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.

What GAO Found To support Holocaust education in K–12 public schools, the U.S. Holocaust Memorial Museum—the main federal provider of Holocaust education resources—provides professional development for teachers through its annual conference, fellowships, online videos, and webinars. The Museum offers educational materials, such as lesson plans and online lessons, based on its collection of artifacts. It also partners with state and local organizations and researches effective education strategies. Most states (43 of 51) have established academic standards that explicitly include Holocaust education or passed laws that explicitly require Holocaust education (see figure). The remaining eight states did not have such academic standards or laws, but they may have supported Holocaust education in other ways. Most state officials (30 of 48) who responded to GAO’s survey reported having methods to ensure students receive Holocaust education, such as getting feedback from teachers and schools. States Identified as Having Academic Standards or Laws Requiring K–12 Holocaust Education Note: For details regarding GAO’s analysis to identify states with academic standards or laws requiring K–12 Holocaust education, see figure 1 in GAO-26-108023. Why GAO Did This Study The Never Again Education Act authorized federal support for the U.S. Holocaust Museum to support Holocaust education through educational materials and professional development opportunities for teachers. Senate Report 118-84 includes a provision for GAO to examine Holocaust education in K–12 public schools. This report provides information on federal resources developed by the U.S. Holocaust Museum to support Holocaust education, state K–12 Holocaust education practices, and other topics. To answer these objectives, GAO conducted a survey of state educational agency officials in all 50 states and the District of Columbia on providing K–12 Holocaust education. Officials from 48 states responded. GAO also reviewed publicly available state documents as of February 2026, including academic standards and budgets, and conducted an independent legal review of state laws explicitly requiring Holocaust education. Further, GAO sent a structured online questionnaire to a nongeneralizable sample of 2,063 public school teachers of sixth to 12th grade to learn about their experiences providing Holocaust education. GAO received responses from 111 teachers. GAO also interviewed officials from four selected state educational agencies, seven Holocaust organizations, and the U.S. Holocaust Museum. For more information, contact Jackie Nowicki at NowickiJ@gao.gov.