What GAO Found The Department of the Interior’s Bureau of Land Management (BLM) has processed an increasing volume of land nominations, leases, and permits for geothermal development on federal lands since 2019. Geothermal projects use heat from the earth’s interior to generate electricity. Parties interested in developing geothermal projects on federal lands nominate acres for BLM to review against land use plans. Such nominations increased from about 25,800 acres in 2020 to more than a million acres in 2025. BLM then offers qualifying lands for lease at auctions known as competitive lease sales, which have also increased since 2020. Once land is leased, developers submit plans to BLM for review and apply for permits at various stages of development. Drilling permits approved annually by BLM grew from seven in 2019 to 68 in 2024. Total Acreage Nominated for Geothermal Use and Offered for Lease, 2020–2025 Geothermal developers and BLM officials identified various challenges facing the geothermal program, including: Inconsistent experience navigating the permitting process. Some developers reported instances of what they believe were inconsistent BLM determinations related to permits for exploration. BLM documentation notes that inconsistencies in terminology between developers and BLM officials may contribute to confusion or misunderstandings. However, handbooks that would resolve this confusion have been in draft since at least 2022 and are not publicly available. Without finalized geothermal resources handbooks, continued inconsistencies and misunderstandings could lead to longer development timelines and additional costs for developers. Limited visibility of permit data. Geothermal developers have limited visibility into the status of permits once these are submitted to BLM, which creates challenges for planning timelines and resource needs. BLM does not have comprehensive information on the status of geothermal permits, making it difficult for BLM to gain insights into permitting activity—for example, to determine if there is a growing backlog of permits across BLM field offices. By establishing a unified mechanism to track permitting activity, BLM could better track progress toward producing geothermal energy on federal land and generating revenue for federal, state, and county governments. Why GAO Did This Study Geothermal energy is a reliable and domestically-sourced option to help address growing demand for utility-scale power generation in the United States. Geothermal power plants on federal land have a combined 2,600 megawatts of capacity and, in 2022, generated enough electricity to power more than 1 million homes. Geothermal power plants on federal land represent about 65 percent of geothermal capacity in the United States. GAO was asked to review geothermal leasing and permitting on federal land. This report examines (1) the extent to which BLM processed land nominations, held lease sales, and approved permits for geothermal development and (2) challenges BLM faces in managing the geothermal leasing and permitting program. GAO analyzed BLM’s data on land nominations, lease sales, and permitting, and interviewed BLM officials in states with geothermal land nominations and leases. GAO also interviewed geothermal industry officials and administered a questionnaire to 22 geothermal developers.

What GAO Found Through its Civil Works program, the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers plans, constructs, and maintains water resources projects around the country. For any Civil Works projects submitted to Congress for authorization, federal statute requires the Corps to report its plans for environmental mitigation—that is, actions to avoid, minimize, or compensate for any expected losses to fish and wildlife and damage to ecological resources resulting from its projects. If the Corps determines no mitigation is necessary, it is required to report that determination. Of the 74 Civil Works projects submitted to Congress for authorization during calendar years 2020–2025, the Corps determined that mitigation plans were needed for 22 projects and not needed for 52 projects. For the 22 projects with mitigation plans, GAO found that the plans generally included selected components from the 2008 Rule, “Compensatory Mitigation for Losses of Aquatic Resources.” For the 52 projects that the Corps determined did not need mitigation plans, GAO found that reports submitted to Congress for project authorization, and supporting feasibility reports, generally did not clearly document the Corps’s determination that no mitigation was needed and why. Civil Works Projects Submitted for Authorization During Calendar Years 2020–2025 and the Need for Mitigation Plans, as Determined by U.S. Army Corps of Engineers Corps officials said that they have not consistently focused on documenting that no mitigation is needed in a clear, summary format and agree that doing so could be beneficial for Congress and the public. By clearly documenting its determinations that no mitigation is needed, and the basis for those determinations, the Corps could better assure Congress that authorization of projects without mitigation will not result in undue impacts on fish and wildlife and ecological resources. Why GAO Did This Study Corps water resources projects aim to improve navigation channels, reduce flood and storm damage, and restore aquatic ecosystems. As some projects can have an adverse impact on the environment, the Corps is required to identify measures to mitigate unavoidable impacts. The Water Resources Development Act of 2022 includes provisions for GAO to review Corps plans to mitigate fish and wildlife losses resulting from Civil Works projects. This report provides information on the Corps’s mitigation determinations for Civil Works projects, including the extent to which the Corps’s mitigation plans, or determinations that mitigation is not necessary, are included in reports submitted to Congress for project authorization. GAO analyzed and reviewed laws, regulations, and guidance relevant to Civil Works mitigation activities. GAO also met with Corps officials who oversee mitigation planning for the Civil Works program and gathered information on Civil Works projects submitted for authorization in calendar years 2020–2025. For projects determined to need a mitigation plan, GAO reviewed the mitigation plans. For projects determined not to need a mitigation plan, GAO reviewed the Chief’s Reports and supporting feasibility reports.

What GAO Found The Department of Defense’s (DOD) efforts to modernize GPS continue to face delays. In response, DOD is developing new complementary sources of positioning, navigation, and timing (PNT) data to mitigate GPS threats. In 2026, after years of delays, DOD canceled the Next Generation Operational Control System ground control system and began modernizing the existing GPS Operational Control Segment. Among other effects, this creates risks for the launch, checkout, and operation of new GPS satellites. Given ongoing threats to GPS, DOD is operating and continuing development of (1) satellite-based PNT systems, (2) non-satellite-based PNT systems, and (3) backup timing solutions. Operational Illustration of Threats to GPS and Complementary Positioning, Navigation, and Timing Systems The Air Force continues to make progress developing modernized GPS military code (M-code) receiver cards, but challenges remain with fielding and integration. For example, the M-code aviation receiver programs continue to encounter development and integration challenges. In response, the Navy is developing an interim solution for its aircraft to use M-code. On the other hand, the Army and Navy are fielding M-code capable and multi-PNT receivers in ground vehicles, ships, and Army aircraft. All the military services are also pursuing integration of complementary PNT data into multi-PNT receivers. Challenges with aligning multiple, fragmented PNT efforts across the military services impact DOD’s ability to ensure that M-code and PNT efforts are completed promptly. Congress mandated a PNT Oversight Council to oversee the portfolio. While the council can make budget-related recommendations to the services, the services are responsible for their own budgets. The PNT enterprise could benefit from consolidating and aligning efforts among the services. DOD has taken some steps to consolidate multiple PNT efforts, such as combining aircraft PNT receivers and M-code receiver card efforts into a single Air Force managed joint program office. Benefits of consolidation could include synchronization of schedules and better strategic alignment of funding. Why GAO Did This Study The U.S. military and civilians depend daily on accurate PNT data provided by GPS operated by the Space Force on behalf of DOD. DOD has worked for decades to modernize its GPS, including the use of a new signal—called M-code—and other features to counter evolving threats. Challenges have delayed these efforts. The military services have also started developing and fielding complementary PNT systems to ensure the availability of this foundational military capability. Congress included a provision in law for GAO to report on DOD’s GPS modernization efforts and development and fielding of complementary PNT efforts. This report (1) addresses the progress DOD has made in modernizing GPS and providing complementary PNT data to the warfighter; (2) discusses the status of DOD efforts to develop and field modernized PNT receivers; and (3) assesses the extent to which DOD has taken steps to oversee the PNT portfolio, and what challenges it is facing. To conduct this work, GAO reviewed documentation from GPS modernization and complementary PNT programs and efforts and interviewed relevant officials from DOD and the military departments.

What GAO Found The Federal Information Technology (IT) Dashboard is intended to show the level of risk for an investment. The Dashboard reflects Chief Information Officers’ (CIO) ratings of risk. Selected agencies that GAO reviewed used different processes to develop their ratings. Most of these processes included some, if not all, of six factors that the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) suggested. GAO’s assessments generally identified the presence of more risk compared to the associated CIO ratings. GAO determined its assessments based on investment risk documentation. Of the 53 investments assessed, GAO’s assessments matched the CIO ratings 27 times, showed more risk 24 times, and showed less risk two times (see graphic). Comparison of Selected Investment’s Chief Information Officer Ratings to GAO Assessments Two issues contributed to the differences between GAO and CIO ratings. Specifically, 21 of the 53 CIO ratings were not updated in a timely manner according to agencies’ processes. In addition, two agencies’ rating processes span longer than quarterly, contrary to OMB’s guidance. In April 2026, OMB announced that it was taking steps to sunset the Dashboard and replace it with a new streamlined system but did not provide a timeframe for its release. In the interim, it is critical that selected agencies address issues with their CIO ratings. Without doing so, critical IT investments may not receive proper oversight, and emerging risks may remain unidentified or unmanaged. For example, a system modernization effort that falls behind schedule but continues to display an outdated “low‑risk” rating might not get the scrutiny it needs and fall further behind schedule. GAO previously recommended that OMB improve its oversight of troubled investments identified from CIO rating data; however, OMB has not yet acted on this recommendation. As a result, agencies and OMB may be unable to identify emerging risks in time, potentially allowing underperforming investments to proceed without needed intervention and increase the risk of higher costs. As OMB transitions to a new system, it is imperative that agencies address issues with the quality and frequency of CIO ratings. This is critical to ensuring that the new system strengthens the monitoring of IT investment risk. Why GAO Did This Study The federal government spends over $100 billion annually on IT and cyber investments, but many projects fail, facing cost overruns and delays. In 2009, OMB launched the IT Dashboard to provide transparency on IT investments. OMB sets Dashboard policies and the General Services Administration operates the Dashboard. GAO was asked to review the CIO ratings on the IT Dashboard. This report describes agencies’ processes for determining the CIO risk ratings for major IT investments, assesses the risks of federal IT investments, and analyzes any differences with the investments’ CIO risk ratings, among other things. GAO reviewed 26 agencies’ fiscal year 2025 budget data reported to OMB to identify major IT investments of $35 million or more of development activities; this resulted in 53 selected investments at 12 agencies. GAO then reviewed agencies’ CIO ratings processes, assessed the risks of the 53 investments, and compared GAO’s assessments to the CIO ratings.

What GAO Found The Economic Development Administration (EDA) and five regional commissions—the Appalachian Regional Commission, Delta Regional Authority, Denali Commission, Northern Border Regional Commission, and Southeast Crescent Regional Commission—awarded more than $12 billion in grants during fiscal years 2016 through 2024 (Southwest Border Regional Commission awarded its first grants in fiscal year 2025). GAO found that economic conditions, such as poverty and unemployment rates, generally improved in regional commission areas, although these changes were difficult to attribute to EDA or regional commission funding. Grantees and local development officials GAO selected for interviews described benefits, including improved infrastructure and expanded job and business opportunities. Total Dollar Amount of EDA and Regional Commission Grants Awarded and Appropriations, Fiscal Years 2016–2024 EDA and most regional commissions have procedures for collecting grant performance information to assess progress toward goals and communicate results, which are key performance management practices. The Denali Commission has strategic goals but does not have guidance and procedures for collecting standardized, objective, and measurable performance information across its grants, limiting its ability to assess grant and program performance. In addition, EDA has not systematically validated key performance measure data since 2020, limiting the reliability of these data for assessing and reporting results. EDA does not have a comprehensive framework for coordinating with the regional commissions. Instead, its coordination arrangements vary––from formal agreements and regular communication to little or no project-level coordination. EDA is statutorily required to coordinate activities related to the preparation and implementation of comprehensive economic development strategies with federal entities carrying out federal programs (including regional commissions). Without a coordination framework, EDA has less assurance that data and resources are being effectively leveraged, and that limited funds for economic development are being used efficiently. Why GAO Did This Study The Department of Commerce’s EDA provides grants to support economic development in distressed areas and promote growth and job creation. Federal regional commissions are intended to support economic development and infrastructure projects in distressed portions of designated geographic regions. The Thomas R. Carper Water Resources Development Act of 2024 includes a provision for GAO to review EDA and regional commission programs. This report examines (1) trends in EDA and regional commission grants and economic conditions in the areas they serve, (2) EDA and regional commission performance management practices, and (3) EDA’s coordination with regional commissions. GAO analyzed EDA and regional commission award data for fiscal years 2016 through 2024 and data from the Bureau of Labor Statistics and Census on economic conditions in regional commission areas. GAO also reviewed agency documentation and procedures related to grant performance. GAO visited projects in Maryland, Vermont, and Louisiana and interviewed agency officials and a nongeneralizable sample of grantees and local stakeholders about grant effects, performance, and coordination between EDA and the regional commissions.