What GAO Found Large numbers of unauthorized electronic cigarette (e-cigarette) products and devices continue to be for sale in the U.S., jeopardizing the health of Americans nationally. According to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention’s most recent estimate, there were more than 6,000 e-cigarette products available in the U.S. as of June 2024. Most of these have not been authorized for sale in the U.S. by the Food and Drug Administration (FDA), which reviews such products against health standards. Three key Department of Justice (DOJ) entities have, or have recently had, key responsibilities and roles related to enforcing applicable laws regarding unauthorized e-cigarettes. These are the Civil Division; the U.S. Attorneys’ Offices; and the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms, and Explosives (ATF). As to ATF’s role, in February 2025, the Attorney General directed ATF to shift resources from its alcohol and tobacco enforcement programs to other departmental priorities. However, as of January 2026, ATF continued to maintain DOJ’s list of e-cigarette delivery sellers who have not registered with the Attorney General as required by statute, or who are otherwise not in compliance with statutory requirements. Individuals are considered e-cigarette delivery sellers if they make remote sales (e.g., online sales of e-cigarettes) to consumers. DOJ can pursue various enforcement actions to stop the manufacture, distribution, and sale of unauthorized e-cigarettes under the following key statutes: The Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act, which prohibits the distribution of e-cigarette products that are adulterated or misbranded in interstate commerce The Prevent All Cigarette Trafficking Act of 2009, which, since 2021, has prohibited the sale and delivery of e-cigarettes that fail to comply with excise tax, shipping, and age verification requirements, among others. In addition, DOJ may pursue prosecutions against unauthorized e-cigarette manufacturers, distributors, and retailers under other criminal laws, as appropriate. For example, DOJ may take enforcement actions under criminal laws that may apply to unauthorized e-cigarettes. These include laws related to conspiracy, wire fraud, and trafficking in counterfeit goods. DOJ took 88 civil and criminal e-cigarette-related enforcement actions under these laws in fiscal year 2022—which is generally when DOJ began taking enforcement actions related to e-cigarettes—through fiscal year 2025. DOJ took the largest number of enforcement actions (60) in fiscal year 2025, due primarily to an increase in the number of entities placed on DOJ’s list of noncompliant e-cigarette delivery sellers. E-Cigarette-Related Enforcement Actions Taken by Department of Justice Entities, Fiscal Years 2022–2025, by Law Note: The enforcement actions shown are a criminal prosecution, statutory injunction proceedings, civil forfeiture actions, civil penalty actions, and placements on the list of unregistered or noncompliant e-cigarette delivery sellers. Enforcement actions under the Prevent All Cigarette Trafficking Act of 2009 that resulted in placement on the list of unregistered or noncompliant e-cigarette delivery sellers (50 actions) were taken in the fiscal year in which the entity was placed on the list. All other identified enforcement actions were taken in the fiscal year in which the action was initiated. DOJ officials stated that the number of e-cigarette-related enforcement activities they perform is small relative to their other responsibilities. Therefore, DOJ officials said they have not needed to assess the resources required for their respective efforts. For example, based on GAO’s analysis and information provided by the Executive Office for U.S. Attorneys and the Civil Division, we identified 24 e-cigarette-enforcement cases filed by U.S. Attorneys’ Offices, either on their own or jointly with the Civil Division, since fiscal year 2022. Further, DOJ agency officials generally agreed that the number of e-cigarette cases is too small to support a meaningful assessment. In June 2024, DOJ and FDA established an interagency task force to address e-cigarette enforcement. DOJ officials stated that the task force goals include: (1) serving as a hub for information sharing among task force members and other federal law enforcement partners; and (2) enhancing coordination of enforcement actions to address the illegal distribution and sale of e-cigarettes. Additionally, officials stated that DOJ’s specific role is to facilitate communication among task force members. The task force members collaborated on several joint actions, including the following: An October 2024 joint action resulting in the seizure of 3 million e-cigarette products that originated in China with an estimated retail value of $76 million A September 2025 joint action resulting in the seizure of more than 2 million illicit vaping products taken from distributors and retailers across seven different states. Why GAO Did This Study GAO was asked to review DOJ and FDA efforts to combat unauthorized e-cigarettes. This report provides information about DOJ’s efforts to take enforcement actions against unauthorized retailers, distributors, and manufacturers of e-cigarettes. GAO reviewed DOJ’s relevant authorities to take enforcement actions against unauthorized e-cigarette retailers, distributors, and manufacturers, as articulated in two primary statutes and additional criminal laws. GAO analyzed DOJ enforcement data and verified the information in public case documents, as available. In addition, GAO interviewed officials responsible for managing and overseeing these enforcement actions. For more information, contact Triana McNeil at McNeilT@gao.gov.

What GAO Found Telework rates spiked during the pandemic and remain, on average, about twice 2019 levels across large, medium, and small communities (i.e., more than 50,000 people). GAO found that increases in telework—which were, on average, highest in large communities with populations of 1 million or more—contributed to changes in transit, vehicle use, and real estate, primarily in large communities. Changes included decreased transit ridership and fare revenue; new vehicle travel patterns, such as when and where people traveled; and a shift in demand for commercial real estate and housing away from some central business districts, according to 352 Metropolitan Planning Organizations (MPO) that responded to GAO’s survey and studies GAO reviewed. Most MPOs reported that they or others in their communities, such as transit providers, took actions related to transit, vehicle use, and housing to respond to these changes. For example, over half of MPOs reported that transit providers in their communities improved or increased service to attract riders. However, across the 26 largest transit cities, one had ridership levels in 2024 that surpassed 2019 levels. Percent of MPOs Reporting Selected Actions Taken in Their Communities Since 2019 Many MPOs reported taking steps to understand new transportation trends that can help them accurately forecast travel demand to support transportation plans. For example, a majority of MPOs reported surveying transit riders to understand transit needs in their communities. Yet, about one-third of MPOs reported they do not intend, or know how, to incorporate information on telework into their planning. More than 90 percent of MPOs expressed a desire for more guidance on this from the Department of Transportation (DOT). Federal law directed DOT to conduct a travel demand study by November 2023 and develop guidance to help MPOs forecast travel demand and prioritize transportation investments. DOT cited resource constraints and noted the complex and continuous nature of this effort. It has started addressing the requirements, such as contracting with private firms to help develop best practices. However, DOT did not have a plan or timeline for completion. Doing so could help provide a basis for DOT to monitor its progress and adjust efforts as needed. Fully addressing the required study and guidance would also help MPOs navigate changes related to telework and improve forecasts for prioritizing communities’ transportation investments. Why GAO Did This Study MPOs are responsible for short- and long-term transportation planning in urbanized areas with populations of over 50,000—a process that DOT oversees. GAO was asked to review the effects of telework on public transit, vehicle use, and real estate. GAO focused its review on communities within the boundaries of all 410 MPOs from 2019 through March 2025. This report addresses, among other things, how changes in telework affected public transit, vehicle use, and real estate; actions communities have taken in response; and the extent to which communities and DOT incorporated changing travel trends into forecasting and planning. GAO analyzed telework and transportation data from 2019 through 2024 (the latest available data); surveyed 410 MPOs (with an 86 percent response rate); reviewed relevant federal laws and agency documents; conducted a literature review; and conducted interviews, including some in-person interviews, of agency officials and nine MPOs—selected based on size, location, and transit offerings.

What GAO Found From October 2013 through November 2025, the General Services Administration (GSA) sold hundreds of properties owned by GSA and other federal agencies. These properties generated $1.4 billion in revenue and were primarily sold through GSA’s auction website. While residential properties were the most frequently sold property, most of the sales revenue (75 percent) came from commercial and industrial properties. Since 2018, GSA has sold fewer properties, but more of these sales were higher value, leading to an increase in sales revenue. When selling GSA-owned properties, GSA took about 1 year or less to dispose of about half of its properties, while other properties took several years. Delays in selling federal properties were caused by a number of factors, such as agencies needing to secure funds to relocate, prolonged environmental remediation efforts and time needed to evaluate interest from other government entities in claiming the property, according to GSA officials. GSA Sales of Real Property and Revenue by Year, October 2013–November 2025 Since 2025, GSA has taken initial steps to change its approach to disposing and selling properties, including centralizing how disposals are managed and creating a website that lists properties for accelerated disposal. However, GAO found GSA’s efforts do not fully align with selected key practices. For example: GSA estimates the approach could save agencies billions of dollars in avoided repair and operations costs. GSA has not established performance goals linked to the accelerated approach. For example, GSA’s 2026 performance plan does not include goals for reduced timelines or avoided costs. Establishing such goals could help GSA better define the approach, simplify disposals, and gain greater cost savings from avoided operations and maintenance costs. GSA has not determined how to evaluate the effectiveness of using private brokers to lead its public sales, compared to other methods such as its auction website. In 2025, concurrent with a one-third reduction in staff in its disposal office, GSA hired private real estate brokers to lead public sales. Using data on the timeliness of completion, costs to pay brokers, and sales revenue could help GSA select the most optimal method for future sales. Why GAO Did This Study GSA assists federal agencies in disposing of and selling unneeded real property, from office buildings to undeveloped land. Preparing and selling federal real property has historically presented challenges that can result in disposals taking years to complete and lead to agencies paying millions of dollars to operate unneeded buildings. In March 2025, GSA announced it would begin disposing of properties using a new accelerated approach to disposals and sales. GAO was asked to review GSA’s efforts to conduct sales of federal real property. This report examines (1) how GSA sold excess real property from 2013 to 2025 and the results; and (2) how GSA plans to sell federal real property under its accelerated disposal approach, and the extent that changes to its process meet selected key policymaking practices. GAO analyzed GSA’s real property data for all completed sales from October 2013 through November 2025, reviewed GSA documentation related to its accelerated disposal approach, including internal policies on sales and budget and performance plans. GAO compared this information with selected key policymaking practices identified in prior work.

What GAO Found GAO found that about 62,500 graduate researchers in science, technology, engineering, and mathematics (STEM) and 22,000 STEM postdoctoral scholars (postdocs) received federal funding in academic year 2023, according to analysis of federal data. Number of STEM Graduate Researchers by Funding Source and Research Field, Academic Year 2023 Number of STEM Postdoctoral Scholars (Postdocs) by Funding Source and Research Field, Academic Year 2023 Federal agencies fund graduate researchers and postdocs either directly—such as through a research fellowship—or indirectly—such as through a grant to a university. For direct funding, agencies are responsible for setting compensation levels. Directly funded STEM postdocs earned a median annual income of $60,000 in academic year 2023—the most recent year for which data were available. Such data are not available for graduate researchers. Universities and other institutions are responsible for setting indirect funding compensation levels. These institutions set compensation based on applicable laws, established policies and practices, geographic market prices, and other considerations. Comprehensive data are not available on indirectly funded compensation, but GAO’s analysis of university information found median indirect compensation levels to be about $62,200 for postdocs and $36,000 for graduate researchers in academic year 2025. The most recent U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics data show that a full-time worker with a doctoral degree—a similarly educated group compared to postdocs—earned about $118,000. Agencies collect varied compensation data for graduate researchers and postdocs, depending on whether they are directly or indirectly funded. For example, the Department of Defense collects stipend information for directly funded graduate researchers and postdocs but not for those that are indirectly funded. This variation creates data gaps. The National Science Foundation (NSF)—the principal federal statistical agency for the STEM workforce—also collects some data on graduate researcher and postdoc compensation but does not collect these data in a manner that allows for a detailed assessment of the adequacy of compensation. NSF would be in a better position to provide policymakers with a more complete picture of the financial health and stability of the U.S. STEM research workforce if it were to comprehensively identify gaps in data needed to fully assess the adequacy of compensation and to assess the feasibility of collecting such data. In 2022, Congress directed NSF to sponsor a study on graduate student funding, including the effects of different funding mechanisms on graduate student experiences and outcomes. As of March 2026, NSF had not engaged an entity to complete the required study, nor has it established a timeline to do so. Establishing a timeline would help ensure that the study is completed. In turn, completing this study would provide Congress and other policymakers with information to understand existing funding mechanisms’ effectiveness and help them determine actions needed to improve graduate researcher experiences and outcomes. Factors that influence graduate researcher and postdoc recruitment and retention include future career goals, development opportunities, and funding stability, according to 72 postdocs and graduate researchers who responded to GAO’s questionnaire. Respondents also identified challenges, including low pay and the cost-of-living in higher cost areas. Stakeholders GAO interviewed said the lack of benefits, such as family and caregiver-oriented support, is a recruitment challenge and may prompt postdocs and graduate researchers to evaluate whether to pursue a program. Why GAO Did This Study A robust STEM workforce drives innovation and economic growth and supports U.S. national security. Federal agencies have invested billions of dollars annually in STEM research, which includes investments in graduate researcher and postdoc training. These researchers may receive monetary compensation such as stipends, salaries, and wages, and fringe benefits such as vacation, sick leave, and health insurance. But compensation may be low relative to other professionals with the same level of education and experience. GAO was asked to examine federal compensation for STEM graduate researchers and postdocs. This report examines how many graduate researchers and postdocs receive compensation, the federal role in establishing such compensation, and how compensation-related factors influence recruitment and retention, among other things. GAO selected eight agencies for review—six that provided over 80 percent of federal funding to science and engineering graduate researchers in academic year 2021, and two additional agencies that either collect relevant statistical data or coordinate federal STEM initiatives. GAO also reviewed agency data, interviewed agency officials and stakeholders, and administered an online questionnaire to 72 STEM graduate researchers and postdocs, among other methods.

What GAO Found Millions of married Americans save for retirement by participating in a defined contribution plan, such as a 401(k). While most plans require spousal consent for beneficiary changes, few require it to remove funds (e.g., take a loan, withdrawal, or distribution). For example, money purchase and target benefit plans, which require spousal consent to actively remove funds (e.g., not use the plan’s default distribution option), account for less than one percent of all private sector defined contribution plans. These plans require a survivor annuity upon the participant’s death, ensuring the spouse receives regular plan payments unless the spouse previously consented to the designation of another beneficiary. The Thrift Savings Plan for federal workers generally requires spousal consent to remove funds but not for beneficiary changes. Among the married households where at least one spouse had a 401(k) or similar account, about one in 10 removed funds in 2021, according to national survey data. Those that removed funds typically took less than 10 percent of the total household retirement balance. When a defined contribution plan participant removes funds without their spouse’s consent, their spouse may experience financial and personal hardship, according to most stakeholders GAO interviewed. For example, the funds may be irreversibly gone, or it may create marital conflict. Stakeholders said that women are more likely than men to be negatively affected, in part because fewer women have their own retirement accounts. While there are no data on how often participants remove funds without their spouses’ knowledge, stakeholders said they think it is likely not common. Of the incidences stakeholders described to GAO, however, some cases reportedly involved severe consequences for the spouse, including losses of hundreds of thousands of dollars. The severity of the economic impact on the spouse depends on the total amount of funds taken and what proportion they represented of the retirement savings. Other factors impacting severity include personal circumstances such as the spouse’s income and how much time they have to make up lost savings before retirement. 401(k)-type Account Ownership in Married Couples Adding spousal consent requirements to all defined contribution plans could increase financial safeguards for some spouses but may delay processing or increase costs for plans and participants, according to most stakeholders. For example, spousal consent requirements could prevent participants from removing funds during a divorce without the knowledge of the spouse. Additional requirements could increase operating costs, which plans may pass on to participants. Stakeholders identified alternatives and modifications to spousal consent requirements that may reduce administrative burdens, including notifying spouses when a participant removes funds, or only requiring consent to remove funds above a certain threshold. They also said that some exceptions to spousal consent requirements may be warranted, such as in cases of domestic violence. Why GAO Did This Study Married individuals can spend a lifetime saving for retirement through defined contribution plans, and the federal government offers incentives to contribute to them. If a plan participant removes retirement funds from their account without their spouse’s knowledge, it can significantly reduce the future retirement income for both of them. Federal law provides protections in some retirement plans by requiring spousal consent to remove funds, but protections differ among plan types. GAO was asked to examine these issues. This report examines (1) when married participants are required to obtain spousal consent to remove funds from or designate a beneficiary in defined contribution plans, and how often fund removal occurs; (2) what stakeholders said about the potential effects on spouses when married participants take out funds without their spouse’s consent; and (3) what stakeholders cite as the trade-offs of increasing spousal protections and potential alternatives. GAO reviewed relevant federal laws and regulations. GAO also analyzed nationally representative survey data from the 2022 Survey of Consumer Finances, the most recent available. GAO interviewed federal government officials and stakeholders from eight national organizations. These organizations represented retirees or the retirement industry. GAO also interviewed representatives from four family or retirement law firms and five firms that sponsor or manage retirement plans, and three spouses. GAO selected interviewees based on research or referral from other interviewees. For more information, contact Tranchau (Kris) T. Nguyen at nguyentt@gao.gov.