What GAO Found The proliferation of cyberattacks on federal agencies and other organizations has led to an increased risk of stolen personally identifiable information (PII) being used to commit fraud. For example, malicious actors have used the information to fraudulently obtain government benefits and commit tax fraud, among other things. The Social Security Administration has reported that personal information of beneficiaries has been used to fraudulently redirect the beneficiary’s direct deposit benefits. Stolen PII also increases risks for financial fraud, such as fraudulent credit card applications. In this type of fraud, thieves use identifying data, such as Social Security numbers and driver’s license numbers, to open new financial accounts without a person’s knowledge. These types of attacks can result in financial loss and damage to the reputation of federal agencies and financial institutions. To ensure that individuals accessing government services, benefits, and other resources are the individuals they claim to be, federal agencies use a variety of identity verification processes. To suppport these efforts, the General Services Adiministration (GSA) established Login.gov as a government-wide identity verification service. Login.gov uses a non-biometric, three-step process to verify an individual’s identity. In addition, to protect users’ PII, Login.gov uses security measures such as encryption, access restrictions, and monitoring capabilities. GAO previously reported challenges in GSA’s implementation of Login.gov. These challenges involved: ensuring that Login.gov data was backed up regularly to prevent data loss, aligning Login.gov with federal digital identity guidelines to provide an appropriate level of assurance when verifying users’ identities, resolving technical challenges reported by agencies using Login.gov, and documenting and applying lessons learned from its Login.gov pilot programs. To address these challenges, GAO made several recommendations in 2024 and 2025 to GSA. Since then, the agency has taken steps to implement all but one of these recommendations. For example, GSA took steps to ensure that Login.gov offers remote identity-proofing services that comply with federal digital identity guidelines. In addition, the agency provided evidence that it had begun testing processes for backing up Login.gov data. However, GSA still needs to take action to fully address one of GAO’s recommendations. Specifically, GSA has not established time frames with its partners for addressing agency-reported technical challenges. Without GSA-proposed actions and time frames for addressing the challenges, agencies will continue to experience technical issues with the system. Protecting PII and preventing identity theft is critical, as the harms can range from lost funds to emotional distress and damage to the reputation of federal agencies. Fully implementing GAO’s remaining recommendation would help the federal government ensure PII is better protected and lessen the risk of identity theft. GAO will continue to monitor GSA’s efforts to address the recommendation. Why GAO Did This Study The vast amount of PII that federal agencies collect from individuals to verify their identity may be vulnerable to breaches, which can result in identity theft, fraud, and other harms. Accordingly, it is critical that federal agencies implement effective ways to verify the identity of individuals who access government websites to prevent fraud and protect PII. To address this issue, GSA launched Login.gov in 2017 to provide federal agencies with a single sign-on system to verify the identity of individuals seeking access to government websites. In 2021, GSA allocated about $187 million in technology modernization funds to enhance Login.gov’s services, including strengthening its security and anti-fraud protections and improving ease of agency adoption. This statement discusses (1) identity-related fraud threats and (2) Login.gov capabilities and the status of GSA efforts to address prior related GAO recommendations. This statement is based primarily on GAO’s October 2024 (GAO-25-106640) and June 2025 (GAO-25-107000) reports on Login.gov’s identity proofing processes. This statement also includes updated information provided by GSA on efforts to address GAO’s recommendations. For more information, contact Marisol Cruz Cain at CruzCainM@gao.gov.

What GAO Found The Department of Justice’s Executive Office for Immigration Review (EOIR) conducts immigration court proceedings both in-person and using remote technology, such as WebEx—an internet-based video teleconferencing platform, or telephone. Per EOIR policy, immigration judges may use discretion to decide which, if any, remote medium is used by participants in a hearing. EOIR collects data on the medium used for each hearing, which reflects the location of only the judge and respondent. According to GAO’s analysis of this data, of the nearly 6 million hearings held from fiscal year 2022 through 2025, about 63 percent or 3.8 million hearings were in-person. Of the approximately 2.2 million remote hearings, most used WebEx (about 78 percent or 1.7 million). During this time, the number of remote hearings increased almost 50 percent, while the number of in-person hearings increased more dramatically. EOIR officials stated that as the COVID-19 pandemic subsided, immigration courts began scheduling more hearings overall, with more hearings taking place in-person. Number and Percentage of Immigration Court Hearings Held Remotely and In-person, Fiscal Years 2022–2025 EOIR officials and selected immigration judges and attorneys described generally favorable experiences with remote immigration hearings. They identified benefits of using remote technology, such as reducing the time and cost associated with in-person hearings, increasing the efficiency of hearings, and allowing respondents increased access to private bar attorneys. Some court stakeholders also provided perspectives on challenging aspects of remote hearings, such as variation in judge preferences for remote hearings, and technology limitations for language interpretation options. However, they told GAO these challenges did not outweigh the benefits of holding remote immigration hearings. Why GAO Did This Study Each year, EOIR immigration judges preside over immigration court proceedings for hundreds of thousands of respondents—foreign nationals charged on statutory grounds of removability. In 2017, GAO reported that EOIR would benefit from collecting more reliable data on the use of remote technology in immigration hearings, among other actions. The Explanatory Statement accompanying the Consolidated Appropriations Act, 2024, includes a provision for GAO to update the portion of its 2017 report that addressed the use of remote technology in immigration courts. This report examines (1) what EOIR data show about remote and in-person immigration hearings from fiscal year 2022 through 2025 and (2) the benefits and challenges of using remote technology for immigration court hearings and any actions EOIR has taken to address challenges. GAO reviewed EOIR policies and procedures regarding the use of remote technology in immigration hearings and analyzed EOIR data on immigration hearings from fiscal year 2022 through 2025. In addition, GAO interviewed officials from EOIR and the Office of the Principal Legal Advisor (OPLA) within the Department of Homeland Security‘s U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement. GAO also interviewed immigration judges and OPLA attorneys from four immigration court locations selected to represent courts with variation in the size of geographic area of responsibility and hearing volume, and members of two nongovernmental organizations for immigration judges and attorneys who represent respondents. Further, GAO conducted in-person and remote observations of 22 immigration hearings from 11 immigration courts across the U.S. For more information, contact Heather MacLeod at MacleodH@gao.gov.

What GAO Found In July 2024, the National Nuclear Security Administration (NNSA) released an internal Integrated Science, Technology, and Engineering (ST&E) Plan documenting investments needed for ST&E capabilities over the next 20 years. NNSA’s plan identified and prioritized 46 ST&E facility investments across the nuclear security enterprise that support stewardship of the nuclear weapons stockpile and other NNSA missions. The investments were prioritized by mission importance and mission need time frame. They included sustainment and enhancement of existing facilities and construction of new facilities. NNSA also collected initial estimates of related ST&E workforce and programmatic investment needs—such as needed equipment and materials—from the nuclear security enterprise sites for the 20-year period. However, NNSA did not fully assess these funding needs and has no plans to do so. NNSA officials said that the plan focused on facility investments due to a deadline to provide that information for the agency’s Enterprise Blueprint, which was publicly released. Completing a comprehensive analysis of the ST&E workforce and programmatic investment needs would allow NNSA to better understand the total funding needs for stockpile stewardship and proactively plan for those needs. Annular Core Research Reactor, a National Nuclear Security Administration Facility Requiring Sustainment Investment NNSA provided the most detailed cost information on seven high mission importance, near-term ST&E facility investment projects in the Department of Energy’s fiscal year 2026 budget justification. Cost information on other proposed facility investments was limited because the projects are in early planning phases or are sustainment investments. NNSA officials said they have not updated their integrated assessment of future ST&E facility investment needs. NNSA’s ST&E facility priorities have already evolved and may further change over time to reflect changes in congressional priorities or new technologies in areas such as high energy density physics, artificial intelligence, or production. Regularly updating the agency’s integrated assessment of its ST&E facility needs would help guide future investment decisions to support stockpile stewardship and modernization. Why GAO Did This Study NNSA relies on unique science, technology, and engineering facilities and a skilled contractor workforce across the nuclear security enterprise to maintain and modernize the nuclear weapons stockpile without relying on nuclear explosive testing. According to NNSA, many ST&E facilities are decades old. A 2022 major review recommended that NNSA develop an enterprise-wide plan to revitalize its ST&E facilities and workforce. Senate Report 118-58 accompanying a bill for the National Defense Authorization Act for fiscal year 2024 includes a provision for GAO to review NNSA’s plans for ST&E capabilities. This report examines (1) the extent to which NNSA’s Integrated ST&E Plan identified and prioritized the ST&E facilities, workforce, and programmatic investments needed to support stockpile stewardship; (2) the information available about estimated costs of these investments; and (3) the extent to which NNSA is regularly updating its integrated assessment of ST&E facility investment needs. GAO reviewed agency and national security laboratory contractors’ documents related to the Integrated ST&E Plan and budget documents; made site visits to facilities at NNSA’s Los Alamos and Sandia National Laboratories in New Mexico; and interviewed NNSA officials and laboratory contractors.

What GAO Found The Department of Transportation (DOT) and its component agencies are underutilizing their office space department-wide based on the Utilizing Space Efficiently and Improving Technologies (USE IT) Act benchmark of 60 percent utilization. Specifically, GAO found that 89 percent of DOT’s 189 office buildings, including the DOT and the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) headquarters complexes, were underutilized in August and September 2025 based on the USE IT benchmark. This was largely consistent with DOT’s USE IT Act reporting in March 2026. DOT’s underutilized office space costs hundreds of millions of dollars annually to lease, operate, and maintain. In August 2025, DOT announced its intention to consolidate Washington, D.C.-area FAA office space, including fully vacating the FAA headquarters complex by summer 2027. As of June 2026, DOT is reconfiguring its headquarters without a definitive housing plan for 950 of the FAA headquarters personnel or detailed savings estimates. Due to these uncertainties, the agency may complete the consolidation without fully vacating the FAA headquarters complex, potentially offsetting any savings from the consolidation. Federal Aviation Administration and Department of Transportation Headquarters DOT has not pursued department wide-consolidation to increase space utilization or implemented space-maximizing strategies to address underutilized office space. Specifically, as of March 2026, DOT did not have plans to consolidate other DOT offices beyond FAA headquarters despite widespread underutilization. There are department-wide opportunities to consolidate, as 89 percent of DOT office buildings did not meet the USE IT Act utilization threshold for a period in 2025, and its largest office buildings averaged 34 percent utilization. In addition, adopting space-maximizing strategies could help DOT efficiently use its office space and support further consolidations and savings. For example, implementing a desk reservation system could help DOT use space more efficiently and increase utilization because DOT officials said that many employees spend roughly half their time offsite conducting investigations or inspections. By developing and implementing a department-wide consolidation plan that includes space-maximizing strategies, DOT may be better able to meet the 60 percent utilization threshold throughout its portfolio of office space and reduce facility costs by hundreds of millions of dollars. Why GAO Did This Study Managing federal real property has been on GAO’s High Risk List since 2003. In 2023, GAO reported that the COVID-19 pandemic and increased telework had contributed to low utilization of agency headquarters buildings, including DOT’s. Since then, DOT has reinstated its in-office requirements and reduced its staff size. GAO was asked to review DOT’s office space use across the United States. This report examines 1) DOT’s office space utilization department-wide and the costs of underutilized space, 2) DOT’s consolidation plans for the FAA headquarters complex, and 3) the extent to which DOT’s efforts address underutilized office space department-wide. GAO collected office space size and attendance data from 189 DOT office locations for a selected period in August and September 2025. GAO then calculated the utilization of each building by dividing its in-office attendance for the sample period by the building’s capacity. GAO calculated capacity by dividing a location’s total usable square feet by the 150 square feet per-person benchmark established by the USE IT Act. GAO interviewed officials from DOT and the General Services Administration, visited DOT offices in Washington, D.C., Virginia, and California, and discussed space-maximizing strategies with four architecture and engineering firms selected based on their experiences with government and private sector clients.

Why This matters Across the globe, over 24 million tons of plastic (as much weight as 12 million cars) enter the environment each year. Larger plastics gradually break down into smaller microplastics, which can move into the organs, blood, and cells of humans and other animals. Key Takeaways Major sources of microplastics include vehicle tires, synthetic fabrics, plastic bottles, and paint. Exposure to microplastics is associated with health problems in humans and other organisms, but scientists have not determined the extent to which microplastics cause such problems. Federal agencies have announced actions to measure and remove microplastics in the human body, consider potential regulation of microplastics in drinking water, and reduce microplastic exposure from synthetic fabrics. The Science What is it? Microplastics are plastic particles smaller than 5,000 micrometers (i.e., 5 millimeters). The smallest microplastics, called “nanoplastics,” are smaller than 1 micrometer (see fig. 1). Figure 1. Relative Sizes of Microplastics Some microplastics are intentionally produced. For example, exfoliating products and toothpastes containing plastic microbeads were common until the Microbead-Free Waters Act of 2015 prohibited their production in the U.S. However, most microplastics result from the gradual breakdown of larger plastics, and these particles may never fully decompose. Major sources include vehicle tires, synthetic fabrics, plastic bottles, and paint. What is known? Microplastics are found in air, land, and water, and can carry toxic substances (e.g., phthalates, PFAS, heavy metals). When animals ingest them, it may lead to malnutrition and other cumulative effects higher on the food chain. Larger microplastics can pass through the human body without interacting with tissues. In contrast, smaller microplastics—including nanoplastics—can cross the body’s natural barriers. Once inhaled, ingested, or absorbed through the skin, they can enter organs, blood, and cells (see fig. 2). Figure 2. Microplastics in the Human Body Some estimates place humans’ weekly microplastics intake in the microgram range. However, intake varies based on lifestyle. For example, some studies suggest reliance on bottled water may result in a higher intake. Some studies have associated microplastics with a greater risk of certain health problems. For example, in a study of patients with plaque buildup in their arteries, patients whose plaques contained microplastics had a higher risk of heart attack, stroke, or death. However, the extent and level at which microplastics cause health problems are unclear. Through laboratory studies in mice, scientists have found that unusually high levels of exposure to microplastics can cause cognitive impairment, decreased testosterone levels, and other health problems. What are the knowledge gaps? Most technologies to measure microplastics in the environment rely on significant sample preparation, preventing on-site testing. Also, highly effective removal technologies, like reverse osmosis, may be difficult to scale for use in public water supplies. To help address knowledge gaps, in 2026, the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) added microplastics to the Contaminant Candidate List—a list of contaminants that may require future regulation under the Safe Drinking Water Act. Also, the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) announced STOMP: Systematic Targeting Of MicroPlastics—a program to measure and remove microplastics in the human body. Further, the Department of Agriculture (USDA) announced an initiative to strengthen domestic cotton production to reduce microplastic exposure from synthetic fabrics. Opportunities The following scientific advances and lifestyle changes could present opportunities to reduce exposure to microplastics: Measurement technologies. Development of portable technologies could help scientists take real-time measurements of microplastics in the environment. Removal technologies. Development of scalable technologies to remove the smallest microplastics from drinking water could help reduce community exposure. Exposure reduction. Reducing use of plastic products, such as disposable water bottles, or substituting alternatives can reduce exposure, as can frequent indoor cleaning to remove plastic dust. Challenges Cost and convenience. Plastic products are often inexpensive and convenient. Some major sources of microplastics, such as vehicle tires, are essential. Geographic spread. Since winds and ocean currents have spread microplastics to remote places, including Antarctica, it may be impossible to stop further spread. Data interpretation. Certain findings have caused public concern, but, without standardized methodologies, it can be difficult to interpret study data on potential health effects. Selected GAO Work Textile Waste: Federal Entities Should Collaborate on Reduction and Recycling Efforts, GAO-25-107165. Selected References Marfella, Raffaele, Francesco Prattichizzo, Celestino Sardu, Gianluca Fulgenzi, Laura Graciotti, Tatiana Spadoni, Nunzia D’Onofrio, et al. "Microplastics and Nanoplastics in Atheromas and Cardiovascular Events." New England Journal of Medicine, vol. 390, no. 10 (2024): 900-910. Zolotova, Natalia, Anna Kosyreva, Dzhuliia Dzhalilova, Nikolai Fokichev, and Olga Makarova. "Harmful Effects of the Microplastic Pollution on Animal Health: A Literature Review." PeerJ, vol. 10 (2022): e13503. For more information, contact Karen L. Howard, PhD at HowardK@gao.gov.

Why This Matters Bad actors may falsify the geographic origin of products to illicitly sell goods or substitute premium products with cheaper products, which can threaten our economy and consumer safety. In 2021, the U.S. International Trade Commission estimated that U.S. commercial fishing may have lost nearly $61 million in operating income due to illegal, unreported, and unregulated seafood imports. Technologies that verify the origin of imported food and agricultural products, like seafood or wood, may help prevent fraud. Key Takeaways Maturity and adoption of origin verification technologies vary by type of technology and the product they verify. Verifying geographic origin typically requires building a reference library of product samples, which can be challenging to develop and update. Improved verification could deter fraud, but the technologies can be expensive and complex. The Science What is it? Digital and analytical technologies can be used to track and verify the origin of food and agricultural products. For example, shrimp can be tracked by digitally documenting the path from initial harvest to final sale and verified by testing that the DNA matches the species from a certain source. Verifying where products come from can help ensure regulatory compliance, assess tariffs, and improve consumer safety. How does it work? Digital tracking technologies log product data, including geographic origin, throughout the supply chain. Blockchain, for example, could improve the reliability of these data by creating a tamper-resistant record. The blockchain data are distributed across multiple parties and changes must follow digital protocols, helping to deter fraud. Analytical testing with laboratory or field-deployable technologies detects a product’s chemical or biological properties, which are compared to reference libraries containing sample properties from known locations (see figure). For example, trees take up elements from the environment where they grow, so different elements in a wood product can indicate where the tree was sourced. In addition, machine learning could improve accuracy by recognizing patterns in analytical testing. Figure 1. Example of Origin Verification for a Wood Product Analysis of biological properties can verify the species of a product, which is compared to reference libraries of samples from where that species lives. For example, DNA analysis could indicate if a shrimp species is consistent with a claimed source. The effectiveness of chemical or biological analyses can vary depending on the product, and in some cases combining multiple analyses can improve geographic origin accuracy. How mature is it? Maturity and adoption of origin verification technologies vary by type of technology and the product they verify. Where fraudulent or illegal activities are common, like the seafood industry, companies offer digital supply chain records to help importers and retailers track where seafood was caught or testing services to verify whether the species matches the label. In other cases, such as for processed products like canned seafood, testing is more challenging because processing can alter chemical and biological properties. Development of more portable and more accurate analytical testing methods is ongoing, as are globally coordinated efforts to improve reference libraries for enforcement and fraud detection. For example, to help counter illegal wood harvests, various organizations are working to gather and test wood samples from forests worldwide. To improve detection of import fraud, Customs and Border Protection (CBP) is enhancing its laboratories and the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration is piloting a new field-based testing technology. Opportunities Deter fraudulent activities. Technologies could improve the detection of fraudulent activities, making such actions riskier and less lucrative. For example, in 2020, CBP reported it was developing new testing technologies to identify Chinese honey imports, which could pose a threat to consumers due to the presence of unapproved antibiotics. Improve compliance. Technologies that are cheaper or easier to use could help companies ensure their products meet applicable legal requirements. For example, in the U.S., importers are required to report specified data on certain seafoods from catch to U.S. entry and may not import certain goods from specified countries. Verifying origin can help ensure that companies are compliant. Challenges Lack of reference libraries. Efforts are underway to develop reference libraries in certain industries, but they require significant resources to build and maintain. Some libraries may be proprietary, limiting their widespread use. Complex implementation. Digital tracking relies on accurate information at each step in the supply chain, which can be falsified. Automated data collection, such as by sensors, could reduce errors and location falsification. These technologies may be difficult for smaller companies to implement or in regions with less digital infrastructure. Costly analysis. Laboratory-based technologies can require expensive equipment and complex analyses by skilled staff. Testing may require multiple samples to accurately assess origin. Cost can restrict how often companies or agencies test products, limiting testing to only certain high-risk products. Policy Context and Questions Should the federal government support coordination throughout the supply chain to help industry more readily track and verify product origin? How might policymakers determine whether to support the development, maintenance, and sharing of reference libraries to more accurately verify product origin? Selected GAO Work Blockchain: Emerging Technology Offers Benefits for Some Applications but Faces Challenges, GAO-22-104625. Selected Reference Rossi, S., Gemma, S., Borghini, F. et al. “Agri-food traceability today: Advancing innovation towards efficiency, sustainability, ethical sourcing, and safety in food supply chains.” Trends in Food Science and Technology. vol. 163(2025) https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tifs.2025.105154. For more information, contact Karen L. Howard, PhD at HowardK@gao.gov.

What GAO Found Through the Moab Cleanup Project, the Department of Energy’s (DOE) Office of Environmental Management (EM) has removed over 16 million tons of uranium mill tailings and other materials at the Moab Mill Site in Utah, as of 2026. Tailings are leftover waste after uranium has been removed from rock. EM has sent the tailings and contaminated material to a nearby disposal site. EM is also working to remediate contaminated groundwater, which threatens the nearby Colorado River. Moab Mill Site and Surrounding Area The Moab Cleanup Project has cost approximately $970 million through fiscal year 2025 and is expected to reach around $1.16 billion. The federal government pays 100 percent of the cleanup costs. EM is planning to finish cleanup and close the disposal site by 2029. Once cleanup is complete, DOE’s Office of Legacy Management (LM) will take over long-term federal management responsibilities for the mill and disposal sites. EM and LM are coordinating on the future transfer of responsibility for long-term federal management of the sites through formal agreements and an integrated project team. DOE will maintain ownership of the disposal site but has not made a final decision about the mill site. However, EM expects to transfer ownership of most of the Moab Mill Site to Grand County, Utah after EM finishes cleanup. If this happens, DOE would prefer that the community determine the mill site’s future use, and community stakeholders have proposed a plan that would include various recreational uses. Why GAO Did This Study EM is responsible for addressing hazardous and radioactive waste at sites contaminated from decades of nuclear weapons production and nuclear energy research. EM is cleaning up the Moab Mill Site, which was used to process uranium ore, under the oversight of the Nuclear Regulatory Commission. Senate Report 118-188 includes a provision for GAO to examine EM’s efforts as the Moab Cleanup Project nears completion. GAO’s report provides information related to the status of these efforts and future plans for the site. GAO reviewed relevant laws, regulations, and agency documentation related to DOE’s Moab Cleanup Project. GAO interviewed a nongeneralizable sample of five key stakeholder groups, including the Moab city government and the Utah Department of Natural Resources, and assessed the extent to which EM has followed leading practices for engaging stakeholders. For more information, contact Nathan Anderson at AndersonN@gao.gov.

What GAO Found The Small Business Administration’s (SBA) Economic Injury Disaster Loans (EIDL) provide necessary working capital to help small businesses affected by a disaster meet financial obligations until normal operations resume. Relatively low snowfall and warm winters are not included in the statutory definition for “major disaster” contained in the Robert T. Stafford Disaster Relief and Emergency Assistance Act (Stafford Act) or the definition of “disaster” in the Small Business Act. The Stafford Act establishes the programs and processes through which the federal government, led by the Federal Emergency Management Agency, provides major disaster assistance, and the Small Business Act authorizes SBA’s disaster loan program. While both acts include examples of qualifying disasters, neither act explicitly includes relatively low snowfall or warm winters. Similarly, warm winters and low snow are not sudden events, nor do they create physical damage, which is the basis for requests for major disaster declarations under the Stafford Act. However, small businesses suffering substantial economic losses related to these weather events may be eligible for SBA assistance during a drought—a deficiency of precipitation compared with normal conditions, over an extended period of time, usually a season or more, resulting in a water shortage. Drought is listed as a disaster type under these acts, though usually declared by the Secretary of Agriculture. Ski Resort with Limited Snowfall Small businesses affected by relatively low snowfall or warm winters may qualify for EIDLs related to drought declarations made under certain authorities. The Small Business Act authorizes SBA to provide loans to alleviate substantial economic injury under five different types of disaster determinations, such as a presidential declaration of a major disaster or a drought declaration made by the Secretary of Agriculture. However, relatively low snow and warm winters may not be connected to a drought. Should Congress consider expanding access to the EIDL program for small businesses affected by relatively low snowfall or warm winters, GAO identified important considerations. For example, Congress could add relatively low snowfall and warm winter as eligible disaster types to relevant statutory frameworks and establish criteria for determining when such conditions qualify for assistance. Implementing regulations would likely need to be amended to define how such events would qualify for federal disaster assistance. Providing economic support for small businesses affected by relatively low snowfall or warm winters could create a precedent to provide federal support, including EIDLs, for businesses adversely affected by other weather variations, such as extended heat waves that limit outdoor recreation activities. Over time, this support could increase federal exposure and put a strain on resources. Why GAO Did This Study U.S. ski areas experienced a 9 percent decrease in visits (about 9 million visits) from the prior 10-year average during the 2025–2026 season, according to preliminary data from the National Ski Areas Association. Industry representatives attributed the decrease to inconsistent snowfall and unusually warm conditions across western states, which can cause precipitation to fall as rain rather than snow. Unlike many natural disasters, relatively low snowfall or warm winters cause more economic than physical harm. For example, ski resorts, ice fishing providers, or hospitality businesses that support those industries may experience revenue losses because they are unable to operate or have significantly fewer customers rather than because their facilities sustain physical damage. The Joint Explanatory Statement accompanying the Financial Services and General Government Appropriations Act, 2026, includes a provision for GAO to review how small businesses affected by relatively low snowfall and warm winters can seek and receive federal relief. This report addresses the extent to which these businesses may be eligible for assistance under the EIDL program and policy considerations for Congress related to a potential expansion of the program. GAO reviewed the Small Business Act, the Stafford Act, and their implementing regulations, as well as the Department of Agriculture’s documentation on its drought-declaration process. GAO also interviewed officials from SBA offices primarily responsible for the disaster loan program and Federal Emergency Management Agency officials who oversee the agency’s disaster response. For more information, contact Courtney LaFountain at lafountainc@gao.gov.

What GAO Found The Space Force is the smallest military service, with about 15,400 total personnel in fiscal year 2025. The Space Force largely inherited its workforce from other services and has completed some assessments as it seeks to right-size its force to meet growing missions. However, it determines personnel requirements based on a mix of analyses that are not consistent across Space Force units. Further, some units operate under personnel requirements that are outdated and do not reflect mission growth. The Space Force has not established a process or guidance to consistently and accurately determine its personnel needs to accomplish its missions. Relatedly, although it has estimated the number of contractor personnel supporting it, the Space Force does not have a process or guidance to accurately measure the number of contractor personnel and the nature of work they perform. Establishing such processes would help the Space Force better account for personnel needed to meet its evolving missions. Even as the Space Force has continued to grow its workforce, officials have identified personnel shortfalls as a primary workforce challenge. GAO’s analysis found a 25 percent shortfall when comparing assigned personnel with total personnel requirements for fiscal year 2025. GAO also found that the Space Force is partly addressing personnel challenges, but its efforts are not guided by a comprehensive strategic workforce plan. Without such a plan, the Space Force may not be able to systematically plan for and manage a workforce that meets current and future mission needs. Total Space Force Personnel Requirements and Assigned Personnel in Fiscal Year 2025 GAO’s analysis found a 22 percent shortfall in the number of support personnel the Air Force provides to the Space Force, which may increase risk to Space Force missions. Comprehensively evaluating, and revising as needed, the current arrangement of Air Force-provided support to the Space Force would help the Department of the Air Force make informed changes to address challenges and more effectively manage risks to space operations. Why GAO Did This Study In December 2019, the Space Force was established as a separate military service. It was created in recognition of the need to gain and maintain U.S. superiority in the increasingly contested space domain. In the 6 years since its establishment, the Space Force has been steadily growing and reorganizing its workforce as space-based threats grow and its missions increase. Senate Report 118-188 includes a provision for GAO to assess the Space Force’s workforce planning. GAO’s report addresses, among other objectives, the extent to which the Space Force has determined its personnel needs; the Space Force has identified and addressed challenges in meeting them; and the Air Force has provided adequate personnel to support the Space Force. GAO analyzed Space Force personnel data, reviewed applicable guidance, and conducted site visits to five Space Force bases.

What GAO Found Border Patrol—a component of U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP)— established a program in 2017 to help rescue individuals in distress and reduce deaths along the border. The program includes various efforts such as placing rescue beacons and 911 placards in remote areas. Border Patrol Sectors Operating Programs to Reduce Deaths and Rescue Individuals Attempting to Illegally Enter the U.S., as of April 2026 CBP used data in its fiscal year 2025 report to Congress that Border Patrol recorded using practices and systems that have not changed since our April 2025 report on these activities. However, CBP’s fiscal year 2025 report did not include all required information about rescue beacons. A Border Patrol official told GAO that the agency inadvertently omitted some information and was not aware it was required to report the remainder. Border Patrol’s internal operating procedures state that the program manager is responsible for completing the annual report to Congress, but they do not specify the reporting requirements. Documenting these requirements would help ensure CBP includes all required information in its annual reports and increase transparency about its efforts to reduce deaths and rescue individuals in distress along the border. Border Patrol has taken several steps to evaluate its program to help reduce deaths and rescue individuals, in response to GAO’s two prior recommendations (GAO-25-107548). For example, it developed an evaluation plan that defined the scope, methodology, and timeline for an evaluation and identified information needed to complete it, consistent with GAO’s first recommendation. For the second recommendation, Border Patrol has conducted site visits, interviews, and a survey of staff, according to officials. Border Patrol has additional evaluation-related activities planned and expects to complete a program assessment by September 2026. Such an evaluation would help the agency determine if the program is meeting its intended purpose. Why GAO Did This Study Border Patrol responds to reports of individuals attempting to illegally enter the U.S. between ports of entry who may be missing or in distress. In fiscal year 2024, CBP reported Border Patrol responded to 3,302 rescue events. The Missing Persons and Unidentified Remains Act requires CBP to submit an annual report to Congress including the number and location of unidentified remains. The act also requires CBP to report information on rescue beacons, including their numbers and locations. CBP submitted its most recent report in August 2025. The act includes a provision for GAO to annually review how CBP collects the data it reports to Congress and measures the effectiveness of its program to help reduce deaths and locate and rescue individuals attempting to illegally enter the U.S. who are in distress. This report focuses on CBP’s activities since GAO’s April 2025 report. GAO assessed CBP’s (1) data collection for its fiscal year 2025 report to Congress and (2) efforts to measure program effectiveness. GAO reviewed Border Patrol documentation, including internal operating procedures, system guides, and program evaluation plans. GAO compared CBP’s fiscal year 2025 report to the act’s requirements and to prior annual reports. GAO also interviewed Border Patrol officials about their data collection and evaluation processes and practices.

What GAO Found Certain types of waste are particularly pervasive or difficult to clean up with existing technologies. Microbes (e.g., bacteria, fungi) can be engineered to break down pollutants more effectively. For example, researchers have inserted genes into bacteria that allow the bacteria to break down contaminants, such as phenol or hydrocarbons, in water and soil. At present, there are no examples of commercially available engineered microbes for waste cleanup. Example areas where engineered microbes could be deployed for waste cleanup Through expert interviews and document reviews, GAO identified two policy goals related to this biotechnology—demonstrating safety and effectiveness and developing a market. GAO identified challenges hindering these goals, including: Insufficient testing infrastructure and standards. The current testing infrastructure and standards are insufficient to scale experimentation beyond the lab or to assess the safety and effectiveness of engineered microbes. Regulatory catch-22. According to experts, when authorizing experimental release, the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) requests information that is difficult to obtain without experimental release. EPA officials told GAO that information from published studies or lab data can suffice for permitting experimental release. Unclear regulatory roles and responsibilities. According to GAO’s research, developers lack clarity about the regulatory process for engineered microbes. For example, it is often not clear to developers which agency is responsible for regulating a given engineered microbe and why. EPA officials told GAO, however, that they get very few questions regarding jurisdiction. Public concerns. Developers may hesitate to invest in research and development of the technology if there is not sufficient public support. Public concerns include the potential for persistence in the environment, possible health effects, and discomfort with manipulating and patenting genetic material. See tables 1–5 in this report for additional policy options and details. Based on review of scientific reports, agency documents, and expert interviews, GAO developed 10 options that policymakers could consider if they wish to advance the two goals identified above (demonstrating safety and effectiveness of or developing a market for engineered microbes for waste cleanup). GAO also considered the policy goal of pursuing alternatives to this biotechnology and developed three options policymakers could consider to achieve that goal (not shown on this page; see chapter 5). The following table shows selected policy goals and policy options. See tables 2–8 in the full report for additional policy options and details. Selected policy goals and policy options related to engineered microbes for waste cleanup Policy Goal: Demonstrating safety and effectiveness Policy option Establish databases to share noncompetitive field trial data among developers (report page 21) Opportunities Could decrease risk in technology development and accelerate product development. Could reduce testing burden on developers. Considerations Efforts may be limited by developers’ willingness to share proprietary data. Specific data about government owned sites may be sensitive. Policy option Update legal requirements and associated guidance documents (report page 23). Opportunities Could provide a scaled approach to regulations for small-scale research and better enable research on engineered microbes for environmental release. Updated regulations may remove the requirement to conduct a regulatory review based on intergeneric genetic changes. Considerations Updates may not be necessary if agencies can provide better guidance or a coordinating office (see below) to help developers navigate the regulations. Changes may add significant time or burden on regulatory agencies. Policy Goal: Developing a market Policy option Establish a national office for biotechnology coordination (report page 26). Opportunities Could serve as a first point of entry for developers of biotechnologies seeking information on how regulations apply to them. Could provide greater clarity on and assistance with navigating the regulations that apply to specific biotechnology products, including engineered microbes. Could reduce burden on agencies by taking on specific functions, such as public outreach and coordination among agencies. Congressional action could provide more stability than executive action, which can be rescinded by a new administration. Considerations Could add another step, further delaying the regulatory review process. Will require resources. Agencies may object to another entity making legal determinations about which agency has regulatory authority in a given matter. Each agency would still have to follow their individual statutory requirements. Policy option Provide community education (report page 29). Opportunities Could improve public literacy and understanding of new technologies, promoting informed decision making about the use of engineered microbes. Could improve public understanding of the effects of waste and contamination in the environment, which may increase interest in cleanup efforts. Considerations May require substantial resources to implement. May not be as effective as efforts that prioritize engagement.   Why GAO Did This Study Contamination of land and water with waste chemicals poses significant threats to human health, the economy, and the environment. Research has shown that microbes can be engineered to break down these chemicals, potentially offering promise for cleanup in multiple sectors, including defense, mining, agriculture, and manufacturing. GAO conducted an assessment of current and emerging engineered microbe technologies for waste cleanup. This report examines (1) the status, benefits, and risks of engineered microbes for waste cleanup, (2) the challenges of developing or using engineered microbes for waste cleanup, and (3) options policymakers could consider to achieve various goals related to this biotechnology. To conduct this work, GAO reviewed scientific reports and federal agency documents. GAO also interviewed federal agency officials and 25 other experts from academia, industry, and nonprofit organizations. GAO is identifying policy options in this report. For more information, contact Sarah Harvey at HarveyS@gao.gov.

What GAO Found As of September 2025, the Coast Guard reported about $448 million in environmental liabilities related to its shore infrastructure. This includes about $228 million for structures, like housing, presumed to be contaminated with asbestos-containing material or lead-based paint based on their age. It also includes about $220 million in cleanup projects at sites with a known or suspected release of contaminants. Several factors create uncertainty that could potentially lead to hundreds of millions of dollars of additional cleanup costs that the Coast Guard has not communicated to Congress. For example, the Coast Guard has identified properties which may be contaminated with “forever chemicals” (per- and polyfluoroalkyl substances [PFAS]), which could increase its fiscal exposure by hundreds of millions of dollars more than it reports. Providing additional context on the potential or likely fiscal exposure associated with contaminants the Coast Guard has identified would give Congress better insight into the total potential fiscal exposure. Coast Guard’s Reported $448 Million Environmental Liability for Shore Infrastructure, Fiscal Year 2025 Note: The Coast Guard reviews its environmental liability data each quarter to ensure properties are not counted in more than one category. The Coast Guard has not fully incorporated risk-informed decision-making in its management of the environmental liabilities program. For example, the Coast Guard has not developed performance measures or evaluated outcomes for the program as GAO’s framework for risk-informed decision-making recommends. According to GAO’s framework, agencies should develop an analysis plan and evaluate outcomes based on clearly defined objectives and performance measures, among other things. The Coast Guard has not fully met these risk-informed steps, largely because it has not developed a long-term strategy to define the objectives of its environmental liabilities program. Developing a strategy could help the Coast Guard make risk-informed decisions about the long-term management of its growing portfolio of environmental liabilities and achieve financial benefits—for example, by using analysis to strategically sequence cleanup projects. Why GAO Did This Study The Coast Guard has a $28 billion inventory of shore infrastructure assets, such as boat stations and lighthouses. Many of these assets have environmental contamination due to past practices. Federal agencies are required to estimate and report their anticipated cleanup costs—also known as environmental liabilities—related to environmental contamination. GAO was asked to review the Coast Guard’s environmental liabilities for its shore infrastructure assets. This report examines, among other things, (1) the Coast Guard’s environmental liabilities for shore infrastructure in recent years, including factors contributing to uncertainty in those liability estimates, and (2) the extent to which the Coast Guard uses risk-informed decision-making to manage its environmental liabilities program. GAO analyzed Coast Guard policies, guidance, and data related to the Coast Guard’s environmental liabilities for shore infrastructure and compared these with GAO’s risk-informed decision-making framework for managing environmental hazards. GAO also interviewed agency officials to identify and describe factors related to uncertainty in its estimates.

What GAO Found In May 2025, GAO identified eight priority recommendations for the General Services Administration (GSA). Since then, GSA has implemented two recommendations and we have removed the priority designation from one recommendation. In June 2026, GAO identified an additional six priority recommendations, bringing the total to 11. GAO is highlighting the following three areas that warrant timely and focused attention: Managing federal real property, Improving agency shared services, and Improving oversight of federal awards. Addressing GAO's recommendations in these areas would improve GSA's ability to manage the federal government's vast real property holdings, help federal agencies as they adopt shared services strategies, and help federal award recipients and auditors identify or resolve findings associated with hundreds of millions of dollars in federal spending per year. Taking action to implement all of GAO's open priority recommendations would help enhance the efficiency and effectiveness of operations across GSA. Why GAO Did This Study Priority open recommendations are the GAO recommendations that warrant priority attention from heads of key departments or agencies because their implementation could save large amounts of money; improve congressional and/or executive branch decision-making on major issues; eliminate mismanagement, fraud, and abuse; or make progress toward addressing a high risk or duplication issue, among other benefits. Since 2015, GAO has sent letters to selected agencies to highlight the importance of implementing such recommendations. For more information, contact Heather Krause at krauseh@gao.gov.

What GAO Found In May 2025, GAO identified 5 priority recommendations for the U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA). Since then, USDA has implemented two of those recommendations. In June 2026, GAO identified an additional 3 priority recommendations, bringing the total to 6. GAO is highlighting the following three areas that warrant timely and focused attention: Improving IT modernization, Deterring SNAP retailer fraud, and Improving data sharing on foreign investment in U.S. agricultural land. Addressing GAO's recommendations in these areas would (1) enhance USDA efforts to measure its IT performance, maximize efficiencies, and better meet the needs of farmers, ranchers, and foresters; (2) deter SNAP benefit trafficking and safeguard federal funds; and (3) help the Committee on Foreign Investment in the United States reduce the likelihood of missing potential risks to national security. Taking action to implement all of GAO's open priority recommendations would help enhance the efficiency and effectiveness of operations across USDA. Why GAO Did This Study Priority open recommendations are the GAO recommendations that warrant priority attention from heads of key departments or agencies because their implementation could save large amounts of money; improve congressional and/or executive branch decision-making on major issues; eliminate mismanagement, fraud, and abuse; or make progress toward addressing a high risk or duplication issue, among other benefits. Since 2015, GAO has sent letters to selected agencies to highlight the importance of implementing such recommendations. For more information, contact Allison Bawden at BawdenA@gao.gov.

What GAO Found In 2023, the Department of Defense (DOD) directed the military departments—Army, Navy, and Air Force—to update their policies on clinical quality management to align with Defense Health Agency (DHA) procedures to ensure high-quality care in operational settings. In December 2024, GAO reported that the military departments had not yet issued policies, specifically on provider credentialing and privileging, and recommended that they do so. As of March 2026, GAO found that Army and Air Force had not issued updated policies, while Navy issued several policies on aspects of clinical quality management. GAO maintains that the military departments’ updates to these policies will facilitate a more consistent approach to clinical quality in operational settings. These updates may require more time, as the military departments incorporate additional changes resulting from DOD’s October 2025 implementation of a universal provider privileging program (i.e., the process of reviewing a provider’s qualifications and granting permission to deliver specific services). Examples of Operational Settings Include Navy Hospital Ships and Army Field Hospitals For patient safety events and health care risk management investigations, Army and Air Force officials stated that their departments generally follow the processes outlined in DHA’s procedures manual as their policies are being updated. GAO also found that Navy’s policies—which have been updated—align with DHA’s procedures. Patient safety events are incidents or conditions that could have resulted, or did result, in harm to a patient, such as a medication error or a wrong-site surgery. Events are entered into a patient safety reporting system and investigated accordingly. Health care risk management activities primarily involve provider quality assurance investigations, which could originate from suspected provider misconduct, among other reasons. Army and Air Force leverage DHA for assistance for investigations; Navy relies on its medical staff for support. Why GAO Did This Study DOD health care providers deliver critical health care services in settings where military operations take place. These operational settings include hospital ships, field hospitals, and aircraft carriers. To guide efforts to promote health, prevent harm, and provide high-quality care in the military health system, DHA issued a clinical quality management framework in 2019. This framework consists of programs such as provider credentialing and privileging, patient safety, and risk management. Military departments are responsible for updating their policies to align with DHA’s framework and implementing these programs in operational settings. A House Report accompanying the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2023 includes a provision for GAO to review how the military departments ensure clinical quality in operational settings. GAO reported in GAO-25-106445 on provider credentialing and privileging and recommended that the military departments issue updated policies, which they indicated would be included in overall clinical quality management policies for operational settings. In this report, GAO describes (1) the status of these military department policies on clinical quality management, (2) how the military departments report and manage patient safety events, and (3) how the military departments conduct health care risk management investigations. GAO interviewed DHA and military department officials and reviewed relevant program documentation. GAO also reviewed available operational patient safety event data reported for fiscal years 2022 through 2024, the most recent available data at the time of this review. These data were not included due to DOD’s concerns about the sensitivity of these data. For more information, contact Sharon M. Silas at silass@gao.gov.

What GAO Found Training and development programs help federal agencies achieve their mission and goals by improving individual and, ultimately, organizational performance. This report is a guide that federal agencies can use to ensure their training and development investments are targeted strategically. In recent years, training and development have shifted from primarily classroom-based instruction to more integrated, blended learning approaches that reflect changes in the workplace and advances in technology. In addition, there is a greater focus on aligning learning to agency mission needs and outcomes, with coaching and mentoring playing an important support role in development. The training and development process can loosely be segmented into four broad, interrelated components: (1) planning, (2) design and development, (3) implementation, and (4) evaluation. As shown in the figure, these components form an integrated cycle. Decisions made in early stages influence later outcomes, while evaluation results should feed continuously into future planning and design. Effective agencies treat evaluation as an ongoing activity rather than a discrete, end-of-process step. Four Components of the Training and Development Process GAO also identified nine core characteristics that make a training and development process effective and strategically focused on achieving results, such as improved customer service or public safety. These characteristics include ensuring stakeholder involvement throughout the process and effectively allocating resources to maximize training investments. Additionally, new technology advancements, including digital learning and artificial intelligence, are further shaping how training is designed, delivered, and evaluated. Why GAO Did This Study Federal agencies operate in an increasingly complex environment characterized by evolving missions, fiscal constraints, technological change, and shifting workforce demographics. In this context, the ability of agencies to achieve results depends significantly on the skills, competencies, and adaptability of their employees. In March 2004, GAO issued a guide for assessing strategic training and development efforts across the federal government. GAO has updated this guide to provide a current framework to help agencies, among other things, evaluate their training and development programs—specifically, to assess whether these programs are aligned with mission priorities, efficiently implemented, and demonstrably contributing to improved performance. This guide also provides a common structure for oversight bodies to assess agency practices consistently and systematically. GAO consulted with 24 knowledgeable government officials and subject matter specialists in the private sector, academia, and nonprofit organizations. To validate and update the key practices in our 2004 report, GAO reviewed relevant literature on strategic training and development. GAO used this literature to help identify practices that have emerged over the past 20 years and to help identify the subject matter specialists. These specialists validated the practices described in the 2004 report and identified new or modified practices. For more information, contact Dawn Locke at locked@gao.gov.

What GAO Found The Department of Defense (DOD) used multiple strategies to fund support for southern border operations since the start of fiscal year 2025 and into fiscal year 2026. Specifically, DOD realigned $1.74 billion in funding from amounts appropriated for fiscal year 2025 from various funding categories; transferred $608 million from or through DOD’s Drug Interdiction and Counter-Drug Activities, Defense account; relied on military construction authorities to fund border barrier projects using $300 million from within existing military construction appropriation accounts; began obligating amounts from $1 billion appropriated in Public Law 119-21, commonly known as the One Big Beautiful Bill Act; and began providing some support to the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) in fiscal year 2026 that is eligible for reimbursement. As of March 31, 2026, DOD has reported obligating $2.64 billion for southern border operations since the start of fiscal year 2025. These costs include DOD-directed activities, such as securing DOD-administered lands along the border, known as National Defense Areas, and constructing permanent border barriers. These costs also include DOD support to DHS in response to requests for assistance. Of the $2.64 billion DOD obligated, DOD reported $305 million is eligible for reimbursement by DHS. DOD Southern Border Operations and Costs The Office of the Under Secretary of Defense (OUSD) (Comptroller) and the military services established a process for tracking southern border costs that included issuing guidance and business rules for pulling data from the military services’ financial ledgers into Advancing Analytics—known as Advana—DOD’s enterprise-level management system used for reporting. In addition, OUSD (Comptroller) officials stated they are working to finalize standard operating procedures that would codify DOD’s process to manage and execute costs of southern border operations and provide continuity in the event of personnel turnover. Why GAO Did This Study The nearly 2,000-mile-long U.S. border with Mexico is a critical point of entry for millions of people annually. However, it is also vulnerable to illegal border crossings, smuggling of drugs and contraband, and organized crime. In January 2025, the President declared a national emergency at the southern border and directed DOD to assist DHS in obtaining complete operational control of the border. GAO was asked to review DOD’s costs to support operations at the southern border. Senate Report 119-39 accompanying a bill for the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2026 also includes a provision for GAO to examine similar issues. This report examines (1) how DOD has funded support for operations, (2) how much DOD has reported in costs, and (3) how DOD has tracked costs for its southern border operations since the start of fiscal year 2025. GAO analyzed DOD documentation and guidance regarding funding sources and cost tracking processes. GAO analyzed cost summary reports for fiscal years 2025 and 2026. GAO also met with DOD officials and commands obligating the most funding for southern border operations. GAO provided a draft of this report to DOD for review and comment. DOD did not provide official comments. DOD provided technical comments, which GAO incorporated as appropriate. For more information, contact Rashmi Agarwal at agarwalr@gao.gov.

What GAO Found Millions of consumers rely on the assistance of health insurance agents and brokers to purchase health insurance plans through federal and state Marketplaces established by the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act. The federal Marketplace is maintained by the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services (CMS). To assist consumers in the federal Marketplace, agents and brokers must be licensed to sell health plans and be registered with the Marketplace, among other things. CMS conducts routine validation checks to help ensure that federal Marketplace agents and brokers are licensed. The agency also restricts access to its systems to only registered agents and brokers. However, those CMS controls do not protect consumers from unauthorized activity by unscrupulous agents and brokers. Specifically, CMS processes to ensure consumer consent for agent or broker actions are weak, does not restrict access to consumer Marketplace records to the agent or broker already associated with a consumer’s enrollment, and does not inform consumers of all agent or broker actions. In 2024, CMS implemented new procedures to better ensure agents and brokers obtain consumers’ consent prior to certain actions. However, GAO found that the procedures do not prevent all unauthorized actions because they are not always used, and CMS takes limited steps to confirm the identity of the consumer. Together these weaknesses leave consumers vulnerable to unauthorized agent or broker activity. The number of consumer complaints of unauthorized enrollments and plan switches grew more than fourfold from 2023 through 2025. Number of Consumer Complaints Tied to Confirmed Unauthorized Enrollments and Plan Switches in the Federal Marketplace, Calendar Years 2023 Through 2025 GAO examined three selected state-based Marketplaces and found they have controls that go beyond those used by CMS, such as requiring one-time passcodes to verify consumer consent to agent or broker actions. CMS told GAO that the agency is exploring options to potentially implement new controls for the open enrollment period for plan year 2027 but had not yet made decisions regarding any new controls. Without effective controls, consumers remain at risk. Why GAO Did This Study Recent federal fraud cases highlight concerns about certain agents and brokers in the federal Marketplace making unauthorized enrollments and plan changes to receive compensation from health plan issuers. As previously reported based on ongoing investigative work, GAO found at least 160,000 federal Marketplace applications in plan year 2024 had likely unauthorized changes. GAO was asked to review program integrity practices in health insurance Marketplaces. This report examines the extent to which CMS has controls to ensure (1) agents and brokers in the federal Marketplace are licensed and registered, and (2) consumers authorize, and are informed of, agent and broker activity. To perform this evaluation, GAO compared CMS controls to federal regulations and CMS policies and procedures by reviewing CMS documentation and interviewing CMS officials. GAO also interviewed organizations representing stakeholders—including agents and brokers, state insurance regulators, and consumers—and reviewed documentation and interviewed officials from three selected state-based Marketplaces—California, Georgia, and New Mexico—about their controls.

What GAO Found Millions of consumers rely on the assistance of health insurance agents and brokers to purchase health insurance plans through federal and state Marketplaces established by the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act. The federal Marketplace is maintained by the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services (CMS). To assist consumers in the federal Marketplace, agents and brokers must be licensed to sell health plans and be registered with the Marketplace, among other things. CMS conducts routine validation checks to help ensure that federal Marketplace agents and brokers are licensed. The agency also restricts access to its systems to only registered agents and brokers. However, those CMS controls do not protect consumers from unauthorized activity by unscrupulous agents and brokers. Specifically, CMS processes to ensure consumer consent for agent or broker actions are weak, does not restrict access to consumer Marketplace records to the agent or broker already associated with a consumer’s enrollment, and does not inform consumers of all agent or broker actions. In 2024, CMS implemented new procedures to better ensure agents and brokers obtain consumers’ consent prior to certain actions. However, GAO found that the procedures do not prevent all unauthorized actions because they are not always used, and CMS takes limited steps to confirm the identity of the consumer. Together these weaknesses leave consumers vulnerable to unauthorized agent or broker activity. The number of consumer complaints of unauthorized enrollments and plan switches grew more than fourfold from 2023 through 2025. Number of Consumer Complaints Tied to Confirmed Unauthorized Enrollments and Plan Switches in the Federal Marketplace, Calendar Years 2023 Through 2025 GAO examined three selected state-based Marketplaces and found they have controls that go beyond those used by CMS, such as requiring one-time passcodes to verify consumer consent to agent or broker actions. CMS told GAO that the agency is exploring options to potentially implement new controls for the open enrollment period for plan year 2027 but had not yet made decisions regarding any new controls. Without effective controls, consumers remain at risk. Why GAO Did This Study Recent federal fraud cases highlight concerns about certain agents and brokers in the federal Marketplace making unauthorized enrollments and plan changes to receive compensation from health plan issuers. As previously reported based on ongoing investigative work, GAO found at least 160,000 federal Marketplace applications in plan year 2024 had likely unauthorized changes. GAO was asked to review program integrity practices in health insurance Marketplaces. This report examines the extent to which CMS has controls to ensure (1) agents and brokers in the federal Marketplace are licensed and registered, and (2) consumers authorize, and are informed of, agent and broker activity. To perform this evaluation, GAO compared CMS controls to federal regulations and CMS policies and procedures by reviewing CMS documentation and interviewing CMS officials. GAO also interviewed organizations representing stakeholders—including agents and brokers, state insurance regulators, and consumers—and reviewed documentation and interviewed officials from three selected state-based Marketplaces—California, Georgia, and New Mexico—about their controls.

What GAO Found The Inflation Reduction Act of 2022 (IRA) provided $125 million in supplemental appropriations to the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS) to rebuild and restore units of the National Wildlife Refuge System (NWRS) and state wildlife management areas. Among other things, the appropriations are intended to increase the resiliency of habitats and infrastructure to withstand weather events. As of April 1, 2026, FWS had obligated 99.6 percent of the appropriations, primarily for financial awards to state agencies and other partners for the design, implementation, and monitoring of nine projects across 23 states and more than 75 NWRS units. For example, a northern forest project aims to restore forests, improve wildlife habitat, and reduce flood risks in the Northeast and Midwest. FWS has expended about $48.9 million, or 39 percent, of its appropriations. FWS officials told GAO that, so far, the IRA projects have resulted in the restoration of more than 5,000 acres of wetlands and 16,000 acres of other habitats. Work on U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service’s Inflation Reduction Act of 2022 Project in North Carolina To select projects for IRA funding, FWS officials stated that the agency identified NWRS areas with planned, but unfunded, activities that aligned with the purpose of the IRA appropriations, such as to increase the resiliency of NWRS areas to weather events. FWS also prioritized projects in parts of the country that had not previously received supplemental appropriations, such as for disaster assistance, and where FWS could collaborate with long-standing partners, including state and local agencies, to expand the geographic scope of work. Once projects were selected, FWS’s regional offices used existing processes and partnerships to determine activities to undertake, such as building water control structures to reduce flood risks and fences to improve bison management. FWS then used standard agency policies and procedures, such as recipient risk guidance, to issue financial awards and contracts to carry out activities. To oversee IRA projects, FWS developed an implementation plan with objectives for meeting the purpose of the IRA appropriations. For example, the plan calls for projects to improve the capacity to recover from extreme weather events. FWS tracked data, such as acres restored, but did not establish performance goals for measuring progress toward the objectives. By developing and using performance goals for assessing progress toward the objectives in its IRA implementation plan, FWS can better develop and use evidence to assess the extent to which the IRA projects are achieving intended results, and change course if they are not. Why GAO Did This Study FWS, within the U.S. Department of the Interior, manages NWRS, a national network of 856 million acres of land and water dedicated to protecting fish and wildlife habitats and providing outdoor recreation opportunities, such as hunting and fishing. IRA appropriations for NWRS and state wildlife management areas are available to FWS for obligation through September 2026 and amount to over 23 percent of NWRS’s typical annual appropriations. FWS uses grants, cooperative agreements, and contracts to fund partners, including federal and state agencies and nonprofits. GAO was asked to review FWS’s use of its IRA appropriations. This report (1) describes how FWS has obligated and expended IRA appropriations for NWRS and state wildlife management areas; (2) describes how FWS selected, prioritized, and funded projects for these appropriations; and (3) examines how FWS provided oversight for these projects to ensure they achieve intended results. GAO reviewed FWS obligations and expenditures data through April 1, 2026; FWS documents about its use and oversight of IRA appropriations; and recipients’ single audit reports. GAO interviewed selected financial award and contract recipients based on factors such as geographic variation, as well as FWS and Interior officials. GAO also compared FWS efforts with federal guidance and key practices, such as for performance management.