This letter provides GAO's comments on the American Institute of Certified Public Accountants (AICPA) Auditing Standards Board's (ASB) Proposed Statement on Standards for Attestation Engagements: Common Concepts, Examination Engagements, Review Engagements, and Engagements to Report on Sustainability Information and Proposed Statement on Standards for Attestation Engagements: Amendments to SSAE Nos. 18-19 and 21 to Reflect Proposed SSAE Common Concepts, Examination Engagements, Review Engagements, and Engagements to Report on Sustainability Information. GAO promulgates generally accepted government auditing standards, which provide professional standards for auditors of government entities in the United States.

What GAO Found In May 2025, GAO identified five priority recommendations for the Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System. Since then, the Federal Reserve has not implemented any of these recommendations. GAO is highlighting the following three areas that warrant timely and focused attention: Strengthening bank supervision, Analyzing regulations, and Addressing blockchain technology risks. Addressing GAO's recommendations in these areas would help the Federal Reserve reduce the risk of insolvency at certain financial institutions and protect financial stability; ensure that its rules represent the most cost-beneficial option, achieve their intended effects, and avoid unintended economic consequences; and identify and respond to blockchain-related risks in a timely manner. Taking action to implement all of GAO's open priority recommendations would directly support the Federal Reserve's mission. Why GAO Did This Study Priority open recommendations are the GAO recommendations that warrant priority attention from heads of key departments or agencies because their implementation could save large amounts of money; improve congressional and/or executive branch decision-making on major issues; eliminate mismanagement, fraud, and abuse; or make progress toward addressing a high risk or duplication issue, among other benefits. Since 2015, GAO has sent letters to selected agencies to highlight the importance of implementing such recommendations. For more information, contact Dan Garcia-Diaz at garciadiazd@gao.gov.

What GAO Found In May 2025, GAO identified nine priority recommendations for the Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC). Since then, NRC has not implemented any of these recommendations. In May 2026, GAO identified two additional priority recommendations, bringing the total to 11. GAO is highlighting the following three areas that warrant timely and focused attention: Addressing the security of radiological sources, Improving risk-informed decision-making, and Licensing advanced nuclear reactors. Addressing GAO's recommendations in these areas would better protect national security from radiological threats; help NRC use the best available information to protect public health and safety; and ensure that NRC has sufficient numbers of knowledgeable staff to conduct licenses reviews in the coming years. Taking action to implement all of GAO's open priority recommendations would help enhance the efficiency and effectiveness of operations across NRC. Why GAO Did This Study Priority open recommendations are GAO recommendations that warrant priority attention from heads of key departments or agencies because their implementation could save large amounts of money; improve congressional and/or executive branch decision-making on major issues; eliminate mismanagement, fraud, and abuse; or make progress toward addressing a high risk or duplication issue, among other benefits. Since 2015, GAO has sent letters to selected agencies to highlight the importance of implementing such recommendations. For more information, contact Allison Bawden at bawdena@gao.gov.

What GAO Found Under federal special education law, students with disabilities are to be educated alongside their peers without disabilities to the maximum extent appropriate. Nationally, the number of students with disabilities in the general education classroom (gen ed) for at least 40 percent of their day increased 25 percent from school year 2012–13 through school year 2023–24 (see figure). The largest increase came from students with disabilities in gen ed for at least 80 percent of their day. The total number of students with disabilities increased 21 percent during this period. GAO also found the share of students with disabilities in gen ed for much of their day increased in 42 of 50 states and the District of Columbia (no data were available for New Mexico for school year 2023–24). However, within states, changes over this period varied widely. For example, the District of Columbia had the largest increase (7.7 percentage points), while in North Dakota the share of students with disabilities in gen ed for at least 40 percent of their day decreased by 3.2 percentage points. National Enrollment Trends for Students with Disabilities in the General Education Classroom for Much of Their Day (at Least 40 Percent) For school year 2022–23 (the most recent data available), certain factors related to district resources were associated with higher rates of students with disabilities in gen ed for much of their day, according to GAO’s regression analysis. Specifically, GAO found that for the following types of districts a higher percentage of students with disabilities spent at least 40 percent of their day in gen ed: (1) districts with higher and lower levels of poverty, (2) districts that did not have a standalone special education school, and (3) districts with lower per pupil revenue (i.e., funding per student). Across the districts and schools GAO visited, officials commonly identified resource availability, parental involvement in educational placement decisions, and school environment (i.e. facilities and school culture) as factors that influenced the educational setting of students with disabilities. Officials from these schools and districts described challenges and successes creating a sense of belonging in the school community for students with disabilities. For example, officials at one school said funding constraints prevented the school from hiring an additional athletic coach with needed expertise or training to meaningfully include students with disabilities in sports. Officials and educators at a school in another state said they had successfully promoted belonging through small group work where students with disabilities are intentionally grouped with students without disabilities. Why GAO Did This Study About 7 million children aged 6 through 21 received special education and related services under Part B of the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA) in school year 2023–24. Under IDEA, children with disabilities are to be educated in the “least restrictive environment.” According to Department of Education guidance, inclusive practices can positively shape outcomes for all students. The guidance further notes that all children deserve to feel a sense of belonging in their learning environment. GAO was asked to review the settings in which students with disabilities are educated. This report addresses: (1) how general education placements for students with disabilities vary nationwide and statewide, (2) factors that influence educational placement for students with disabilities, and (3) how selected districts and schools encourage a sense of belonging in the school community for students with disabilities. GAO used federal special education data and reviewed federal laws, regulations, guidance, and studies. GAO assessed the number of students who spent much of their day in gen ed by analyzing data on students who spent 40 to 79 percent and 80 percent or more of their time in gen ed. GAO’s regression analysis identified district characteristics associated with the percentage of students with disabilities in gen ed for much of their day. GAO also interviewed Education officials, and officials and educators from 12 districts and eight schools in Connecticut, Illinois, and Washington. GAO selected districts and schools based on factors such as enrollment size and locale. For more information, contact Jacqueline M. Nowicki at NowickiJ@gao.gov.

What GAO Found GAO has previously found that the Department of Energy’s (DOE) Office of Environmental Management (EM) has not followed its standards for defining mission need for some large projects. A mission need statement documents DOE’s identification of a mission-related need and, according to DOE standards, should not identify a particular solution. This ensures that DOE does not limit potential solutions at the project initiation stage. However, the majority of mission need statements that GAO reviewed for EM’s large projects identify a particular solution. For example, the mission need statement for the Outfall 200 Mercury Treatment Facility project at the Oak Ridge Reservation proposed “a new mercury treatment facility.” EM officials said they did not see an issue with identifying a solution at the mission need stage because other solutions are explored in later planning stages. However, GAO found instances where EM did not consider or pursue potential cost-saving options as project planning continued because a preferred solution was identified in the mission need stage. Rendering of the Outfall 200 Mercury Treatment Facility, a Large Capital Asset Project at the Oak Ridge Reservation Legal and regulatory constraints are one factor that has limited what solutions EM has considered for some large projects. For example, experts in GAO’s discussion groups said that EM did not pursue a cheaper yet technically sound treatment for one type of radioactive waste at the Idaho National Laboratory due to an existing agreement with regulators. Instead, EM spent taxpayer money over many years pursuing a solution it ultimately deemed suboptimal and suspended. EM follows internal review steps before approving mission need for large projects, but the reviews do not include independent experts. Including independent members with relevant expertise in the agency’s oversight structure can provide an impartial evaluation of its ability to achieve objectives. By incorporating independent experts outside of DOE who are not involved in EM’s legal and regulatory agreements into its mission need review for future large projects (before agreeing to a solution with regulators), EM could better ensure it is considering all viable solutions, including less costly ones. Why GAO Did This Study EM manages cleanup of hazardous and radioactive waste, in part through facility construction, building demolition, and other capital asset projects. The total costs for EM’s most expensive capital asset projects have grown by more than $2 billion since 2022 and at least five EM sites anticipate needing future projects that will likely cost over $100 million each. DOE acquisition management has been on GAO’s High Risk List for decades because of its vulnerability to fraud, waste, and abuse. Senate Report 118-188 includes a provision for GAO to evaluate EM planning for large capital asset projects and factors considered in its planning. GAO examined (1) the extent to which EM has defined the mission need for its large projects in accordance with DOE’s project management standards and (2) the factors that influenced the range of solutions EM considered for selected large capital asset projects. GAO analyzed 21 EM mission need statements for large projects—estimated to cost at least $100 million—to determine if they identified a particular solution. GAO analyzed qualitative content from three expert discussion groups covering EM’s planning for selected large projects. Twelve experts from academia, the national laboratories, and the private sector participated in one or more discussion groups. GAO interviewed EM headquarters officials and field staff at EM sites with large projects.

What GAO Found Assisted living facilities provide a residential alternative to in-home care and nursing homes for people who need assistance with activities of daily living such as eating and bathing. GAO’s analysis of program data showed that federal Medicaid and Medicare spending for services provided in assisted living facilities totaled at least $12 billion in 2024. This amount is likely an undercount because of data limitations. For example, assisted living facilities are not a uniformly defined provider type and thus not consistently identified in the data. Federal Medicaid spending. GAO identified at least $3.5 billion in federal Medicaid spending for services provided in assisted living facilities in 2024. State Medicaid programs may cover assisted living services—that is, assistance with activities of daily living and other supportive services provided in assisted living facilities—as well as other services such as physical therapy. Medicare spending. GAO identified $8.5 billion in traditional Medicare spending for services provided in assisted living facilities in 2024. Medicare generally does not cover assisted living services but may cover other health care services such as hospice in assisted living facilities. Other federal programs, such as Department of Housing and Urban Development and Department of Veterans Affairs programs, may be used by beneficiaries to help cover the costs of certain services, such as room and board, in assisted living facilities. The amount of spending by these programs for such services is unknown. Forty-four states’ Medicaid programs covered assisted living services for older adults and people with disabilities as of March 2025. More than half of states—29 of the 44—covered these services under Medicaid home- and community-based services waivers. These waivers give states the flexibility to target enrollment to specific populations and to limit the number of participants. State Medicaid Coverage of Assisted Living Services for Older Adults and People with Disabilities, as of March 2025 Note: HCBS refers to home- and community-based services. See fig. 3 in GAO-26-107884. Why GAO Did This Study Millions of older adults and people with disabilities need long-term care, which can be provided in a range of settings, including assisted living facilities. While most assisted living facility residents pay for their care using their own personal resources, federal programs including Medicaid cover certain services provided in assisted living facilities for those eligible. GAO was asked to provide information on federal program coverage of and spending for services provided in assisted living facilities. Among other things, this report describes (1) federal spending for services provided in assisted living facilities and (2) state Medicaid coverage of assisted living services. GAO analyzed Medicaid and Medicare claims data from 2024—the most recent year of data available, reviewed program documentation for other federal programs, and reviewed documents for state Medicaid programs covering assisted living services. For more information, contact Michelle B. Rosenberg at rosenbergm@gao.gov.

What GAO Found The Department of Defense (DOD) continues to struggle to deliver technologies quickly and within budget. Since its last annual assessment, GAO found: Programs are delaying interim events and milestones for some of the costliest major defense acquisition programs (MDAP). DOD has increased its use of the middle tier of acquisition (MTA) rapid prototyping and fielding pathways—intended to be completed in 5 years. Some programs began on the MTA pathway with technologies that require more time to develop, hindering timely delivery of essential capabilities. Programs do not consistently follow leading practices for product development that could help DOD achieve its stated goals. Schedule delays persisted across MDAPs, signaling overly optimistic time frames. The overall average time frame to deliver a capability increased this year to over 12 years. Further, several MDAPs have not set new delivery dates or are delaying critical interim milestones. By keeping delivery dates static, these programs raise questions about how realistic their estimates are. This means the 12-year average will likely increase in the future. Selected Programs Delayed Acquisition Events Since Last Year MTA portfolio size increased. DOD plans to invest at least $49 billion across 23 of its most expensive MTA programs. The cost of the MTA portfolio increased, mainly because more of the largest and most time-consuming programs used the pathway this year. Some programs began the MTA pathway with immature technologies, hindering timely transition. In multiple annual assessments, GAO found that almost half the MTA programs entered the pathway with immature technologies. Leading practices call for programs to have mature technologies prior to beginning development. Leading practices also call for programs to off-ramp immature technologies that could delay delivery of a minimum viable product (MVP), which establishes an initial set of capabilities on which DOD can iterate. However, DOD policy does not clearly require programs entering the MTA pathway to start with multiple technologies that are mature or direct programs to develop immature technologies separately from the MTA pathway. For example, between 2018 and 2025, 18 out of 40 programs have entered the MTA pathway with immature technologies. In addition, MTA programs GAO reviewed are ending without delivering a fieldable capability. For example, GAO found that technologies for seven of eight programs currently on the pathway remain immature and will require additional development. Since 2018, nine programs that entered the MTA pathway with multiple immature technologies made limited progress in maturing those technologies, which could delay delivering fieldable capabilities to the warfighter. Some MTA Programs Entered the Pathway with Immature Technologies Weapon systems do not consistently implement leading practices to deliver innovative capability with speed. Most programs, including newer programs like MTAs and future weapon system acquisitions, that GAO reviewed do not fully implement leading practices to achieve efficiencies. In reports dating back to 2022, GAO has recommended that DOD revamp its weapon system acquisition, test and evaluation, systems engineering, and digital engineering policies to fully incorporate iterative development and other leading practices. DOD concurred with many recommendations but has yet to fully implement them. Most Programs Have Yet to Fully Incorporate a Minimum Viable Product Why GAO Did This Study DOD plans to invest over $2.4 trillion to develop and acquire its costliest weapon programs. However, it continues to face persistent challenges in achieving the schedule and capability goals of these weapon systems. DOD is currently undertaking a new series of reforms, such as the November 2025 Acquisition Transformation Strategy, intended to ensure rapid delivery of effective solutions to meet warfighting needs. In June of 2024 and 2025, GAO found that DOD struggled to execute prior reforms that were also intended to help achieve speed in delivering capability. This resulted in a status quo of slow, linear development approaches. This report, GAO's 24th annual assessment, responds to a provision Congress included in statute for GAO to annually review selected DOD acquisition programs and efforts. This report (1) assesses the characteristics and performance of 104 of DOD's costliest weapon programs; and (2) analyzes selected programs' implementation of leading practices for product development, as described in GAO-23-106222, among other objectives. GAO identified programs for review based on cost and acquisition status; collected and analyzed program documents; used a questionnaire to obtain data from program offices; and interviewed DOD officials.

What GAO Found The Economic Development Administration’s (EDA) role in disaster recovery involves awarding grants and coordinating federal agencies through the Economic Recovery Support Function (RSF). In fiscal years 2014–2024, EDA awarded about $2.1 billion in disaster recovery grants, which primarily funded infrastructure and construction projects, such as mitigating flood risks to commercial and industrial areas. In 2013–2025, EDA also coordinated 45 Economic RSF missions following severe storms, floods, and other disasters. EDA Awarded $2.1 Billion in Disaster Recovery Grants (Fiscal Years 2014–2024) and Coordinated 45 Economic Recovery Missions (2013–2025) EDA has incorporated several leading practices for interagency collaboration to coordinate the Economic RSF, including having clear roles and responsibilities. Stakeholders in disaster-affected communities highlighted the value and recent performance of the Economic RSF but noted challenges in its capacity to provide assistance. EDA is implementing a required disaster recovery office and team that can help address this challenge. However, EDA has not developed a way for the RSF to ensure accountability by monitoring and communicating progress toward its strategic outcomes, such as increasing the capacity of local stakeholders to implement economic recovery strategies. Fully adopting the leading practices would enhance accountability and help demonstrate progress. EDA’s 26 performance measures incorporated several key attributes of successful measures but could not be used to assess whether its disaster recovery work accomplished its intended outcomes. Using measures that better assess the performance of its disaster recovery work would help EDA determine if it has achieved the outcomes Congress intended, such as mitigating flood risk. In addition, the reliability of the measures is unknown because EDA suspended the steps it previously took to validate grantee-reported data on job creation or retention. By resuming procedures to validate these data, EDA would improve confidence that its reported outcomes accurately reflect progress toward agency goals and provide useful information for decision-making. Why GAO Did This Study EDA, part of the Department of Commerce, has taken on an increasingly important role in disaster recovery. In fiscal years 2018–2025, Congress provided EDA with $3.2 billion in disaster supplemental appropriations. Senate Report 118-62 includes a provision for GAO to evaluate EDA’s role in disaster recovery. Among its objectives, this report examines the extent to which EDA’s coordination of the Economic RSF has incorporated leading practices for interagency collaboration, how EDA has invested in disaster-affected communities, and the extent to which EDA’s performance measures incorporated key attributes of successful measures. GAO analyzed EDA documentation, performance measures, and data on appropriations, grant awards, disbursements, and RSF missions generally in 2013–2025, as available; interviewed officials from EDA and five other federal agencies; and conducted site visits to seven EDA grant projects. GAO interviewed stakeholders from state and local governments and regional economic development organizations in three disaster-affected communities (Florida, Hawaii, and Oklahoma), selected to reflect variation in disaster type and region.

What GAO Found The Department of Homeland Security’s (DHS) Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA), the Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD), and the Department of Energy (DOE) have obligated about $14 billion for Puerto Rico’s grid recovery and modernization since 2017, but limited funding has been disbursed. About $2.7 billion of about $11.1 billion obligated by FEMA has been disbursed since 2017, largely for equipment and materials and architecture and engineering. In addition to FEMA, HUD and DOE obligated about $2.3 billion and $937 million respectively. However, most of these funds have not been disbursed. Moreover, DOE has reallotted or canceled about $715 million originally for community and low-income households’ solar projects to address grid stability and other needs yet to be determined. Limited progress has been made toward grid stability in key areas using federal assistance, with nine large FEMA projects complete. Key areas include repairing select transmission lines; modernizing operations; and clearing vegetation from transmission and distribution lines. Stakeholders cited clearing vegetation as an urgent priority; however, as of February 2026, about 400 miles had been cleared using federal funds out of 16,000 miles planned for vegetation clearing. Examples of Overgrown Vegetation Near Power Lines in Puerto Rico According to stakeholders GAO interviewed, several factors are hindering progress, including project review processes, staff turnover, the complexity of project funding, the Puerto Rico Electric Power Authority’s (PREPA) financial condition, and uncertainty around entities involved in recovery. Subsequent disasters and compounding events have also complicated the recovery. However, opportunities exist to improve federal assistance. For example, FEMA’s review process involves conducting required environmental and historic preservation reviews that some stakeholders said can extend the review process by months or years. FEMA has taken steps to streamline the process, such as by adopting categorical exclusions, but it has not updated guidance to reflect these flexibilities. Also, objectives, and roles and responsibilities of key entities are not fully documented, and a formal coordination mechanism that includes all relevant Puerto Rico and federal entities does not exist. Given the complexity of funding and the numerous stakeholders involved, documenting roles and responsibilities, and establishing a coordination mechanism could help enhance efficiency. Why GAO Did This Study In 2017, hurricanes knocked out Puerto Rico's electricity grid, causing an 11-month blackout. Since 2017, a series of disasters—including earthquakes in 2019 and 2020 and Hurricane Fiona in 2022—have disrupted the recovery of Puerto Rico’s electricity grid. In recent years, power outages have become more frequent, including a total blackout in April 2025, that lasted almost 2 days. The federal government has appropriated billions of dollars to support Puerto Rico’s grid recovery and modernization. FEMA, HUD, and DOE support Puerto Rico’s grid recovery by providing financial assistance. GAO was asked to examine federal efforts to support Puerto Rico’s grid recovery and modernization. This report examines (1) the financial assistance that FEMA, HUD, and DOE have provided to support Puerto Rico’s grid recovery since 2017; and (2) how FEMA, HUD, and DOE financial assistance has supported Puerto Rico’s grid recovery and modernization, and any factors hindering progress. GAO analyzed relevant documents and data; conducted a site visit; and interviewed federal and Puerto Rico officials as well as representatives from contractors operating and maintaining PREPA facilities and assets, including LUMA Energy and Genera PR.

This letter provides GAO's comments on the International Organization of Supreme Audit Institutions (INTOSAI) Working Group on Environmental Auditing's (WGEA) Proposed Withdrawal of GUID 5200, 5201 and 5203. GAO promulgates generally accepted government auditing standards, which provide professional standards for auditors of government entities in the United States.

What GAO Found In September 2025, GAO identified 26 priority recommendations for the Internal Revenue Service (IRS). Since then, IRS has implemented one of those recommendations. In June 2026, GAO identified an additional two priority recommendations, bringing the total to 27. GAO is highlighting the following three areas that warrant timely and focused attention: Managing agency transformation, Addressing the tax gap, and Improving the taxpayer experience. Addressing GAO's recommendations in these areas can help inform IRS's transformation efforts, strengthen its tax enforcement and revenue collection while reducing taxpayer burden, and inform its resource decisions to best improve the taxpayer experience. Taking action to implement all of GAO's open priority recommendations could significantly improve operations across IRS. Why GAO Did This Study Priority open recommendations are the GAO recommendations that warrant priority attention from heads of key departments or agencies because their implementation could save large amounts of money; improve congressional and/or executive branch decision-making on major issues; eliminate mismanagement, fraud, and abuse; or make progress toward addressing a high risk or duplication issue, among other benefits. Since 2015, GAO has sent letters to selected agencies to highlight the importance of implementing such recommendations. For more information, contact Jessica Lucas-Judy at at lucasjudyj@gao.gov or James R. McTigue, Jr. at mctiguej@gao.gov.

What GAO Found The 988 Suicide & Crisis Lifeline (988 Lifeline) is a network of independent crisis contact centers that answer calls, texts, and chats from people in suicidal crisis or emotional distress. The U.S. Health and Human Services’ (HHS) Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration (SAMHSA) set up the 988 Lifeline to connect individuals with local crisis contact centers in states and minimize the time they wait, according to officials. As of March 2026, calls are generally routed to local crisis contact centers based on callers’ approximate location. In contrast, texts and chats are routed based on individuals’ area codes or zip codes. SAMHSA plans to begin routing texts based on approximate location by April 2027, in accordance with a Federal Communications Commission rule. SAMHSA primarily measures the 988 Lifeline’s capacity through contact volume, answer rates (i.e., the percentage of contacts that are responded to), and the average time to answer. About 19.1 million calls, texts, and chats were routed to crisis contact centers from July 2022 through September 2025. During that time, call volume increased by about 87 percent, text volume by about 260 percent, and chat volume by about 23 percent (see figure). Call answer rates increased; text and chat answer rates fluctuated over time, as did average time to answer. 988 Lifeline Contact Volume By Method, July 2022 through September 2025 SAMHSA incorporated selected key performance management practices in assessing the 988 Lifeline’s routing and capacity. Specifically, SAMHSA set long- and near-term goals for the 988 Lifeline, collected information related to those goals, and used that information to assess progress and communicate information about performance. For example, to promote answer rate improvement, SAMHSA set a goal for local crisis contact centers, by September 2026, to answer more than 90 percent of the texts and chats they receive. SAMHSA also reviewed performance data and published them on its website. Why GAO Did This Study Suicide is one of the leading causes of death in the United States, resulting in over 49,000 deaths in 2023 (the latest data available from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention as of June 2026)—or about one death every 11 minutes. Overall, suicide rates increased about 31 percent from 2003 through 2023. SAMHSA provides federal funding for and oversees the 988 Lifeline. Local crisis contact centers within states may also receive funding through state appropriations, state-enacted 988 telecommunications fees, or other sources. In consultation with SAMHSA, a nonprofit network administrator is responsible for administering the 988 Lifeline. Congress included a provision in the Consolidated Appropriations Act, 2023, for GAO to review the 988 Lifeline. This report, among other things, (1) describes how calls, texts, and chats are routed to the 988 Lifeline; (2) describes how SAMHSA measures capacity of the 988 Lifeline and what those measures showed; and (3) examines how SAMHSA assesses routing and capacity of the 988 Lifeline. GAO analyzed 988 Lifeline performance data reported by SAMHSA for the period beginning July 2022, the month the 988 Lifeline number went into effect, through September 2025. GAO also reviewed documentation from and interviewed officials from SAMHSA, the Federal Communications Commission, and a nongeneralizable sample of nine states and two territories. States and territories were selected to obtain variation in geographic location, percentage of the total population living in rural areas, and other factors. Additionally, GAO examined SAMHSA’s efforts related to assessing routing and capacity of the 988 Lifeline against selected key performance management practices. For more information, contact Alyssa M. Hundrup at HundrupA@gao.gov.

What GAO Found U.S. Border Patrol and Air and Marine Operations (AMO), within U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP), are responsible for securing U.S. borders between ports of entry in the land, air, and maritime environments. CBP uses aircraft, vessels, and surveillance technology—such as cameras, radar sites, and sensors—in its efforts to secure the northern border (see figure). CBP also participates in task forces with other agencies such as U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement to support its efforts. From fiscal year 2019 through fiscal 2024, Border Patrol apprehensions along the northern border increased, with sharp increases in 2023 and 2024. Apprehensions subsequently decreased in fiscal year 2025 and have generally remained consistent at these reduced levels as of April 2026, according to CBP’s publicly reported data. Examples of U.S. Customs and Border Protection’s Surveillance Technology Along the Northern Border GAO previously reported that CBP has faced longstanding challenges addressing staffing gaps. In 2026, GAO found that the number of Border Patrol agents on the northern border decreased from fiscal year 2019 through fiscal year 2024. Although the number of authorized agents increased, the number of agents assigned to and working in these sectors decreased by about 6 percent. There was also a decrease in the staffing rate for Law Enforcement Information Systems Specialists who monitor surveillance technology. GAO recommended that CBP develop and implement a plan to address this staffing gap, which could help the agency better carry out its responsibilities. In 2019, GAO found that CBP did not have measures to assess its effectiveness at securing the northern border between ports of entry. Border Patrol had performance measures that assessed security in remote areas, but the measures did not include data from maritime border areas. Two AMO measures included data across all border areas and were not specific to the northern border. GAO recommended that Border Patrol and AMO each develop and implement such measures to better assess operations on the northern border. Why GAO Did This Study CBP, within the Department of Homeland Security, has primary responsibility for securing the nearly 4,000-mile border between the U.S. and Canada. Key security threats along the northern border include terrorism, contraband smuggling—specifically, the bidirectional flow of illicit drugs—and violations of U.S. immigration law such as migrant smuggling. CBP received billions of dollars in the 2025 law commonly known as the One Big Beautiful Bill Act and the 2026 Secure America Act to hire and train additional personnel. According to CBP, the One Beautiful Bill Act funding alone will support hiring an additional 5,000 CBP officers, 3,000 Border Patrol agents, and 200 AMO agents. This statement is based primarily on GAO’s June 2019 and February 2026 reports. It discusses CBP’s (1) resources across the northern border, (2) staffing in the region and related challenges, and (3) performance measures for assessing its effectiveness at securing the northern border.

What GAO Found The Department of Homeland Security (DHS) and Coast Guard leadership have made a case that the service needs transformation. Since 2019 GAO has reviewed four Coast Guard reform efforts and identified steps the service took to incorporate leading practices as well as gaps in key areas. For example, in prior reviews of Coast Guard sexual misconduct and modernization of mission planning and reserve component reform efforts, GAO found that the Coast Guard did not fully assess its workforce needs. Additionally, for two of the reform efforts, the Coast Guard did not fully establish goals and outcomes, making it difficult to determine if the reforms had the intended effects. According to GAO’s review of Force Design 2028 foundational documents, the Coast Guard has taken some steps to implement leading practices in its current reform effort but gaps remain. For example, the service has assigned leaders to its reform efforts and focused on addressing long standing challenges, including workforce and technology and contracting and acquisitions. However, GAO’s review also found that certain goals are not well-defined. For example, the execution plan states that the service will delegate decision-authority to maximize mission impact. However, the document does not describe how the Coast Guard will measure this effort or know when it achieves its reform goals. Further, how proposed reforms align with Coast Guard missions is unclear, and there is no performance plan or other mechanism to assess the results. Coast Guard Force Design 2028 Foundational Documents and Initial Update The Coast Guard has received significant funding to carry out its modernization reform efforts. Therefore, incorporating leading practices throughout the duration of the Coast Guard’s reform efforts is important. Specifically, updating its foundational modernization documents and developing an evaluation plan and mechanisms for assessing the effectiveness of its actions would better ensure that Coast Guard management, Congress, and the public has the information needed to evaluate whether its actions—which are using billions of taxpayer dollars—are helping to mitigate identified challenges pertaining to the service’s organization, people, technology, and contracting and acquisitions. Why GAO Did This Study The U.S. Coast Guard—a multi-mission military service—is facing a readiness crisis, according to DHS and Coast Guard leadership. In May 2025, DHS announced an effort called Force Design 2028 to modernize operations and capabilities. The effort aims to transform the Coast Guard into a more capable and agile force to meet future challenges across four areas—organization, people, technology, and contracting and acquisition. For fiscal year 2026, Congress appropriated about $13.5 billion to the service. Congress also included nearly $25 billion in Coast Guard funding for fiscal year 2025 in the law commonly known as the One Big Beautiful Bill Act—the largest single commitment of funding in Coast Guard history. The service has stated that this funding supports the intent of Force Design 2028. This statement focuses on (1) key themes from GAO work evaluating prior Coast Guard reform efforts, and (2) our assessment of the Coast Guard’s recent modernization reform efforts. This statement is based on reports GAO has issued since 2018 on prior Coast Guard reform efforts and some of its mission and management activities. GAO also analyzed Coast Guard Force Design 2028 documentation and compared them to selected leading practices for agency reform.

What GAO Found Most lobbyists demonstrated compliance with the requirements of the Lobbying Disclosure Act of 1995, as amended (LDA). For example, for the third and fourth quarters of 2024 and the first and second quarters of 2025, GAO estimates that 94 percent of lobbyists who filed quarterly lobbying disclosure (LD-2) reports had documentation confirming income and expenses related to lobbying, 84 percent of lobbyists who reported lobbying the Senate had documentation confirming related lobbying activities, and 93 percent of semiannual contribution (LD-203) reports included all reportable political contributions. These findings are generally consistent with GAO’s findings since 2016. By law, lobbyists are also required to report certain criminal convictions, such as those involving bribery or fraud, among others. None of the 247 individuals listed as lobbyists on the quarterly disclosure reports GAO reviewed appeared to have relevant convictions to disclose, based on analyzing criminal background records. Therefore, GAO did not identify any related reporting violations. The figure below describes the typical filing and enforcement processes. Typical Lobbying Disclosure Process GAO found that most lobbyists reported some level of ease in complying with quarterly reporting requirements and understanding terms, such as lobbying activities, associated with these requirements. Based on referrals from the Secretary of the Senate and the Clerk of the House of Representatives, the U.S. Attorney’s Office for the District of Columbia (USAO) contacts lobbyists who have not filed their lobbying disclosure and contribution reports. For filing years 2016 through 2025, the office received 12,391 referrals for lobbyists who failed to file these reports. As of December 2025, about 46 percent of these referrals were closed as in compliance after lobbyists filed required reports. To improve compliance, the office takes various enforcement actions, such as emailing or calling lobbyists. GAO found that the number of enforcement actions taken based on referrals, as well as the percentage of referrals brought into compliance, have generally increased in recent years after earlier declines. Why GAO Did This Study The LDA requires lobbyists to file LD-2 reports and LD-203 reports, among other requirements. The law includes a provision for GAO to annually audit the extent of lobbyists’ compliance with the act. This report is GAO’s 19th annual review under the provision and (1) determines the extent to which lobbyists demonstrated compliance with federal lobbying reporting requirements, (2) identifies lobbyists’ perspectives on challenges or potential improvements to compliance with quarterly reporting requirements, and (3) describes the resources and authorities available to the USAO and efforts the office has made to improve enforcement. GAO reviewed a stratified random sample of 101 LD-2s filed for the third and fourth quarters of calendar year 2024 and the first and second quarters of calendar year 2025. GAO also reviewed a random sample of 160 contribution reports from year-end 2024 and midyear 2025. This methodology allowed GAO to generalize to the population of 71,497 quarterly disclosure reports with $5,000 or more in lobbying activity and 35,735 contribution reports, respectively. In addition, GAO interviewed 95 lobbyists from the sample of quarterly disclosure reports to obtain their views on any compliance challenges or potential improvements to aid compliance. GAO also reviewed referrals data from the USAO and interviewed officials. GAO provided a draft of this report to the Department of Justice (DOJ) for review. DOJ did not provide comments. For more information, contact Lisa Van Arsdale at VanarsdaleL@gao.gov.

What GAO Found In May 2025, GAO identified 17 priority recommendations for the Department of Justice (DOJ). Since then, DOJ has implemented three of those recommendations. In June 2026, GAO identified an additional four priority recommendations, bringing the total to 18. GAO is highlighting the following two areas that warrant timely and focused attention: Managing the federal prison system, and Protecting national security. Addressing GAO's recommendations in these areas would help ensure the successful reintegration of incarcerated people into the community and save millions of dollars in taxpayer funds; and enhance Federal Bureau of Investigation and Department of Homeland Security efforts to share information about domestic terrorism threats; Taking action to implement all of GAO's open priority recommendations would help enhance the efficiency and effectiveness of operations across DOJ. Why GAO Did This Study Priority open recommendations are the GAO recommendations that warrant priority attention from heads of key departments or agencies because their implementation could save large amounts of money; improve congressional or executive branch decision-making on major issues; eliminate mismanagement, fraud, and abuse; or make progress toward addressing a high risk or duplication issue, among other benefits. Since 2015, GAO has sent letters to selected agencies to highlight the importance of implementing such recommendations. For more information, contact Jason L. Bair at BairJ@gao.gov.

What GAO Found In June 2025, GAO identified 21 priority recommendations for the Department of Transportation (DOT). Since then, DOT has implemented three of those recommendations. In June 2026, GAO identified an additional six priority recommendations and removed the priority status from two recommendations, bringing the total to 22. GAO is highlighting the following three areas that warrant timely and focused attention: Addressing workforce gaps, Improving grants management, and Integrating emerging technologies. Addressing GAO's recommendations in these areas would enhance DOT's efforts to: assess and address its mission-critical staffing and skills gaps; strengthen implementation of its grant programs, which provide billions of dollars yearly to improve the nation's infrastructure; and develop comprehensive plans to ensure the safe integration of emerging technologies—such as drones and automated vehicles—into the nation's transportation systems. Taking action to implement all of GAO's open priority recommendations would help enhance the efficiency and effectiveness of operations across DOT. Why GAO Did This Study Priority open recommendations are the GAO recommendations that warrant priority attention from heads of key departments or agencies because their implementation could save large amounts of money; improve congressional and/or executive branch decision-making on major issues; eliminate mismanagement, fraud, and abuse; or make progress toward addressing a high risk or duplication issue, among other benefits. Since 2015, GAO has sent letters to selected agencies to highlight the importance of implementing such recommendations. For more information, contact Heather Krause at KrauseH@gao.gov.

What GAO Found In August 2025, GAO identified 32 priority recommendations for the Department of the Treasury. Since then, Treasury has implemented four of those recommendations, bringing the total to 28, as of June 2026. GAO is highlighting the following three areas that warrant timely and focused attention: Reducing fraud and improper payments, Ensuring cybersecurity and information privacy, and Improving federal financial management. Addressing GAO's recommendations in these areas would enhance Treasury's efforts to effectively recover overpayments of COVID-19 Emergency Rental Assistance funds made by grantees; improve the ability of Treasury and the financial services sector to address cyber-related risks; and help ensure that Congress and the administration have ready access to complete and reliable financial information. Taking action to implement all of GAO's open priority recommendations could lead to significant improvements in Treasury's operations. Why GAO Did This Study Priority open recommendations are the GAO recommendations that warrant priority attention from heads of key departments or agencies because their implementation could save large amounts of money; improve congressional and/or executive branch decision-making on major issues; eliminate mismanagement, fraud, and abuse; or make progress toward addressing a high risk or duplication issue, among other benefits. Since 2015, GAO has sent letters to selected agencies to highlight the importance of implementing such recommendations. For more information, contact Cardell Johnson at JohnsonCD1@gao.gov.

What GAO Found In May 2025, GAO identified three priority recommendations for the Office of the Comptroller of the Currency (OCC). Since then, OCC has not implemented any of these recommendations. GAO is highlighting the following three areas that warrant timely and focused attention: Analyzing regulations, Financial technology lending, and Addressing blockchain technology risks. Addressing GAO's recommendations in these areas could help OCC assess whether its rules have had their intended effects and inform future rulemaking, provide lenders greater certainty about their compliance with fair lending and other consumer protection laws, and identify and respond to blockchain-related risks in a timely manner. Taking action to implement all of GAO's open priority recommendations would directly support OCC's mission. Why GAO Did This Study Priority open recommendations are the GAO recommendations that warrant priority attention from heads of key departments or agencies because their implementation could save large amounts of money; improve congressional and/or executive branch decision-making on major issues; eliminate mismanagement, fraud, and abuse; or make progress toward addressing a high risk or duplication issue, among other benefits. Since 2015, GAO has sent letters to selected agencies to highlight the importance of implementing such recommendations. For more information, contact Dan Garcia-Diaz at garciadiazd@gao.gov.

What GAO Found In May 2025, GAO identified three priority recommendations for the Social Security Administration (SSA). Since then, SSA has not implemented any of those recommendations. In June 2026, GAO identified one additional priority recommendation, bringing the total number to four. GAO is highlighting the following three areas that warrant timely and focused attention: Preventing potential overpayments, Making service delivery more efficient, and Managing information technology (IT) investments cost-effectively. Addressing GAO's recommendations in these areas would better position SSA to strengthen internal controls to prevent potential overpayments of Disability Insurance benefits, improve access for individuals applying online for Social Security benefits, and make sound strategic IT investment decisions and identify opportunities for efficiency and cost savings. Taking action to implement all of GAO's open priority recommendations would help enhance the efficiency and effectiveness of SSA's operations. Why GAO Did This Study Priority open recommendations are the GAO recommendations that warrant priority attention from heads of key departments or agencies because their implementation could save large amounts of money; improve congressional and/or executive branch decision-making on major issues; eliminate mismanagement, fraud, and abuse; or make progress toward addressing a high risk or duplication issue, among other benefits. Since 2015, GAO has sent letters to selected agencies to highlight the importance of implementing such recommendations. For more information, contact Cindy Brown Barnes at brownbarnesc@gao.gov.