What GAO Found The Public Buildings Service’s reorganization to become more centralized, consistent, and streamlined has not fully aligned with four selected leading practices for agency reform. Selected Leading Practices for Agency Reform Specifically, as of December 2025: Establishing Goals and Outcomes. Public Buildings Service officials told GAO that goals for the reorganization included becoming more consistent and streamlined, but the bureau has not yet established performance measures to assess its progress toward meeting these goals. Involving Key Stakeholders. The Public Buildings Service informed employees and tenant agencies starting of the reorganization. But communication has been primarily one-way, and the bureau does not have a plan to solicit feedback from tenants and staff that could help improve and engender confidence in the new organization. Managing and Monitoring Reform Implementation. Officials from selected tenant agencies told GAO that, since the start of 2025, they have felt the effects of the large staffing reductions at the Public Buildings Service, with one tenant agency noting delays in service. Public Buildings Service officials told GAO that it restarted surveying tenant agencies about service delivery in December 2025 but did not add questions to monitor the reorganization’s progress toward its goals. Strategic Workforce Planning. Public Buildings Service officials said the agency did not conduct workforce planning before reducing its workforce by 45 percent as of November 2025. Officials said that they have since tried to align existing employees to address skill gaps but are unsure how many more personnel were needed to fill existing gaps. Officials from selected tenant agencies voiced ongoing concern about the Public Buildings Service’s capacity. By more fully aligning with leading practices moving forward, the Public Buildings Service could ensure that its reorganization achieves its goals of improving consistency and customer service and streamlining decision-making. Why GAO Did This Study The Public Buildings Service, within the General Services Administration (GSA), provides workspace for hundreds of thousands of federal employees. In March 2025 the Public Buildings Service started a large-scale reorganization, including workforce reductions, which were guided by the administration, according to agency officials. Public Buildings Service officials said they formally implemented the reorganization in October 2025, but employees and tenants were still adjusting to it in December 2025. The Thomas R. Carper Water Resources Development Act of 2024 includes a provision for GAO to review the Public Buildings Service’s management of real property programs. This report examines the extent to which the Public Buildings Service’s reorganization efforts aligned with selected leading practices for agency reforms, among other objectives. GAO compared the reorganization actions taken by the Public Buildings Service from March 2025 to December 2025 to four selected leading practices for agency reforms identified in prior GAO work. These practices were selected based on their relevance, the status of the Public Buildings Service’s reorganization, and relevant administration guidance.

What GAO Found The Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) operates the nation’s largest health care system through its Veterans Health Administration (VHA) and serves about 9 million veterans annually. VA’s Veterans Community Care Program allows eligible veterans to receive care from private sector community providers in certain circumstances. For example, veterans who face long wait times or other challenges accessing behavioral health services for mental health or substance use conditions at VHA facilities may receive them from community providers. GAO found that veterans received over 600,000 referrals to obtain behavioral health services from community providers during fiscal years 2021 through 2024. Over half of these referrals were for outpatient psychotherapy care. VA data show the agency spent $4.29 billion on the community care veterans obtained through these referrals as of the time of this review, and over two-thirds of VA’s spending was associated with inpatient care, including residential treatment. Inpatient care is generally more expensive than outpatient care due to costs associated with overnight stays in a facility. Veterans’ Behavioral Health Care Referrals to Community Providers and Associated VA Spending by Care Category, Fiscal Years 2021–2024 Specifically, GAO found that about 4 percent of behavioral health referrals (over 25,000 referrals) and 43 percent of spending (about $1.9 billion) were associated with residential substance use treatment in the community during these fiscal years. Residential treatment programs for substance use disorders allow veterans to receive intensive treatment in a supervised residential setting. Why GAO Did This Study GAO was asked to report on veterans’ behavioral health referrals to community care during fiscal years 2021 through 2024. This report provides information on the number of referrals veterans received during this period, the care veterans received through those referrals, and VA’s spending on that care (i.e., the total cost associated with these referrals). GAO analyzed VA data and documentation on behavioral health referrals that veterans received in fiscal years 2021 through 2024 for which VA has received a claim from the community care provider as of January 2026. Each referral includes one category of care (e.g., outpatient individual psychotherapy) that indicates the specific services (e.g., counseling and therapy sessions) that the community provider is authorized to provide over a set duration of time (e.g., 6 or 12 months). GAO also interviewed VA officials knowledgeable about these data. For more information, contact Sharon M. Silas at SilasS@gao.gov.

What GAO Found The Naval Sea Systems Command (NAVSEA) builds and supports the Navy’s fleet. Using its SeaPort contract, NAVSEA spent about $21 billion over 6 years to acquire professional support services, such as systems engineering. Consistent with Department of Defense (DOD) guidance, NAVSEA generally uses the “best value tradeoff” process for awarding task orders for professional support services. Using this process means that the Navy might pay more if additional benefits justify the higher cost. To actively manage labor costs for professional support services, NAVSEA developed a system to track labor costs after it awards the task order, and established enhanced oversight when the actual labor rate exceeds 15 percent above the estimated rate for the task order, referred to as a “tripwire.” GAO found that more than a quarter (106 of 389) of ongoing task orders for fiscal years 2019 through 2024 triggered the tripwire review. Percentage of Ongoing Naval Sea Systems Command Task Orders That Met Tripwire Threshold, Fiscal Years 2019–2024 Across the 10 task orders that GAO reviewed in detail, actual labor costs increased by $152 million as of April 2025. This is about a 60 percent increase from their estimates at the time of award. Common drivers of these increases include changes in NAVSEA requirements or the need to use higher-priced labor categories to complete the work. For example, NAVSEA officials told GAO that requirements for uncrewed surface combatant ships were more complex and labor intensive than planned. This resulted in the need for additional senior personnel with more qualifications and experience to perform the work, but at higher labor cost. For five task orders that triggered the tripwire review, NAVSEA took or plans to take actions to address labor cost increases. For example, NAVSEA worked with the contractor to adjust its labor mix between more and less experienced personnel to control future cost growth. Why GAO Did This Study The Navy generally requires its commands, including NAVSEA, to first consider using its SeaPort contract when buying professional support services. The SeaPort contract identifies prequalified vendors that can provide these services, such as engineering and program management support, among others, needed to meet the Navy’s requirements. The labor cost for professional support services typically comprises a significant component of the overall contract costs. A Senate report includes a provision for GAO to review NAVSEA’s professional support service contracts and associated labor costs. GAO’s report describes how NAVSEA (1) awards task orders for professional support services, and (2) manages increases in labor rates for professional support services. To conduct this review, GAO analyzed ongoing NAVSEA task orders from fiscal years 2019 through 2024. GAO analyzed labor cost data for 389 task orders, and from those task orders selected a nongeneralizable sample of 10 for further review. GAO selected the 10 orders based on the labor rate increases, number of labor categories, and period of performance. GAO reviewed relevant federal, DOD, and Navy regulations; NAVSEA policy; and contract documentation. GAO also interviewed cognizant contracting and policy officials at DOD and NAVSEA. For more information, contact Timothy J. DiNapoli at DiNapoliT@gao.gov.

What GAO Found To design and administer federal grant programs, agencies must navigate a variety of requirements and guidance. While there are certain standard requirements, each grant program has different authorizing legislation and may also be subject to agency-specific regulations and guidance. For some aspects of grant design and administration, agencies also have more discretion to make decisions. As a result of these factors, there is substantial variation in the design and administration of grant programs across federal agencies. To improve consistency and coordination for federal grants management, the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) established the Council on Federal Financial Assistance (COFFA) in August 2023. In fiscal year 2024, COFFA represented 38 of the 40 grantmaking agencies that obligated grant funding and over 99 percent of the total grant funding obligated by the federal government. COFFA is co-chaired by OMB and a member agency—the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS). Member agencies communicate and collaborate in a variety of ways through COFFA, as shown in the figure below. For example, each agency has designated a senior official, known as a Senior Financial Assistance Officer, to serve as a single point of contact for grant programs at their agencies and raise questions and concerns at COFFA meetings. These officials communicate directly with OMB and with each other to share feedback and lessons learned. For example, when OMB revised guidance in 2024 to be clearer and more concise, the points of contact provided feedback to inform the revisions. In addition to providing feedback, COFFA also issued clarifying guidance to help agencies implement OMB’s revised guidance. Communication and Collaboration Methods Under COFFA Why GAO Did This Study In fiscal year 2024, the federal government obligated approximately $1.2 trillion in grants to tribal, state, local, and territorial governments. GAO’s prior work found opportunities to address long-standing challenges to federal grants management. In recent years, multiple government-wide initiatives have been implemented to reform aspects of federal grants management. However, the flexibility at the grant program and agency level that may help programs meet specific goals can result in variation and complexity. This variation and complexity may hinder government-wide efforts to address crosscutting challenges. GAO was asked to review recent initiatives to support agencies’ ability to collaboratively address grants management challenges. This report describes (1) the government-wide legal and administrative framework for federal grants management and (2) how member agencies communicate and collaborate through COFFA. To describe the framework for federal grants management, GAO reviewed relevant legal and administrative documents, such as the Uniform Administrative Requirements, Cost Principles, and Audit Requirements for Federal Awards. GAO also reviewed relevant federal laws and executive orders. To describe how member agencies interact through COFFA, GAO reviewed relevant OMB and COFFA guidance, and available information such as recorded events. GAO also interviewed officials and reviewed information from HHS. For more information, contact Jeff Arkin at arkinj@gao.gov.

What GAO Found In response to its December 2020 acknowledgment that it had wasted billions of dollars sustaining redundant and obsolete IT systems, the Department of the Navy initiated an effort to modernize, consolidate, and retire its systems. The Navy reports that this initiative has resulted in terminating at least 11 legacy systems and saved more than $100 million. In addition, the Navy announced in January 2026 that it had completed its effort to migrate remaining Navy commands to Navy Enterprise Resource Planning, its financial system of record. Fully adhering to leading practices for strategic and migration planning could strengthen the Navy’s systems modernization. Regarding strategic planning, the Navy met two of three leading practices and partially met one. For example, the Navy demonstrated that the portion of its Navy Financial Management Strategy associated with financial management systems aligned with relevant Navy and DOD-level strategic plans. However, the Navy did not fully implement performance measurement approaches for seven of the nine fiscal year 2025 metrics that it identified for this portion of its financial management strategy. GAO’s Assessment of Navy Financial Management Systems Modernization Strategic Planning Leading practices GAO assessment Align with the overall strategic plan ● Identify results-oriented goals and performance metrics ● Identify and implement performance measurement approaches ◐ ● Met = The Navy addressed all elements of the corresponding leading practice. ◐ Partially met = The Navy addressed some, but not all, elements of the corresponding leading practice. Source: GAO analysis of Navy documentation. | GAO-26-107119 Regarding migration planning, the Navy met one and partially met three of four leading practices. For example, the Navy’s executive management uses Systems Consolidation Action Plans to obtain status reports and monitor system consolidations. Navy actions to fully comply with the remaining migration leading practices could further reduce modernization risks. GAO’s Assessment of Navy Financial Management Systems Modernization Migration Planning Leading practices GAO assessment Develop an enterprise roadmap ◐ Provide a mechanism for executive management to monitor the migration effort ●   Schedule periodic reviews ◐ Establish a tracking system for executive management to manage progress, issues, and other action items ◐ ● Met = The Navy addressed all elements of the corresponding leading practice. ◐ Partially met = The Navy addressed some, but not all, elements of the corresponding leading practice. Source: GAO analysis of Navy documentation. | GAO-26-107119 In reviewing the extent to which the Navy established a tracking system to manage progress, issues, and action items, GAO identified at least 111 changes to Navy consolidation plans, including at least 49 system schedule delays. These slippages may limit the Navy’s ability to fully support DOD’s auditability goals. Why GAO Did This Study The Department of Defense (DOD) remains the only major federal agency to not achieve an unmodified (clean) audit opinion. Modernizing and consolidating the Department of the Navy’s financial management systems is critical to its ability to support DOD’s goal of a clean opinion by the end of 2028. Attaining that goal would enable informed department officials to be accountable stewards of scarce federal resources needed for readiness and the warfighter. This report was developed in connection with GAO’s audit of the U.S. government’s consolidated financial statements. It examines the extent to which the Navy’s consolidation and modernization of its financial management systems (1) are consistent with strategic planning leading practices and (2) align with migration planning leading practices. GAO compared key Navy strategic planning documentation and associated evidence to leading practices in strategic planning. In addition, GAO compared Navy transition plans to migration planning leading practices and agency guidance. GAO also interviewed key Navy program officials.

What GAO Found The Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) created the Certification Activity Tracking System (CATS) website for officials at commercial service airports to file and certify their annual financial data, such as operating expenses and revenues. This database is the only centralized source of airport financial data. FAA, industry stakeholders, and researchers have used the data for multiple purposes. For example, a researcher used CATS data on airport revenues and expenses to develop policy options for Congress to improve airport financing. Most airports required to submit data to CATS did so, but the extent of the timeliness and accuracy of CATS data is unknown. Airports that receive certain federal grants, provide commercial service, and had at least 2,500 passenger boardings in the prior year are required to submit data. Most of these airports did so for fiscal year 2023 (the most recent data available at the time of GAO’s review), but some of the smallest airports did not, for reasons that included staff turnover. Limitations in CATS make it difficult for FAA to track whether airports meet reporting deadlines. Moreover, airports must report data within a certain period after the end of their fiscal year, which varies by airport. As a result, CATS users must wait almost a year to obtain data for a particular fiscal year. Further, CATS data have anomalies and potential errors, such as data from airports that were not required to file, which can affect totals for a given year. Airport Financial Reports Submitted to FAA by Airport Category, Fiscal Year 2023 Note: While 506 airports were required to submit data, FAA allowed two airport sponsors to consolidate multiple airports into a single submission, resulting in 446 expected airport submissions. FAA has taken some steps to improve CATS data quality, such as performing occasional data checks. However, FAA does not have sufficient data controls to ensure the quality of CATS data. For example, FAA does not have a procedure to consistently identify airports newly required to submit data due to increased passenger boardings. FAA officials told GAO they planned to update the CATS website, which could add this and other functions, but that the update had been delayed. Implementing data controls would result in better quality data to inform policy and other decisions. Additionally, FAA has not communicated specific data limitations to users. For example, information about the number of airports that submitted their financial data for a particular fiscal year could help users understand the completeness of the data and qualify the data for their purposes. Why GAO Did This Study Each year, approximately 500 commercial service airports must submit their financial data to FAA, within the Department of Transportation. These reporting requirements were enacted in 1994 to enable FAA to evaluate airports’ compliance with revenue-use requirements and inform the public on how airports collect and spend funds, according to FAA. These airports are generally publicly owned and rely on a mix of revenue sources, such as airline payments, parking revenue, and federal grants. The FAA Reauthorization Act of 2024 includes a provision for GAO to review airport financial reporting. This report examines (1) how FAA and stakeholders have used CATS data; (2) the extent to which CATS data are complete, timely, and accurate; and (3) the extent to which FAA has taken actions to improve CATS data quality and communicated any data limitations to users. GAO reviewed CATS data for fiscal years 2019 through 2023; FAA guidance; and publications that cited CATS, identified through a literature search. GAO interviewed officials from FAA headquarters and nine regions; 12 industry stakeholders and researchers; and officials from 10 airports, selected at random but to reflect a range of sizes and regions. GAO also compared CATS data quality policies with federal data standards.

What GAO Found The Bayh-Dole Act lets recipients of federal funding retain ownership rights, or “elect title,” to inventions made with federal funding if they meet certain reporting requirements. GAO found that when recipients (e.g., universities and businesses) invented useful technologies, most chose to retain ownership rights, while about 21 percent declined to do so, from fiscal year 2020 through 2024 (see figure). The most common reason they declined was low commercial potential for the inventions (meaning they would not be likely to find a commercial partner to bring the invention to market, according to university representatives). Small for-profit funding recipients had the lowest rate of declining ownership rights. Title Election Decisions and Rates of Nonelection by Type of Funding Recipient, Fiscal Years (FY) 2020–2024 Funding recipients cited several challenges to meeting invention reporting requirements. These challenges included inconsistent requirements across agencies, time-consuming annual reporting, and delays with requests for deadline extensions. Despite these challenges, one organization representing small businesses told GAO that compliance with reporting requirements generally does not prevent small businesses from bringing their federally funded inventions to market. Several recipients said continued use of a web-based reporting system, known as iEdison, could help address some of these challenges. However, some agencies said there were still concerns with iEdison, including occasional incomplete reporting by funding recipients. For example, iEdison allows funding recipients the flexibility to submit information using their own formats. But some stakeholders said recipients may not know what information to include. Agency review time increases as a result, officials said. In March 2026, the National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST) published a sample form for funding recipients to use when disclosing a new invention. Use of the optional sample form may improve the consistency and completeness of submissions. Why GAO Did This Study Federal agencies fund billions of dollars in research each year that can result in new inventions. The Bayh-Dole Act of 1980 created an incentive for federally funded researchers to bring inventions to market so the public could benefit. Specifically, recipients of federal research funding, such as universities, small businesses, and nonprofits, may elect ownership of and profit from their inventions if the recipients meet certain requirements. For example, they must disclose their inventions to the government and report annually on commercialization efforts. To streamline invention reporting, many agencies use iEdison, a web-based system managed by NIST. A July 2023 executive order directed specific agencies to take steps to transition to iEdison by the end of 2025. GAO was asked to review the federal invention disclosure process. This report examines (1) the percentage of disclosed inventions for which funding recipients elected to retain title and the reasons for not doing so, (2) challenges funding recipients face in complying with reporting requirements, and (3) how selected agencies are managing the transition to a single federal disclosure system. GAO analyzed inventions data reported to 30 agencies by funding recipients; interviewed stakeholders, such as groups that represent universities and small businesses; and interviewed officials from five selected research funding agencies. GAO’s draft report recommended that NIST finalize and publish guidance, such as a sample form, that identifies required invention reporting elements. In response, in March 2026, NIST published a sample form and additional guidance on its website. As a result, GAO removed the recommendation and revised the report accordingly. For more information, contact Candice N. Wright at wrightc@gao.gov.

What GAO Found Federal agencies reportedly more than doubled their use of artificial intelligence (AI) from 2023 to 2024, and they used a range of approaches to acquire additional AI capabilities through fiscal year 2025. GAO identified trade-offs facing agencies as they acquire AI, and some associated challenges and benefits. For example: Agency-directed vs. vendor-driven approaches. Some agencies awarded new contracts in pursuit of AI solutions. In other instances, industry introduced capabilities to agencies in the absence of specific AI requirements. Contracts vs. other agreements. Agencies used different types of contracts to acquire AI capabilities. In some instances, agencies also leveraged other agreements not governed by federal acquisition regulations to develop more advanced AI capabilities. AI as a service vs. a product. Some agencies bought AI as a product, such as software. However, agency officials told GAO they acquire AI as a service where the vendor provides AI capabilities and outputs on an ongoing basis. GAO identified several strategic and programmatic challenges agencies faced when acquiring AI capabilities. Key Procurement Challenge Areas Identified by Selected Agencies In April 2025, the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) issued guidance to help agencies acquire AI responsibly. OMB directed agencies to update their AI policies to comply with OMB’s requirements. GAO previously reported that agency-level implementation is critical to achieving acquisition goals directed by OMB (GAO-25-107398). In this review, GAO found the selected agencies were not yet systematically collecting lessons learned from AI acquisitions—a necessary first step to share knowledge about AI acquisitions in accordance with OMB guidance. OMB has stated that agencies should share knowledge about AI acquisitions through a web-based repository developed by the General Services Administration (GSA). However, officials at four agencies—GSA and the Departments of Defense (DOD), Homeland Security (DHS), and Veterans Affairs (VA)—told GAO they were not prepared to do so because their agency policies did not require them to collect lessons learned. As a result, the agencies are missing opportunities to identify and apply best practices—such as contract terms related to data rights or testing requirements—or to avoid mistakes as agencies increasingly acquire AI. Why GAO Did This Study Industry leads AI development, reportedly investing over $250 billion in 2024 alone. Federal agencies are finding many opportunities to use AI to execute their missions. They already use AI for veteran services, enhancements to weapon systems, and administrative tasks. To realize the benefits of AI, federal agencies often contract with companies to acquire solutions. Members of Congress and others have raised concerns about federal AI acquisitions. These concerns include long-standing acquisition issues, such as fostering competition, as well as issues specific to AI, such as training AI models on flawed data. GAO was asked to review federal AI acquisitions. This report addresses (1) acquisition approaches agencies are using to adopt AI, (2) types of challenges agencies face when acquiring AI capabilities, and (3) the extent to which selected agencies are prepared to share knowledge related to acquiring AI solutions. GAO conducted in-depth reviews of 13 AI acquisitions at four federal agencies—DOD, DHS, GSA, and VA. GAO selected these agencies based on maturity of AI acquisition efforts and approaches to acquiring AI capabilities, among other factors. GAO reviewed the agencies’ relevant policies, and interviewed senior AI acquisition leaders at the selected agencies. GAO also analyzed OMB guidance.

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

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

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

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