What GAO Found The Department of Defense (DOD) uses various mechanisms and agreements to collaborate with allies and partners on space operations and other activities. GAO found that DOD is increasing its efforts to integrate allies and partners into space operations and activities by establishing goals, but it faces persistent challenges that impede greater collaboration. DOD has acknowledged these challenges, but has not set specific milestones for implementing goals to integrate allies and partners into space operations. Establishing such milestones—and implementing them—is important given DOD’s strategic priority of working with allies and partners on space operations. U.S. Space Operations and Activities with Select Allies and Partners Further, DOD has several organizations that have overlapping roles and responsibilities for space-related security cooperation. This has resulted in ally and partner confusion and missed opportunities for coordination. For example, several foreign government officials said that finding the appropriate DOD contact with whom to coordinate is difficult. DOD has not issued guidance clarifying roles and responsibilities to inform these interactions internally and with allies and partners.Without such guidance, DOD organizations may continue to pursue space-related security cooperation activities outside established channels, leading to confusion and inefficiencies. Lastly, GAO found that Space Force has not identified, analyzed, or responded to the risk of not filling positions within its service components, including space-related planning, information sharing, and security cooperation positions. Without doing this, Space Force risks undermining its goal of increasing collaboration with allies and partners. This is a public version of a classified report that GAO issued in March 2025. Information that DOD deemed classified has been omitted. Why GAO Did This Study DOD recognizes that space capabilities are fundamental to all military operations. DOD also must cooperate with allies and partners on space operations if it is to deter and, if necessary, prevail in a high-end conflict. Senate Report 118-58 accompanying a bill for the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2024 included a provision for GAO to review DOD’s efforts to integrate allies and partners into space operations and activities. This report assesses, among other things, the extent to which DOD has integrated allies and partners into space operations and activities, defined roles and responsibilities for space-related security cooperation, and assessed personnel needs for engaging in space-related security cooperation. To conduct this review, GAO reviewed space-related DOD guidance documents, and interviewed DOD and U.S. embassy officials. GAO also interviewed foreign government officials from six partner nations.

What GAO Found The U.S. Department of Energy (DOE) has not fully complied with its future-years energy program (FYEP) statutory reporting requirements and has not explained why it has not done so. DOE began reporting on some elements of the FYEP in its fiscal year 2023 budget justification—9 years after the law required DOE to begin submitting the FYEP to Congress. However, DOE has not reported a department-wide FYEP that includes information about how the department's outyear estimates align with prioritized program and budgetary guidance, and the administration's policies and projections, as required. In addition, DOE's FYEP reporting has been inconsistent for fiscal years 2023 through 2025 and across offices. Moreover, DOE's fiscal year 2026 budget justification, released in May 2025, did not include any elements of the FYEP or outyear information for 4 future years. In addition to incomplete and inconsistent FYEP reporting, DOE did not have a finalized strategic plan or implement budgeting processes to develop FYEP estimates and reports. Specifically, DOE has not implemented a planning, programming, budgeting, and execution (PPBE) process, designed to improve outcomes of long-term initiatives, such as the FYEP. Implementing such a process and finalizing a strategic plan that articulates the department's priorities could help DOE develop FYEP estimates and ensure they are aligned with the administration's priorities. In doing so, DOE could be better positioned to provide complete and consistent FYEP reporting and submissions to Congress. This would help ensure the department's approximately $50 billion budget is transparent and meets the department's mission and the administration's energy goals. GAO is making three recommendations to the U.S. Department of Energy. DOE should (1) provide complete information that addresses all legal requirements as part of DOE's FYEP submission to Congress, (2) develop and issue a strategic plan that outlines the department's priorities for the following 4 years and informs the development of the FYEP, and (3) formalize and implement a PPBE process to develop the department's FYEP. DOE neither agreed nor disagreed with our recommendations. Why GAO Did This Study In 2011, Congress directed the Secretary of Energy to submit a forward-looking energy program—the FYEP—with DOE's annual budget justifications, beginning with the fiscal year 2014 budget submission to Congress and for each subsequent fiscal year. The law establishing the FYEP requirement specifies elements that should be reported, including the estimated expenditures and proposed appropriations necessary to support DOE's programs, projects, and activities during the 5-fiscal year period covered by the FYEP. This report examines the extent to which DOE's reported budget information met the FYEP requirements and the reasons for the department's delayed submissions. GAO also includes information about the types of future-years program information reported by three other federal entities that have future-years reporting requirements.

What GAO Found The Department of State's centralized customer service call center, the National Passport Information Center (NPIC), assists customers by answering general questions about passports, providing passport application assistance, and scheduling urgent passport appointments in circumstances such as life-and- death emergencies. NPIC maintains a toll-free telephone number and an email address for customers with passport-related questions. In addition, NPIC has a dedicated telephone line and email address to assist congressional staffers with similar requests on behalf of their constituents. Customers who were randomly selected by NPIC and responded to post-call surveys reported decreasing levels of satisfaction between fiscal year (FY) 2018 and FY 2023. National Passport Information Center (NPIC) Post-Call Survey Respondents' Overall Customer Satisfaction, Fiscal Year 2018 through Fiscal Year 2024 Note: The figure includes a break in the data because it combines results from two separate NPIC post-call surveys. NPIC officials identified several factors that affected NPIC's ability to meet customer needs leading up to and during the FY 2023 call surge. These included low staffing capacity, inadequate infrastructure, and misuse of technology systems. Since the FY 2023 call surge, NPIC has taken steps to address the factors that affected call volume needs. Specifically, NPIC increased its customer service representative (call agent) staffing levels from approximately 500 in FY 2020 to about 1,600 in FY 2024, according to GAO's analysis of NPIC data. In addition, NPIC has increased its physical space by adding two new locations in Grand Rapids, Michigan, and Phoenix, Arizona. Further, NPIC has enhanced its technology by adding approximately 7,000 phone lines. Moreover, NPIC call agents are undergoing training to improve their skills in actively listening, displaying empathy, and clearly explaining relevant details and next steps. The data GAO reviewed reflect an improvement in customer response time. In June 2023, the average wait time for callers was approximately 45 minutes; by June 2024, the average wait time for callers had declined to less than a minute. Why GAO Did This Study NPIC responds to public inquiries and provides information on passport services and related matters. NPIC is contractor-operated and has four locations—two in Michigan (Grand Rapids and Lansing) and two in Phoenix, Arizona. It is an important touchpoint of the passport process, according to State officials. In FY 2023, NPIC experienced periods of extremely high call volumes, and customers experienced longer-than-usual wait times to speak to an NPIC call agent. This surge in call volumes coincided with a backlog in passport applications and significant delays in passport issuance that attracted attention from Congress and the public. The Department of State Authorization Act of 2023 includes a provision for GAO to review NPIC's operations and personalized customer service. This report examines (1) the services NPIC has in place to respond to customer inquiries, (2) customer satisfaction with NPIC services and factors that affected call volume, and (3) changes that NPIC made to meet call volume needs. To address these objectives, GAO analyzed telecommunication, staffing, and survey data; conducted site visits to two NPIC locations in Michigan (Grand Rapids and Lansing); and interviewed State and contractor officials. For more information, contact Tatiana Winger at wingert@gao.gov.

What GAO Found From fiscal years (FY) 2019 through FY 2024, the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) received over $1.3 billion in appropriations for the Research, Engineering, and Development (RE&D) budgetary account (see fig.). The FAA Reauthorization Act of 2018 established a requirement that at least 70 percent of the appropriations from this account be for safety research and development (R&D) projects. During FY 2019 through 2024, FAA officials said they used subject matter expertise and professional judgment to determine that most of the funding from the RE&D budgetary account was used for safety R&D projects. In FY 2024, for example, FAA officials determined all funding for 22 of 24 programs funded by the RE&D account supported safety R&D projects. Of the two remaining programs, officials said 25 percent of funding for one of these programs also supported safety R&D projects. Using the programs and process identified by FAA, more than 70 percent of the RE&D budgetary account was allocated for safety R&D projects from FY 2019 through FY 2024. Total Federal Aviation Administration Funding for the Research, Engineering, and Development Budgetary Account, Fiscal Years 2019-2024 From FY 2019 through FY 2024, FAA had not documented its process or criteria for identifying safety R&D projects. While FAA has internal guidance that describes its R&D development process, this guidance did not define what constitutes a safety R&D project. In February 2025, FAA updated its guidance to describe its new process and define the criteria it will use moving forward to identify safety R&D projects to meet the statutory requirement. The updated guidance will be used for the FAA's R&D planning for FY 2027 that will begin in the fall of 2025. The FAA's annual reports do not include key information to support Congress's oversight of safety R&D funding. According to FAA officials, FAA reports to Congress upon request on whether it is meeting the statutory requirement for funding safety R&D but does not report this information regularly or publicly as part of its annual reports. Without such reporting, Congress and the public are unable to determine whether FAA is complying with the statutory requirement for funding safety R&D projects. As FAA is taking steps to document its new process and criteria for selecting safety R&D projects, reporting on the results of this process would further increase transparency on its spending and whether the agency is meeting its statutory requirement in support of its safety goals. Why GAO Did This Study FAA manages a portfolio of congressionally funded R&D programs supporting policymaking, planning, and standards development. FAA annually produces two statutorily required documents for Congress related to its R&D portfolio: The National Aviation Research Plan and the Research and Development Annual Review. These reports provide a forecast and review of the past year of the FAA's research and development efforts. The FAA Reauthorization Act of 2024 includes a provision for GAO to review the FAA's use of funding for safety R&D projects. This report examines how FAA identifies and reports on its allocation of funding for safety-related R&D. GAO reviewed FAA documents and data on R&D programs and enacted funding from FY 2019 through FY 2024 to understand the FAA's goals, funding allocations, and types of R&D projects. GAO compared the FAA's process and reporting practices with leading practices for R&D and components of federal standards for internal controls. Also, GAO interviewed FAA staff about their process to identify safety projects and reporting practices.

What GAO Found In June 2025, GAO identified seven open recommendations under the purview of the Department of Justice's (DOJ) Chief Information Officer (CIO) from previously issued work. Each of these recommendations relates to a GAO High-Risk area: (1) Ensuring the Cybersecurity of the Nation or (2) Improving IT Acquisitions and Management. In addition, GAO has designated one of the seven as a priority recommendation. For example, GAO previously recommended that DOJ compare inventories of software licenses that are currently in use to purchase records to identify opportunities to reduce costs. GAO also previously recommended that DOJ ensure that the department fully implements all event logging requirements as directed by federal guidance. The CIO's continued attention to these recommendations will help ensure the secure and effective use of IT at the department. Why GAO Did This Study CIO open recommendations are outstanding GAO recommendations that warrant the attention of agency CIOs because their implementation could significantly improve government IT operations by securing IT systems, identifying cost savings, improving major government programs, eliminating mismanagement of IT programs and processes, or ensuring that IT programs comply with laws, among others. For more information, contact Nick Marinos at marinosn@gao.gov.

What GAO Found The federal budget contains mechanisms—known as automatic stabilizers—that alter spending levels and tax liabilities in response to changes in economic conditions without direct intervention by policymakers. For example, when incomes and the employment level fall, more people may become eligible for certain government benefits, such as unemployment insurance and food assistance, and tax liabilities may be lower. Conversely, when incomes and the employment level rise, eligibility for government benefits may fall and tax liabilities may rise. GAO identified four principles that could be used to assess the design or reform of automatic stabilizers. Information from literature and economic and social policy experts suggests that effective automatic stabilizers are timely, temporary, targeted, and predictable. Within those four broad principles, GAO identified eight factors that contribute to the effective design of automatic stabilizers (see table). Principles and Factors for Effective Design of Automatic Stabilizers Principles Automatic stabilizers are more effective when they: Timely Provide stimulus when it is needed most Temporary End stimulus as the economy recovers Are designed to minimize their long-term effect on the deficit Phase out benefits gradually as the economy recovers Targeted Are intended to have the greatest economic impact Reach the entire eligible population to the extent possible Tailor aid to state and local governments to reflect the relative severity of the economic downturn in each state or locality Predictable Are established in advance so that they are ready in times of crisis Source: GAO analysis of information from literature and interviews with experts. | GAO-25-106455 Deficit increases caused by increased spending and lower tax revenue during economic downturns should be temporary and should be mitigated by automatic declines in spending and increases in tax revenue during periods of economic growth. Developing internal controls and improving fraud risk management in automatic stabilizer programs before an economic downturn takes place can help agencies reduce improper payments and help mitigate their effect on the deficit. While some automatic stabilizers naturally adjust to economic conditions, others use a pre-determined set of rules, known as a trigger, to automatically initiate or expand economic stimulus at the beginning of an economic downturn and end or reduce stimulus when economic conditions no longer call for it. When economic indicators, such as the unemployment rate, reach an established threshold, triggers could start or end stimulus accordingly. Well-designed triggers have the potential to match stimulus to real-time economic conditions and avoid the delays that may occur when policymakers rely on taking discretionary action. However, designing triggers may be challenging, in part because it is difficult to accurately assess economic conditions in real time. Discretionary fiscal policy can allow policymakers more flexibility to tailor assistance to specific circumstances, but actions need to be timely to have the maximum effect. Based on an analysis of the strengths and limitations of policy options from relevant literature and interviews with knowledgeable experts, GAO identified 17 potential policy options to enhance existing automatic stabilizers or to create new ones (see table). These options are not listed in any specific order and are not comprehensive of all potential policy options for enhancing automatic stabilizers. GAO previously recommended that Congress consider taking action that would enhance Medicaid as an automatic stabilizer. Other than that previous recommendation, GAO does not endorse any specific policy option. Potential Policy Options to Strengthen Automatic Stabilizers Policy Area Policy Option Unemployment Insurance (UI) 1. Temporarily expand UI eligibility 2. Temporarily increase weekly UI benefit amounts 3. Temporarily increase the duration of UI benefits Short-Time Work Programs 4. Temporarily federally fund the Short-Time Compensation programa 5. Expand short-time work programs to all states Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP) 6. Temporarily increase SNAP benefit amounts 7. Temporarily suspend SNAP time limit and work requirements for able-bodied adults without dependents 8. Temporarily waive certain SNAP administrative requirements 9. Temporarily increase federal SNAP administrative funding to states Medicaid 10. Adjust the Federal Medical Assistance Percentage formula to be responsive to economic conditions Tax system 11. Provide direct payments to individuals and families through the tax system 12. Temporarily reduce employee payroll taxes Earned Income Tax Credit (EITC) 13. Temporarily allow taxpayers the option to include or exclude UI compensation when calculating EITC 14. Temporarily increase EITC amounts for eligible taxpayers without qualifying children 15. Temporarily allow taxpayers the option to use income from a prior year to calculate EITC amounts 16. Temporarily increase the EITC phase-in rate Child Tax Credit 17. Temporarily provide an advance Child Tax Credit Source: GAO analysis of information from literature and interviews with experts. | GAO-25-106455 aThe Short-Time Compensation program is a part of the UI system and allows employees experiencing a reduction in work hours to collect a percentage of unemployment benefits to replace a portion of their lost wages. Each of these policy options have trade-offs with other policy goals. Some general trade-offs that are broadly applicable to many of the options include: Economy. Generally, strengthening automatic stabilizers can reduce the detrimental effects of economic downturns and prevent the economy from getting worse. However, enhancing automatic stabilizers could potentially contribute to inflation if they generate a large amount of spending that caused demand for goods and services to exceed the economy's capacity. Federal budget. Strengthening automatic stabilizers in ways that increase spending or reduce tax revenue during an economic downturn could add to the federal deficit and debt. However, during periods of economic growth automatic stabilizers result in less federal spending and more tax revenue, which could help reduce deficits. Policy design should carefully weigh the benefits of additional stabilization with any additional budgetary cost. Improper payments. Increasing benefit amounts or expanding eligibility without appropriate administrative capacity could increase the risk of improper payments—payments that should not have been made or were made in incorrect amounts. Improper payments can include payments to ineligible recipients, duplicative payments, or payments for ineligible goods and services. Developing internal controls before a crisis occurs could help prevent or mitigate improper payments and potential fraud. Why GAO Did This Study GAO previously found that automatic stabilizers reduced the detrimental effects of recent economic downturns. For example, studies GAO reviewed showed that during downturns automatic stabilizers generated additional economic activity. They also had positive effects on the well-being of individuals and families, such as alleviating poverty and supporting positive health outcomes. Automatic stabilizers temporarily increase federal deficits in the wake of economic downturns. GAO was asked to review several issues related to automatic stabilizers. This report describes (1) factors that contribute to the effective design of automatic stabilizers, (2) how triggers can be used to support automatic stabilization, and (3) the trade-offs and other considerations of select policy options to enhance automatic stabilizers. To identify the factors that contribute to the effective design of automatic stabilizers and how triggers can be used to support automatic stabilization, GAO evaluated and compiled information from a literature review and from 21 expert interviews. To identify policy options, GAO assessed information from a literature review and interviewed 21 experts in economic policy, social policy, automatic stabilizers, and specific policy areas. GAO evaluated evidence of various potential automatic stabilizers' strengths and limitations, including their alignment with the factors that make automatic stabilizers effective. GAO discussed the potential automatic stabilizers with applicable federal agencies.

What GAO Found In June 2025, GAO identified 19 open recommendations under the purview of the Department of Housing and Urban Development's (HUD) Chief Information Officer (CIO) from previously issued work. Each of these recommendations relates to a GAO High-Risk area: (1) Ensuring the Cybersecurity of the Nation or (2) Improving IT Acquisitions and Management. In addition, GAO has designated one of the 19 as a priority recommendation. For example, GAO previously recommended that HUD implement event logging requirements per federal guidance. In addition, GAO recommended that HUD fully address leading practices for planning for program oversight and assessing program performance, including for establishing processes and outlining responsibilities for its Federal Housing Administration Catalyst program. GAO also recommended that HUD develop and implement procedures to better track software license usage. The CIO's continued attention to these recommendations will help ensure the secure and effective use of IT at the department. Why GAO Did This Study CIO open recommendations are outstanding GAO recommendations that warrant the attention of agency CIOs because their implementation could significantly improve government IT operations by securing IT systems, identifying cost savings, improving major government programs, eliminating mismanagement of IT programs and processes, or ensuring that IT programs comply with laws, among others. For more information, contact Nick Marinos at marinosn@gao.gov.

What GAO Found In June 2025, GAO identified six open recommendations under the purview of the Nuclear Regulatory Commission's Chief Information Officer (CIO), from previously issued work. Each of these recommendations relates to a GAO High-Risk area: (1) Ensuring the Cybersecurity of the Nation or (2) Improving IT Acquisitions and Management. For example, GAO recommended that the agency fully implement all event logging requirements as directed by the Office of Management and Budget. GAO also recommended that the CIO develop guidance regarding standardizing cloud service level agreements, and that the Nuclear Regulatory Commission complete annual reviews of its IT portfolio consistent with federal requirements. The CIO's continued attention to these recommendations will help ensure the secure and effective use of IT at the agency. Why GAO Did This Study CIO open recommendations are outstanding GAO recommendations that warrant the attention of agency CIOs because their implementation could significantly improve government IT operations by securing IT systems, identifying cost savings, improving major government programs, eliminating mismanagement of IT programs and processes, or ensuring that IT programs comply with laws, among others. For more information, contact Nick Marinos at marinosn@gao.gov.