What GAO Found GAO performed agreed-upon procedures solely to assist the Secretary of the Senate in ascertaining whether the Senate Office of Public Records Revolving Fund’s (Fund) fiscal year 2024 receipts were supported by information from the Senate Office of Public Records and the Senate Disbursing Office. The procedures that GAO agreed to perform were related to the Senate Office of Public Records’ processes over receipts, associated deposits, and Fund reconciliations. The Secretary of the Senate is responsible for the sufficiency of these agreed-upon procedures to meet its objectives, and GAO makes no representation in that respect. The report provides the details on the agreed-upon procedures and the results of performing each of the procedures. GAO communicated exceptions it noted for the conducted procedures to Senate Office of Public Records officials for their review and explanation. Senate Office of Public Records officials’ responses are incorporated within the report. The Secretary of the Senate in an email response stated that she had no comments on the report. Why GAO Did This Study The Chair and Ranking Member of the Senate Committee on Rules and Administration requested that GAO perform procedures on the Fund’s fiscal year 2024 receipts. The Senate Office of Public Records receives, processes, and maintains for public inspection records, reports, and other documents filed with the Secretary of the Senate. The receipts are generated from selling printed copies of those public documents. Per Office of Public Records procedures, receipts are deposited into the Fund at the Senate Disbursing Office. For more information, contact Cheryl E. Clark at clarkce@gao.gov.

What GAO Found Under Title I, Part A of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act of 1965, as amended (ESEA), states are required to measure the performance of their public schools. They must also identify three categories of low-performing schools for support and improvement, including those that need comprehensive support and improvement (CSI)—among the lowest-performing schools in the nation. The number of CSI schools increased from 6.5 percent of all public schools in school year (SY) 2019–20 to 7.3 percent in SY 2022–23. Most of this increase was due to schools that were recategorized from needing additional targeted support and improvement (ATSI) to needing CSI because they did not meet their state’s criteria to exit ATSI. CSI schools in SY 2022–23 were more academically challenged and economically disadvantaged than the CSI schools identified in SY 2019–20. For example, more CSI students experienced deep poverty in SY 2022–23 than in SY 2019–20. Overall, 46 percent of CSI schools identified in SY 2019–20 had exited improvement status by SY 2022–23. Factors influencing the chances of a school exiting CSI status included student characteristics and size. For example, large- and medium-sized schools had increased chances of exiting, while schools with a higher percentage of poor students had decreased chances of exiting. Educators GAO interviewed commonly identified six strategies as key to exiting CSI, with effective leadership critical to all of them (see figure). Many of these strategies are interrelated. For example, schools can use data to measure changes in school culture and monitor sustained improvements. Educators GAO interviewed also described various ways to sustain improvements. For example, in an elementary school that had recently exited CSI, school leaders said they continued to observe and provide feedback to teachers even though this type of monitoring was no longer required. Educators also described persistent challenges to exiting CSI related to student attendance and teacher shortages and turnover. Key Strategies Educators Identified to Help Comprehensive Support and Improvement Schools Exit Why GAO Did This Study Decades of educational reforms have demonstrated that turning around the lowest-performing schools in the U.S. remains a complex challenge. Schools identified for CSI must include (1) not fewer than the lowest-performing 5 percent of all Title I schools in the state, (2) all public high schools failing to graduate a third or more of their students, and (3) Title I schools previously identified as needing additional targeted support that have not improved within a state-determined number of years. Senate Report 115-289 includes a provision for GAO to review school improvement activities. This report examines (1) the national landscape of school improvement, such as characteristics associated with schools identified for and exiting CSI; and (2) strategies that helped schools exit CSI and challenges faced, according to selected educators. To describe the national landscape of school improvement, GAO used SY 2019–20 and SY 2022–23 Department of Education data (the most recent available). GAO used these data to estimate which school characteristics increased or decreased a school’s chances of being identified for and exiting CSI status. GAO also interviewed Education officials and reviewed relevant federal laws and state documents. To identify strategies that helped selected schools exit improvement status, GAO analyzed responses from interviews with educators in three states, eight districts, and 14 schools and held five discussion groups with teachers in selected schools. GAO selected (1) states and districts to reflect variation in approaches to school improvement and (2) schools to provide a mix of current and exited CSI schools in urban, rural, and suburban locations. For more information, contact Jacqueline M. Nowicki at nowickij@gao.gov.

What GAO Found The Department of Transportation (DOT) Strengthening Mobility and Revolutionizing Transportation (SMART) grants program funds demonstration projects that use advanced transportation technologies, such as autonomous vehicles and drones. In the first 3 years of the program, DOT received 1,073 applications from a variety of community sizes, entity types, and technology areas. As of September 2025, DOT has announced awards of around $289 million, which is 58 percent of the total authorized and appropriated funding for the program in the Infrastructure Investment and Jobs Act (IIJA), for 135 SMART projects. While citing challenges that delayed the implementation of their projects, recipients GAO interviewed had generally positive views of the SMART program. Recipients reported challenges in procuring the necessary technology and equipment, which affected their project’s timeframes. As of September 2025, most SMART projects were not yet completed, but DOT officials expect many projects to be completed by the end of 2026. However, recipients also identified positive effects of the SMART program, including that the program allows them to test and demonstrate innovative technology solutions. Further, some recipients said the program allowed them to speed up the research or project timeframe compared with the timeline if they relied on local funding. DOT has collected information about SMART projects but has not fully aligned its efforts with key practices for a lessons-learned process. The IIJA states that DOT should develop a lessons-learned process to identify technologies that can be successfully used in future deployments. In addition, GAO has identified key practices to building a comprehensive, documented lessons-learned process. Key Practices for a Lessons-Learned Process DOT’s current efforts do not fully align with these practices for lessons learned. For example, DOT has not analyzed information it collected from the SMART projects to identify lessons learned. DOT officials told GAO they have not developed a plan to align future activities with these practices because they were focused on awarding grants and not on planning for the analysis of program results. Developing and implementing a lessons-learned plan that incorporates key practices will help ensure that DOT can identify and share the results of the SMART program, particularly as projects are completed and recipients report their results to DOT. Without such a plan, DOT could miss opportunities to communicate lessons that could help improve the safety and reliability of transportation systems more broadly. Also, by better understanding lessons from the SMART program projects, communities can benefit from successes and may facilitate the adoption of advanced technologies. Why GAO Did This Study In 2021, the IIJA created the SMART program to fund demonstration projects that use advanced technologies and systems to improve transportation efficiency and safety. The SMART program provides discretionary grants that support projects across eight technology areas, and recipients include state, city, and tribal governments. The IIJA authorized and appropriated $500 million for the program between fiscal years 2022 and 2026. In February 2026, the Consolidated Appropriations Act, 2026 transferred $204.9 million in unobligated balances from the SMART grants program to support appropriations for other purposes. The IIJA included a provision in statute for GAO to review the SMART program. This report addresses the characteristics of SMART program applicants and projects, perspectives of selected recipients on the program, and how DOT plans to identify lessons learned from the program. GAO reviewed DOT data on the applicants and projects selected for awards from fiscal years 2022 through 2024 and interviewed DOT officials on the SMART grant program. GAO also interviewed 17 selected grant recipients reflecting a range of community sizes and technology areas, on the program and their projects. In addition, GAO compared DOT efforts to identify lessons learned from the program with key practices GAO identified and federal guidance for developing lessons learned.

What GAO Found The Department of Defense (DOD) established the Cybersecurity Maturity Model Certification (CMMC) program in 2020 to ensure that defense industrial base (DIB) companies comply with cybersecurity requirements. In response to concerns about the complexity of the program’s initial framework, in 2024 DOD streamlined requirements and revised program implementation plans. DOD plans to implement this program over the next 3 years. Although DOD does not have a strategic plan for the CMMC program recorded in a single document, it has developed several planning documents to guide implementation. GAO found that DOD’s implementation plans addressed six of seven key elements of a comprehensive strategy, as shown in the figure below. Extent That DOD’s Plans for the CMMC Program Rollout Addressed Key Elements of a Comprehensive Strategy, as of September 2025 DOD partially addressed the element related to identifying key external factors that could affect the program’s ability to meet its goals. While DOD has taken steps to develop strategies to address program risks, it has not systematically assessed and documented the external factors that could affect the department meeting its goals. For example, the department relies on private sector stakeholders to conduct assessments of DIB companies to determine if they comply with the program’s requirements. However, DOD did not assess and document how it intends to mitigate the risk of private sector capacity being insufficient to meet its needs for assessments, according to DOD officials. Although DOD officials told GAO that department leaders can issue waivers if external factors cause significant challenges, such waivers would not address underlying challenges. Additionally, depending on the frequency and number of waivers DOD uses, the process could undermine the long-term viability of the CMMC program and its intent to verify that companies are implementing federal cybersecurity requirements. By assessing and documenting key external factors and developing approaches to address them, DOD would better understand program implementation risks and be better positioned to take action to mitigate those risks. Why GAO Did This Study DOD relies on hundreds of thousands of private companies for goods and services, ranging from weapon systems to maintenance. In doing business with DOD, these companies often use and store sensitive information in their computer systems. Malicious cyber actors have targeted defense contractors’ networks and systems to access sensitive DOD data. Senate Report 118-188, accompanying a bill for the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2025, includes a provision for GAO to review DOD’s implementation of the revised CMMC program. GAO’s report evaluates, among other things, the extent to which DOD has a comprehensive strategy to guide implementation. GAO reviewed DOD’s CMMC policies and planning documentation and interviewed DOD officials involved in implementing and managing this program. GAO also interviewed DOD officials and industry representatives who support DIB companies to implement CMMC requirements.

What GAO Found Health professionals often work in demanding and stressful environments, which can affect their well-being and mental health. The COVID-19 pandemic led to new and worsening mental health conditions for many health professionals, according to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC). The health professional workforce includes over 17 million people working in clinical and non-clinical positions, according to the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS). Clinical health professionals include physicians, nurses, and behavioral health professionals. Non-clinical health professionals include health care support personnel such as administrative staff. GAO found there is a range in the prevalence of mental health conditions experienced by health professionals that varies by profession, according to literature. Commonly studied mental health conditions among health professionals include depression, anxiety, substance use disorder, and the related topic of suicide. GAO also reviewed literature on burnout, which is a common expression of mental health among health professionals. Examples of prevalence data from GAO’s literature review include the following studies conducted during the COVID-19 pandemic. Depression and anxiety. An estimated 34 percent of health care workers reported experiencing symptoms of depression and 57 percent reported experiencing symptoms of anxiety in 2022, according to a CDC analysis of nationally representative generalizable data of health workers. Substance use disorder. Seven percent of nurse respondents reported substance use disorder from 2020 through 2021, according to a non-generalizable online survey administered to nurses. Burnout. An estimated 46 percent of health care workers reported experiencing burnout often or very often in 2022 during the COVID-19 pandemic, up from an estimated 32 percent in 2018, according to a CDC analysis of nationally representative data on health workers. HHS officials identified three grant programs that specifically targeted mental health among health professionals. These grant programs provided $103.2 million in COVID-19 relief funding to 45 grant awardees (grantees), from calendar years 2022 through 2024. Grantees included organizations such as hospital systems and universities, among other entities. See table for characteristics of these three grant programs. Characteristics of HHS Grant Programs Focused on Addressing Health Professional Mental Health, January 2022 through December 2024 Grant program Purpose Target beneficiaries Award amount (number of grantees) Promoting Resilience and Mental Health Among Health Professional Workforce Supported adopting and expanding programs to promote mental health and resiliency Health care providers and workforce $30.1 million (10 grantees) Health and Public Safety Workforce Resilience Training Program Supported training activities to address mental health conditions and promote resiliency Health care students and workforce $67.1 million (34 grantees) Health and Public Safety Workforce Resiliency Technical Assistance Center Provided technical assistance to the grantees from grant programs listed above 44 grantees from programs listed above $5.9 million (1 grantee) Source: GAO analysis of Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) Notice of Funding Opportunities and Grant Award Data | GAO-26-107951 Grantees conducted a variety of activities to support health professionals’ mental health, including providing mental health screening and services and training individuals on resilience, according to analyses by the Technical Assistance Center (TAC), HHS data, and interviews with selected grantees. To oversee the grant programs from calendar years 2022 through 2024, HHS reviewed annual reports submitted by grantees and conducted regular meetings with grantees, among other activities. HHS also contracted with an external evaluator to assess the programs’ outcomes. These activities were designed to oversee the progress and performance of the grantees in meeting their goals and objectives. Grantees reported that they have faced challenges implementing HHS grant programs. They also cite benefits of the grant programs on addressing mental health among health professionals, according to a 2024 and a 2025 interim analyses by the TAC. Examples of reported challenges were related to resources, organizational commitment to well-being, and stigma. Some grantees also reported benefits, such as higher job retention and reduced depression and anxiety of grant program participants as compared to non-participants, according to GAO analysis of data and two interim TAC analyses. Why GAO Did This Study The Dr. Lorna Breen Health Care Provider Protection Act includes a provision for GAO to review federal grant programs addressing mental health conditions and substance use disorder among health professionals. This report describes available information on the prevalence and severity of such conditions among health professionals from studies published from 2020 through February 2025, the most recent available at the time of our analysis; characteristics of three grant programs; and HHS’s oversight of these grant programs, among other things. For this report, GAO (1) conducted a literature review of 50 sources to identify information on prevalence and severity of mental health conditions and substance use disorders among health professionals; (2) reviewed information from HHS and grantees across the three grant programs, such as annual grantee performance reports and data; and (3) interviewed officials from HHS and representatives of six selected grantees and four stakeholder organizations, such as the American Nurses Association. GAO provided a draft of this report to HHS. The Department provided technical comments, which we incorporated as appropriate. For more information, contact Alyssa Hundrup at HundrupA@gao.gov.

What GAO Found In February 2025, the Department of Education’s Office of Federal Student Aid (FSA) stopped assessing student loan servicers on accuracy and call quality due to lack of staff capacity, according to agency officials. Prior to discontinuing these quarterly assessments, FSA assessed servicers on these metrics for two quarters through the following actions. Accuracy. FSA would review data for borrowers in servicer systems and compare it to data in FSA systems to determine if servicers were keeping accurate records for borrowers. Call quality. FSA would review phone calls between borrowers and servicers to determine if servicers were providing good and accurate customer service. The decision to stop assessing these performance metrics occurred shortly after the new administration began issuing presidential directives and guidance on downsizing the federal workforce in January 2025. Education reported that between January and December 2025, the number of staff at FSA dropped from 1,433 to 777, a reduction of 656 personnel. Prior to FSA discontinuing this oversight, most servicers did not meet the performance standards for accuracy and faced corresponding financial penalties of about $850,000. FSA continued to assess servicer performance on their other performance metrics, which it characterized as less labor intensive to monitor. Student Loan Servicer Performance on Accuracy Metric In September 2025, FSA officials said Education was working to implement more efficient oversight methods that leverage data analysis and exploring possible changes to the contract performance standards. However, as of December 2025, FSA was not using any replacement methods for overseeing accuracy and call quality and had not changed the performance standards. By not assessing servicer accuracy and call quality, FSA lacks assurance that borrower records are correct and that servicers are giving borrowers quality information. Inaccurate records can result in borrowers being billed for incorrect amounts or placed in the wrong repayment status. Additionally, borrowers need to be given accurate information when they call for help. Addressing these gaps in servicer oversight will assist Education in carrying out its statutory responsibilities and also help the government avoid overpaying servicers for poor performance. Why GAO Did This Study FSA is statutorily responsible for managing federal student aid programs and overseeing contracted student loan servicers. The servicers process loan payments, provide borrowers with information on repayment plans and forgiveness options, and maintain loan records. In April 2024, FSA implemented new contracts for its student loan servicers that set performance standards for student loan servicers on six metrics, including accuracy and call quality. Under these contracts, FSA enforces financial penalties if servicers do not meet performance standards related to these metrics. GAO was asked to review Education’s capacity to carry out its statutory responsibilities. This report examines the extent to which recent staffing reductions have affected how FSA carries out its responsibilities to oversee loan servicers. Additional reports will examine related topics at other offices within Education. For this report, GAO reviewed FSA documentation, servicer performance and billing reports, and relevant laws. GAO also interviewed FSA officials as well as representatives of borrower advocacy organizations.

What GAO Found For an estimated 77 percent (about 12,300) of the nation’s museums, the condition of at least one building system (e.g., heating, ventilation, and air conditioning) or building issue puts their collections at risk of damage or loss, according to GAO’s survey of museums. An estimated 73 percent, or about 11,900 museums, cited at least one building system or facility issue that poses a potential health or safety concern. Further, GAO estimates that nearly half of museums identified physical accessibility, such as inaccessible entrances, as a potential concern. Museum representatives said they have no options but to store collections in areas that experience water leaks or uncontrolled temperature or humidity. Fine Art Stored in Bathroom (left) and Tribal Files and Artifacts Stored in Basement That Experiences Flooding Risk (right) The total cost to repair museums nationwide is unknown. Stakeholders cite challenges with limited museum resources to conduct facility assessments and expertise required to report accurate cost estimates for repairs. An estimated 85 percent (about 13,700) of museums report having a backlog of deferred maintenance and repair, and an estimated 80 percent expect deferred maintenance to persist or increase in the next 3 years based on projected budgets and planned projects. An estimated 49 percent, or about 7,900 museums, have a deferred maintenance backlog of more than $100,000 each. Common challenges to addressing facility repair cited by museums in response to GAO’s survey are funding availability and construction costs. Specifically, funding is a key challenge to addressing maintenance and repairs for an estimated 85 percent of museums. An estimated 80 percent of museums use donations or fundraising to address repairs. However, reliance on fundraising can pose challenges, particularly in rural areas with limited funding opportunities, or for museums with limited expertise or capacity for fundraising. Why GAO Did This Study Museums preserve history and serve an educational role. However, many museums are in aging buildings, and their building systems may need repair or replacement to prevent damage to collections. While the federal agency, the Institute of Museum and Library Services (IMLS), supports museum programs and services, museums are prohibited from using IMLS funds for building construction. The Joint Explanatory Statement accompanying the Departments of Labor, Health and Human Services, and Education, and Related Agencies Appropriations Act, 2024, includes a provision for GAO to study the availability and conditions of museum facilities. This report examines the reported physical conditions of museum facilities and the estimated cost and challenges to addressing facility repair needs. GAO’s scope included public (other than federal) and private nonprofit museums, excluding museum disciplines focused on living collections, like zoos. GAO conducted a sample survey generalizable to an in-scope population of nearly 16,700 museums in 50 states and the District of Columbia. The survey results can be found on the “Additional Data” link of GAO’s website. GAO visited 17 museums across two Tribal Nations, six states, the District of Columbia, and Puerto Rico. GAO selected these jurisdictions based on state or territorial funding for museum facilities, the number of natural disasters experienced in the last 5 years, and geography. GAO also interviewed officials from IMLS; local and tribal museums; state museum associations; and other museum stakeholders, including the American Alliance of Museums; Association of Tribal Archives, Libraries, and Museums; and Small Museum Association. For more information, contact David Marroni at marronid@gao.gov.

What GAO Found The concentration of private, stand-alone dental and vision insurance markets varied among states across both the group and individual insurance markets, according to 2024 enrollment data from the National Association of Insurance Commissioners (NAIC), the most recent available at the time of our analysis. The concentration of a market refers to the degree to which a small number of companies control a large part of the market. Across all states, the combined market share of the three largest insurers in each state ranged from about 38 to about 98 percent of enrollment for the dental group market, and from about 41 percent to about 96 percent for the vision group market (see table). 2024 Group Market Share for the Three Largest and Single Largest Stand-Alone Dental and Vision Insurers   Range of market share of three largest insurers (percentage) Median market share of three largest insurers (percentage) Range of market share of single largest insurer (percentage) Median market share of single largest insurer (percentage) Median number of insurers per state Dental group market 37.9 – 97.5 66.8 13.6 – 95.1 38.0 39 Vision group market 41.2 – 95.5 77.4 15.8 – 81.9 40.9 28 Source: GAO analysis of data from the National Association of Insurance Commissioners (NAIC). | GAO-26-107787 Note: Market share for each state is based on the total number of individuals insured as of December 31, 2024, as reported by insurers to NAIC. Data from Massachusetts are excluded from the dental insurance market analysis. Vertical integration exists when a company buys into new lines of business in its supply chain that would otherwise be owned by other companies. GAO did not find aggregate data on the extent of vertical integration in the dental or vision insurance markets. Interviewees from the dental industry that GAO spoke with said vertical integration in the dental insurance market is limited, with one interviewee noting that vertical integration in the dental industry is only a recent development. Some interviewees from the vision industry commented that vertical integration exists in the vision insurance market, including insurer ownership of provider offices, lens and frame manufacturers, and eyewear retail brands. Limited information was available to assess the effects of concentration and vertical integration in private dental and vision insurance markets. GAO found two peer-reviewed studies that discussed the effects of concentration of dental insurance markets, including reduced reimbursements for dental services paid by insurers to providers in more concentrated markets. Some of the interviewees from the dental and vision industries that GAO spoke with shared nongeneralizable observations about the effects of concentration and vertical integration based on their experiences, including limiting providers’ ability to negotiate contracts and reimbursement with insurers in concentrated markets. Some dental industry interviewees noted a lack of opportunity to evaluate the effects of vertical integration due to limited instances of vertical integration among dental insurers. Why GAO Did This Study The market for private health insurance in the United States is highly concentrated, which may reduce competition. Concentrated markets may also exist within private dental and vision insurance, which may be sold separately from health insurance. About one in four Americans had such stand-alone dental or vision insurance in 2024, according to data from NAIC and the Census Bureau. In addition, vertical integration may exist within these markets. Studies suggest vertical integration may result in efficiencies and cost savings but may also reduce competition in a market. GAO was asked to review concentration of and vertical integration in dental and vision insurance markets. This report describes (1) the concentration of and vertical integration in private dental and vision insurance markets; and (2) what is known about the effects of concentration and vertical integration on competition in private dental and vision insurance markets. GAO analyzed 2024 enrollment data from NAIC on fully insured, stand-alone dental and vision plans to determine insurer market share by state. GAO also conducted a literature review to examine peer-reviewed studies published in the last 10 years. In addition, GAO interviewed a non-generalizable sample of seven stakeholder groups representing dental and vision insurers, dental and vision care providers, and purchasers of dental and vision care plans. GAO also interviewed a dental industry subject matter expert who recently published a peer-reviewed study on market concentration. For our report findings based on NAIC data, we provided a draft of these findings to NAIC for third-party review. NAIC had no comments. For more information, contact John Dicken at dickenj@gao.gov.

What GAO Found In fiscal years 2018 through 2023, the U.S. Agency for International Development (USAID) allocated about $9 billion and the State Department allocated about $5 billion for democracy assistance overseas. As the figure shows, allocations for the six categories of democracy assistance fluctuated during this period. U.S. Democracy Assistance Allocations, Fiscal Years 2018–2023   USAID and State officials and representatives of organizations implementing U.S. democracy assistance in four countries GAO selected for its review identified several types of challenges they faced in providing this assistance. These challenges comprised actions by the countries' governments, such as harassment of civil society and media; aspects of the operating environment in each country, such as weak government capacity; and actions of U.S. and other donors, including competing diplomatic and democracy assistance priorities. In the four selected countries, USAID and State did not plan to mitigate the risk that democracy assistance programs might have to shift, pause, or cease award activities that benefitted government entities. In fiscal years 2021 through 2024, after reported antidemocratic actions by the governments of some of the four countries, USAID and State paused or ceased assistance involving interaction with government entities and shifted assistance to nongovernmental entities. Agency officials told GAO that redirecting the assistance involved loss of programmatic momentum and confusion about how to proceed. GAO's review of 12 awards found USAID and State had not developed plans to mitigate this risk. According to agency officials, USAID and State did not require such planning. A January 2025 executive order paused all U.S. foreign development assistance. In April 2025, State began a reorganization of the department, and in July 2025, the Secretary of State announced that USAID had ceased implementing foreign assistance. For future democracy assistance, establishing a requirement to mitigate the risk of having to redirect it away from host-country government entities would help State ensure that any decisions to pivot assistance are implemented efficiently. Why GAO Did This Study The quality of democracy has eroded in countries across the globe in recent years, according to organizations that construct and monitor democracy indexes. In fiscal years 2018 through 2023, the U.S. allocated more than $2 billion annually for assistance to promote democracy overseas. A 2023 House Appropriations Committee print includes a provision for GAO to assess democracy assistance that USAID and State have provided. This report (1) describes USAID's and State's democracy assistance allocations in fiscal years 2018 through 2023, (2) discusses challenges the agencies and partner organizations identified as affecting the provision of this assistance in selected countries, and (3) examines the extent to which the agencies planned to mitigate specific risks in providing this assistance. GAO analyzed data on democratic erosion and reviewed agency data and documents. GAO also visited El Salvador, Georgia, Sri Lanka, and Tunisia, selected on the basis of data about democratic erosion and U.S. democracy assistance funding. In each country, GAO held discussion groups with agency officials and partner organization representatives. This is a public version of a sensitive report that GAO issued in September 2025. Information that State deemed sensitive has been omitted.