What GAO Found Ten of the 13 B-52 modernizations are experiencing cost, schedule, or performance challenges. The Air Force’s most expensive B-52 modernization effort, the Commercial Engine Replacement Program (CERP) will likely continue to face significant challenges as the Air Force plans to begin production with little to no developmental flight testing. While the Air Force analyzed and accepted increased risks from this approach in 2023, since then CERP costs increased by about $3 billion and initial operational capability was delayed more than 15 months. Department of Defense (DOD) policy states cost estimates should consider risk and include an analysis that identifies and evaluates alternative courses of action that may reduce cost and risk. Reassessing these risks would better inform decision-makers as they consider when to begin production. B-52 Transporting an X-15 Rocket Research Aircraft in 1959 In addition, as the Air Force develops its 13 modernizations, it is not consistently using digital engineering tools that provide decision-makers real-time data to assess overall performance allowing them to make timely and well-informed decisions. DOD issued guidance in 2023 stating programs in development should incorporate digital tools, such as digital twins, when it’s practical, beneficial, and affordable. The Air Force has not assessed the potential use of digital engineering on all B-52 modernizations. As a result, the Air Force may be missing opportunities to take advantage of efficiencies that digital engineering can provide, including avoiding future sustainment and supportability challenges. The Air Force conducts planned maintenance on B-52s at a repair depot about every 4 years and has developed analyses to ensure it has sufficient capacity to perform planned modernization. However, the current maintenance plans assume that the Air Force will complete CERP and install new engines on time and do not account for risks from further schedule delays. B-52 maintenance is already struggling with finding sufficient parts for the current engines. Without planning for the possibility of engine delays from CERP, the Air Force risks falling behind on planned B-52 maintenance, which could impact readiness. Why GAO Did This Study The B-52 bomber is an aircraft capable of performing conventional and nuclear missions. The B-52 was originally introduced in 1955 with a projected lifespan of 20 years. The Air Force has since extended the aircraft’s lifespan through 2050. To maintain the B-52’s strategic edge, the Air Force is projected to spend an estimated $21 billion for modernizations including new engines, radar, and communications. A Senate report included a provision for GAO to assess B-52 modernization. This report addresses, among other things, the extent to which (1) B-52 modernizations are meeting their cost, schedule, and performance goals, and (2) the Air Force has developed plans to ensure sufficient depot capacity for the modernizations. This is a public version of a sensitive report issued in July 2026. DOD deemed some schedule and mission capable information sensitive, and GAO omitted it from this report. To conduct this review, GAO evaluated Air Force acquisition and sustainment documentation. GAO conducted site visits to the B-52 program office, depot, and logistics center. GAO also analyzed data and interviewed officials on depot performance, spare part and support equipment needs, and B-52 availability.

What GAO Found The Inflation Reduction Act of 2022 (IRA) provided about $41.5 billion in supplemental appropriations to the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) for grants and other investments to reduce air pollution and enhance national climate resilience. EPA primarily used the appropriations to create new grant programs and has awarded hundreds of grants. In 2025, EPA terminated grants funded by $30 billion of IRA appropriations and several grant recipients were challenging the terminations in court as of June 2026. Of the roughly $11.5 billion in appropriations unaffected by the terminations and related litigation, Public Law 119-21, commonly known as the One Big Beautiful Bill Act (OBBBA), rescinded the budget authority for about $1.2 billion that EPA had not yet obligated. As of March 2026, EPA was overseeing about $10.2 billion in appropriations it obligated before OBBBA was enacted and which are not affected by ongoing litigation. EPA has expended about $686 million of these obligated funds. Status of About $11.5 Billion in Appropriations Provided to EPA in the Inflation Reduction Act of 2022 (IRA), as of March 2026 Note: Percentages exceed 100 percent because expenditures are a subset of obligations. The unobligated balance reflects the amount EPA has not yet obligated from the appropriations unaffected by OBBBA’s rescissions. EPA’s obligations are mostly for competitive grants, and state governments received the largest number of grants. Of the about $10.2 billion in total obligations, EPA obligated about $8.6 billion from fiscal years 2023 to 2026 for efforts to reduce air pollution across the country, including replacing certain heavy-duty vehicles with emissions-free equivalents such as battery-electric or hydrogen fuel cell vehicles, deploying emissions-free equipment at U.S. ports, and improving energy efficiency in commercial and public buildings. EPA used the agency’s standard policies and procedures when it reviewed and selected recipients for competitive grants. Specifically, GAO found that EPA followed its competition policy by providing notice to potential applicants of its program goals, eligibility requirements, and evaluation criteria. EPA reviewers ranked the merit of eligible applicants using points-based scoring systems and made recommendations to agency selection officials, who made the final selection decisions. GAO found that EPA is using its standard processes for overseeing recipients’ use of funds. EPA requires that grant recipients submit periodic performance reports. According to the agency, it plans to conduct an additional level of oversight for all its IRA grants through an in-depth assessment at least once during their performance periods. EPA officials stated they are assessing the agency’s resource needs in light of staff reductions that have occurred since January 2025 and are using contractor support to fill in gaps where necessary. Why GAO Did This Study The appropriations provided by the IRA constitute a significant increase in funds available to EPA, which typically have been about $9 billion per year. GAO was asked to review EPA’s use of IRA appropriations, including any related changes to the agency’s staffing. Additionally, the IRA includes a provision for GAO to support oversight of the distribution and use of IRA appropriations. This report provides information about EPA’s use and oversight of the $10.2 billion the agency obligated and the processes EPA used to make funding decisions. GAO reviewed EPA obligations and expenditures data through March 2026. GAO also reviewed legal requirements, relevant EPA documents, and recipients’ single audit reports. GAO interviewed selected grant recipients based on factors such as geographic variation, as well as EPA officials. For more information, contact J. Alfredo Gómez at gomezj@gao.gov.

What GAO Found Various federal land and water management agencies and Tribes have entered into shared decision-making agreements. Under these agreements, Tribes provide substantive input on federal natural and cultural resource management decisions over many years. The relevant federal agencies are the Departments of Agriculture, Commerce, the Interior, and their subcomponents. The subcomponents include the U.S. Forest Service, National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, Bureau of Land Management, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, and National Park Service. GAO identified five lessons learned from the implementation of shared decision-making agreements between federal agencies and Tribes. Five Lessons Federal Agency and Tribal Officials Learned from Implementing Shared Decision-Making Agreements These lessons are important for various reasons. For example, with respect to developing mutual understanding and trust, tribal officials party to an agreement said agency staff met with them in person, had open minds, and treated them with respect. This encouraged candid conversations and helped participants better understand one another’s perspectives. In developing and implementing shared decision-making agreements, there are key questions related to each lesson learned that would be useful for federal agencies and Tribes to consider. For example, Does the agreement or supporting documents clearly identify how the parties will implement the agreement? Have parties taken concerted efforts to understand each other’s approaches to natural and cultural resource management, and recognize constraints on their participation, such as legal limitations? Have parties identified existing policies and procedures that can create challenges to working together, such as contrasting definitions or differing timelines? Have parties identified the appropriate knowledge and skills federal staff need to implement the agreement? Have parties determined what resources are available? Why GAO Did This Study Federal agencies manage public lands and waters, including national forests and parks, that are tribal ancestral territories and have special importance to Tribes. Agencies collaborate with Tribes to help achieve their missions and fulfill the unique federal trust and treaty responsibilities. GAO was asked to examine issues related to agencies developing and implementing shared decision-making agreements with Tribes. In a January 2026 report, GAO reported on factors that affected development of shared decision-making agreements. This report identifies lessons that federal agencies and Tribes learned during the implementation of shared decision-making agreements for managing public lands and waters. It also includes related key questions. GAO reviewed information collected in interviews with the parties to shared decision-making agreements discussed in the previous report (GAO-26-106626). GAO analyzed statements related to implementing agreements, and identified lessons learned, their importance, and related key questions. For more information, contact Anna Maria Ortiz at OrtizA@gao.gov.

What GAO Found The U.S. Army Corps of Engineers is responsible for planning, designing, and constructing much of the nation’s federally funded flood risk management infrastructure. The Corps usually does not request funds for disaster response during the annual budget cycle but instead receives supplemental appropriations for such activities after a disaster has occurred. In fiscal year (FY) 2004 through FY 2025, Congress appropriated more than $60 billion to the Corps for disaster response through 19 post-disaster supplemental appropriations acts and $450 million through annual appropriations acts. Post-Disaster Supplemental Appropriations to the Corps for Disaster Response, FYs 2004–2025 If necessary to address disasters, the Corps can transfer funds from certain other appropriations accounts to the Flood Control and Coastal Emergencies account, which funds the Corps’s disaster work. The Corps has transferred about $910 million into this account since FY 2004. Officials said they reimburse funds transferred once they receive an appropriation. The Corps spent more than $34 billion on disasters from FY 2006 through FY 2025. Because the Corps has historically received “no-year” appropriations that are available for obligation indefinitely, the Corps does not have to immediately expend funds. Disaster spending during this period included activities related to preparedness (such as supplies and equipment, planning, and training), emergency response, and project repair. After a disaster, the Corps gathers information by assessing damage to projects. The Corps may use this information to support flood risk management and emergency response. This includes activities such as improving flood risk management models and informing early warnings systems and evacuation protocols. The Corps has also used this information to make decisions about modifications to damaged projects to provide greater protection and improve resilience, such as increasing the height of a levee. The Corps’s Emergency Response to Natural Disasters program has exercised its authority under P.L. 84-99 to modify several projects. Why GAO Did This Study Many of the nation’s dams and levees were built over 50 years ago and, like other aging infrastructure, may be more vulnerable to failure, especially given the rise in the number of disasters and increasing challenges related to delivery of federal disaster assistance. The Thomas R. Carper Water Resources Development Act of 2024 includes a provision for GAO to analyze Corps disaster preparedness and response activities. This report provides information on how Corps disaster response and praeparedness activities have been funded since FY 2004 and how the Corps uses information about the effects of natural disasters when making decisions on flood risk management projects. To conduct this work, GAO analyzed budget requests, appropriations acts, and Corps expenditure data and reviewed Corps documents, including agency guidance and webpages. GAO is reporting expenditure data from post-disaster supplemental appropriations beginning in FY 2006 rather than FY 2004 because that is when the Corps began using specific codes in its financial system of record to link expenditures to post-disaster supplemental appropriations acts. GAO also examined publicly available information on levees and dams and interviewed Corps officials. For more information, contact Rachel Frisk at FriskR@gao.gov.

The U.S. Government Accountability Office (GAO) and the Council of the Inspectors General on Integrity and Efficiency (CIGIE) maintain the Financial Audit Manual (FAM). For more information, please visit the main FAM page, or contact Dawn B. Simpson at SimpsonDB@gao.gov.

What GAO Found Emerging infectious diseases are infections that are new (e.g., COVID-19) or have existed but are reappearing in an area (e.g., measles), according to the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS). As the federal lead for public health, HHS partners with thousands of entities at all levels of government to conduct surveillance for emerging infectious diseases; doing so through continuous data collection, analysis, and sharing of health data needed to plan for and respond to such threats. Experts on a roundtable GAO convened suggested a range of actions that the federal government could take to improve U.S. emerging infectious disease surveillance. GAO categorized experts’ suggestions across four areas related to collaboration, data, methods, and communication (see table). Four Areas with Examples of Federal Actions Experts Suggested to Improve Emerging Infectious Disease Surveillance Collaboration Data Quality and Infrastructure Surveillance Methods Communication Increase coordination by creating a multisectoral, multidisciplinary leadership group Strengthen data quality by identifying, developing, and using standards for surveillance data Optimize surveillance by evaluating cost-effectiveness of surveillance systems and methods Improve awareness and perception of public health and surveillance by developing a communication strategy Source: GAO analysis of statements made by a roundtable of 18 experts. | GAO-26-107610 A key theme in experts’ suggested actions for improvement was to unify efforts between animal and human health sectors, in recognition that emerging diseases often affect both. For example, experts suggested that a multisectoral, multidisciplinary leadership group should be created to direct surveillance planning and activities across federal agencies, including those responsible for both human and animal health. Such a group could address a lack of centralized authority to direct cross-agency surveillance activities leading to inconsistent collaboration that hinders the effectiveness of U.S. surveillance for emerging infectious diseases. Officials from HHS and other federal departments, such as the U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA), which has responsibility for animal health, highlighted existing efforts that they thought were related to expert-suggested actions. For example, HHS officials cited the U.S. One Health Coordination Unit as an existing effort related to the expert-suggested action to create a multisectoral, multidisciplinary leadership group to improve federal collaboration. The actions suggested by experts offer HHS and stakeholders a chance to assess tradeoffs and feasibility in expanding current efforts or exploring new approaches for infectious disease surveillance, while considering past recommendations by GAO and others. These actions also provide HHS an opportunity to determine if any of the suggestions assist the department in its leadership and coordination of public health emergencies, an area GAO placed on its High-Risk List in January 2022. Why GAO Did This Study Emerging infectious disease outbreaks have increased in incidence and impact, posing an ever-present threat to national health, security, and economic interests. Some emerging infectious diseases can become highly transmissible and capable of wide, uncontrollable spread in human populations potentially leading to pandemics. With factors such as increased global interconnectedness, animal-to-human disease transmissibility risk, and disease virulence contributing to this threat, there is heightened concern that an emerging infectious disease may develop into a widespread outbreak with significant consequences. The CARES Act includes a provision for GAO to monitor and report on the federal pandemic response. This report describes (1) how HHS has conducted surveillance of emerging infectious disease threats and (2) actions experts suggested for the federal government to improve surveillance of emerging infectious diseases. GAO convened a roundtable of 18 experts in April and May 2025 to discuss actions to improve public health surveillance for emerging infectious disease threats. GAO contracted with the National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine to help identify experts representing a range of perspectives including former federal officials and animal and human health professions. Their comments reflected solely their views. GAO also reviewed documents and interviewed officials from HHS, USDA, and public health associations, among others. For more information, contact Mary Deningan-Macauley at deninganmacauleym@gao.gov.

What GAO Found In August 2025, GAO identified 14 priority recommendations for the Office of Personnel Management (OPM). Since then, OPM has implemented three of those recommendations. In July 2026, GAO removed the priority status from three recommendations, bringing the total to eight. GAO is highlighting the following three areas that warrant timely and focused attention: Preventing improper payments, Strengthening IT management, and Managing the federal workforce. Addressing GAO’s recommendations in these areas could help prevent up to an estimated $1 billion per year in improper payments for those ineligible to receive federal health insurance benefits, reduce costs on duplicative or unnecessary software licenses, and improve agencies’ ability to attract top talent to the federal government. Taking action to implement all of GAO’s open priority recommendations could help enhance the efficiency and effectiveness of operations across OPM. 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 eight priority recommendations for the Department of Commerce (Commerce). Since then, Commerce has implemented one of those recommendations. In July 2026, GAO added one priority recommendation, bringing the total to eight. GAO is highlighting the following two areas that warrant timely and focused attention: Improving planning for the decennial census, and Protecting personally identifiable information. Addressing GAO's recommendations in these areas could improve census cost and accuracy, particularly for hard-to-enumerate populations, and help Commerce protect personally identifiable information from unauthorized access, tampering, or loss. Taking action to implement all of GAO's open priority recommendations would help enhance mission delivery, risk management, and the efficiency and effectiveness of operations across Commerce. 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 As of March 31, 2025, the Department of Energy’s (DOE) Office of Environmental Management (EM) awarded 57 task orders across nine contracts since implementing the End State Contract Model (ESCM) in fiscal year 2020. The ESCM uses task orders for contractors to achieve a stated outcome, or “end state,” to move sites toward completion, manage cost and schedule performance, and reduce DOE’s environmental liability. About half (29) included defined end states and the remainder were for support work or cleanup work that did not yet have a defined end state. EM has not consistently achieved intended results for selected task orders GAO reviewed. Of the nine selected task orders completed as of March 31, 2025, three did not define end states and six defined them but were inconsistent in achieving them. For example, three task orders with defined end states reduced or carried over scopes of work post-award, resulting in contractors completing less work to achieve modified end states. The extent to which EM reduced costs for these task orders is unclear because of inconsistent documentation. Further, EM headquarters did not provide adequate oversight to ensure task orders achieved end states. Without this oversight, EM cannot assess how well it is meeting program goals. EM did not fully use contract incentives to manage costs. As a result, post-award changes to task order requirements led to over $500 million in cost growth. Selected Task Orders with Greatest Cost Growth, as of March 31, 2025 Dollars in thousands   Cleanup site Task order (TO)  Total cost growth  Total cost growth, percent Idaho National Laboratory   TO 3 Integration and Mission Continuity (Phase 1) $42,054 6.29% TO 3.2 Integration and Mission Continuity Hybrid Task Order (Phase 2) $75,553 11.74% Nevada National Security Site TO 2 Environmental Operations $75,793 149.61% Oak Ridge Reservation       TO 3 End States Phase-In $216,661 45.17% TO 6-1 Y-12 Operations and Cleanup End States $23,871 6.05% TO 8-1 Environmental Management Disposal Facility Early Site Prep $1,559 6.48% TO 9-2 Outfall 200 Mercury Treatment Facility Construction and Commissioning End State $25,811 138.89% Source: GAO analysis of Federal Procurement Data System and Strategic Integrated Procurement Enterprise System data and Office of Environmental Management information. | GAO-26-107745 Note: Dollar amounts are rounded to the nearest thousand. For the purposes of this review of task orders, GAO analyzed cost growth based on increases in contract value.  EM’s task orders have different incentives for cost performance, some of which can reduce risk of cost growth. Of the task orders reviewed, those types that put more risk on the contractor generally had the lowest cost growth. EM more frequently used contract types that put more risk on EM, and these experienced the greatest cost growth. Until EM takes steps to address task orders’ cost performance, EM may miss opportunities to better manage cost growth. Why GAO Did This Study EM is responsible for cleaning up 15 sites across the U.S. that are contaminated from decades of nuclear weapons production and energy research. To conduct this work, EM has awarded ESCM contracts since fiscal year 2020. GAO previously found that EM experienced challenges implementing end state task orders and that stakeholders had concerns about fair pricing for cleanup work because of lack of competition among contractors. Since 1990, GAO has designated DOE contract management as a high-risk area. A congressional committee report includes a provision for GAO to evaluate EM’s implementation of the ESCM. This report examines (1) the status of ESCM task orders issued since fiscal year 2020 and the role of contractors in defining end states, (2) the extent to which selected ESCM task orders have achieved intended results, and (3) the extent to which EM is using selected ESCM task orders to manage contract cost performance. GAO reviewed data for all ESCM task orders awarded as of March 31, 2025, evaluated contract documents for 19 selected task orders, and interviewed EM officials. GAO also conducted site visits to the Hanford and Savannah River cleanup sites.

What GAO Found Many countries are undertaking efforts to manage, treat, and dispose of nuclear waste. Several have taken actions that accelerated cleanup, reduced risks, and resulted in cost savings—lessons that could inform the U.S. Department of Energy’s Office of Environmental Management (EM) efforts. For example: The United Kingdom (UK) saved a total of at least £2 billion (equivalent to $2.6 billion as of March 2026) by implementing a risk-informed approach to managing its nuclear waste. This approach helped minimize how much waste would need disposal in a repository for waste low in radioactivity. Canada has prioritized accelerating cleanup activities at key nuclear waste sites. As a result, it expects to complete cleanup activities at one of these key sites nearly 30 years ahead of schedule. France and the UK have used test facilities that replicate operating facilities to address technical issues and train employees. These efforts have saved each country significant money and minimized disruptions to cleanup efforts. Decommissioned Nuclear Boilers Diverted for Recycling Instead of Disposal in the United Kingdom’s National Low Level Waste Repository EM engages with other countries about nuclear cleanup, but this engagement is limited and not done strategically to identify alternative approaches that could reduce costs and risks at EM’s 15 cleanup sites in the United States. For example, EM participates in international working groups but does not disseminate lessons learned from other countries to EM’s decision-makers. GAO and other organizations have long reported on challenges facing the EM cleanup mission, including that EM does not have a fully risk-informed approach to cleanup. EM site officials told GAO they want more opportunities to engage with other countries, but EM headquarters officials stated that they typically teach other countries, rather than learn from them. Until EM more strategically engages with other countries to identify and evaluate alternative nuclear cleanup approaches, EM will continue to miss opportunities to employ new approaches that its decision-makers could use to reduce risks and costs across the EM complex. Why GAO Did This Study Many countries have nuclear waste resulting from activities such as weapons production, nuclear power generation, and medical uses. Efforts to address this waste can be costly, take decades, and present common challenges. EM is responsible for cleaning up 15 sites across the United States contaminated by nuclear weapons production and energy research. EM has estimated that its cleanup mission could cost between $641 billion and $840 billion and take until 2100. Senate Report 118-188 includes a provision for GAO to report on EM’s efforts to leverage other countries’ lessons learned for managing nuclear waste. This report examines (1) selected countries’ nuclear waste management approaches from which EM could learn, and (2) the extent to which EM has considered other countries' approaches for nuclear waste cleanup. GAO reviewed documents for six selected countries: Belgium, Canada, France, Germany, Japan, and the UK. GAO interviewed officials from five of these countries and visited selected sites in France and the UK. GAO analyzed documents and interviewed officials from EM headquarters and received written responses from all 15 EM sites about their international engagements.

To alert the audit community to changes in professional standards, we periodically issue Professional Standards Updates (PSU). These updates highlight the effective dates of recently issued standards and guidance related to engagements conducted in accordance with Government Auditing Standards. PSUs contain summary information only, and those affected by a change should refer to the respective standard or guidance for details.

What GAO Found TSA has taken some steps to communicate Transportation Worker Identification Credential (TWIC®) program information with stakeholders. However, TSA relies on an ad hoc communication approach rather than a documented communication plan to determine how to share information with stakeholders. This has contributed to some stakeholders reporting that they experienced declining engagement with and delays receiving key program updates from TSA. Developing and implementing a communication plan could help TSA ensure that all stakeholders receive the information necessary to effectively operate the TWIC® program and reduce security risks. The Coast Guard does not share or analyze all of the data it collects during inspections to oversee how facility operators implement the TWIC® program. For example, the Coast Guard collects data on deficiencies, a less severe form of noncompliance, and violations, a more severe form of noncompliance that can result in notices of violation or civil penalties. GAO’s assessment of inspection findings for fiscal years 2019 through 2024 showed: 888 TWIC®-related deficiencies, such as operators not ensuring that facility personnel with security duties were qualified to perform their roles, and 83 TWIC® violations, such as unescorted individuals entering a secure area, highlighting areas that may warrant improvement. However, the Coast Guard does not provide the data to TWIC® inspectors. According to officials, this is because the data did not relate to areas that would require a change to the program. However, by communicating the data with inspectors, regardless of their effect on the program, the Coast Guard could improve inspectors’ awareness of TWIC®-related risks. Total Number of Transportation Worker Identification Credential (TWIC®)-related Deficiencies and Violations, Fiscal Years 2019–2024 Why GAO Did This Study The TWIC® program aims to provide a tamper-resistant biometric card to maritime workers who require unescorted access to designated secure areas of facilities and vessels under Maritime Transportation Security Act of 2002 regulations. As of August 2025, more than 2 million individuals held a TWIC® credential. TSA oversees TWIC® applicants’ enrollment and background checks. The Coast Guard enforces certain TWIC® regulatory requirements, including by inspecting facilities for compliance. The Transportation Security Screening Modernization Act of 2024 includes a provision for us to review TSA’s security threat assessment programs and we were asked to review other aspects of TWIC® operations. This report examines (1) the extent to which TSA communicates TWIC® program information to stakeholders, and (2) the extent to which the Coast Guard has overseen the implementation of the TWIC® program by facility operators, among other objectives. GAO also examined TSA and Coast Guard policy and data for fiscal years 2019 through 2024. In addition, GAO interviewed agency officials and port stakeholders. To obtain a range of TWIC® perspectives, these stakeholders included TWIC® operators at facilities selected in part for diversity in size and geographic regions.

What GAO Found The unique needs of mothers and young children during disasters include appropriate sheltering, feeding and care supplies, medical and mental health support, and other services, according to relevant literature and disaster service providers from selected local, state, and nonprofit organizations. For example, large shelters may not be the best option for families with infants. Mothers also often need diapers, baby food, and infant formula. Service providers from 12 local, state, and nonprofit organizations GAO interviewed discussed ways they have supported mothers and young children—including pregnant or postpartum women and infants and children who are not yet in school—during disasters. For example, providers said they may prioritize mothers and children for private sheltering, such as hotel rooms, or ensure that mass shelters have private nursing spaces. Providers also said they provide coloring and reading books about disasters to help children process their emotions and trauma. The Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) has assisted disaster providers in efforts to prepare supplies and services for mothers and young children prior to a disaster. For example, FEMA has issued guidance on and held stockpiles of infant and toddler feeding and care supplies. In addition, GAO identified four examples in which FEMA had fulfilled requests for assistance from service providers, such as providing medical transports for newborn infants, during disasters in 2024. FEMA officials shared lessons learned from serving mothers and young children during disasters, such as to evacuate children with their families to avoid the challenges of reunification. Service providers GAO interviewed also shared lessons they learned, such as to prioritize infant formula that can be used without power or safe drinking water and to ensure that mothers and service providers are aware of safe infant feeding practices. Figure: Examples of Observations from Service Providers from One Organization That Helped Mothers and Young Children During Hurricane Helene in 2024 Why GAO Did This Study Natural disasters can devastate communities and displace survivors. In the immediate aftermath of a disaster, survivors need food, water, shelter, and other supports. Studies and reports about past disasters have shown that mothers and young children may be particularly vulnerable. In 2025, GAO added Improving the Delivery of Federal Disaster Assistance to its High Risk List. GAO was asked to examine supports for mothers and young children during immediate disaster response. This report describes some of the unique needs of this population, how these needs are met, and how FEMA supports mothers and young children. GAO reviewed relevant literature on the needs of mothers and children during disasters and interviewed disaster service providers from 12 local, state, and nonprofit organizations. These included organizations that contract with FEMA to provide disaster response, national and state organizations that are involved in disaster-related efforts, and service providers that specifically focus their efforts on mothers and young children. GAO selected these organizations based on the recommendations of GAO stakeholders and interview participants. GAO also selected organizations that had provided services to disaster survivors in five states selected for factors such as having major disasters in 2024 and counties in affected areas with large proportions of children under age 5. GAO reviewed relevant federal laws, regulations, and documents and interviewed FEMA officials, including those overseeing regions that include the five selected states. GAO also examined data from FEMA’s Web Emergency Operations Center database. For more information, contact Kathryn A. Larin at LarinK@gao.gov.

What GAO Found In May 2025, GAO identified 39 priority recommendations for the Department of Homeland Security (DHS). Since then, DHS has implemented five of these recommendations. GAO also closed two recommendations that were no longer valid. In July 2026, GAO identified an additional seven priority recommendations, bringing the total to 39. GAO is highlighting the following three areas that warrant timely and focused attention: Improving disaster preparedness and response, Enhancing information technology and cybersecurity, and Strengthening immigration and border security policies and data. Addressing GAO's recommendations in these areas would improve DHS and Federal Emergency Management Agency service delivery to disaster survivors and communities; ensure the Cybersecurity and Infrastructure Security Agency provides agencies the information needed to enhance cybersecurity and address risks; and ensure U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement provides decision-makers a more complete understanding of annual immigration detentions and U.S. Customs and Border Protection strengthens interdiction efforts. Taking action to implement all of GAO's open priority recommendations would help enhance the efficiency and effectiveness of operations across DHS. 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 Jason Bair at bairj@gao.gov.

What GAO Found The Equal Access to Justice Act (EAJA) was enacted in 1980, in part to address individuals’ and organizations’ ability to challenge or defend themselves against civil or administrative actions involving the federal government. EAJA authorizes the award of legal fees to parties that prevail against the federal government and meet other eligibility criteria, under certain circumstances. Federal agencies reported paying over $116 million for about 15,000 EAJA awards, on average per year from fiscal years 2019 through 2025. Among the three selected agencies GAO reviewed, the agencies reported the following EAJA data to the Administrative Conference of the United States (ACUS) for this time period: the Department of Labor (DOL)—11 awards totaling about $548,000, the National Labor Relations Board (NLRB)—11 awards totaling about $437,000, and the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC)—no awards. Equal Access to Justice Act (EAJA) Awards Reported by the Department of Labor (DOL), National Labor Relations Board (NLRB), and Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC), Fiscal Years 2019–2025 Fiscal year Number of awards (DOL)  Total amount of awards (DOL) Number of awards (NLRB)  Total amount of awards (NLRB) Number of awards (EEOC)  Total amount of awards (EEOC) 2019  1 $87,824 5  $70,000 0 $0 2020  1 $62,500 0  $0 0 $0 2021  4 $72,600 0  $0 0 $0 2022 3 $138,266 1 $150,000 0 $0 2023 1 $110,221 1 $56,374 0 $0 2024 0 $0 2 $55,000 0 $0 2025 1 $76,190 2 $105,539 0 $0 Total 11 $547,601 11  $436,913 0 $0 Source: GAO summary of information published by the Administrative Conference of the United States. | GAO-26-108644 All five stakeholders GAO interviewed cited both benefits and challenges of EAJA. For example, two attorneys who primarily represent clients in labor and employment matters said that for some cases, EAJA enables them to assist clients who otherwise could not afford to pursue cases against the federal government. All five stakeholders cited challenges with EAJA such as meeting EAJA eligibility requirements and recovering legal fees under EAJA. For example, they cited difficulty establishing that a party prevailed against the government. Specifically, one attorney said that the definition of “prevailing party” has narrowed over time due to various court decisions, making it more difficult to meet this requirement. Why GAO Did This Study EAJA awards primarily arise from civil court cases and are typically paid by the specific agency that the party prevailed against. Since 2019, agencies have reported their annual EAJA awards and other data to ACUS. GAO was asked to review data on EAJA awards paid by DOL, EEOC, and NLRB. This report describes these agencies’ EAJA awards for fiscal years 2019 through 2025, as well as selected stakeholders’ views on the benefits and challenges of EAJA. GAO reviewed EAJA award data that federal agencies reported to ACUS for fiscal years 2019 through 2025, the most recent data available. GAO reviewed relevant federal laws and regulations related to EAJA. GAO also interviewed DOL, EEOC, and NLRB agency officials and five stakeholders knowledgeable about EAJA, including attorneys and industry representatives. GAO primarily identified these stakeholders through a review of literature on EAJA and a review of available EAJA data. Stakeholders’ perspectives shared with GAO are not generalizable. For more information, contact Thomas Costa at costat@gao.gov.