What GAO Found The Food and Drug Administration (FDA) relies on more than 30 advisory committees to provide expert advice on numerous scientific topics, including opioid drugs for pain. Government-wide requirements prohibit committee members from taking part in meetings that could affect their financial interest. FDA checks for conflicts of interest by reviewing a form that committee members fill out to disclose financial interests, such as investments in drug companies. Regulations also require FDA to check for issues that could give the appearance that a committee member lacks impartiality. In some situations, FDA may grant a waiver or authorize a member to take part in a meeting, such as when the need for the member’s expertise outweighs the potential conflict. FDA also has policies to similarly review financial interests and appearance issues for guest speakers, who may be invited to meetings to present scientific information. Examples of Financial Interests Between June 2018 and May 2025, FDA invited an average of about 29 committee members to each of the 17 most recent meetings for committees that discuss opioids. Across these meetings, FDA’s conflict of interest review process resulted in members being recused from taking part in the meetings 15 times. FDA also granted a financial conflict of interest waiver to allow a member to participate because the agency determined their expertise was needed and that their financial interest was not substantial. In addition, FDA authorized members with appearance issues to take part in meetings seven times. These results are comparable to those of other FDA committees that GAO reviewed. FDA uses a combination of government-wide requirements and internal policies to guide its conflict of interest review process. However, FDA does not publicly share information on how it determines whether members have financial conflicts of interest and whether they should participate in committee meetings. This is because FDA has not yet finalized required guidance on the matter more than 13 years after a law required it. In addition, FDA has not posted to its website how it makes these decisions in the interim. Further, the agency does not publicly share how it determines whether guest speakers have financial conflicts or appearance issues and whether they should participate in meetings. Publicly sharing information on how FDA makes these determinations would be consistent with the law and FDA’s own best practices. Making this information public would increase transparency and provide the public with greater assurance that FDA has steps in place to manage conflicts of interest for advisory committees, and therefore help to ensure accountability and consistency in decision making. Why GAO Did This Study Conflict of interest rules and guidelines are essential to ensure FDA receives independent, unbiased professional expertise from advisory committees to help its efforts to assure the safety and effectiveness of drugs, medical devices, and other products. Federal requirements for advisory committees emphasize the importance of public access, input, and accountability, including addressing conflicts of interest. A Senate Appropriations Committee report includes a provision for GAO to review how FDA addresses conflicts of interest for advisory committee meetings, particularly for opioids. This report (1) describes FDA’s advisory committee conflict of interest policies and review process, (2) describes the results of FDA’s review process for advisory committees related to opioids, and (3) examines the extent to which FDA publicly shares its conflict of interest policies for advisory committees. GAO reviewed relevant federal laws and regulations, as well as FDA documentation on advisory committees. GAO also reviewed published research about the results of FDA’s conflict of interest review process and interviewed FDA officials and stakeholders familiar with advisory committee meetings.

This supplement is a companion to GAO's report titled Artificial Intelligence: IRS Actions Needed to Address Skills Gaps, Information Quality, and Strategic Management, GAO-26-107522. The purpose of this supplement is to provide key information about active, non-sensitive AI use cases in IRS's AI inventory as of June 2025.

What GAO Found IRS had 126 active artificial intelligence (AI) use cases—applications of AI for a particular business need—in its inventory as of June 2025. These 126 use cases included 65 that were either too sensitive for public reporting or were research and development efforts exempt from public reporting. Although IRS has been using AI for several years, its inventory has grown rapidly since reporting 10 use cases in August 2022. IRS categorized most use cases in the June 2025 inventory as either improving (1) operational efficiency or (2) tax compliance and fraud detection. IRS listed 61 percent (77 of 126) of use cases as in development in June 2025 (see figure). Major staffing reductions at IRS in 2025 could greatly affect its ability to use AI. For example, officials in the Research, Applied Analytics and Statistics group said they lost 63 employees who had been working full- or part-time on AI. Other IRS units also reported reductions in staff that support AI efforts, in addition to organizational and contractual changes. Still, IRS officials stated that the agency plans to use more AI in the future. However, IRS officials said they had not identified skills needed to support AI or developed a plan to address the skills gaps. The recent staff reductions, the intent to pursue additional AI initiatives, and the absence of a plan to address AI skills gaps increase the risk that IRS AI efforts will not succeed. In addition, IRS’s inventory did not always include quality information. For example, GAO determined that over 25 percent of use cases did not include information on how the use case was to benefit the agency. GAO also identified use case inventory omissions. For example, GAO identified several AI-enabled tools IRS officials said were contracted to help build criminal cases. These tools were not included in the inventory. Improved IRS processes and internal communications can address these shortcomings. IRS’s AI governance process had several entities with oversight of individual AI use cases. However, none were responsible for managing AI investments across the agency. Further, IRS does not have a process to ensure its AI investments are contributing to agency-wide goals. Given the risks facing IRS, a more strategic approach is warranted that enables IRS to identify high-value AI initiatives that contribute to agency-wide goals. Why GAO Did This Study IRS has used AI for many years. It has numerous AI initiatives under development and in operation, including in areas such as taxpayer service and audit selection. However, future IRS funding, strategy, and staffing levels are uncertain. This dynamic environment highlights the importance of understanding how AI can deliver results for IRS. GAO was asked to review IRS’s use of AI. This report assesses (1) how IRS uses AI and how resource changes at IRS could affect AI efforts; (2) the quality of information in IRS’s AI inventory; and (3) how IRS strategically manages its AI investments. GAO reviewed IRS’s internal and public AI inventories, and relevant Department of the Treasury and IRS documents. GAO compared information in and processes for managing IRS’s AI inventory to IRS policy and guidance, law, government-wide guidance, and leading practices. In addition, GAO compared IRS’s efforts to manage its AI investments against federal guidance and leading practices. GAO also interviewed Treasury and IRS officials.

What GAO Found The Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) spends billions of dollars annually for IT and cyber-related investments, including commercial software licenses. In a January 2024 government-wide report, GAO noted that while VA identified its five most widely used software vendors with the highest quantity of licenses installed, it faced challenges in determining whether it was purchasing too many or too few of these software licenses. Specifically, VA was not tracking the appropriate number of licenses for each item of software currently in use. Additionally, the department did not compare inventories of software licenses that were currently in use to purchase records on a regular basis (see table). GAO January 2024 Report Assessing the Department of Veterans Affairs’ Management of Widely Used Software Licenses Key activity Assessment Track software licenses that are currently in use Not met Regularly compare the inventories of software licenses that are currently in use to purchase records Not met Source: GAO analysis of agency data. I GAO-26-109060 Until VA adequately assesses the appropriate number of licenses, it cannot determine whether it is purchasing too many licenses or too few. In January 2024, GAO recommended that the department track licenses in use within its inventories and compare them with purchase records. VA concurred with the recommendations and is taking preliminary actions to track software license usage. In early March 2026, VA officials reported that the department plans to implement initial functionality for a centralized software license inventory in late March 2026. If successful, this could be a critical first step in improving the department’s ability to track and analyze licenses across the department. Implementation of these recommendations would allow VA to identify opportunities to reduce costs on duplicate or unnecessary licenses. In a November 2024 report, GAO found that restrictive software licensing practices (e.g., certain vendors’ processes) adversely impacted federal agencies’ cloud computing efforts, including those of VA. These practices either increased costs of cloud software or services or limited the department’s options when selecting cloud service providers. VA had not established guidance for effectively managing impacts from restrictive practices for cloud computing or determined who is responsible for managing these impacts. Until VA establishes guidance and assigns responsibility for mitigating the impacts of restrictive software licensing practices, it will likely miss opportunities to avoid or minimize these impacts. GAO made two recommendations to VA to mitigate the impacts of restrictive software licensing practices. The department concurred with the recommendations. In May 2025, VA officials reported that the department planned to stand up a working group composed of IT and acquisition subject matter experts to identify, analyze, and mitigate the impacts of restrictive software licensing practices on cloud computing efforts by September 2026. However, it has not provided an update on the status of the working group. GAO will continue to monitor VA’s actions to fully implement these recommendations. Why GAO Did This Study VA depends on critical underlying IT systems to manage benefits and provide care to millions of veterans and their families. For fiscal year 2025, the department planned to spend about $985 million on software, including commercial software licenses. In 2015, GAO identified the management of software licenses as a focus area in its High-Risk report. GAO has also previously reported on the need for federal agencies—including VA—to ensure better management of software licenses. This statement summarizes two 2024 GAO reports on VA software license management, including VA’s efforts to track software license usage and manage restrictive licensing practices. The statement also addresses the status of VA’s actions in response to recommendations from those reports. GAO reviewed its prior work, VA documentation related to the status of efforts to implement the recommendations, and information provided by VA in March 2026 as part of GAO’s ongoing work.

What GAO Found According to Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) data for 2020 through 2024, helicopter operators cumulatively averaged over 32,000 flights and 20,000 flight hours annually in the Washington, D.C. area (D.C. area). During this 5-year period, operators conducted an average of 91 flights per day, ranging from one to 202 flights. Military, air medical, and state and local law enforcement operators accounted for most helicopter flights and flight hours. Military operators include the Department of Defense’s (DOD) Air Force, Army, D.C. Army National Guard, and Marine Corps, and Department of Homeland Security’s (DHS) Coast Guard. FAA-Reported Helicopter Flights and Flight Hours in the Washington, D.C. Area by Operator Type, 2020–2024 Operator type Number of flights (flight hours) Percentage of total flights (flight hours) Military 56,811 (46,891) 35% (46%) Air medical 53,984 (16,838) 33 (16) State and local law enforcement 23,614 (14,888) 15 (15) Other 14,209 (9,338) 9 (9) Federal law enforcement and emergency support 7,844 (7,430) 5 (7) News 5,568 (6,993) 3 (7) Source: GAO analysis of Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) data. | GAO-26-107758 Note: In this table, the Washington, D.C. area comprises the area within 30 nautical miles of Ronald Reagan Washington National Airport. For more details, see table 1 in GAO-26-107758. According to FAA, it has taken steps to address helicopter noise in the D.C. area, including collecting and sharing noise complaint data. For example, FAA collects complaints through a centralized system and posts summaries of D.C.-area helicopter noise complaints on its website. Air medical, local law enforcement, and military helicopter operators GAO spoke with have also taken steps to reduce noise impacts. These steps include flying along designated helicopter routes, avoiding certain residential areas, and conducting training flights outside the D.C. area. However, military operators have not engaged in continuous awareness and outreach programs to communities affected by helicopter noise, as required by DOD’s Operational Noise Program. Helicopter route changes near Ronald Reagan Washington National Airport after the January 2025 midair collision may heighten the need for military operators to engage in community outreach, because some new areas will experience noise impacts. By conducting additional outreach, military operators could help these communities better understand the purposes of helicopter flights and their efforts to reduce noise. Selected operators said they use drones infrequently for their D.C.-area operations. As such, drones have little effect on overall aircraft noise. GAO spoke with three local law enforcement operators that use drones, and they said drones are not a substitute for helicopters for their missions. Military and air medical operators told GAO they cannot use drones in the D.C. area due to the nature of their operations. In addition, selected stakeholders said the potential effects that electric vertical takeoff and landing aircraft may have on noise are unclear, in part because none are currently in operation, and operators do not have immediate plans to use them in the D.C. area. Why GAO Did This Study Helicopter noise is an ongoing concern for some D.C.-area residents. The D.C. area is unique among areas with high concentrations of helicopter activity due to its highly restricted and constrained airspace and the presence of many federal agencies and military installations. Studies have suggested that aircraft noise exposure can be annoying, disturb sleep, and increase the risk of more serious medical issues. The FAA Reauthorization Act of 2024 includes a provision for GAO to report on reducing rotorcraft noise in the D.C. area. This report examines, in the D.C. area, (1) the extent to which helicopter operations are conducted and for what purposes, (2) the extent to which FAA and selected operators have addressed helicopter noise, and (3) the views of selected operators and stakeholders on how the use of drones and electric vertical takeoff and landing aircraft may affect helicopter noise. GAO reviewed FAA regulations, relevant laws, DOD and DHS policies, and relevant literature, and analyzed FAA and military operators’ helicopter flight data for 2020 through 2024. GAO also interviewed FAA officials; 11 helicopter operators, selected based on the number of flights in the D.C. area; and seven stakeholders, selected based on experience with drone and electric vertical takeoff and landing aircraft noise.