To alert the audit community to changes in professional standards, we periodically issue Professional Standards Updates (PSU). These updates highlight the effective dates of recently issued standards and guidance related to engagements conducted in accordance with Government Auditing Standards. PSUs contain summary information only, and those affected by a change should refer to the respective standard or guidance for details.

What GAO Found TSA has taken some steps to communicate Transportation Worker Identification Credential (TWIC®) program information with stakeholders. However, TSA relies on an ad hoc communication approach rather than a documented communication plan to determine how to share information with stakeholders. This has contributed to some stakeholders reporting that they experienced declining engagement with and delays receiving key program updates from TSA. Developing and implementing a communication plan could help TSA ensure that all stakeholders receive the information necessary to effectively operate the TWIC® program and reduce security risks. The Coast Guard does not share or analyze all of the data it collects during inspections to oversee how facility operators implement the TWIC® program. For example, the Coast Guard collects data on deficiencies, a less severe form of noncompliance, and violations, a more severe form of noncompliance that can result in notices of violation or civil penalties. GAO’s assessment of inspection findings for fiscal years 2019 through 2024 showed: 888 TWIC®-related deficiencies, such as operators not ensuring that facility personnel with security duties were qualified to perform their roles, and 83 TWIC® violations, such as unescorted individuals entering a secure area, highlighting areas that may warrant improvement. However, the Coast Guard does not provide the data to TWIC® inspectors. According to officials, this is because the data did not relate to areas that would require a change to the program. However, by communicating the data with inspectors, regardless of their effect on the program, the Coast Guard could improve inspectors’ awareness of TWIC®-related risks. Total Number of Transportation Worker Identification Credential (TWIC®)-related Deficiencies and Violations, Fiscal Years 2019–2024 Why GAO Did This Study The TWIC® program aims to provide a tamper-resistant biometric card to maritime workers who require unescorted access to designated secure areas of facilities and vessels under Maritime Transportation Security Act of 2002 regulations. As of August 2025, more than 2 million individuals held a TWIC® credential. TSA oversees TWIC® applicants’ enrollment and background checks. The Coast Guard enforces certain TWIC® regulatory requirements, including by inspecting facilities for compliance. The Transportation Security Screening Modernization Act of 2024 includes a provision for us to review TSA’s security threat assessment programs and we were asked to review other aspects of TWIC® operations. This report examines (1) the extent to which TSA communicates TWIC® program information to stakeholders, and (2) the extent to which the Coast Guard has overseen the implementation of the TWIC® program by facility operators, among other objectives. GAO also examined TSA and Coast Guard policy and data for fiscal years 2019 through 2024. In addition, GAO interviewed agency officials and port stakeholders. To obtain a range of TWIC® perspectives, these stakeholders included TWIC® operators at facilities selected in part for diversity in size and geographic regions.

What GAO Found The unique needs of mothers and young children during disasters include appropriate sheltering, feeding and care supplies, medical and mental health support, and other services, according to relevant literature and disaster service providers from selected local, state, and nonprofit organizations. For example, large shelters may not be the best option for families with infants. Mothers also often need diapers, baby food, and infant formula. Service providers from 12 local, state, and nonprofit organizations GAO interviewed discussed ways they have supported mothers and young children—including pregnant or postpartum women and infants and children who are not yet in school—during disasters. For example, providers said they may prioritize mothers and children for private sheltering, such as hotel rooms, or ensure that mass shelters have private nursing spaces. Providers also said they provide coloring and reading books about disasters to help children process their emotions and trauma. The Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) has assisted disaster providers in efforts to prepare supplies and services for mothers and young children prior to a disaster. For example, FEMA has issued guidance on and held stockpiles of infant and toddler feeding and care supplies. In addition, GAO identified four examples in which FEMA had fulfilled requests for assistance from service providers, such as providing medical transports for newborn infants, during disasters in 2024. FEMA officials shared lessons learned from serving mothers and young children during disasters, such as to evacuate children with their families to avoid the challenges of reunification. Service providers GAO interviewed also shared lessons they learned, such as to prioritize infant formula that can be used without power or safe drinking water and to ensure that mothers and service providers are aware of safe infant feeding practices. Figure: Examples of Observations from Service Providers from One Organization That Helped Mothers and Young Children During Hurricane Helene in 2024 Why GAO Did This Study Natural disasters can devastate communities and displace survivors. In the immediate aftermath of a disaster, survivors need food, water, shelter, and other supports. Studies and reports about past disasters have shown that mothers and young children may be particularly vulnerable. In 2025, GAO added Improving the Delivery of Federal Disaster Assistance to its High Risk List. GAO was asked to examine supports for mothers and young children during immediate disaster response. This report describes some of the unique needs of this population, how these needs are met, and how FEMA supports mothers and young children. GAO reviewed relevant literature on the needs of mothers and children during disasters and interviewed disaster service providers from 12 local, state, and nonprofit organizations. These included organizations that contract with FEMA to provide disaster response, national and state organizations that are involved in disaster-related efforts, and service providers that specifically focus their efforts on mothers and young children. GAO selected these organizations based on the recommendations of GAO stakeholders and interview participants. GAO also selected organizations that had provided services to disaster survivors in five states selected for factors such as having major disasters in 2024 and counties in affected areas with large proportions of children under age 5. GAO reviewed relevant federal laws, regulations, and documents and interviewed FEMA officials, including those overseeing regions that include the five selected states. GAO also examined data from FEMA’s Web Emergency Operations Center database. For more information, contact Kathryn A. Larin at LarinK@gao.gov.

What GAO Found In May 2025, GAO identified 39 priority recommendations for the Department of Homeland Security (DHS). Since then, DHS has implemented five of these recommendations. GAO also closed two recommendations that were no longer valid. In July 2026, GAO identified an additional seven priority recommendations, bringing the total to 39. GAO is highlighting the following three areas that warrant timely and focused attention: Improving disaster preparedness and response, Enhancing information technology and cybersecurity, and Strengthening immigration and border security policies and data. Addressing GAO's recommendations in these areas would improve DHS and Federal Emergency Management Agency service delivery to disaster survivors and communities; ensure the Cybersecurity and Infrastructure Security Agency provides agencies the information needed to enhance cybersecurity and address risks; and ensure U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement provides decision-makers a more complete understanding of annual immigration detentions and U.S. Customs and Border Protection strengthens interdiction efforts. Taking action to implement all of GAO's open priority recommendations would help enhance the efficiency and effectiveness of operations across DHS. 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 Jason Bair at bairj@gao.gov.

What GAO Found The Equal Access to Justice Act (EAJA) was enacted in 1980, in part to address individuals’ and organizations’ ability to challenge or defend themselves against civil or administrative actions involving the federal government. EAJA authorizes the award of legal fees to parties that prevail against the federal government and meet other eligibility criteria, under certain circumstances. Federal agencies reported paying over $116 million for about 15,000 EAJA awards, on average per year from fiscal years 2019 through 2025. Among the three selected agencies GAO reviewed, the agencies reported the following EAJA data to the Administrative Conference of the United States (ACUS) for this time period: the Department of Labor (DOL)—11 awards totaling about $548,000, the National Labor Relations Board (NLRB)—11 awards totaling about $437,000, and the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC)—no awards. Equal Access to Justice Act (EAJA) Awards Reported by the Department of Labor (DOL), National Labor Relations Board (NLRB), and Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC), Fiscal Years 2019–2025 Fiscal year Number of awards (DOL)  Total amount of awards (DOL) Number of awards (NLRB)  Total amount of awards (NLRB) Number of awards (EEOC)  Total amount of awards (EEOC) 2019  1 $87,824 5  $70,000 0 $0 2020  1 $62,500 0  $0 0 $0 2021  4 $72,600 0  $0 0 $0 2022 3 $138,266 1 $150,000 0 $0 2023 1 $110,221 1 $56,374 0 $0 2024 0 $0 2 $55,000 0 $0 2025 1 $76,190 2 $105,539 0 $0 Total 11 $547,601 11  $436,913 0 $0 Source: GAO summary of information published by the Administrative Conference of the United States. | GAO-26-108644 All five stakeholders GAO interviewed cited both benefits and challenges of EAJA. For example, two attorneys who primarily represent clients in labor and employment matters said that for some cases, EAJA enables them to assist clients who otherwise could not afford to pursue cases against the federal government. All five stakeholders cited challenges with EAJA such as meeting EAJA eligibility requirements and recovering legal fees under EAJA. For example, they cited difficulty establishing that a party prevailed against the government. Specifically, one attorney said that the definition of “prevailing party” has narrowed over time due to various court decisions, making it more difficult to meet this requirement. Why GAO Did This Study EAJA awards primarily arise from civil court cases and are typically paid by the specific agency that the party prevailed against. Since 2019, agencies have reported their annual EAJA awards and other data to ACUS. GAO was asked to review data on EAJA awards paid by DOL, EEOC, and NLRB. This report describes these agencies’ EAJA awards for fiscal years 2019 through 2025, as well as selected stakeholders’ views on the benefits and challenges of EAJA. GAO reviewed EAJA award data that federal agencies reported to ACUS for fiscal years 2019 through 2025, the most recent data available. GAO reviewed relevant federal laws and regulations related to EAJA. GAO also interviewed DOL, EEOC, and NLRB agency officials and five stakeholders knowledgeable about EAJA, including attorneys and industry representatives. GAO primarily identified these stakeholders through a review of literature on EAJA and a review of available EAJA data. Stakeholders’ perspectives shared with GAO are not generalizable. For more information, contact Thomas Costa at costat@gao.gov.

What GAO Found Rideshare and taxi services help meet the transportation needs of people in the U.S, but stakeholders have raised questions about the services’ safety. Available data sources do not provide a full picture of the number of rideshare and taxi assaults against drivers and passengers from 2021 through 2025. There is no federal requirement to collect such data, but GAO identified some sources at the federal, local, and industry level. For example: Two federal databases provide some information. For example, the Bureau of Labor Statistics estimated 20 nonfatal injuries to taxi and rideshare drivers due to violent acts by other people from 2023 through 2024, not including self-employed drivers. Most rideshare and taxi drivers are self-employed (i.e., classified by companies as independent contractors). GAO analyzed police data in two cities and found 424 rideshare- and taxi-related assaults in Los Angeles from 2021 through 2023 and 109 in Chicago from 2023 through 2025. These assaults made up less than 1 percent of the overall number of reported assaults in each city during those time periods. Three ridesharing companies voluntarily report some assault data. For example, in 2021 and 2022, two companies publicly reported billions of rides, with a combined 52 fatal assaults and 4,469 of the five most serious types of sexual assault. One of these companies also reported 75,693 reported incidents of other types of sexual assault (e.g., attempted kissing and touching) and sexual misconduct (e.g., leering and explicit comments and gestures). As of June 2026, these companies have not reported the number of assaults for 2023 through 2025 or data on non-fatal physical assaults. Two taxi companies gave GAO non-public data on assaults. For example, one national taxi company identified that it had 17 verified reports of physical assault and three verified reports of sexual assault from 2021 through 2025. Selected rideshare companies launched three new safety features, which add to features rideshare and taxi companies had in place. New Rideshare Safety Features Since 2024 A driver advocacy group and some drivers GAO interviewed identified benefits of the new features. For example, drivers in four of five interviews GAO conducted appreciated the additional passenger verification features. However, they noted technical issues with certain video trip recordings. Representatives from one rideshare company said they have made improvements to the recording feature. Why GAO Did This Study Sami’s Law, enacted in 2023, provides for GAO to study and report every 2 years on the safety of rideshare and taxi drivers and passengers. GAO issued two reports in 2024 on this topic. Specifically, GAO reported on the lack of assault data in GAO-24-106742. In GAO-24-107093, GAO reported on the range of in-application and in-vehicle features that rideshare and taxi companies offer to help ensure safety. This report describes (1) available data on the number of assaults on rideshare and taxi drivers and passengers from 2021 through 2025 and (2) safety features selected rideshare and taxi companies have implemented since 2024, among other topics. To conduct this work, GAO collected and analyzed available data from two federal databases and two city databases that GAO previously identified as tracking rideshare and taxi assault data. GAO also reviewed documents and interviewed representatives from a nongeneralizable selection of four rideshare and four taxi companies. GAO selected companies to vary in size and location, among other factors. GAO analyzed data from three ridesharing companies’ public reports and websites. GAO requested additional non-public data from all eight companies to further understand the scope of assaults. Two taxi companies provided data; three rideshare companies declined to provide non-public data; and the other two taxi companies and one rideshare company do not maintain databases with which to track assault data. Therefore, this report uses publicly reported company data and attributes the information as appropriate throughout. GAO also conducted five nongeneralizable group interviews with nine self-identified rideshare drivers and individual interviews with 15 taxi drivers. For more information, contact Elizabeth Repko at repkoe@gao.gov and Nathan Tranquilli at tranquillin@gao.gov.

What GAO Found The Economic Growth and Regulatory Paperwork Reduction Act of 1996 (EGRPRA) requires the federal banking agencies to solicit and review public comments on their regulations to identify and eliminate outdated, unnecessary, or unduly burdensome regulations on insured depository institutions, as appropriate. How Federal Banking Agencies Conduct Decennial EGRPRA Reviews Outcomes from the EGRPRA reviews are often difficult to identify, and their connection to subsequent regulatory actions is often unclear. As a result, it can be difficult to determine the extent to which actions described in the EGRPRA report were driven by the review itself. For example, some actions described in the 2017 EGRPRA report were initiated in response to other statutory requirements, while other actions were initiated before or concurrently with the review. Representatives from six of eight organizations GAO interviewed said the reviews do not often lead to actions to modify or eliminate unnecessary regulations, and a public interest group representative noted that it is difficult to connect the EGRPRA reviews with concrete regulatory changes. Another reason EGRPRA reviews’ outcomes are unclear is that the agencies do not have documented procedures for identifying outdated or unnecessary regulations or determining whether issues raised in the reviews warrant action. Two agencies have draft procedures that could help address these gaps, but they have not yet been fully developed or demonstrated in practice. Implementing documented procedures would help ensure that issues identified through the review are systematically evaluated and lead to clear determinations about whether they warrant action and, where appropriate, regulatory changes. Having documented procedures also is important given the long time frame between EGRPRA reviews. Additionally, the agencies’ EGRPRA review processes reflect some leading practices for retrospective regulatory reviews, such as coordinating across agencies and soliciting public input, but do not fully reflect others. In particular, the agencies have not incorporated practices related to prioritizing which rules to analyze, conducting cost-benefit analysis, and assessing the combined burden of multiple regulations. As a result, they may not consistently focus on the most significant issues, assess regulatory impacts and trade-offs, or understand how multiple regulations collectively affect regulated entities. Why GAO Did This Study EGRPRA requires the Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System, Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation, and Office of the Comptroller of the Currency to review their regulations at least once every 10 years and submit a joint report to Congress. As of July 2026, the agencies were conducting their third such review. The Dodd-Frank Wall Street Reform and Consumer Protection Act includes a provision for GAO to report annually on financial services regulations. This report examines (1) how the federal banking agencies have conducted their EGRPRA reviews, (2) the outcomes of those reviews, and (3) the extent to which they reflect leading practices. GAO reviewed reports by federal agencies; examined available documentation from the previous and current EGRPRA reviews, guidance, and regulations issued by the federal banking agencies; and interviewed agency officials and eight organizations selected because they submitted EGRPRA comments in the previous and current reviews.

What GAO Found Most of the National Aeronautics and Space Administration’s (NASA) major projects in development reported no schedule delays or cost overruns in the last year. These projects are in the phase of building and testing their designs. Two of these 18 projects reported annual schedule delays (totaling 2 months) and three reported cost overruns (totaling $501.4 million). Similarly, the portfolio’s cumulative costs and delays increased slightly, from $4.4 billion to nearly $4.7 billion and from 13.1 years to 14 years, respectively. The Orion crew capsule accounts for over half of the major projects’ annual cost overruns and almost 75 percent of their cumulative cost overruns. Cost and Schedule Performance for NASA’s Major Projects Portfolio, 2025–2026 In February and March 2026, NASA announced significant changes to its Artemis missions—its effort to create a sustained lunar operations. The changes included revising the focus of the planned Artemis III, IV, and V missions, and pausing work on three Artemis projects. These projects include the Gateway, a small space station in lunar orbit that would have supported lunar missions. Under its new plan, NASA plans to shift its focus to infrastructure that enables sustained lunar surface operations. Implementing changes to the Artemis missions will create acquisition management challenges for NASA as each Artemis-related project adjusts to the new plans. For example, two Artemis projects were reporting technical and programmatic risks that were likely to delay their schedules. Acting on GAO’s prior recommendations to improve cost transparency, establish cost and schedule controls, and better manage acquisition risk could provide opportunities for NASA to strengthen its acquisition management. In response to the administration’s directive to reduce the size of the federal workforce, NASA reduced its civil servant workforce by 4,000 staff—or nearly 22 percent—in 2025. To date, 25 of 36 projects have reported effects from the reduced staffing. Subsequently, in February 2026, the NASA Administrator announced plans to resume hiring and address skill gaps. The President’s fiscal year 2027 budget request, however, proposes to reduce funding for NASA by more than 20 percent. This request contributes to the ongoing uncertainty as to whether NASA will be able to hire the workforce needed to address skills gaps. GAO will continue to closely monitor NASA’s management of the Artemis projects, as well as the agency’s efforts to address workforce challenges. Why GAO Did This Study NASA plans to invest at least $70 billion in estimated life-cycle costs for its portfolio of major projects (those with costs over $250 million). These projects aim to explore the solar system, return U.S. astronauts to the lunar surface, and advance aeronautic technologies. House explanatory statements have included provisions for GAO to prepare status reports on these projects. This is GAO’s 18th annual report in response to those provisions. GAO assessed (1) the cost and schedule performance of NASA's major projects in development; (2) the risks that could affect major project performance in the future; and (3) how NASA’s workforce reductions since March 2025 have impacted its ability to manage its portfolio of major projects. This report also includes summaries of NASA's 36 major projects. GAO collected and analyzed data on the 36 current NASA major projects; visited NASA facilities; interviewed officials; analyzed cost and schedule performance for the 18 projects in development; reviewed NASA’s recent changes to the Artemis missions; analyzed workforce data; and reviewed documents and reports.

What GAO Found The Office of Isotope Research and Development and Production (IRP), within the Department of Energy’s (DOE) Office of Science, produced, sold, and distributed 265 isotopes during fiscal years 2020 through 2025. Many of these isotopes are critical to medical diagnosis and treatment, national security, industrial processes and manufacturing, and quantum science. IRP made over 7,700 isotope shipments, most of which were for medical purposes. Department of Energy Isotope Production Facility IRP assesses market needs for isotopes on a case-by-case basis and manually tracks interactions with industry, customers, and others. However, IRP has not systematically assessed needs or aligned production activities to address those needs. A university production site representative told GAO that clearer market analysis or forecasting would have enabled earlier production preparations for a critical isotope with imminent supply failure. Without a mechanism to systematically assess needs proactively and actions to address isotopes in short supply, IRP may be too slow to respond to customers, who could be forced to rely on sensitive countries to meet their needs or face supply problems. IRP gathers information from industry and others to assess risks to isotope production and supplies, but IRP has not developed timely actions to mitigate such risks. According to IRP data, isotopes with market disruptions decreased from 40 in 2023 to 25 in 2025, but the U.S. continues to rely on sensitive countries for a majority of those remaining isotopes. Without mitigating risks, IRP may be unable to respond to emerging risks in a timely manner. This could lead to disruptions in isotope production and supplies, which have real-world implications for cancer patients, national security, and domestic industries. Why GAO Did This Study IRP is the only domestic supplier for many of the isotopes it sells. Many isotopes are rare or are too expensive or technically difficult for private industry to produce profitably, making IRP critical for producing them. Demand for isotopes is growing, and many of these isotopes are in short supply or represent a supply chain risk for U.S. industries. GAO was asked to review IRP’s management of isotopes. This report examines (1) which isotopes IRP produced, sold, and distributed during fiscal years 2020 through 2025; (2) the extent to which IRP has assessed isotope market needs and aligned its activities to meet them; and (3) the extent to which IRP has assessed risks affecting the supply of selected isotopes and taken action to mitigate those risks. GAO analyzed agency documents and data on isotope revenues, costs, sales, and shipments. GAO also reviewed documentation on IRP’s assessment of demand and risks to isotope production and supply chains. GAO interviewed IRP officials and a nongeneralizable sample of entities that received isotopes from IRP and represented the medical, industrial, and research and development sectors. GAO also visited isotope production facilities and interviewed officials at Oak Ridge National Laboratory in Tennessee.

What GAO Found The U.S. Army Corps of Engineers enters into Project Partnership Agreements (PPA) with nonfederal sponsors to execute water resources projects. These PPAs include a clause to “hold and save the Government from damages arising from the project” except those due to the fault or negligence of the U.S. or its contractors. Corps officials said the clause may protect the federal government from legal costs by discouraging litigation—a key advantage. Nonfederal sponsors described disadvantages they perceive with the clause. These include concerns about the scope of liability and conflicts with certain state laws. Corps officials said the agency has taken steps to address these reported disadvantages, such as including a provision in PPAs stating that the PPA does not obligate future appropriations where it would conflict with state law. Both Corps officials and nonfederal sponsors said that the clause has not been tested in court, so the financial impact of the clause remains uncertain. Nonfederal sponsors and other stakeholders offered a range of recommendations to address what they reported as disadvantages of the clause. However, Corps officials told GAO that implementing such recommendations would increase costs for the Corps and conflict with statutory requirements. Even in light of the reported disadvantages, Corps officials and nonfederal sponsors continue to enter into PPAs, and they described a strong partnership. Examples of Recommendations by Nonfederal Sponsors and Stakeholders to Address Reported Disadvantages of the Hold and Save Clause The Bureau of Land Management, Bureau of Reclamation, and U.S. Forest Service also include clauses in agreements to protect the U.S. against damages. To address related concerns, these agencies have taken steps such as allowing parties to purchase insurance instead. However, Corps officials said their legal requirements differ from other agencies, and therefore they cannot offer similar flexibilities. Why GAO Did This Study Through its Civil Works program, the Corps plans, designs, and constructs water resources projects nationwide for purposes including flood risk management, navigation, and ecosystem restoration. In fiscal year 2025, the Corps received approximately $8.8 billion to carry out these projects. For such projects, the Corps enters into PPAs with nonfederal sponsors, which can include states, local governments and Tribes. Nonfederal sponsors have reported concerns about the statutorily required hold and save clause in these agreements. The Thomas R. Carper Water Resources Development Act of 2024 includes a provision for GAO to review issues related to federal legal protections in PPAs, among other things. This report provides information on reported advantages and disadvantages of the clause, actions taken to address the reported disadvantages, recommendations by nonfederal sponsors and others regarding such clauses, approaches used by selected federal agencies to address concerns about similar clauses that protect the U.S. against damages, and Corps responses. GAO reviewed relevant federal regulations, statutes, agency policies, and sample agreements. GAO also interviewed a group of 12 nonfederal sponsors, two other relevant stakeholders, and Corps headquarters and district officials based on certain criteria. For more information, contact Steve D. Morris at Morriss@gao.gov.

What GAO Found The Technology Modernization Fund (TMF) invests funding in agency projects to, among other things, modernize aging federal information technology (IT) systems. From fiscal years 2018 through 2025, the TMF received over $1 billion in net appropriations, of which the Technology Modernization Board invested about $1.03 billion in 68 unclassified projects (see figure). As of June 2025 (the latest data available at the time of this analysis), 24 TMF projects expected to achieve total savings of about $1.06 billion. Eleven of these projects had collectively realized savings of about $13.5 million, and 13 had not yet begun to achieve savings. While savings thus far have been small, the amount is not unexpected given that 21 projects—with expected savings of about $1.04 billion, or 98.3 percent of the total—anticipate achieving their savings in fiscal year 2027 or later. Thirty-seven projects did not expect any cost savings, but are intended to provide other value, such as mitigating security risks. Seven other projects were cancelled prior to June 2025 and no longer expect savings. Most of the projects were still active as of June 2025. Of the six completed TMF projects that expected cost savings, two met or were on track to meet their expected savings (within 10 percent) and four did not meet or were not on track to meet their savings. Officials for the projects that did not meet their expected savings attributed it to various reasons, such as the removal of planned functionality and higher system migration costs than planned, which led to tens of millions less in actual savings than estimated. As required under the Competition in Contracting Act of 1984, all procurements, with certain exceptions, must use full and open competition so that any qualified entity can submit an offer. Of 177 TMF contract actions, the majority (154, or 87 percent) were awarded using competitive procedures. This accounted for about $713.1 million (96 percent) of the total funding awarded. In 23 instances where agencies awarded contract actions without such procedures, the agencies documented authorized exceptions. Why GAO Did This Study The federal government has faced longstanding problems in managing its IT. The Modernizing Government Technology Act established the TMF to help address key IT modernization challenges. The Act stated that TMF funds should be used to procure commercial products and services using full and open competition to the greatest extent practicable. The Office of Management and Budget (OMB) issued guidance to agencies applying for TMF funds, directing that project proposals include a reliable estimate of any project-related cost savings. The act includes a provision for GAO to report biennially on the TMF and the expected cost savings of projects that received funding. This fourth report identifies the (1) approved TMF projects, their invested funds, and their expected and actual cost savings; (2) extent to which agencies' completed projects met their expected cost savings targets; and (3) extent to which the agencies used full and open competition for any acquisitions related to TMF invested projects. GAO analyzed and summarized TMF financial data and documentation, including cost estimates, associated with 68 projects in which GSA had invested funds as of June 2025. For applicable completed projects, GAO compared the difference between expected and realized cost savings to OMB’s variance threshold of 10 percent. GAO analyzed contract documentation for 32 projects that issued 177 contract actions between March 1, 2023, and June 2, 2025. GAO determined whether each one was awarded using full and open competition, in accordance with the Competition in Contracting Act of 1984 and the Federal Acquisition Regulation. GAO also interviewed relevant agency officials. For more information, contact Carol C. Harris at HarrisCC@gao.gov.

What GAO Found Twenty programs, supporting a broad range of services from health care to disaster assistance, made up nearly 90 percent of federal obligations among programs administered by state and other government entities with obligations of over $100 million in fiscal year 2025. The 20 programs collectively accounted for $1.1 trillion in total federal obligations that year. Subrecipients, contractors, and others can also be involved in these programs, which can be helpful in delivering benefits and services. However, this decentralized structure can leave programs vulnerable to fraud schemes involving all these groups. Information about fraud risks specific to each of the 20 selected programs varies, in part, because federal agencies have not fully assessed their risks. Of the 20 programs, five documented evidence consistent with identifying risks and assessing the likelihood of those risks to prioritize action; the other 15 did not have such documented evidence. GAO’s review of information from GAO, Office of Inspector General, and state audit reports identified both general and specific fraud risks facing federally funded, state-administered programs. Examples of General Fraud Risks in Federally Funded, State-Administered Programs Examples of specific fraud risks GAO identified in the 20 selected programs included cases where a consultant was convicted of falsifying permits used during a $4.3 million airport improvement project; households receiving housing assistance vouchers were underreporting income and landlords were receiving payments for vacant units; and an individual allegedly ran a fraud scheme involving student financial aid applications for over 1,200 people to over 100 schools in 24 states. GAO’s prior work and experiences from the United States and other countries provide insights that can help federal and state agencies, Congress, and others combat fraud. Federal and state agencies can better manage fraud risks and prevent fraud by applying GAO frameworks for managing fraud risks and improper payments, as well as other leading practices; leveraging available federal analytic resources, such as the Do Not Pay program, to verify recipient identity and eligibility before issuing federal funds; and implementing recommendations from GAO and other oversight entities that would address existing program vulnerabilities. Key insights for Congress and federal agencies focus on efforts in three areas: (1) enhancing analytics for detecting fraud, (2) increasing transparency with prevention activities through reporting and data, and (3) adapting approaches to federal programs and professions to address evolving fraud threats. Why GAO Did This Study GAO estimated that the federal government loses between $233 billion and $521 billion annually to fraud, according to data from fiscal years 2018 through 2022. This represented 3 percent to 7 percent of average federal obligations government-wide. While fraud risks can vary substantially by program, every dollar or resource diverted to fraudsters hinders the federal government’s ability to achieve its goals. GAO was asked to review fraud risks in federally funded, state-administered programs. This report—the first in a body of work—provides information on 20 of the largest programs, how they are administered and overseen, what is known about fraud risks and related risk factors in these programs, and examples of leading practices and controls to address the risks. GAO reviewed USAspending.gov data for fiscal year 2025 to identify and select programs. It also reviewed program information, such as from GAO, Congressional Research Service, Office of Inspector General, and state audit organization reports; federal laws, regulations, and agency documents requested from the 20 selected programs; and fraud cases adjudicated by the Department of Justice. GAO reviewed existing research and criteria on practices and controls to address fraud risks, including GAO's Fraud Risk Framework and those identified by experts within the U.S. and internationally.

What GAO Found According to U.S. Census Bureau data, an estimated 13.8 million adults enrolled in Medicaid and 10.6 million adults living in households that received Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP) benefits worked at some point during 2024. This is out of approximately 28 million and 20 million adults ages 19–64 in these programs, respectively. GAO’s analysis of Census data showed that about two-thirds of these adults in each program worked full-time (35 hours or more a week). However, when compared to other wage-earning adults not participating in either program, wage-earning adult Medicaid enrollees and SNAP recipients were less likely to work full-time hours for 50 or more weeks per year. Estimated Percentage of Wage-Earning Adults Working Full-Time and Part-Time Work Schedules in 2024 Most of these wage-earning adults in both programs (88 percent) were employed in the private sector in 2024, which is higher than the percentage of wage-earning adults in the private sector who were not enrolled or not receiving benefits. Wage-earning adult Medicaid enrollees and SNAP recipients were also more likely than wage earners who did not participate in the programs to work in food service and food preparation occupations. According to GAO’s analysis of state-level data for September 2025, the employers with the most nondisabled, nonelderly Medicaid enrollees or SNAP beneficiaries varied across the 11 states that provided data. However, 46 companies (about one-third of the total companies across all 11 states) were among the top 25 employers of Medicaid enrollees or SNAP beneficiaries in at least two states. Seventeen of these 46 companies were among the 50 largest Fortune 500 companies by number of employees. Why GAO Did This Study Each year millions of wage-earning adults participate in federally funded social safety net programs to help pay for basic needs including health care and food assistance. GAO was asked to update information provided on wage-earning Medicaid enrollees and SNAP recipients in its October 2020 report (GAO-21-45). This report includes an analysis estimating (1) the labor characteristics of working adult Medicaid enrollees and SNAP recipients and (2) employers of adult Medicaid enrollees and SNAP recipients in selected states. To conduct this work, GAO analyzed recent Census data on the labor characteristics of wage-earning adults in the two programs. GAO also analyzed data on the employers of nondisabled, nonelderly working adult Medicaid enrollees and working adult SNAP recipients obtained from 15 state agencies across 11 states as of September 2025. For more information, contact Kathryn Larin at larink@gao.gov.

What GAO Found The Individual Longitudinal Exposure Record (ILER) is a web application that links service members’ and veterans’ military toxic exposures and related information from Department of Defense (DOD) and Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) databases. DOD and VA intend ILER to be a multi-purpose tool to support clinicians in providing diagnoses and treatment decisions, researchers in conducting health surveillance and epidemiological research, and Veterans Benefit Administration (VBA) claims benefits staff in processing disability claims. Use of the ILER web application among DOD and VA staff increased after the Honoring our PACT Act of 2022 (PACT Act) was enacted in August 2022. This act expanded eligibility for VA health care and disability benefits to veterans who experienced certain toxic exposures during their military service. The increase in ILER use after the PACT Act’s enactment was driven largely by VBA staff. VBA staff have also been the largest group of users since enactment. Percentage of Individual Longitudinal Exposure Record (ILER) Account Logins, by Agency as Identified by Staff During Account Registration, September 2022 Through January 2026 In March 2026, service members gained the ability to access the ILER web application and add self-reported updates to their record. ILER officials said they plan to also provide service members with a way to request corrections by September 2026. For veterans, officials said they plan to provide access to ILER and a way to request corrections by October 2026. ILER officials and officials from eight stakeholder organizations said some potential benefits of service member and veteran access to their ILER information include increased transparency and knowledge. For example, service members and veterans may be able to have more informed conversations with clinicians about diagnoses and risks of future health effects. Those officials said one of the potential challenges includes frustration if service members and veterans see missing or incomplete records. ILER officials are providing information about ILER’s capabilities and limitations in education and outreach efforts to help mitigate this challenge. Why GAO Did This Study Military service members and veterans may experience adverse health outcomes associated with toxic exposures experienced during military service. For example, those who deployed to Afghanistan and Iraq after September 11th have reported health concerns from toxic exposures, particularly to smoke and harmful emissions produced by open-air burn pits. In April 2026, VA estimated that about 48 percent of veterans who have been screened since 2022 (approximately 3.2 million of 6.8 million total veterans screened) had at least one potential toxic exposure during military service. DOD and VA launched ILER in 2019 as a tool to compile information on individuals’ service-related toxic exposures and health assessments from several databases. Staff can use ILER to process disability claims, provide health care, and conduct research. The National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2022 includes a provision for GAO to review ILER. This report describes available information on the use of ILER by DOD and VA staff and service members’ and veterans’ access to their ILER record. GAO analyzed data on ILER use among DOD and VA staff from October 2019 through January 2026; reviewed related documents and interviewed officials managing ILER; and interviewed stakeholder organizations, including six military and veterans service organizations and two toxic exposure non-profit organizations. GAO selected these organizations as they represent service members or veterans and have knowledge or expertise related to military toxic exposures. For more information, contact Alyssa M. Hundrup at hundrupa@gao.gov.

What GAO Found The Infrastructure Investment and Jobs Act (IIJA) and Inflation Reduction Act (IRA) provided budget authorities for transportation, infrastructure, and energy projects. Together, the four agencies selected for this review—the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), Department of the Interior (Interior), National Telecommunications and Information Administration (NTIA), and Department of Transportation (DOT)—obligated a majority of their IIJA or IRA funding. IIJA. Of the approximately $574.7 billion provided to them, the four agencies obligated about 76 percent and disbursed about 54 percent of obligated funds for fiscal years 2022 to 2025. IRA. Of the around $53.7 billion provided to them, EPA, Interior, and DOT obligated about 72 percent and disbursed about 60 percent of obligated funds for fiscal years 2022 through 2025. In July 2025, Congress rescinded $6.4 billion of the three agencies’ unobligated IRA funds per agencies’ data. Most selected agencies reported developing new processes to review IIJA and IRA funding in response to dozens of executive orders issued starting January 20, 2025. The agencies used a variety of approaches to implement reviews, such as searching for terms from executive orders like “diversity” or “environmental justice.” Senior leadership for all selected agencies made final decisions on whether awards should be approved without modification, modified (funded with changes to terms or amounts), or canceled (discontinued), according to selected agencies’ officials and documentation. The extent to which agencies continued to obligate and disburse IIJA and IRA funds during their reviews varied within and across agencies. As a result of their reviews, selected agencies reported approving about 9,500 awards ($128 billion) and canceling about 800 ($17.8 billion). More than 2,500 awards were pending a decision ($33.6 billion) as of varying dates shown below. Status of Selected Agencies’ Infrastructure Investment and Jobs Act and Inflation Reduction Act Funding Reviews, as of the Dates Indicated Note: Canceled awards include terminated, rescinded, or withdrawn awards, or awards discontinued by a recipient. Why GAO Did This Study The IIJA and IRA provided billions in federal funding to agencies to distribute through mechanisms like grants and loans. Beginning in January 2025, executive orders directed agencies to pause this funding to review it for consistency with administration priorities. Grant recipients have raised concerns that delays in distributing these funds affect their ability to implement their projects. GAO was asked to review the status of IIJA and IRA funding. This report describes selected agencies’ (1) IIJA and IRA budget authority, obligations, rescissions, and disbursements for fiscal years 2022 to 2025; (2) processes for reviewing IIJA and IRA funding in response to executive orders; and (3) IIJA and IRA funding review status. To address these objectives, GAO selected agencies with among the highest amount of combined IIJA and IRA funding. Of these agencies, GAO selected EPA, Interior, NTIA, and DOT for this report. GAO will report on the Department of Energy and Department of Agriculture separately. GAO analyzed the IIJA and IRA and financial data from agencies’ accounting systems and the agencies’ policies and guidance for reviewing IIJA and IRA funding. GAO also analyzed and summarized selected agency review data and found these data to be sufficiently reliable for the purpose of describing the status of reviews with some limitations. For example, EPA and NTIA did not provide all requested data. GAO also interviewed selected agency officials for each of the objectives. For more information, contact Anne Sit-Williams at sitwilliamsa@gao.gov or Elizabeth Repko at repkoe@gao.gov.

What GAO Found GAO identified 117 cybersecurity regulations established by 37 federal agencies for private entities, spanning nine critical infrastructure sectors. Most of those regulations either contain the same kind of reporting requirement applicable to a sector or the same reporting requirement as at least one other regulation, which may lead to duplication. Specifically, 80 of the 117 regulations (about 70 percent) had at least 125 total reporting requirements (see figure), with some regulations requiring multiple types of reporting. Cybersecurity Regulations with Reporting Requirements, as of June 2026 These regulations included sector-specific and cross-sector reporting requirements for private sector entities that may be required to report similar or different cybersecurity information to multiple agencies. For example, a proposed rule from the Department of Homeland Security related to cybersecurity incident reporting by critical infrastructure sectors acknowledged that it may be potentially duplicative with one or more of the 15 existing financial sector regulations that also require such incident reporting. Additionally, cross-sector regulations may duplicate or conflict with regulations focused on a specific sector. For example, one from the Securities and Exchange Commission that requires publicly traded companies across different sectors to provide cybersecurity plans may duplicate or conflict with regulations focused on a specific sector. GAO has ongoing work to obtain additional industry perspectives on federal cybersecurity regulations, including where they perceive overlap and duplication within selected critical infrastructure sectors. Federal law and the April 2024 National Security Memorandum-22 established the Office of the National Cyber Director (ONCD) as the lead agency responsible for coordinating efforts to streamline, or harmonize, the development and adoption of consistent standards and regulations. ONCD and other federal agencies have initiated actions in recent years to harmonize cybersecurity regulations but have made limited progress. In March 2026, the White House issued a new national cyber strategy which established harmonization and reducing compliance burdens as a priority. According to the strategy, the administration intends to release implementation plans, which could help identify clear lead agency roles, responsibilities, and next steps while enhancing the cybersecurity of the nation’s critical infrastructure. Why GAO Did This Study Nearly all the nation’s critical infrastructure are supported by computer-based information systems, and it is vital that public and private sectors work together to protect them. Federal agencies have issued numerous regulations to help protect the nation’s critical infrastructure, which is mostly owned by the private sector. However, according to ONCD, when critical infrastructure sectors are subject to multiple cybersecurity regulations, the result can lead to conflicting guidance, inconsistencies, increased compliance costs and redundancies for regulated entities. Consistency is important to avoid overlap, duplication, or conflicting requirements. GAO was asked to review federal cybersecurity regulations to identify opportunities for harmonization. This report determines the extent to which federal cybersecurity regulations and requirements are potentially duplicative or conflicting for regulated private sector entities. GAO reviewed the Electronic Code of Federal Regulations to identify cybersecurity regulations and assess them for potentially duplicative and conflicting reporting requirements. GAO also reviewed available harmonization plans and analyses from ONCD and the Department of Homeland Security. GAO also interviewed relevant officials. We provided a draft of this report to ONCD for review and comment. ONCD did not provide comments on the report. For more information, contact David Hinchman at hinchmand@gao.gov.

What GAO Found The Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) has not fully implemented selected leading planning and management practices for its enterprise software asset management (eSAM) program. eSAM is a department-wide effort intended to change how VA manages software assets by, among other things, requiring VA offices to coordinate with, and centrally report software license data to, VA’s IT management organization. This will require a change in organizational practices, given that VA programs have historically acquired their software independently. Department of Veterans Affairs’ (VA) Implementation of Selected Leading Program Planning and Management Practice Areas for the Enterprise Software Asset Management (eSAM) Program Selected practice area Overall assessment Strategic alignment ◔ Minimally implemented Stakeholder engagement ◑ Partially implemented Life cycle management planning ◑Partially implemented Managing changes needed to support the program ◔ Minimally implemented Governance framework ○ Not implemented Software license management ◔ Minimally implemented Source: GAO analysis of VA eSAM program documentation. | GAO-26-108641 In addition, VA has not fully implemented selected leading planning and management practices for its software license inventory project. Of the six selected practice areas, VA partially implemented two areas (scope management and risk management) and minimally implemented the other four areas (project governance, stakeholder engagement, resource management, and software license management). For example, VA documented certain project risks but did not document all identified risks in a register. It also did not develop planned responses (e.g., mitigation strategies) for them all, which limits VA’s ability to address the risks before they become issues. Further, VA has not engaged with all stakeholders to identify their needs, nor developed plans for doing so. As such, eSAM is at risk of performing work that does not meet stakeholder needs. Part of the reason for the shortfalls noted in the practice areas is that VA did not perform oversight to ensure that eSAM and the inventory project (1) finalized and received approval for several key plans and (2) followed the leading practices. VA officials stated that turnover in the IT management organization—including the absence of a permanent Chief Information Officer (CIO) since January 2025—impacted VA’s oversight of eSAM and the project. VA officials anticipated that, once a permanent CIO is on board, VA would consider implementing a new (1) IT governance board to oversee programs such as eSAM and (2) IT governance process. However, there are opportunities for current VA officials to provide oversight to the program and inventory project to ensure they continue moving forward to meet intended outcomes. Until VA fully implements the selected practices for eSAM and the inventory project, it may not achieve departmentwide software asset management. As such, it is also at risk of missing opportunities to achieve significant cost savings possible from analyzing departmentwide software license data to make informed investment decisions. Why GAO Did This Study VA spends billions of dollars annually on its IT and cyber-related investments, including for purchases of commercial software licenses. 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 VA to ensure better management of software licenses. VA has taken actions intended to improve its software license management, including establishing the eSAM program, which includes a project to implement a centralized software license inventory, among other things. GAO was asked to review VA’s software asset management policies and practices. This report examines the extent to which VA implemented selected leading planning and management practices for its (1) eSAM program and (2) software license inventory project. GAO reviewed industry guidance on program and project management and leading software license management practices identified in its prior work and selected 12 planning and management practice areas to review (six for the eSAM program and six for the inventory project). The selected areas and practices relate to early planning and execution of the program and inventory project. GAO compared the guidance in these 12 areas to VA documentation and interviewed VA officials.

What GAO Found Since 2000, the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives (ATF) and the National Shooting Sports Foundation (NSSF) have managed and launched the Don’t Lie for the Other Guy campaign across various cities in the U.S. The campaign is intended to educate the public about the legal consequences of “straw purchases”—when someone who is prohibited from buying a firearm has someone else (a “straw buyer”) make the purchase for them. The campaign also educates federal firearms licensees (FFLs)—which include individuals or businesses that have obtained a federal firearm license to sell, manufacture, or import firearms—on how to identify and stop illegal straw purchases. ATF seeks to inform the public about these campaigns by conducting press conferences and advertising the campaign’s message. NSSF provides FFL retailers with training and education materials. In fiscal years 2023 through 2025, ATF launched at least 20 campaigns across the U.S. and expended over $870,000 each year to support them. ATF used most of the campaign funding to pay for costs associated with hiring a marketing firm to produce, advertise, and distribute campaign marketing materials, as well as costs associated with the use of digital ads and streaming audio. Examples of Don’t Lie for the Other Guy Campaign Marketing Materials ATF has established three broad program goals for the Don’t Lie for the Other Guy campaign. ATF also collects and tracks metrics for the campaign. However, as of June 2026, the agency has not used those metrics to fully assess progress towards meeting the campaign’s broader program goals, or to better inform programmatic decisions such as resource allocation. By developing measurable performance goals and using this performance information to assess progress towards achieving the campaign’s broader program goals, ATF will be in a better position to evaluate the campaign and make important management and resource allocation decisions, such as which marketing efforts are more cost-effective at increasing public awareness. According to ATF and NSSF officials, ATF does not manage or provide any federal funding for the Operation Secure Store firearms industry education and outreach campaign. These officials stated that NSSF manages and provides sole funding for this campaign, which provides FFLs with educational materials to help identify potential security risks and ways to deter and prevent thefts of firearms stored at FFL retail locations. During GAO’s review, ATF updated the agency’s public facing website to correct information about ATF’s role in NSSF’s Operation Secure Store campaign. Why GAO Did This Study According to a 2024 Department of Justice report, one of the most common sources of illegally trafficked firearms are straw purchases. While legislation has been passed to attempt to prevent these types of purchases, FFLs play an important role in safeguarding the public by helping to prevent straw purchasing. ATF issues and renews FFL licenses and investigates potential noncompliance with federal laws and regulations. ATF also works with firearms industry groups such as NSSF to deliver firearms education and outreach campaigns. GAO was asked to review ATF’s work with the firearms industry on education and outreach to better understand the impact of these campaigns. This report provides information about ATF’s role and federal funding provided for two such firearms education and outreach campaigns—Don’t Lie for the Other Guy and Operation Secure Store— including whether the efficacy of these campaigns has been evaluated. To conduct this work, GAO reviewed ATF program documentation, assessed funding data from fiscal year 2023 through fiscal year 2025, and interviewed ATF officials and firearms industry representatives. GAO compared actions taken to monitor and assess the campaign against selected key practices for evaluating the effectiveness of media campaigns and evidence-based policymaking.

What GAO Found Technologies like batteries and semiconductors are essential to the U.S. economy but rely on imports of lithium, gallium, and other critical minerals. GAO found that substitution and recycling technologies could help reduce U.S. reliance on these imports. But progress is likely to take many years in some cases. Potential for technologies to reduce critical mineral import reliance For batteries, substitution and recycling technologies offer near-term potential. For example, using lithium iron phosphate batteries for stationary grid energy storage might reduce imports of cobalt, manganese, and nickel in the next 2 to 3 years. But these batteries do not perform as well in other applications, like long-haul electric vehicles, due to their lower energy density. Lithium-free batteries are not yet commercially mature. Battery recycling technologies are mature and offer a pathway to reduce imports for copper, cobalt, lithium, and nickel in 2 to 3 years. These technologies aim to recover critical minerals at high rates through chemical leaching and smelting. Experts told GAO, however, that U.S. battery recyclers lack capacity. Additionally, available inputs for recycling (referred to as feedstock) are often landfilled or exported for processing. For semiconductors, most substitution and recycling technologies are likely years away from maturity. Substitution is unlikely to have a near-term effect on import reliance of minerals, such as gallium and indium, because other materials do not perform as well as these critical minerals across the same conditions. Experts told GAO that industry will not adopt substitutes until they can perform at the same level as current semiconductor materials in the intended application. Technologies to recycle minerals from semiconductors also face challenges, such as an underdeveloped market. Semiconductor manufacturing scrap is a potential source of recycled minerals, though this is not yet standard practice in the U.S. Discarded electronics are another potentially large source, but their critical mineral content is low, and those minerals are generally mixed and bonded with other materials. Technologies to recycle this form of electronic waste are in pilot-stage development.   GAO identified four policy options that could support the goal of reducing critical mineral import reliance and help address challenges to recycling and substitution technologies. These options identify possible actions by policymakers, which include legislative bodies, government agencies (federal, state, and local), academia, standards-setting organizations, industry, and other groups. In general, these technologies have potential, with policy action, to reduce some of this reliance in the near, medium, or long term. See below for details on these options. Policymakers could also choose to pursue non-technological policy approaches, such as increased domestic mining. Many non-technological approaches are the subject of current and proposed legislation and executive action (see report p. 6). Policy options to support reducing critical mineral import reliance and address challenges to substitution and recycling technologies Establish domestic manufacturing capacity for viable substitutes (report p. 23) Policymakers could consider building or repurposing existing manufacturing capacity to produce substitute technologies for batteries and semiconductors. Potential implementation approaches Providing support for private capital investments in manufacturing plants for commercially available battery technologies. Establishing facilities or partnerships to perform pilot-scale testing of semiconductor substitutes. Opportunities and Considerations Domestic manufacturing capacity could allow for near-term production of commercially available substitute technologies like lithium iron phosphate batteries, which could reduce import reliance on critical minerals like cobalt and nickel. Battery and semiconductor production facilities are costly and tend to be specialized for the production of a particular technology. Establish domestic recycling capacity (report p. 24) Policymakers could build domestic infrastructure to bolster the domestic capacity to recycle batteries and semiconductors. Potential implementation approaches Providing support for private investment in factories for new battery recycling. Collecting and sharing data on manufacturing scrap and end-of-life devices containing batteries and semiconductors. Reviewing and streamlining permitting requirements and hazardous waste designations. Opportunities and Considerations Expanded domestic infrastructure could reduce or eliminate the need to ship partially processed batteries overseas for recycling. Building domestic recycling infrastructure may not reduce import reliance for selected critical minerals in the near term, since building new or repurposing existing infrastructure can take a decade or more and require significant investment. Secure inputs for recycling (report p. 24) Policymakers could support efforts to collect, sort, transport, and store manufacturing scrap and end-of-life devices for recycling and reuse. Potential implementation approaches Establishing and overseeing national and local electronic waste collection programs that provide education and resources (e.g., drop-off locations) for consumers. Providing financial incentives for industry to collect or retain manufacturing scrap and end-of-life devices for recycling. Opportunities and Considerations Securing a consistent supply of inputs for recycling and reuse could help reduce the need for critical mineral importation in the near term. Although mature battery recycling technologies exist, securing additional inputs may exacerbate challenges related to the safety, transportation, and handling of hazardous materials. Without demand and competitively priced recycled semiconductor materials, it may be difficult for recyclers to scale their operations and offset the amount of imported minerals required in the near term. Support research, development, and testing (report p. 25) Policymakers could continue or grow support for research, development, and testing of substitution and recycling technologies. Potential implementation approaches Supporting research to improve performance of lithium-free batteries. Supporting research into battery recycling technologies that reduce or avoid the cost, waste issues, and environmental impact of current techniques. Encouraging targeted materials research focused on semiconductor substitutes that maintain or enhance material performance and reduce the use of critical minerals when possible. Supporting research on more efficient semiconductor recycling technologies that recover more critical minerals. Opportunities and Considerations Increased research could help overcome current limitations of existing technologies, resulting in better performance (e.g., higher energy density batteries, larger bandgap semiconductors) or higher commercialization potential (e.g., improved recovery of minerals from semiconductors). Research, development, and testing efforts may not yield mature technologies in the near term. Source: GAO. | GAO-26-108687 Why GAO Did This Study The U.S. considers 60 minerals as critical because they are essential to the nation’s economy or security and have supply chains vulnerable to disruption. Several critical minerals are key to the functioning of batteries and semiconductors, which have applications in electric vehicles, stationary grid energy storage, consumer electronics, and the defense industry. For example, lithium is a key component of modern batteries that are both lightweight and energy-dense. Semiconductors rely on the unique electrical properties of critical minerals such as gallium, germanium, arsenic, and indium. U.S. executive and legislative branch policymakers have a long-standing goal to reduce critical mineral import reliance, through technological innovations and other approaches. This report examines: (1) substitution and recycling technologies to reduce import reliance on critical minerals within the battery and semiconductor industries, (2) challenges to the development and adoption of these technologies, and (3) policy options to support reducing reliance. To conduct this technology assessment, GAO interviewed federal officials and experts and reviewed academic papers, agency and expert documentation, and federal policy. GAO identified four policy options in this report (see next page). For more information, contact Sarah Harvey at HarveyS@gao.gov.