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.

What GAO Found The Rural Health Transformation program provides funding for states to conduct rural health activities, such as recruiting clinicians to rural areas and providing training and technology to improve care delivery in rural hospitals. In the latter half of 2025, the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services (CMS) completed a number of early key actions to implement the Rural Health Transformation program. These actions included the release of the notice of funding opportunity—which provided details on program goals and requirements—and initial funding awards to all 50 states totaling $10 billion. The initial allotment of state funding ranged from $147 million for New Jersey to $281 million for Texas. CMS and merit reviewers assessed state applications based on a variety of factors—such as rural characteristics (e.g., total area in square miles and percent of population in rural areas) and the strength of states’ proposed initiatives. As a result, funding amounts variedacross states. Rural Health Transformation Program Funding, by State, Budget Period 1 (December 29, 2025, Through October 30, 2026) CMS plans on conducting a range of activities to monitor states’ activities and use of program funding. These monitoring activities include communicating with states to discuss progress and challenges, reviewing information states submit, and conducting audits and site visits. GAO found that its planned activities are generally consistent with selected requirements related to monitoring of federal awards. For example, CMS plans to measure awardee performance to show achievement of program goals and objectives, and hold webinars to share lessons learned, improve program outcomes, and foster the adoption of promising practices. CMS plans to allot up to $40 billion of the remaining program funds to states over the next 4 years based on their demonstration of satisfactory progress toward approved initiatives (e.g., progress toward planned milestones), among other activities. If states do not comply with the terms and conditions of their notices of award, CMS may withhold, reduce, or recover a portion of states’ program funding. The authorizing legislation of the Rural Health Transformation program limits states’ ability to appeal or challenge any funding changes made by CMS. However, officials said issues related to appeals or challenges of funding changes may depend on the specific facts and circumstances, and they are in the process of determining how the agency will handle any such disputes or challenges. Why GAO Did This Study In July 2025, the One Big Beautiful Bill Act established the Rural Health Transformation program to provide funding allotments to states for specified rural health activities. It will fund up to $50 billion to states over 5 years. The program is administered by CMS as cooperative agreements with states. Federal law provided CMS with broad discretion to determine funding allotments to states. Among other topics, this report describes CMS’s initial steps to establish the program, examines CMS’s plans to monitor states’ activities, and describes CMS’s approach for determining states’ future funding allotments. To conduct this work, GAO reviewed CMS documentation on Rural Health Transformation program implementation and monitoring. GAO also interviewed CMS officials and representatives from two rural health stakeholder groups and one state government stakeholder group selected among those with national membership. For more information, contact Leslie V. Gordon at GordonLV@gao.gov.

What GAO Found When homebuyers apply for a mortgage, lenders request their credit reports from credit reporting agencies. These agencies may then sell the homebuyers’ contact and credit information to other lenders and brokers, which use it to send competing loan offers. Before recent legislation, credit reporting agencies could, without the homebuyer’s consent, provide this information to those that did not have an existing relationship with the homebuyer (see figure). Thus, homebuyers could receive dozens of mortgage solicitations by phone or text in a short period. Example of the Mortgage Trigger Lead Marketing Process According to industry stakeholders, the primary benefit of trigger leads is that they can encourage homebuyers to comparison shop for loans and potentially save money. But this benefit may be limited: Recent federal survey results suggest that no more than 3.5 percent of homebuyers may have obtained a loan through competing offers based on trigger leads. One lender said homebuyers have ways to compare lenders before applying for a mortgage, so offers based on trigger leads generated later in the homebuying process may be less useful. Trigger leads resulted in a high volume of unwanted marketing solicitations and posed other drawbacks for some homebuyers, according to consumer advocates and industry stakeholders: A high volume of solicitations can overwhelm and confuse homebuyers, and aggressive tactics can annoy them. Broad dissemination of homebuyers’ information could expose them to misleading or deceptive practices. Homebuyers may view the sale of their personal information and resulting marketing solicitations as an invasion of privacy. In 2025, the Homebuyers Privacy Protection Act restricted credit reporting agencies’ ability to provide residential mortgage trigger leads to parties that have an existing relationship with or consent from the homebuyer. Because these restrictions took effect in March 2026, not enough time has passed to determine their effects on homebuyers. If effectively implemented, these restrictions could limit access to trigger leads and reduce the volume of solicitations homebuyers receive while preserving opportunities to comparison shop. Why GAO Did This Study Each year, millions of homebuyers apply for a mortgage, and some receive marketing calls and texts from other lenders and brokers with competing offers based on trigger leads. The volume of these mortgage solicitations prompted the enactment of the Homebuyers Privacy Protection Act in 2025. The act includes a provision for GAO to assess the value of trigger leads for homebuyers. This report examines (1) the potential benefits of trigger leads, (2) drawbacks associated with them, and (3) how the act’s restrictions may affect those benefits and drawbacks.  GAO reviewed federal and state laws, searched for and reviewed relevant literature, and analyzed 2022–2024 responses to the National Survey of Mortgage Originations. In addition, GAO obtained information from or interviewed officials of credit reporting agencies, consumer groups, mortgage lenders (banks, credit unions, and nonbanks), industry associations, the association for state banking regulators, and a state regulatory agency. GAO also analyzed the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau’s (CFPB) consumer complaints database and used artificial intelligence to identify complaints related to mortgage solicitations, and interviewed officials from CFPB and the Federal Trade Commission. For more information, contact William W. Colvin at colvinw@gao.gov.

What GAO Found Quantum computers leverage qubits (the quantum equivalent of classical computer bits) to solve specific problems significantly faster than classical computers. However, the emergence of quantum computers could undermine the cryptography (e.g., encryption) that federal agencies use to secure their systems. Today’s quantum computers cannot yet break this cryptography. But a future quantum computer of sufficient size and sophistication—referred to as a cryptographically relevant quantum computer (CRQC)—could potentially do so for certain cryptography. Most industry experts believe that a CRQC will be developed, possibly as soon as the 2030s. However, development estimates vary widely due to several factors, such as uncertainty in the rate of growth for qubits and how many qubits will be needed. Once a CRQC is developed, its use could have devastating impacts to federal systems reliant on vulnerable cryptography. For example, a malicious actor could use a CRQC tocompromise systems that ensure the authenticity of system users—thus allowing the actor to gain access to sensitive information; and decrypt (or unlock and view) data that the actor acquires and stores prior to the development of such a computer. To address the threat posed by a CRQC, it is important that agencies transition existing systems to more secure cryptography (referred to as post-quantum cryptography). Using Office of Management and Budget guidance, GAO created an evaluation framework of three practices that agencies should address to prepare for this transition. However, none of the 24 selected agencies fully addressed these practices (see figure). Extent to Which the 24 Chief Financial Officer Act Agencies Addressed Preparatory Practices for Migrating to Quantum Computing The incomplete implementation of these practices is due in part to a lack of (1) cryptography expertise, (2) processes for developing cryptography inventories and identifying funding needed to transition to post-quantum cryptography, and (3) plans to guide post-quantum cryptography testing. Until the selected agencies address these weaknesses, they will not be well-positioned to address the threat of CRQCs to cryptography that agencies rely on to protect sensitive information. Why GAO Did This Study Federal agencies rely on cryptography to protect sensitive data and systems. However, some experts predict that a quantum computer capable of breaking certain cryptography may be developed within the next 10 to 20 years. GAO was asked to review the threat of quantum computing to federal agency cryptography. This report describes (1) the threats quantum computers pose to cryptography on federal agencies’ information systems and (2) the extent to which federal agencies have begun preparing for this threat consistent with federal guidance. GAO also evaluated cryptography inventories, funding assessments, and other planning documentation at each of the 24 Chief Financial Officer Act agencies to determine the extent to which they had addressed transition preparatory practices consistent with federal guidance. This is a public version of a sensitive report that GAO issued in September 2025. We worked with the Office of the National Cyber Director from September 2025 through September 2026 to prepare this version.

What GAO Found Section 503 of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973 (Section 503) requires certain federal contractors to take proactive steps to employ people with disabilities. The Office of Federal Contract Compliance Programs (OFCCP) within the Department of Labor (DOL) oversees contractors’ compliance with Section 503. Since January 2025, DOL has reduced its oversight activities. For example, DOL has suspended audits of selected contractors, which were a key tool for monitoring compliance. From fiscal years 2017 through 2025, 532 audits found Section 503 violations. Without resuming audits, DOL has less assurance that contractors are supporting employment of people with disabilities. Further, DOL has reduced OFCCP’s workforce in response to changes in its activities (see fig.). However, these changes were not informed by strategic workforce planning consistent with key principles for such efforts. DOL has made changes to Section 503 regulations that could further impact OFCCP’s activities. Engaging in strategic workforce planning would help DOL ensure that OFCCP’s workforce composition meets its needs. Office of Federal Contract Compliance Programs Workforce, FY 2017–2026 Federal contractors face a range of challenges complying with Section 503. Selected stakeholders identified challenges in three key areas: conducting outreach to and recruiting people with disabilities, retaining and advancing people with disabilities, and demonstrating compliance with Section 503. Stakeholders also said that DOL could provide additional guidance to help contactors comply with the law. For example, information on how to provide reasonable accommodations and a list of best practices for Section 503 compliance could help contractors better understand how to support employees with disabilities. Why GAO Did This Study In fiscal year 2025, the federal government spent about $793 billion on contracts with federal contractors—which employ over 1 million U.S. workers. Section 503 prohibits federal contractors from discriminating in employment against people with disabilities. It also requires certain contractors to take proactive steps to employ and advance in employment people with disabilities. GAO was asked to review the implementation and oversight of Section 503. This report addresses (1) the extent to which DOL monitors Section 503 compliance and plans for its workforce needs, and (2) what challenges, if any, contractors face in complying with Section 503 and the extent to which DOL has provided resources to assist contractors. GAO analyzed OFCCP enforcement data and DOL human resources data, and reviewed DOL documents. GAO conducted interviews and discussion groups with DOL officials as well as representatives of contractors, consultants who assist contractors with compliance, academic researchers, and other stakeholders who were familiar with Section 503 compliance or supporting employment of people with disabilities. GAO also conducted a nongeneralizable survey of representatives of contractors.

What GAO Found The insurance plan sponsors that provide Medicare Part D drug coverage have increasingly become vertically integrated—that is, under common ownership—with pharmacy benefit managers and pharmacies. GAO found that, for four large Part D plan sponsors, the pharmacies they owned accounted for about 24 percent of the Part D drugs they provided to their enrollees (drug utilization) and about 28 percent of the total payments to pharmacies in 2023 (see figure). Payments included both reimbursement from plan sponsors and cost sharing paid by or on behalf of beneficiaries. When these vertically integrated plan sponsors’ own pharmacies provided drugs to their enrollees, they primarily did so through mail-order pharmacies. In contrast, other (non-owned) pharmacies primarily provided drugs through retail pharmacies. Percentage of Drug Utilization and Payments at Owned and Non-Owned Pharmacies for Four Selected Medicare Part D Plan Sponsors, 2023 When these plan sponsors paid pharmacies for a 30-day supply of the 100 most commonly used prescription drugs, payments and cost sharing for at least 94 percent of these drugs were lower for owned pharmacies than for non-owned pharmacies. These 100 drugs with the highest total utilization in 2023 were primarily generic drugs, and average payments to owned and non-owned pharmacies for a 30-day supply of most were $10 or less. Lower cost sharing at plan sponsors’ own (primarily mail-order) pharmacies gives beneficiaries a financial incentive to use these pharmacies instead of non-owned (primarily retail) pharmacies, though beneficiaries may consider other factors when choosing a pharmacy to fill a prescription. Payments to pharmacies and cost sharing were also generally lower at owned pharmacies for the 100 drugs with the highest total payments in 2023, which were primarily brand-name drugs. For some of these drugs, however, payments or cost sharing were higher at owned pharmacies. For example, cost sharing across the four selected plan sponsors was up to about $340 higher at owned pharmacies for about half of the 20 drugs with the highest payments per 30-day supply. Why GAO Did This Study Medicare Part D spent $150 billion on prescription drug coverage for 54 million beneficiaries in 2025. Vertically integrated plan sponsors may encourage beneficiaries to fill prescriptions at—or utilize—their own pharmacies, a practice known as steering. GAO was asked to review vertical integration among Part D plan sponsors, pharmacy benefit managers, and pharmacies. This report describes drug utilization at and payments to selected vertically integrated Part D plan sponsors’ own pharmacies compared to non-owned pharmacies, among other issues. GAO selected four vertically integrated Part D plan sponsors from among the 15 plan sponsors with the largest Part D enrollment in 2023. These four large, vertically integrated plan sponsors accounted for over 40 percent of total Part D enrollment in 2023. GAO analyzed the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services Part D utilization and payments data for 2023 (the data most recently available at the time of GAO’s analysis). Our results for the four selected plan sponsors for 2023 are not generalizable to other plan sponsors or years. For example, Part D benefit changes since 2023 could have affected plan sponsors’ Part D drug utilization and payments at owned and non-owned pharmacies. For more information, contact John Dicken at dickenj@gao.gov.

What GAO Found The Concrete Masonry Checkoff (CMC) program is a federally authorized, industry-funded program that supports research, education, and promotion projects intended to strengthen the concrete masonry industry and expand markets for its products. The term checkoff refers to the way similar programs are funded—that is, through assessments. The CMC Board administers the program, which is funded through mandatory assessments on specified concrete masonry units sold. From 2023 through 2025, the board collected over $27 million in assessments and spent nearly $15 million of the funds, primarily on 17 national projects and 69 regional projects. CMC Program Assessments and Projects, 2023–2025   2023 2024 2025 Total Assessments collected $5.4 million $11.3 million $10.5 million $27.2 million Expenses $1.1 million $3.5 million $10.4 million $15.0 million National projects approved 0 8 9 17 Regional projects approved 0 27 42 69 Source: Concrete Masonry Checkoff (CMC) Board information. | GAO-27-108692 The CMC Board uses key performance indicators to track progress toward the program’s objectives. Projects fall within six focus areas, including marketing, research, and education. For each area, the board established output-oriented indicators and corresponding 5-year goals. For example, one research indicator is the number of new engineering courses focused on concrete masonry and has a 5-year goal of 50 courses. As of year-end 2025, the board reported meeting or exceeding five of its 27 goals and achieving at least 20 percent of the target for 10 additional goals in its first year. The board plans to issue its required independent evaluation of the program’s effectiveness in the first quarter of 2027. The U.S. Department of Commerce is statutorily required to oversee the CMC Board’s compliance with applicable law and the accompanying order primarily through reviews, approvals, and monitoring. To set up its oversight structure, Commerce consulted with the U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) because of its experience overseeing agricultural checkoff programs. Commerce reviews and approves the CMC Board’s projects, contracts, annual budgets, objectives, and performance metrics. It also monitors program and contract execution, reviews projects and marketing materials for prohibited activities (e.g., false or misleading advertising), and may investigate violations and assess civil penalties. However, Commerce has not developed written procedures for approving the CMC Board’s annual program objectives and performance metrics. Commerce could do so using its current resources and thereby take advantage of a relatively low-effort opportunity to enhance its existing oversight controls. For example, such procedures could reduce the risk of inconsistent approvals and preserve organizational knowledge. Why GAO Did This Study The Concrete Masonry Products Research, Education, and Promotion Act of 2018 (the Act) directed Commerce to create the CMC program. After industry members approved the referendum to establish the program, Commerce put into effect a final order in 2021. The concrete masonry industry consists largely of small producers, and the checkoff program allows them to pool assessments for industry-wide research, education, and promotion. In 2023, the CMC Board estimated that about 260 concrete masonry producers operated in the United States. The Act includes a provision for GAO to review the CMC program. This report addresses (1) assessments the CMC Board collected and spent from 2023 through 2025, (2) the extent to which the board has evaluated the program’s effectiveness, and (3) how Commerce has overseen the board’s compliance with the Act and accompanying order. GAO reviewed CMC Board documents, including audited financial statements, policies and procedures, the strategic plan, and annual reports, including the results reported for key performance indicators. GAO compared Commerce’s oversight procedures and related documents against the Act, accompanying order, and federal internal control standards. GAO also interviewed Commerce, USDA, and CMC Board officials.

What GAO Found The U.S. Interagency Council on Homelessness (USICH) is an independent establishment in the executive branch that coordinates the federal response to homelessness. It consists of representatives from designated federal agencies (the Council) and a staff that has ranged from 10 to 18 full-time employees over the past decade. USICH’s enabling legislation—the McKinney-Vento Homeless Assistance Act—requires it to maintain certain personnel and perform specified duties. These include providing technical assistance to state and local governments through five to 10 regional coordinators employed by the Council, reporting annually to the President and Congress on federal efforts to address homelessness, and developing a national strategic plan to end homelessness. The act also established a termination date for USICH, which Congress has extended several times, most recently to October 1, 2028. The President’s most recent budget proposes to terminate USICH in fiscal year 2027. USICH began making changes to its staffing and operations in early 2025, including in response to Executive Order 14238, Continuing the Reduction of the Federal Bureaucracy. In April 2025, 11 of USICH’s 13 employees were placed on paid administrative leave. In the same month, the General Services Administration terminated USICH’s office lease and recovered its equipment. In November 2025, a federal district court found that USICH’s implementation of the executive order was unlawful. The court noted that the personnel reduction made it impossible for USICH to perform its statutory duties, among other things. The court set aside USICH’s prior actions to implement the order and barred it from doing so in the future. USICH has appealed the decision. Selected Developments Affecting the U.S. Interagency Council on Homelessness (USICH), January 2025–September 2026 Eight of 11 USICH employees returned from paid administrative leave in mid-February 2026. The other three left USICH prior to employees’ return to active status. As of May 2026, USICH had 10 full-time employees and a part-time executive director. USICH staff told GAO that, since their return, they had not received direction from the Council or the executive director on homelessness policies or priorities to guide their work or help them perform USICH’s statutory duties and functions. The executive director stated that the Council should provide guidance before USICH drafts a strategic plan or undertakes policy initiatives. Why GAO Did This Study Several federal agencies administer programs to address homelessness, and USICH was created in 1987 to coordinate these efforts and reduce homelessness. In early 2025, the President issued a series of directives to downsize the federal workforce and reorganize federal agencies. Among these, Executive Order 14238, issued in March 2025, directed seven federal entities—including USICH—to eliminate nonstatutory functions and to reduce statutory functions and associated personnel to the minimum required by law. GAO was asked to review USICH’s statutory responsibilities and recent changes to its staffing and operations. This report describes (1) USICH’s responsibilities under the McKinney-Vento Homeless Assistance Act and (2) the status of its staffing and operations. GAO reviewed the McKinney-Vento Homeless Assistance Act, relevant executive orders, court documents, and appropriations acts. GAO also reviewed USICH documentation, interviewed USICH’s executive director and staff, and requested information from three Council member agencies. For more information, contact Alicia Puente Cackley at CackleyA@gao.gov.

This Scroll-Driven Narrative tells the story of how the federal government is trying to strengthen U.S. manufacturing through Manufacturing USA—a national network of institutes that are partnerships between federal agencies, companies, universities, and others. It is a companion to a series of reports GAO has issued examining the Manufacturing USA program—for example, Advanced Manufacturing: Aligning Strategies and Improving Agency Reviews Could Help Institutes Achieve National Goals, GAO-25-107369. This product highlights key themes and recommendations from GAO’s prior work, such as recommendations to better measure performance across the Manufacturing USA network, as well as agency efforts to implement them. For more information, contact Hilary M. Benedict at benedicth@gao.gov.