providers and in the management of training for claims processors. Moreover, in 2009, VA began developing an electronic, paperless system called the Veterans Benefits Management System. GAO found that this effort was not driven by robust planning and did not include goals for system response times and user satisfaction, making it difficult to measure progress on efforts to improve user satisfaction with the system. AI holds substantial promise for improving government operations, and VA is exploring multiple uses of AI for disability benefits, such as claims processing. However, GAO has reported that generative AI can increase risk and hinder accountability, in part because even its designers may not fully understand how it works. It can also require significant computational and technical resources. VA is exploring using AI to further automate the processing of disability claims, a use case that could benefit veterans. But this use could present a challenge in detecting errors or misuse, owing to AI’s lack of transparency. GAO has a framework to help ensure accountability and responsible use of AI. VA and other agencies could use this framework as they consider, select, and implement AI systems (see figure). Figure: GAO’s AI Accountability Framework  Why GAO Did This Study VA administers one of the largest federal disability benefit programs, providing over $195 billion to over 6.9 million veterans and their families in fiscal year 2025. Veterans with injuries or illnesses incurred or aggravated during military service may receive monthly compensation payments. The Honoring our PACT Act of 2022 required VA to develop a plan to increase the speed and accuracy of claims processing decisions. This statement summarizes (1) VA’s long-standing challenges with managing its disability compensation program and implementing innovative technologies and (2) opportunities and challenges for using AI for VA’s disability compensation program. This statement is based on GAO’s body of work from September 2015 to June 2026 on VA disability compensation claims processing, IT modernization, and AI.

What GAO Found In April 2025, GAO identified 30 priority recommendations for the Department of Energy (DOE). Since then, DOE has implemented 5 of those recommendations by, among other things, directing NNSA Production Modernization programs to follow best practices for schedule development. In July 2026, GAO identified an additional priority recommendation, and removed the priority status from two recommendations, bringing the total number to 24. GAO is highlighting the following three areas that warrant timely and focused attention: Addressing nuclear modernization challenges, Addressing DOE environmental liabilities, and Managing energy security and programs. Addressing GAO's recommendations in these areas would enhance the DOE's efforts to modernize the nation's nuclear security enterprise and weapons in the U.S. stockpile, save billions of taxpayer dollars on the cleanup of sites contaminated with nuclear waste, and ensure the adequacy of the nation's Strategic Petroleum Reserve to help meet national energy security demands. Taking action to implement all of GAO's open priority recommendations would help enhance the efficiency and effectiveness of operations across DOE. 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 make progress toward addressing a high risk or duplication issue, among other benefits. Since 2015, GAO has sent letters to selected agencies to highlight the importance of implementing such recommendations. For more information, contact Allison Bawden at BawdenA@gao.gov.

What GAO Found In May 2025, GAO identified eight priority recommendations for the Department of Education. Since then, Education has implemented one of those recommendations. In June 2026, GAO identified an additional three priority recommendations, bringing the total to 10. GAO is highlighting the following three areas that warrant timely and focused attention: Improving the federal student aid system, Protecting sensitive information, and Managing financial risks associated with charter school management organizations. Addressing GAO's recommendations in these areas would make it easier for students and families to apply for financial aid and ensure a more successful modernization of the student aid system. It would also more effectively implement privacy protections for students and better manage financial risks associated with charter school management organizations. Taking action to implement all of GAO's open priority recommendations would enhance the efficiency and effectiveness of operations at Education. 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 make progress toward addressing a high risk or duplication issue, among other benefits. Since 2015, GAO has sent letters to selected agencies to highlight the importance of implementing such recommendations. For more information, contact: Cindy Brown Barnes at brownbarnesc@gao.gov.