What GAO Found Many countries, including the U.S., are experiencing an increase in both the number and the proportion of older adults in their populations. According to the World Health Organization, the share of the global population aged 60 and over is expected to more than double from one billion in 2020 to 2.1 billion by 2050. As countries experiencing population aging take steps to address the domestic effects, experts told GAO that global population aging may also affect the U.S. GAO identified three broad U.S. foreign policy interests that may be affected by aging abroad: national security, economic competitiveness, and global health and humanitarian assistance (see figure). Effects of Global Aging on U.S. Foreign Policy Interests GAO identified several key implications of global aging populations for the U.S. by interviewing experts and conducting a literature review. For example, U.S. national security interests may be affected as allies spend more on healthcare for their aging populations, likely resulting in fewer available resources for defense spending. U.S. economic interests may also be affected by shrinking labor pools abroad, which could affect labor force competition and worldwide migration patterns. Lastly, global health interests may be influenced by the prevalence of chronic disease in aging populations. As a result, U.S. global health priorities may have to be adapted to the health-related risks and vulnerabilities faced by aging populations. The Departments of Defense (DOD), Health and Human Services (HHS), and State have some efforts that indirectly address the implications of global aging. These agencies produce research and data, engage with partner nations, and provide health and humanitarian assistance. State’s regional bureaus train younger populations in other countries to replace skills lost when older individuals leave the workforce. Additionally, HHS researches the effects of aging and age-related conditions on populations both domestically and abroad. However, U.S. agencies do not provide foreign assistance that specifically addresses the needs of older populations, according to agency officials. Why GAO Did This Study According to the United Nations, population aging is occurring at an unprecedented pace and is poised to become one of the most significant social transformations of the twenty-first century. As the populations of partners and adversaries age, the U.S. may be affected by this trend. Stakeholders have increasingly identified global aging abroad as a potential strategic challenge for the U.S. Understanding the changes associated with global aging and their potential effects, including consequences for U.S. fiscal policy, may help inform U.S. strategic priorities and goals. GAO was asked to examine the U.S. foreign policy implications of global aging and how U.S. agencies are considering these implications in their programming. This report examines (1) the implications of aging populations worldwide on U.S. foreign policy interests; and (2) U.S. agencies’ efforts to identify and address the implications of aging populations worldwide on U.S. interests. To address these objectives, GAO interviewed experts and conducted a literature review to identify the implications of aging populations worldwide on U.S. foreign policy interests. GAO selected experts from academia and nongovernmental organizations to represent a balance of views. To identify agency efforts to address global aging, GAO reviewed relevant agency documents, policy guidance, and program documentation. GAO also spoke with officials at DOD, HHS, and State. GAO selected these agencies based on their roles in foreign assistance programming and policy development relevant to demographic change. For more information, contact Chelsa Kenney at kenneyc@gao.gov.

What GAO Found The Federal Assets Sale and Transfer Act of 2016 (FASTA) established a temporary process to reduce the inventory of federal civilian real property and the time it takes to dispose of such property. FASTA created the Public Buildings Reform Board (Board) to recommend properties for disposal for approval in each of several rounds. Once approved, the General Services Administration (GSA) takes a primary role in implementation. FASTA also established a fund to help with disposal costs. The last year of FASTA implementation is underway, with two approved rounds—2019 and 2025—and a final round expected to be released before the Board ceases operations in December 2026. As of August 2026, 14 properties (of 23 recommended and approved) have been disposed of for a total of about $576 million in sales proceeds. Most of these disposals were from the 2019 round. Timeframes for completing disposal on many 2025 round properties are not clear due to shifting cost and schedule estimates. Stakeholders said that FASTA’s main benefit is the potential for funding to offset disposal costs, but the uncertainty of accessing this funding has been a significant challenge. Proceeds from initial FASTA disposals are deposited into a fund—the Asset Proceeds and Space Management Fund—that can be accessed to cover the costs of future disposals, subject to congressional appropriation. While Congress appropriated $90 million from 2016 to 2022 for the fund, it did not provide additional FASTA appropriations from 2023 to 2025. Without this appropriation, GSA could not access the full amount of sales proceeds. Timeline of Cumulative Amounts Deposited into and Appropriated from the Asset Proceeds and Space Management Fund In 2026, Congress appropriated an additional about $143 million in FASTA proceeds. However, other longstanding disposal challenges remain. For example, stakeholders said relocating tenants is a challenge, particularly for the 2025 round, as most of these properties remain occupied by federal tenants. GSA and the Board suggested improvements to FASTA if it were extended beyond 2026, including greater access to FASTA sales proceeds. Why GAO Did This Study The federal government owns hundreds of thousands of buildings that cost billions of dollars annually to occupy, operate, and maintain. Disposing of real property that federal agencies no longer need—but continue to pay for—has been a longstanding challenge. The process for disposing of unneeded property may take years, with the federal government bearing the property costs until the disposal is completed. FASTA includes provisions for GAO to review the Board’s recommendations and selection process and annually review agencies’ efforts to implement the FASTA recommendations. This report describes (1) the status of the FASTA disposal process and (2) insights from FASTA implementation as of the Second Round (2025). GAO reviewed published reports, relevant federal laws and regulations. GAO interviewed officials from the Board, GSA, and four selected tenant agencies occupying properties recommended under FASTA. GAO also conducted site visits to four selected FASTA properties included in the 2025 round recommendations. In addition, GAO analyzed GSA real property disposal data from January 1, 2020, through August 5, 2025, to review the amount of time it takes to dispose of federal properties.

What GAO Found The Food and Drug Administration’s (FDA) Center for Devices and Radiological Health (CDRH) administers the Third Party Review Program, a voluntary alternative review process for selected low-to-moderate risk medical devices, such as diagnostic ultrasound systems and surgical lasers. Under this program, which is intended to facilitate faster reviews, device sponsors can contract with FDA-accredited entities. These entities, known as Third Party Review Organizations (third parties), conduct the initial review of certain premarket applications, known as 510(k) submissions. These third party reviews occur prior to agency officials making the final decision about whether the device can be marketed. According to FDA officials, the agency received approximately $8 million for Third Party Review Program operations in fiscal years 2023 through 2027. FDA’s administration of the program includes overseeing third parties’ accreditation and reaccreditation applications to ensure participation standards are met, and reviewing third parties’ recommendations on 510(k) submissions and making final decisions. From fiscal years 2018 through 2025, third parties provided FDA with 617 510(k) submission reviews and recommendations, which accounted for about 2 percent of CDRH’s 510(k) submission reviews annually. Center for Devices and Radiological Health (CDRH) and Third Party 510(k) Medical Device Submission Reviews, Fiscal Years 2018–2025, as of November 2025     Fiscal Year 2018 2019 2020 2021 2022 2023 2024 2025 Number of 510(k) submissions reviewed by CDRH only 3,276 3,464 3,504 3,731 3,554 3,684 3,461 3,476 Number of 510(k) submissions reviewed by Third Party Review Organizations and CDRH 75 78 85 90 77 77 68 67 Source: GAO analysis of Food and Drug Administration data. | GAO-26-108499 FDA is required to audit third parties periodically to ensure they remain in compliance with the standards for program participation. The agency conducted 25 periodic audits of third parties from 2000 to 2026, according to FDA officials. These audits were conducted in four phases: 13 audits from 2000 through 2003, five audits from 2011 through 2013, two audits in 2022, and five audits from 2025 to 2026. Results of these audits varied in terms of the deficiencies identified. GAO found that FDA’s audit policies have gaps and are missing key details. For example, FDA has not established time frames specifying how long it should take the agency to complete an audit and communicate results to third parties. As a result, GAO identified several recent audits with findings of deficiencies, such as language in standard operating procedures being too vague, that took FDA more than 6 months to close. Ensuring the agency has detailed policies, such as time frames for completing audits and communicating results, would strengthen FDA’s efforts to ensure third parties meet program requirements and are therefore eligible to continue reviewing 510(k) submissions, which provide recommendations to FDA as to whether devices should be allowed on the market and thus available for patient use. Why GAO Did This Study FDA, within the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS), is responsible for ensuring that medical devices sold in the U.S. are regulated to provide reasonable assurance of safety and effectiveness. The review process FDA uses to make this determination represents a substantial investment of time and resources for both the agency and the device sponsor. The Food and Drug Administration Modernization Act of 1997 created the Third Party Review Program, which FDA oversees. Since program inception, FDA said it accredited 32 third parties to participate in the program; as of May 2026, there were nine third parties with active accreditations. The Consolidated Appropriations Act, 2023, includes a provision for GAO to report on the Third Party Review Program. This report (1) describes FDA’s roles and responsibilities in administering the Third Party Review Program; and (2) examines the extent to which FDA audits third parties’ performance. GAO reviewed the statute authorizing the Third Party Review Program and FDA’s related policy and guidance documents. GAO analyzed FDA third party performance metrics from fiscal years 2018 through 2025. GAO also reviewed documentation and internal communications from completed third party audits. GAO interviewed FDA officials and representatives from six third parties.

What GAO Found The Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) has identified electromagnetic spectrum-related threats, including spoofing and jamming, to the National Airspace System (NAS) and international flight routes. However, FAA has not completed risk and mitigation assessments, and updated security documentation needed to address these threats. Additionally, FAA did not have a defined, real-time monitoring and detection capability for all spectrum-related threats. Without comprehensive risk and mitigation assessments, complete security documentation, and real-time monitoring capabilities, FAA may not have sufficient information to identify, prioritize, and respond to evolving spectrum-related threats. As a result, spoofing, jamming, and other attacks could disrupt aviation communications, degrade situational awareness, and increase the risk of operational disruptions. Potential Cyberattacks Impacting Aircraft Communications FAA participates in multiple collaborative efforts with other federal agencies as well as non-federal aviation industry stakeholders regarding cybersecurity. FAA's collaborative efforts fully addressed two of the eight leading practices and partially addressed six. While FAA has defined roles and responsibilities within interagency groups, it has not established policies or procedures for information sharing, reporting, and coordination with non-federal partners outside those groups. Fully implementing leading collaboration practices could strengthen FAA's ability to effectively coordinate with key partners to mitigate cybersecurity threats affecting the aviation sector and thereby avoid fragmented and inefficient responses to incidents. The communication applications that FAA, pilots, and aviation stakeholders use to exchange text-based information are vulnerable to cyber threats, including interception and spoofing, due to limitations related to authentication, encryption, and protocol design. For example, a malicious actor could transmit fraudulent clearance cancellations, possibly leading to flight delays or safety issues. Until FAA develops and implements a plan to strengthen authentication and data protection for these applications, malicious actors could exploit weaknesses and increase the risk of disrupted flight operations, aviation accidents, or safety incidents. Why GAO Did This Study Commercial flight operations rely on interconnected systems that reside onboard an aircraft and on the ground in the NAS. These systems use radio frequency signals transmitted through the electromagnetic spectrum to communicate. The Servicemember Quality of Life Improvement and National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2025 includes a provision for GAO to review the vulnerability of the NAS to spectrum attacks and to assess efforts to prevent and prepare for such attacks. This report examines, among other objectives, the extent to which FAA has identified and mitigated spectrum-related cybersecurity threats; the extent to which FAA has collaborated with federal partners to defend against cybersecurity threats; and what specific cybersecurity vulnerabilities exist in key communication applications. To address these objectives, GAO analyzed FAA vulnerability assessments to identify spectrum-related threats to the NAS. GAO selected eight spectrum-dependent systems and assessed them against National Institute of Standards and Technology guidance. GAO also assessed key FAA collaboration mechanisms against leading practices. In addition, GAO reviewed FAA documentation to identify vulnerabilities with communication applications. GAO interviewed FAA officials and federal and non-federal stakeholders.

Coast Guard personnel who work near vacation destinations or in remote areas experience challenges accessing private sector housing. Implementing our prior recommendations can better position the military services to manage military housing and support service members and their families. The Big Picture Due to rising costs, Coast Guard service members, 40 percent of whom rotate to new duty stations annually, and their families find it increasingly difficult to access adequate housing. The Department of Defense (DOD) and the Coast Guard (within the Department of Homeland Security) rely on the private sector to house the majority of service members; other service members may reside in government-owned housing. The basic allowance for housing (housing allowance) is often one of the largest components of cash compensation for military personnel. Around 41 percent of Coast Guard units are in remote or high vacation rental areas, where there is limited housing supply and high cost-of-living relative to the housing allowance. Coast Guard service members and spouses in these areas report challenges with affordability and availability of private-sector housing, which 76 percent of Coast Guard service members rely upon. However, while the Coast Guard and DOD seek to ensure that all members and their families have access to adequate housing, they are not fully aware of the challenges experienced by some service members. As a result, it may be difficult for these service members and their families to find adequate housing, which can affect morale and retention. What GAO’s Work Shows Our prior work highlighted key challenges that the Coast Guard has faced in managing its housing program and DOD actions that affect the Coast Guard. These include Coast Guard and DOD data collection and monitoring processes that inform housing guidance, such as collecting service member feedback, calculating housing allowance rates, and assessing priority housing types and locations. As of July 2026, there were nine open GAO recommendations focused on improving access to affordable housing for DOD and Coast Guard service members and their families. Location of Coast Guard Units and Classification as Remote or Majority Vacation Rental Areas, as of 2023 While the Coast Guard manages its housing program, DOD is responsible for calculating housing allowance rates for all eligible active-duty military service members, including the Coast Guard, by their pay grade, dependency status, and geographic location. These rates are based on rental costs data of “anchor points” or types of housing in approved market areas. However, DOD has not always used complete information to set housing allowances. DOD policy states that remote and isolated areas may pose particular challenges. Yet, DOD does not routinely assess or maintain comprehensive information on its housing supply or home affordability in relation to service members. We previously reported on steps DOD could take to make improvements, as well as how military services, such as the Coast Guard, may pursue changes to the allowance boundaries. By implementing our recommendations, Coast Guard and DOD could improve the management of military service housing affordability, availability, and costs while better supporting service members and their families. Quality of Life Tradeoffs Service members we spoke to across the armed forces, including the Coast Guard, cited key quality-of-life tradeoffs of living in remote and vacation destinations. These included increased commuting costs and distances, lower school quality, and limited access to health care services. Additionally, Coast Guard officials acknowledged that disparities in the housing allowance can exist, particularly in regions where multiple military housing areas cover large military service member populations, such as the San Francisco and Cape Cod areas. While Coast Guard officials identified beneficial practices they developed to manage their housing programs, in 2024, we found that the Coast Guard could improve its collection and sharing of such practices. For example, Coast Guard officials said they could hold regular calls with housing field units. These actions can help mitigate the loss of knowledge on local housing issues as personnel change duty stations. Similarly, we found that coordination between DOD and local communities on issues like housing varies across military installations. In March 2026, DOD issued guidance for military departments to define related responsibilities and requirements. Service-Wide Survey While the Coast Guard has collected some information on housing-related issues, such as analyses of housing market data, it had not conducted a service-wide feedback survey since 2012. In response to our 2024 recommendation, the Coast Guard developed the Nationwide Housing Satisfaction Survey. The goal of the survey is to enable the Coast Guard to make data-driven decisions and ensure that resources are allocated effectively to areas with the most pressing housing needs. The Coast Guard launched the annual survey in Fall 2025. However, the Coast Guard has yet to inform its housing policies with related current or complete information. Critical Housing Area Classification Currently, DOD has limited information regarding which military housing areas, such as Coast Guard specific areas, have the most significant housing availability and affordability challenges, known as critical housing areas. Thus, there may be additional areas where service members are experiencing significant housing challenges that the Coast Guard and DOD are not aware of. In 2024, we recommended DOD develop a comprehensive list of critical housing areas and consider local characteristics, such as vacation rentals, in its analysis. DOD officials shared interim guidance on this in March 2026 and told us it plans to publish a list of such areas by May 2027. In the absence of DOD information, the Coast Guard has taken some actions to designate critical housing areas. The Coast Guard considers this designation when it makes decisions to alter, acquire, or build new housing. As of 2026, the Coast Guard designated 46 areas affecting 400 out of 2,490 of the Coast Guard’s family housing units across the United States. Statutory Housing Authorities While the Coast Guard uses various statutory housing authorities to manage its housing program, DOD has additional authorities available to it that could potentially lower Coast Guard housing-related costs. For example, DOD has the authority to enter into multiyear utility service contracts. Coast Guard officials told us that having similar statutory authorities could be beneficial and may result in cost savings for the service. Other authorities, such as the use of public-private partnerships, would not be beneficial to the service and could result in large amounts of new direct spending, according to Coast Guard officials. We recommended the Coast Guard assess the extent to which 10 DOD statutory housing authorities could be beneficial to the service. As of June 2026, Coast Guard had submitted one legislative proposal to obtain one of these authorities and plans three additional proposals by the end of 2026. For more information, contact Triana McNeil at McNeilT@gao.gov.

Sexual misconduct in the U.S. Coast Guard is a longstanding problem. Implementing our recommendations can help the Coast Guard instill a culture intolerant of sexual misconduct and communicate progress to Congress and the public. The Big Picture Sexual misconduct has been a challenge within the U.S. Coast Guard for decades. For example, in a 2020 internal investigation called “Operation Fouled Anchor,” the Coast Guard examined more than 100 allegations of sexual assault from 1990 to 2006 at the Coast Guard Academy. The investigation concluded that the academy often mishandled these cases and failed to take sufficient action to ensure a safe environment for cadets. Sexual misconduct negatively affects victims and cadet retention, and it disrupts mission readiness. Cadets at Coast Guard Academy Practicing Drills In June 2023, after media reporting on the mishandling of sexual assault cases, the Coast Guard committed to reforming its culture, including addressing sexual misconduct. It also committed to better communicate its progress on these efforts to Congress and the public. A November 2023 Coast Guard report developed in response to Operation Fouled Anchor concluded that drastic improvement was needed to address harmful behaviors, including sexual misconduct. The report highlighted that about 18 percent of current Coast Guard women and 4 percent of men who responded to the Coast Guard’s 2022 Workforce and Gender Relations survey reported having experienced sexual harassment. What GAO’s Work Shows The National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2026 includes a provision for GAO to report on Coast Guard efforts to mitigate sexual misconduct in the service. Pub. L. No. 119-60, div. G, tit. LXXV, subtit. A, § 7501, 139 Stat. 718, 1788-89 (2025). Our prior work has highlighted challenges that the Coast Guard has faced in addressing and reporting sexual misconduct. The Coast Guard has begun to implement our recommendations to address these concerns, but as of August 2026, its actions were incomplete. Implementing Reforms to Address Key Gaps The Coast Guard has taken some actions to implement reforms, but gaps in key areas may affect the Coast Guard’s ability to maintain progress and achieve lasting results. Specifically, we reported that in November 2023 the Coast Guard identified 33 actions to implement as part of its reform effort to address sexual misconduct. Subsequently, the Coast Guard identified 16 additional actions. These actions include revising policy and filling new positions to address sexual misconduct, among others. As of August 2026, the Coast Guard reported completing 36 of the 49 actions. We found that the Coast Guard had not updated timelines or outlined clear next steps for implementing the incomplete reform actions. In addition, Coast Guard did not have a way to collect feedback from personnel to determine whether the reforms were working. In light of these findings, we recommended in January 2026 that the Coast Guard develop an implementation plan for its reform effort, reconstitute its implementation team, and establish a two-way communications strategy with employees regarding the status and effects of its reform efforts, among other items. The Coast Guard is taking steps to implement these recommendations. For example, in June 2026 it developed a feedback tool to engage the workforce on reform efforts. The Coast Guard also provided an updated implementation plan in August 2026. Assessing the Effectiveness of the Reforms The Coast Guard has not yet developed a performance plan to assess its progress over time—a deficiency we highlighted more than two years ago in our testimony before Congress in March 2024. Since that time, the Coast Guard has begun to develop a tool to leverage relevant metrics from its current surveys and other reports to establish a baseline for assessing the cumulative impact of its reform actions. However, as of June 2026, the service has yet to develop goals and measures for its tool, and effort remains incomplete. Assessing the effectiveness of its actions would better ensure that the Coast Guard has the information it needs to evaluate whether the actions are helping personnel have an experience free from sexual misconduct. Improving Reporting to Congress The service did not notify Congress of Operation Fouled Anchor until media reporting was imminent, potentially impairing congressional oversight. In April 2025 we reported that the Coast Guard's policy provides limited guidance on notifying Congress of its investigations into sexual misconduct. Additionally, the Coast Guard is statutorily required to inform Congress annually about sexual misconduct. However, we reviewed the Coast Guard’s report issued in 2022 under 14 U.S.C. § 5112 and it did not include all statutorily required information and was nearly a year late. In our January 2026 report, we recommended the Coast Guard ensure that future reports address all required elements and issue on time. However, the Coast Guard issued its 2023, 2024, and 2025 reports late and still did not include all required information. Coast Guard officials stated that the 2025 report is complete. We found that required elements are still missing As we also recommended, documenting its guidance for determining the investigations that warrant proactive congressional notification and issuing complete and on time reports would provide Congress with information it can use for oversight. Challenges and Opportunities Addressing sexual misconduct in the Coast Guard requires a cultural transformation. Our previous work shows that fully implementing major transformations can take years and requires focused, full-time attention to ensure that initiatives are implemented in a coherent and integrated way. But gaps in leadership, monitoring, and employee engagement have hindered progress. Absent implementation of our recommendations related to sexual misconduct, the service risks not being able to make the types of long-term cultural and procedural changes that are necessary to address sexual misconduct. It also risks missed opportunities for the Coast Guard to assess the effectiveness of its reform efforts and accurately communicate results to Congress and the public. Coast Guard Personnel on Patrol For more information, contact Triana McNeil at McNeilT@gao.gov.

What GAO Found The Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services (CMS) oversees the accuracy of Medicaid eligibility determinations through the Payment Error Rate Measurement (PERM) and the Medicaid Eligibility Quality Control (MEQC) programs. CMS estimates improper payments due to eligibility errors through its PERM program, and both the PERM and MEQC programs identify the root and specific causes of Medicaid eligibility errors and require states to develop corrective action plans (CAP) to address them. Root causes describe the source of the error and specific causes describe the exact action taken or not taken that led to the error. Caseworkers (staff who process Medicaid applications) were generally identified as the most prevalent root cause of errors in the PERM and MEQC reports GAO reviewed. The specific causes of errors generally fell into four categories. Causes of Medicaid Eligibility Errors Identified in Payment Error Rate Measurement (PERM) Reports from Reporting Years 2019–2025 Note: Error totals may not match as some causes are not listed. See report for more information. The selected states GAO reviewed took a variety of corrective actions—such as providing caseworkers with training, guidance, and making updates to eligibility systems—to reduce eligibility errors identified in the PERM and MEQC. Although CMS provides feedback on states’ CAPs, the agency’s inconsistent enforcement of required evaluations and limited analysis of state CAPs impair its oversight: Incomplete CAPs. CMS accepted PERM CAPs that were missing elements required by federal regulations. For example, states are required to evaluate the effectiveness of their prior corrective actions across five elements, but many CAPs GAO reviewed were missing required elements. Limited analyses of CAPs. CMS does not systematically analyze eligibility errors and CAPs across states and years to determine the effectiveness of corrective actions and whether they could be effective in multiple states. Collecting required elements and conducting these analyses would help CMS better support states in reducing eligibility errors and improper payments. Why GAO Did This Study Determining Medicaid eligibility is a complex process that is vulnerable to errors and can lead to improper payments. CMS oversees Medicaid eligibility determinations through its PERM program, which is conducted across all states on a 17-state, 3-year rotational cycle. CMS also requires states to conduct reviews of both eligibility approvals and denials through the MEQC program. The PERM national estimate of improper payments due to eligibility errors has fluctuated in recent years, in part due to temporary changes in Medicaid eligibility requirements implemented in response to the COVID-19 pandemic, but has recently begun to increase. GAO was asked to review Medicaid eligibility errors. This report describes the causes of Medicaid eligibility errors and corrective actions selected states took to address them, and assesses CMS’s oversight of state corrective actions. GAO reviewed state-specific PERM reports and other documentation from CMS for reporting years 2019 through 2025, as well as MEQC results and CAPs from seven states selected to obtain variation in Medicaid expenditures, enrollment, and eligibility error rates. GAO also interviewed officials from CMS and those states.

What GAO Found Federal support for economic development is fragmented. GAO identified 140 federal economic development programs administered by 13 agencies. GAO surveyed these programs, 131 of which reported total obligations of about $60 billion in fiscal year 2024. Further, these programs overlap. To assess overlap, GAO reviewed four selected Economic Development Administration (EDA) programs and 29 selected economic development programs administered by other federal agencies. All 29 programs overlapped with at least one of the EDA programs in at least one of three aspects—activities, beneficiaries, or purpose. Further, 20 programs overlapped with at least one of the EDA programs in all three aspects. Selected EDA and Other Federal Economic Development Programs with Overlap in Activities, Beneficiaries, and Purpose, as of May 2026 Note: Using survey responses from federal officials, GAO compared the four selected EDA programs with 29 selected federal economic development grant programs to determine whether they reported funding one or more of the same activities, serving similar beneficiaries, or having similar purposes. Overlap can create both benefits and challenges. For example, communities can use similar programs in different phases of projects but may find it difficult to navigate requirements across multiple agencies. Agencies can share expertise in overlapping programs but may find it challenging to avoid duplicative funding. EDA’s actions to manage the effects of overlap between programs have been limited. Of the 29 programs noted above, five reported collaborating with EDA in fiscal year 2024, the last full year at the time the survey was developed. In addition, EDA asks applicants to report funding from other federal agencies, but it does not verify the accuracy of this information prior to awarding funding. The Public Works and Economic Development Act of 1965, as amended, requires EDA to coordinate with other federal agencies carrying out economic development activities. EDA officials said their current approaches meet this requirement. But most of EDA’s efforts to collaborate with other agencies are inactive and EDA does not have plans to resume them. Coordinating with other agencies on programs that overlap with EDA programs would help EDA limit the risk of duplicating efforts and avoid wasting resources. Further, incorporating GAO’s leading practices for interagency collaboration would help EDA better leverage the benefits of overlap, such as shared resources and information, with other agencies. Why GAO Did This Study The federal government supports economic development grant programs to help regional and local communities improve job opportunities and promote economic growth. EDA is the only federal agency focused solely on economic development. The Senate Appropriations Committee report accompanying the Departments of Commerce and Justice, Science, and Related Agencies Appropriations Bill, 2024, includes a provision for GAO to evaluate potential overlap and duplication among EDA grants and other federal grant programs. This report examines (1) fragmentation of federal economic development programs across agencies and overlap in activities and beneficiaries; (2) overlap and duplication among selected EDA grant programs and other selected federal grant programs; and (3) EDA actions to manage the effects of overlap among selected grant programs. GAO identified federal economic development programs using assistance listing data from SAM.gov. GAO reviewed the four EDA programs that received the most funding in fiscal years 2023 and 2024 and selected and surveyed 30 other programs with similar purposes to the EDA programs. Among the 29 programs that responded, GAO evaluated overlap and duplication with the four EDA programs. GAO also interviewed organizations representing grantees and economic developers and officials from EDA and eight other agencies.

What GAO Found Unpaid household work includes domestic tasks, such as cooking and cleaning, as well as caregiving. Studies show that supplementing Gross Domestic Product (GDP) with the value of unpaid household work can provide a better understanding of the U.S. economy than GDP alone. For example, the decline in economic output during the COVID-19 recession was smaller when this value was included. Unpaid household work is not included in GDP because it takes place outside of formal market transactions and requires additional resources to calculate. According to economists GAO interviewed, valuing unpaid work can help inform policies that affect caregivers, such as policies intended to improve caregivers’ financial security in retirement. In a typical day, most individuals (87.3 percent) spent at least some time on household work—an average of about 3.72 hours, according to GAO’s analysis of 2021–2024 American Time Use Survey (ATUS) data. In addition, GAO estimated that the national market value of unpaid household work was at least $5.6 to 6.0 trillion in 2024 (which was equivalent to at least 19.2 to 20.2 percent of 2024 GDP). This estimated national market value includes the values of various types of unpaid household work, such as: Domestic tasks: $4.3 to $4.4 trillion (which was equivalent to 14.7 to 15.1 percent of 2024 GDP); and Caregiving (caring for adults or caring for children as a primary activity): $1.1 to $1.4 trillion (which was equivalent to 3.9 to 4.9 percent of 2024 GDP). These estimated values do not include secondary child care, which is keeping an eye on children while engaged in other activities. Including secondary child care increases the estimated values of caregiving and of all unpaid household work. GAO found certain groups were overrepresented among those engaged in unpaid household work from 2021-2024. For example, women made up about 53.9 percent of those engaged in this work, but 51.2 percent of the U.S. population. Also, women and married individuals spent more time on child care than men and unmarried individuals. However, women and men who cared for adults spent similar amounts of time doing so, as did married and unmarried individuals. Time Spent on Unpaid Caregiving by Selected Characteristics, 2021–2024 Notes: Primary child care is when the caregiver’s primary focus is helping or caring for a child (e.g., reading to a child), according to ATUS. GAO defined married individuals as living with their spouse or partner and unmarried individuals as not married or not living with their spouse or partner. Why GAO Did This Study Millions of people spend time on unpaid household work each day. Unpaid household work is work someone does for their household that someone else could do for pay. GAO was asked to examine how unpaid household work contributes to the economy and whether a better understanding of this work could help inform policy. This report (1) describes how estimating the time and monetary value of unpaid household work can supplement economic data and inform caregiving policy; (2) estimates the time spent on this work and its monetary value; and (3) determines the characteristics of individuals who do this work. To inform all objectives, GAO reviewed studies on unpaid household work in the U.S. that had strong research methods; and interviewed economists knowledgeable about estimating the time and value of this work. To estimate the time spent on unpaid household work, GAO analyzed nationally representative ATUS data from 2021–2024, which were the most recent data available at the time of GAO’s review. GAO estimated the monetary value of this work by multiplying hours from the ATUS by median hourly wages from the 2024 Current Population Survey (CPS). For most types of unpaid work, GAO selected both lower and higher wages to show how the value changes based on the wages used. GAO also analyzed 2021–2024 ATUS and CPS data to describe the characteristics of individuals engaged in this work. Both ATUS and CPS are federally funded surveys. For more information, contact Thomas Costa at CostaT@gao.gov or Michael Hoffman at HoffmanME@gao.gov.

What GAO Found In 2021, the U.S. Postal Service (USPS) published a 10-year strategic plan, which it has periodically updated, that aims to achieve financial sustainability and service excellence. Since that time, USPS has lengthened the expected delivery times of some First-Class Mail to align with strategic plan initiatives intended to cut costs. Effective October 2021, USPS added 1 to 2 days to its expected delivery times for certain products to accommodate its transportation change from air to ground. In April 2025, USPS further changed expected delivery times by eliminating end-of-day or afternoon collection at the over 24,000 post offices that are more than 50 miles from a Regional Processing and Delivery Center. Additionally, USPS lowered its service performance targets—the percentage of mail it expects to meet service standards—in fiscal year 2021 and has not met most targets since then. While intended to achieve cost savings, USPS’s strategic plan initiatives have slowed service for some mail and had a disproportionate impact on rural customers, according to oversight entities and industry stakeholders. U.S. Postal Service’s (USPS) Service Performance for Selected First-Class Mail Products, Fiscal Years 2021–2025 USPS has tried to address service performance in several ways, including using diagnostic tools and regular operational meetings. However, ongoing service performance issues indicate that USPS’s actions have not been sufficient. Moreover, broader challenges—such as USPS’s poor financial condition—may contribute to the difficulty in doing so. Given persistent concerns about service performance, it is important that USPS clearly communicate about its ongoing and planned actions to address this issue, even as it seeks to cut costs, as well as about the challenges it faces. The upcoming update to USPS’s strategic plan, which is planned for 2027, presents an opportunity for USPS to communicate this information to Congress, the public, and relevant stakeholders. Why GAO Did This Study USPS has long faced challenges meeting its mission in a financially self-sufficient manner. Under its current strategic plan, USPS has sought to improve its finances and service performance. Balancing service performance with financial viability poses a significant ongoing challenge for USPS. GAO was asked to review USPS service performance issues. This report examines (1) changes USPS has made to service standards for market-dominant products and to related operations since 2021; (2) how the cost-cutting initiatives in USPS’s strategic plan have affected service performance and customers; and (3) the extent to which USPS’s actions have addressed service performance issues, and how USPS has communicated ongoing and planned actions to Congress and the public. GAO reviewed USPS documents, including its annual reports to Congress for fiscal years 2020 through 2025. GAO also reviewed USPS Office of Inspector General reports, as well as Postal Regulatory Commission (PRC) reports and relevant advisory opinions. GAO selected First-Class Mail for this review, because it is one of the market-dominant products USPS uses to assess its service performance. GAO also interviewed USPS officials, PRC commissioners and staff, and five stakeholders that included commercial mailers and mailer organizations on topics related to USPS service performance.

What GAO Found The Department of Homeland Security (DHS) Office of Inspector General (OIG) has not ensured timely investigations of whistleblower retaliation complaints. OIG took over 3 years to investigate the majority (39 of 73) of the cases it opened and closed in fiscal years 2018 through 2025. OIG officials told GAO that case complexity and limited staff affected some case time frames, and that they have focused more on investigation quality and thoroughness than timeliness. While OIG policy requires timely review of whistleblower retaliation complaints, OIG has not defined this objective in specific, measurable terms; evaluated timeliness; or implemented other mechanisms to help enhance accountability and ensure more timely investigations. Improving timeliness could lessen the personal, financial, and professional hardships on complainants and help convey that protecting whistleblowers is a priority. DHS OIG Time Frames for Closing Whistleblower Retaliation Investigations, Cases Opened and Closed, Fiscal Years 2018–2025 From fiscal years 2018 through 2025, OIG substantiated 11 of the 73 whistleblower retaliation cases noted above. The Secretary of Homeland Security did not decide whether to take corrective action for any of these cases within 30 days of receiving OIG’s report, as required by law. As of May 2026, the Secretary decided to take corrective action for five cases and had not decided whether to take corrective action for the remaining six. These 11 cases had awaited the Secretary’s decision for 4 months to over 2 years. DHS officials told GAO there is no process or designated official responsible for ensuring cases are reviewed in a timely manner. Until the Secretary decides on corrective action for the six pending cases and takes steps to ensure timely decisions on future substantiated cases, whistleblowers with substantiated cases will not receive timely restorative personnel actions. This could decrease confidence in DHS whistleblower protections and discourage other whistleblowers from coming forward. Why GAO Did This Study Federal employees who report wrongdoing play a crucial role in improving government operations but risk retaliation, such as removal from their duties. Whistleblower retaliation can damage careers and have a chilling effect on others’ willingness to report wrongdoing. Federal statutes protect whistleblowers, including DHS employees, from such retaliation. Within DHS, OIG is responsible for receiving and investigating retaliation complaints and the Secretary of Homeland Security is responsible for deciding whether to take corrective action on substantiated complaints. GAO was asked to review OIG’s processes for receiving and investigating whistleblower retaliation complaints. This report addresses the extent to which OIG has ensured timely investigations of retaliation complaints and DHS has made timely corrective action decisions in response to substantiated retaliation allegations, among other objectives. To conduct this review, GAO analyzed OIG policies, procedures, reports to Congress, and retaliation complaint and investigations data from fiscal years 2018 through 2025. GAO also interviewed officials from DHS and OIG. To obtain whistleblower perspectives, GAO interviewed nongeneralizable samples of three whistleblower advocacy groups, selected based on their work in this area, and current and former DHS personnel with closed whistleblower retaliation complaints.

What GAO Found In February 2025, the President issued an executive order that called for agencies to consult with the U.S. DOGE Service (also known as the Department of Government Efficiency) to review and terminate grants within 30 days of the executive order to reduce spending. Department of Homeland Security (DHS) officials told GAO that they followed directions from the Secretary of Homeland Security in 2025 to determine which grants to terminate. DHS took several actions during fiscal year 2025 to implement the Secretary’s grant review guidance. For example: DHS paused the disbursement of all obligated grant funding in February 2025. With approval from the Secretary, four DHS components terminated 362 grants and deobligated about $1 billion for those grants, as shown in the table below. Deobligations for Grants DHS Terminated January 20, 2025 – September 30, 2025 Agency and component Number of terminated grants Total deobligations after termination (thousands of $) Total for DHS 362 $1,001,777 Cybersecurity and Infrastructure Security Agency 1 $0 Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) 215 $999,433 Science and Technology Directorate 35 $2 U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS) 111 $2,342 Source: DHS.gov, USASpending.gov, and DHS officials. | GAO-26-109097 DHS’s approach led to it not achieving its fiscal year 2025 objectives and in some cases undermining statutory purposes for its grant programs. For instance, DHS did not fully achieve planned actions to reduce federal spending. In many cases, DHS or its components were forced to reverse their actions after delaying grants that would strengthen preparedness and resilience. For example, the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) reallocated funds away from certain states under a grant program that provides federal funds for terrorism prevention and response projects. FEMA then reinstated the funds after a court ordered it to. DHS and its components—including FEMA, which is responsible for most of DHS’s grant programs—continue to take similar actions to place conditions on or terminate grants. DHS now has the opportunity to take a measured approach to grant actions given that it no longer faces an executive order deadline. By developing a process to ensure that grant-making components, such as FEMA, consider lessons learned from prior challenges before taking future actions, DHS could be better positioned to achieve its objectives and ensure that statutory purposes for its grant programs are implemented as required. Why GAO Did This Study In early 2025, the President directed the heads of federal agencies to implement a series of initiatives to reform government operations, including reviewing federal contracts and grants for termination or modification to reduce spending. To advance these initiatives, the President directed agencies to establish teams to work with DOGE. GAO was asked to review DHS and DOGE efforts to terminate contracts and grant awards and make reductions to its workforce in 2025. This report, the second in a series, provides information on DHS actions to review and terminate grants from January through September 2025, and the number and value of grants terminated. The first report focused on DHS contract terminations. GAO reviewed and analyzed documents such as executive orders directing federal agencies to review and terminate grants and DHS documents directing components on how to conduct these efforts. GAO also reviewed DHS data and publicly available award data on the grants DHS terminated during the period of our review, as well as relevant statutes and court filings. Further, GAO interviewed DHS officials and collected written responses about these efforts.

What GAO Found The 988 Suicide and Crisis Lifeline (988 Lifeline) is managed on behalf of the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) by a network administrator who oversees the day-to-day operations and ensures that the nearly 220 local crisis contact centers are compliant with the organization’s cybersecurity requirements. HHS partially implemented oversight activities related to cybersecurity for the 988 Lifeline. Specifically, HHS defined oversight roles and responsibilities to monitor cybersecurity control implementation. However, HHS did not include all key HHS-defined cybersecurity control areas in the 988 Lifeline cooperative agreement with its network administrator or for the network agreement between the administrator and crisis contact centers. In addition, HHS established processes to monitor security control implementation but did not always adhere to them. Inclusion of Department of Health and Human Services (HHS)-defined Cybersecurity Control Areas in 988 Lifeline Agreements While the network administrator and crisis contact centers fully implemented selected continuous monitoring controls, they have not consistently implemented other selected cybersecurity controls identified in guidance from the National Institute of Standards and Technology. Specifically, the network administrator has not implemented identity and access controls related to updated password guidance and partially implemented controls related to contingency plans. In addition, the crisis contacts centers have partially implemented incident response and contingency planning controls. Without the full implementation of these controls, the 988 Lifeline faces increased risk of cybersecurity incidents, which could result in prolonged service disruptions and potentially prevent individuals in crisis access to timely mental health support. Why GAO Did This Study HHS’s Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration launched the National Suicide Prevention Lifeline in 2005 to serve individuals in suicidal crisis or emotional distress. In 2022, it was renamed the 988 Suicide and Crisis Lifeline. The uninterrupted operation of the 988 Lifeline is critical to the health and safety of millions of Americans. These services were severely impacted in December 2022 by a cybersecurity attack that compromised critical 988 network infrastructure, leading to a nationwide service disruption lasting several hours. In addition, Congress passed the SUPPORT for Patients and Communities Reauthorization Act of 2025 that, among other things, includes a provision for GAO to report on the 988 Lifeline cybersecurity risks and vulnerabilities. The objectives for this report were to determine (1) to what extent HHS has provided oversight of cybersecurity controls for the 988 Lifeline and (2) to what extent the 988 Lifeline network administrator and crisis contact centers have implemented selected cybersecurity controls. To do so, GAO assessed cooperative and network agreements and related cybersecurity documentation and compared them to best practices and selected National Institute of Standards and Technology controls. GAO also interviewed HHS officials, the network administrator, and selected crisis contact centers.

What GAO Found GAO’s preliminary observations indicate that 30 federal programs can provide housing support targeted to Native American communities, including those that are American Indian and Alaska Native (AI/AN) and Native Hawaiian. These include grant programs—of which the largest is the Indian Housing Block Grant program—and mortgage assistance programs. Tribes, tribal organizations, and Native Hawaiian organizations that GAO contacted indicated that they use federal programs primarily to maintain existing housing and, to a lesser extent, to construct new housing. They also identified limitations in the reach of these programs, including limited funding that had not kept pace with rising construction costs and certain program restrictions. While tribal communities experience both sheltered and unsheltered homelessness, doubling up (or temporarily staying with others) is also widespread, according to GAO’s preliminary analysis of its interviews and prior HUD and GAO research. Tribes and tribal organizations that GAO contacted for its ongoing work on homelessness described a variety of strategies they use to address homelessness, including operating emergency shelters or transitional housing and providing supportive services. Tribal Emergency Shelter in Alaska and Transitional Housing Facilities in Minnesota GAO’s preliminary observations indicate that many of the Tribes and tribal organizations GAO contacted had used Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) programs to support their homelessness strategies. However, several challenges may limit broader use of these programs. For example, some Tribes and tribal organizations described using a portion of their Indian Housing Block Grant funding to address homelessness but noted that the need to fund operation and maintenance costs for existing housing left little funding for homelessness-related efforts, such as providing shelters or emergency housing assistance. They also described requirements of the Continuum of Care program—HUD’s largest homelessness assistance program—that may limit tribal participation. For example, some Tribes and tribal organizations raised concerns that Tribes may be less competitive for funding because forms of homelessness more common in their communities, such as doubling up, do not align with the program’s definition of homelessness. Why GAO Did This Study Native American communities have faced longstanding housing challenges, including poor housing conditions, overcrowding, and homelessness. This statement is based on preliminary observations and discusses (1) federal programs providing targeted housing support to Native American communities and views on program uses and limitations; (2) tribal strategies for addressing homelessness among AI/AN people; and (3) challenges associated with Tribes’ use of HUD programs to support these strategies. GAO analyzed agency documentation on federal programs supporting Native American housing and interviewed a nongeneralizable sample of 12 Tribes and tribal organizations and one Native Hawaiian organization to obtain their views on those programs. In addition, GAO interviewed a nongeneralizable sample of 19 Tribes and tribal organizations regarding homelessness strategies and challenges. GAO selected Tribes to reflect factors such as regional variation, use of federal housing funds, and approaches to addressing homelessness. For more information, contact Alicia Puente Cackley at CackleyA@gao.gov or Jill Naamane at NaamaneJ@gao.gov.

What GAO Found Based on the limited procedures GAO performed to review the performance of the independent public accountant’s (IPA) audit of the Congressional Award Foundation’s financial statements for fiscal year 2025, GAO did not identify any significant issues it believes require attention. Had GAO performed additional procedures, other matters related to the performance of the audit might have come to its attention that it would have reported. The IPA provided an unmodified audit opinion on the Foundation’s financial statements for fiscal years 2025 and 2024. Specifically, the IPA found that the Foundation’s financial statements were presented fairly, in all material respects, in accordance with U.S. generally accepted accounting principles. For fiscal year 2025, the IPA did not identify any (1) deficiencies it considered to be material weaknesses in the Foundation’s internal control over financial reporting or (2) instances of noncompliance or other matters that are required to be reported under U.S. generally accepted government auditing standards. The Foundation concurred with the IPA’s conclusions. GAO’s review of the Foundation’s fiscal year 2025 financial statement audit, as differentiated from an audit of the financial statements, was not intended to enable GAO to express—and it does not express—an opinion on the Foundation’s financial statements or a conclusion on the effectiveness of its internal control over financial reporting. Furthermore, GAO does not express an opinion on the Foundation’s compliance with provisions of applicable laws, regulations, contracts, and grant agreements. The IPA is responsible for its reports on the Foundation and the conclusions expressed therein. GAO provided a draft of this report to the Foundation and the IPA for review and comment. The Foundation’s National Director and the Foundation’s Audit Committee Chair responded in an email that the Foundation continues to work on improving operations and internal controls over financial reporting on an ongoing basis. The IPA’s Audit Principal responded in an email that the IPA had no comments regarding GAO’s report. Why GAO Did This Study This report presents the results of GAO’s review of the Foundation’s financial statement audit for fiscal year 2025. The Congressional Award Act established the Congressional Award Board to carry out a program to promote excellence among the nation’s youth in the areas of public service, personal development, physical fitness, and expedition or exploration. The Board created the Foundation as a nonprofit corporation to help it carry out this program. The Congressional Award Act, as amended by the Government Reports Elimination Act of 2014, requires the Foundation to obtain an annual financial statement audit from an IPA. The act also includes a provision for GAO to review the audit and report the results to the Congress annually. GAO’s objective was to review the Foundation’s fiscal year 2025 financial statement audit to identify any significant issues it believes require attention. To satisfy this objective, GAO (1) read and considered various documents with respect to the IPA’s independence, objectivity, and qualifications; (2) analyzed key IPA audit documentation; (3) read the Foundation’s financial statements for fiscal years 2025 and 2024, the IPA’s audit report on the these statements, and the IPA’s report on internal control over financial reporting and on compliance and other matters based on its audit; and (4) discussed matters pertinent to its objective with IPA representatives and Foundation management officials. For more information, contact Cheryl E. Clark at clarkce@gao.gov.

What GAO Found The Export-Import Bank of the United States’ (EXIM) loan guarantee transactions are approved by EXIM’s Board of Directors, staff with individual delegated authority, or delegated authority lenders. The underwriting process for loan guarantee transactions approved by EXIM includes several steps, such as screening applications for completeness, reviewing for minimal eligibility requirements, and performing due diligence to assess transactions’ risks. Selected Underwriting Processes EXIM Performs for Loan Guarantees EXIM followed its underwriting guidelines but has not fully leveraged available data to identify participants with delinquent federal nontax debt. By law, a person owing certain outstanding delinquent federal nontax debt is generally not eligible for loans or loan guarantees. EXIM has a policy to review participants for delinquent federal nontax debt using the System for Award Management’s Debt Subject to Offset data during the underwriting process prior to EXIM’s Board of Directors’ approval. However, its policy does not require a review for such debt in transactions approved by staff with individual delegated authority. EXIM has relied on a third-party vendor database since April 2023 to screen all loan guarantee participants for delinquent federal debt. While the database may identify participants that are delinquent on some federal tax debt, it does not identify those with delinquent federal nontax debt (e.g., delinquent student loans). The Payment Integrity Information Act of 2019 requires executive agencies to use the Do Not Pay system to ensure that they make awards and payments—including loan guarantees—only to eligible recipients. EXIM does not have policies and procedures to use Do Not Pay to review transaction participants for delinquent federal debt prior to approval. The System for Award Management and Do Not Pay are available at no cost and can provide more delinquent federal debt data than the third-party vendor; this could help EXIM make better-informed eligibility decisions prior to transaction approval. Why GAO Did This Study EXIM’s mission is to support the export of U.S. goods and services through direct loans, loan guarantees, working capital loan guarantees, and export credit insurance. EXIM’s legal authorization includes a provision for GAO to evaluate EXIM’s underwriting process for its loan guarantee transactions. This report assesses the extent to which EXIM complied with its guidelines for vetting and monitoring delegated authority lenders and underwriting loan guarantee transactions approved by the Board of Directors or staff with individual delegated authority to mitigate credit risk from October 1, 2022, to December 31, 2025. To conduct this review, GAO reviewed EXIM’s policies and procedures for loan guarantees, interviewed EXIM officials, and tested approved loan guarantee transactions made from October 1, 2022, to December 31, 2025.

What GAO Found Federal agencies disposed of over $10 billion of unneeded personal property from July 2023 through fiscal year 2025. Generally, when a federal agency determines it no longer needs an item of personal property to fulfill its mission, the agency must report the item to the General Services Administration (GSA) to be disposed of through GSA’s online Personal Property Management System (PPMS). The unneeded property reported within this study’s time frame varied across a range of characteristics, from new bandages originally worth under $1, to airplanes in usable condition originally worth over $20 million. GAO found that about 9 percent of this property was reused, meaning it was transferred to another federal agency, donated for use by state or local governments, or was sold to the public. Certain factors may have affected whether this property was reused. For example, items with a higher original acquisition cost and those that were reported along with online photographs were more likely to be reused. Unneeded Federal Personal Property Items in GSA’s Northern Virginia Warehouse GSA has three core efforts to help agencies dispose of unneeded property but has not fully assessed their effectiveness consistent with key performance management practices. These efforts include (1) online platforms to help facilitate unneeded property disposal; (2) educational resources, such as guidance and on-demand training; and (3) direct assistance to agencies to help dispose of unneeded personal property. GSA has developed a scorecard to help measure performance, but the measures it includes are not aligned with GSA’s desired outcomes, such as timely disposals and providing a return on investment to taxpayers. The scorecard also excludes measures related to GSA’s core efforts of providing educational resources and direct assistance. Due to these gaps, GSA may not be collecting or using information that could help the agency fully assess those efforts’ effectiveness. As GSA aims to optimize the federal building portfolio, the amount of unneeded personal property is likely to grow. Assessing the effectiveness of its efforts can help GSA make decisions that improve its management of the personal property disposal process and stewardship of taxpayer dollars. Why GAO Did This Study GSA facilitates and manages the disposal of tens of millions of federal personal property items annually—a process that aims to reuse as much of that property as possible. GAO was asked to review the outcomes of the federal personal property disposal process and GSA’s role in ensuring the effectiveness of the process. This report (1) examines the amount of personal property federal agencies disposed of through GSA, and the factors that may affect their reuse; and (2) evaluates the extent to which GSA has assessed the effectiveness of its property disposal efforts consistent with key performance management practices. GAO analyzed GSA data on federal personal property disposals from July 2023—when GSA’s PPMS began—through fiscal year 2025 (the most recent data available at the time of GAO’s request); reviewed GSA guidance documents, training materials, and outreach efforts to educate agencies on the disposal process; evaluated GSA’s performance information related to the disposal process; compared GSA’s efforts to key performance management practices; conducted interviews with GSA officials; and conducted a site visit to a GSA warehouse in Virgina.

This product is also designated as B-338717, Sept 15, 2026. The Economy Act provides authority for intra- and interagency transactions between agencies and major organizational units of agencies. The Act broadly applies to federal entities for the procurement of a wide variety of goods and services. However, the Economy Act does not authorize an agency to circumvent statutory limitations on its use of appropriated funds. An agency may only procure goods and services under the Economy Act that it is already authorized to procure, and Economy Act transactions must comply with the Act’s requirements, as well as general appropriations law principles, such as the purpose statute, the bona fide needs rule, the Antideficiency Act, and the rule against augmentation. GAO’s engagement work on agency financial operations has touched on Economy Act transactions in a variety of contexts and we have issued numerous legal decisions applying the Economy Act, many of which are cited in the testimony. For more information, contact Shirley A. Jones at jonessa@gao.gov.

What GAO Found Each year, the Department of Housing and Urban Development’s (HUD) Federal Housing Administration (FHA) insures billions of dollars in mortgages for multifamily properties through a variety of programs. HUD’s section 542(c) program provides FHA insurance for loans on affordable multifamily properties that are originated, underwritten, and serviced by housing finance agencies (HFA). The program is also known as the risk-sharing program because HUD and HFAs share the risk of loss on the loans. From fiscal years 2016 through 2025, HFAs underwrote over $12 billion (adjusted for inflation) in FHA-insured multifamily loans under the program. These loans helped finance 776 projects that are expected to produce or preserve about 93,670 rental units (see figure). Loan Amounts and Rental Units Under HUD’s Risk-Sharing Program, Fiscal Years 2016–2025 Three traditional HUD mortgage insurance programs GAO selected for comparison—in which HUD-approved lenders process applications—each financed more multifamily housing than the risk-sharing program. These three programs and the risk-sharing program collectively helped finance projects expected to produce or preserve nearly 1.3 million multifamily units from fiscal years 2016 through 2025. The risk-sharing program accounted for 7 percent of the total units. The traditional programs may be used for both affordable and market-rate projects, while the risk-sharing program may be used only for affordable projects. According to HUD officials, around half of the projects under the traditional programs are market rate. HUD’s traditional and risk-sharing programs are similar in some areas but differ in other areas, partly because their requirements differ. Under the traditional programs, HUD-approved lenders prepare and submit loan applications for FHA insurance in accordance with HUD’s uniform standards and procedures. Under the risk-sharing program, HFAs use their own standards and procedures. GAO found that the traditional and risk-sharing programs have some similarities in loan processing and underwriting, but HUD’s role in those activities and program oversight differs. For example, HUD approves projects under the traditional programs, and HFAs approve projects under the risk-sharing program. Why GAO Did This Study Section 542 of the Housing and Community Development Act of 1992 directed FHA to demonstrate the effectiveness of new forms of federal credit enhancement (e.g., mortgage insurance) for multifamily housing loans. The risk-sharing program was initiated as a pilot program in 1994 and made permanent in 2001. HFAs must be approved by HUD to participate in the risk-sharing program, and HUD had approved 37 HFAs as of July 2026. HUD delegates to state and local HFAs the authority to originate, underwrite, and service loans for the new construction, substantial rehabilitation, purchase, or refinancing of affordable multifamily housing. In general, a unit is considered affordable if rent plus utilities does not exceed 30 percent of household income. HFAs may elect to share from 10 percent to 90 percent of the loss on a loan with HUD. Senate Report 119-47 includes a provision for GAO to review HUD’s risk-sharing program. This report describes (1) how the program contributed to the production and preservation of affordable multifamily housing during fiscal years 2016–2025 and (2) how it compares with selected traditional HUD mortgage insurance programs for multifamily housing. GAO analyzed HUD data on FHA multifamily mortgage insurance programs and reviewed HUD regulations and program documents. GAO also collected and reviewed documents on HFA multifamily programs. GAO interviewed HUD officials; representatives and HFA members of relevant HFA associations; and representatives of the Mortgage Bankers Association and two lenders. For more information, contact Jill Naamane at naamanej@gao.gov.

What GAO Found Under federal law, insurance plans offered in health insurance exchanges—known as qualified health plans (QHP)—may cover abortion services consistent with federal and state laws. Based on federal law applicable in 2026, QHPs are prohibited from using federal funds, such as income-based tax credits, to help pay for abortion services except where the pregnancy is the result of rape or incest, or the life of the pregnant woman would be endangered unless an abortion is performed. GAO refers to services that do not meet that exception as “non-excepted abortion services.” In 2026, federal data show 26 percent of QHPs (1,719 of 6,655) in the 50 states and District of Columbia covered non-excepted abortion services. Coverage of these services varied across states, mostly due to state laws restricting or requiring QHP coverage of non-excepted abortion services. State Laws and Coverage of Non-Excepted Abortion Services by Qualified Health Plans (QHP), 2026 State law related to non-excepted abortion services Number of states Number of QHPs providing coverage in those states Coverage prohibited 14 0 (of 2,109 plans) Coverage permitted in limited circumstances 11 0 (of 2,235 plans) Coverage generally required 13 1,609 (of 1,620 plans) No laws regarding coverage 13 110 (of 691 plans) Source: GAO analysis of state laws and Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services data. | GAO-26-108995 Federal law places requirements on the provision of non-excepted abortion services coverage, including requiring issuers to estimate the costs of this coverage at no less than $1 per enrollee, per month. All 15 selected issuers in 10 selected states from which GAO obtained information reported that the average estimated cost of this coverage was less than $1 per enrollee, per month, and that premium amounts were set to $1 to comply with federal requirements. Eleven selected issuers indicate on bills to enrollees or in plan materials that part of the premium is for non-excepted abortion services coverage. All 15 issuers reported that information about this coverage is in publicly available documents. According to GAO’s review of documents and interviews with Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services (CMS) officials, the agency provides general guidance to states and issuers on how to comply with federal regulations on coverage of non-excepted abortion services. For example, CMS provides issuers templates for submitting information on coverage of these and other services on standardized benefits and coverage documents. CMS officials told GAO that the oversight of this coverage also differs based on the type of exchange. States with state-based exchanges, according to CMS officials, retain the role of regulating insurance, and as a result, maintain a prominent role in QHP certification. GAO identified instances where issuers’ practices may have been inconsistent with federal requirements related to non-excepted abortion services coverage. In August 2026, CMS officials stated that they would determine what actions to take, depending upon the facts of the situation. Why GAO Did This Study In 2026, about 19 million people enrolled in QHPs through federal and state-based exchanges. Federal law requires these plans to cover a package of essential health benefits. While this package does not include abortion services, QHPs may cover such services, consistent with federal and state laws. GAO was asked to review QHPs that do and do not cover abortion services, and to describe other aspects of that coverage. This report describes whether QHPs offered on exchanges cover non-excepted abortion services in 2026, and provides additional information—such as information on the scope and the cost of non-excepted abortion services coverage—for selected QHPs that covered such services. It also describes the role CMS plays in ensuring compliance with applicable federal requirements. GAO analyzed CMS data for 2026, and federal and state laws related to abortion services coverage. GAO also reviewed documents and interviewed representatives from 15 selected issuers offering QHPs that cover non-excepted abortion services across 10 selected states. States and issuers were selected based on geographic variance, 2025 insurance marketplace enrollment, and the number of QHPs covering non-excepted abortion services in each state, among other things. For more information, contact John E. Dicken at DickenJ@gao.gov.