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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

What GAO Found GAO’s review of payroll data found that federal agencies’ use of paid administrative leave increased by 435 percent from 2023 to 2025. GAO estimates federal agencies in our review spent $9.5 billion in salary costs on paid administrative leave in 2025, a sixfold increase from 2023. In 2025, the Office of Personnel Management (OPM) directed agencies to use paid administrative leave to support the deferred resignation program, which generally allowed federal employees to be placed on leave until they resigned or retired by September 30, 2025. Using program assumptions and internal time and attendance data provided by payroll service providers, GAO calculated about $6.7 billion of that amount was associated with deferred resignation program. GAO’s Estimate of Paid Administrative Leave Salary Costs, 2023–2025 GAO identified limitations with the paid administrative leave data reported by agencies, which could overstate the actual amount used. For example, GAO found that agencies reported 144 percent more paid administrative leave used in pay periods with a public holiday in 2023 through early 2025. Holidays should not be reported as paid administrative leave, and OPM has issued guidance to help address this data issue. OPM does not plan to retroactively fix such historical errors in data released to the public. Fully disclosing any data limitations that remain unaddressed could help users make informed decisions about how to use these data. OPM does not know the actual costs of the paid administrative leave used for workforce reduction efforts, including the deferred resignation program. One of the administration’s stated principles for current workforce reduction efforts is to trim the budget topline by reducing full-time equivalent positions. To support these efforts, federal agencies used millions of workdays of paid administrative leave. To calculate long-term savings, OPM needs to know short-term costs of paid administrative leave used for these efforts. However, OPM cannot easily and accurately do this because the paid administrative leave used for workforce reduction efforts is reported with other types of general paid administrative leave. Without a mechanism to track paid administrative leave for workforce reduction efforts, federal leaders may not have the data needed to understand whether government-wide cost saving goals are being met. Why GAO Did This Study Paid administrative leave for federal employees is an excused absence without loss of pay or charge to leave. It is a cost to taxpayers as employees receive full pay without performing job duties.The Administrative Leave Act, enacted on December 23, 2016, highlighted congressional concern that agency use of paid administrative leave exceeded reasonable amounts. The act requires OPM to address how agencies use and record paid administrative leave. We were asked to review how OPM has facilitated agencies’ use and reporting of paid administrative leave to be consistent with the Administrative Leave Act and other requirements. This report (1) describes the uses and salary costs of paid administrative leave at agencies from 2023 through 2025, (2) reviews how OPM discloses the limitations of paid administrative leave data released to the public, and (3) reviews how OPM tracks the costs of paid administrative leave for workforce reduction efforts. GAO analyzed payroll data from 76 agencies, including 19 Chief Financial Officers Act agencies, which make up approximately 95 percent of the civilian workforce. GAO also reviewed OPM guidance and documents and interviewed relevant agency officials.

What GAO Found GAO’s audit of the fiscal year 2025 consolidated financial statements of the U.S. government (CFS) identified control deficiencies in the processes the Department of the Treasury used to prepare the CFS. These control deficiencies contributed to material weaknesses in internal control that involve the federal government’s inability to adequately account for intragovernmental activity and balances between federal entities; reasonably assure that the consolidated financial statements are (1) consistent with the underlying audited entities’ financial statements, (2) properly balanced, and (3) in accordance with U.S. generally accepted accounting principles (U.S. GAAP); and reasonably assure that the information in the (1) Reconciliations of Net Operating Cost and Budget Deficit and (2) Statements of Changes in Cash Balance from Budget and Other Activities is complete, properly supported, and consistent with the underlying information in the audited entities’ financial statements and other financial data. GAO identified three new control deficiencies in the processes Treasury used to prepare the fiscal year 2025 CFS. Treasury did not properly report legal contingencies in the draft CFS note disclosure. Treasury did not consistently prepare accurate and complete note disclosures in the draft CFS. The reports used to annually recertify access to Planning Analytics, a system used to prepare the CFS, were not adequate to determine whether the access granted was appropriate. As of the completion of GAO’s fiscal year 2024 audit, nine recommendations were open from prior reports related to control deficiencies in the processes used to prepare the CFS. During the fiscal year 2025 CFS audit, GAO found that Treasury implemented corrective actions that resolved three recommendations from prior reports, and GAO closed these recommendations. These new and continuing deficiencies increase the risk that material amounts and disclosures may not be presented in the CFS in accordance with U.S. GAAP. GAO will continue to monitor the status of Treasury’s corrective actions to address the nine open recommendations—six remaining from prior reports and three new recommendations GAO is making in this report—as part of the fiscal year 2026 CFS audit. Why GAO Did This Study The Secretary of the Treasury, in coordination with the Director of the Office of Management and Budget, prepares the Financial Report of the United States Government, which includes the CFS. Since GAO’s first audit of the CFS, for fiscal year 1997, certain material weaknesses in internal control over financial reporting and other limitations on the scope of its work have prevented GAO from expressing an opinion on the federal government’s accrual-based consolidated financial statements. As part of the fiscal year 2025 CFS audit, GAO identified continuing material weaknesses and other control deficiencies in the processes used to prepare the CFS. The objective of this report is to provide (1) detailed information on new control deficiencies GAO identified related to the processes Treasury used to prepare the CFS, along with related recommendations, and (2) the status of Treasury’s corrective actions to address recommendations from GAO’s prior reports related to the processes used to prepare the CFS that remained open as of the completion of GAO’s audit of the fiscal year 2024 CFS.

What GAO Found Chronic facility issues disrupted teaching and learning in schools nationwide in school year 2024-25, according to GAO’s nationwide survey of districts. GAO estimates that nearly one in five districts (19 percent) canceled school that year due to a facilities issue. These cancellations affected an estimated 2 million students, who lost an estimated 3.5 million days of learning as a result. Top reasons districts canceled school included plumbing emergencies and extreme classroom temperatures. One district GAO visited canceled school after classroom temperatures reached 110 degrees. GAO also estimates that nearly half of districts (47 percent) had chronic facility issues that often disrupted learning. Estimated Percent of School Cancellations Due to a School Facilities Issue Note: The 95 percent confidence intervals for these estimates are 15 to 24 percent of districts; 1.5 to 2.4 million students affected; and 2.5 to 4.5 million days of learning lost. Districts frequently face funding constraints and have used strategies like investing in preventive maintenance to manage costs and better meet facility needs. GAO estimates that 55 percent of districts considered their most recent facilities budget insufficient to meet their needs. Districts often faced difficulty implementing capital projects and many deferred maintenance, which can lead to higher costs in the longer term. GAO found that districts with limited capacity to conduct preventive maintenance had more chronic facility problems and more disruptions to instruction. School leaders described taking steps to help address these challenges. They included making strategic investments in preventive maintenance and cost-saving measures, engaging in careful facilities planning efforts, leveraging expertise, and building community buy-in for capital projects. Nationwide, district leaders had mixed views on the efficacy of state and federal policies related to school facilities. For example, an estimated 73 percent said that limited state formula funding for facilities hindered their ability to meet their facility needs. However, some states have implemented practices that survey respondents and others found helpful. For instance, according to research we reviewed, some states directed dedicated revenue sources to school facilities (e.g., from excise taxes), which helped support facilities funding. Others provided incentives to encourage districts to prioritize preventive maintenance. Finally, some states helped districts keep capital projects on track and on budget through steps like offering adaptable building design plans and expediting permitting. Why GAO Did This Study Public school facilities are critical in supporting student learning, civic life, and the long-term economic growth of the nation. Research has demonstrated that modern, well-maintained facilities with healthy indoor environments yield better student performance and health, higher teacher retention, and reduced absenteeism. When schools with outdated or improperly maintained facilities temporarily close buildings or classrooms, instruction and learning are disrupted. GAO was asked to review lost instructional time associated with facility-related school cancellations across the U.S. This report addresses (1) the extent to which facility issues disrupt instruction in public schools; (2) facilities challenges school districts face and strategies they use to address them; and (3) district leaders’ views on state and federal policies related to school facilities and how states can help districts address systemic issues. GAO conducted a nationally representative survey of public school districts (overall weighted response of 62 percent). Unless otherwise noted, estimates presented have a margin of error of no more than plus or minus 7 percentage points. In addition, GAO visited nine districts across Alabama, Maine, and Oregon. GAO selected states for variation in average spending per student, geographic region, and receipt of federal Supporting America’s School Infrastructure grant funds. Within these states, GAO selected districts for variation in urbanicity, poverty, and size. GAO also reviewed reports by state agencies, commissions, and legislative committees from 2016 through 2026 that examined school facility issues and potential solutions. GAO also interviewed officials from the Department of Education and from stakeholder groups, selected to capture a range of perspectives. For more information, contact Jacqueline M. Nowicki at nowickij@gao.gov.

What GAO Found The National Register of Historic Places is the nation’s official list of historic places worthy of preservation. The National Park Service (NPS) administers the National Register in cooperation with states and Tribes. Each state has established a State Historic Preservation Officer (SHPO) whose responsibilities include identifying and nominating eligible properties to the National Register. Additionally, Tribes may elect to establish a Tribal Historic Preservation Officer (THPO). Officials from SHPO offices GAO interviewed identified a number of challenges with the National Register process, including that some key NPS guidance documents were outdated and did not have information that would help them effectively nominate properties. Because of these challenges, some of these officials noted that developing nominations required additional time and resources. While NPS officials told GAO they intend to update some guidance documents, they have not developed a plan to do so, including a plan to identify what information SHPOs and THPOs need in updated guidance. Developing such a plan will help NPS better ensure the update includes the information that SHPOs and THPOs—their primary users—need to effectively participate in the program. Tribes GAO spoke with also identified challenges with the National Register process. Some Tribes and tribal organizations told GAO that the National Register evaluation criteria do not always accommodate historically significant tribal properties. NPS officials told GAO they have taken actions to clarify the ways in which Tribes can apply the criteria, including revising guidance on listing traditional cultural places. However, conducting outreach to Tribes to highlight relevant guidance on applying the National Register criteria could provide better assurance that the National Register includes historic properties significant to Tribes. Some Tribes GAO interviewed also expressed concern that nominating properties to the National Register could result in unwanted visitation or looting of sites. The location of properties on the National Register can be withheld from public disclosure in certain circumstances. While NPS has taken productive steps to communicate information about this provision, some Tribes GAO spoke with were not aware of it or continued to have concerns about sharing information about properties. Conducting outreach to Tribes on the ability to withhold this information would better ensure they are informed of this provision and may mitigate continuing concerns among Tribes about sharing information about their historic properties. Why GAO Did This Study The National Register is a key part of federal efforts to identify and protect America's historic and archeological resources. Over 100,000 properties are listed in the National Register, including buildings, objects, and sites. However, some stakeholder groups have raised questions about whether the National Register is representative of the nation’s full story. GAO was asked to review how NPS administers the National Register and any challenges SHPOs and THPOs may face in the listing process. This report discusses the National Register listing process and examines challenges faced by selected SHPOs and THPOs and the public. GAO reviewed relevant laws and regulations, analyzed NPS guidance documents, and interviewed NPS officials who administer the National Register. GAO also interviewed officials from a nonrepresentative selection of nine SHPO offices and eight federally recognized Tribes. GAO selected these SHPO offices and Tribes to reflect variation in the number of sites they had listed to the National Register from 2019 through 2024 and geographic diversity, among other factors.

Why GAO Did This Study From September 2026 through December 2026, GAO is seeking input and feedback on this exposure draft from all interested parties. Please use this link TEGuideComments@gao.gov to provide us with comments on the guide. Federal agencies spend billions of dollars each year buying commercially available off-the-shelf (COTS) products. When agencies want to buy a COTS product, first they need to determine whether a vendor’s product is right for them. One way that agencies assess a product is by conducting testing and evaluation (T&E). Agencies can then use the results of the T&E to inform their purchasing decisions. Prior GAO work has identified problems with how agencies conduct T&E. Also, there is no widely accepted process or organization for sharing best practices for T&E. GAO developed this guide to provide best practices for conducting COTS T&E. GAO has developed this guide to serve multiple audiences: The primary audience for this guide is federal agencies—specifically, T&E practitioners, program managers, and procurement officials. Agency staff can implement the best practices in this guide to improve their T&E, procure effective technologies, and reduce risks of cost and schedule overruns. GAO and other oversight organizations can use this guide to evaluate how effectively federal agencies conduct T&E when buying a COTS product. Vendors can use this guide to evaluate the performance of their products against agency requirements. For more information, contact Karen Howard at HowardK@gao.gov.

What GAO Found Federal buildings often contain special use spaces like meeting rooms and conference centers, some of which may be shared across agencies. Agencies varied in how they shared these spaces in the selected General Services Administration (GSA)-owned and -leased buildings GAO visited. Interviewees, including officials from federal tenant agencies in those selected buildings, said that sharing these spaces can provide benefits, including: access to useful spaces their agency might not otherwise have, reduced costs and more efficient use of space (e.g., agencies do not need to lease or construct individual spaces), and  increased collaboration between agencies. However, interviewees also identified challenges to sharing, such as lack of awareness of what spaces are available or how to reserve them. Illustrative Examples of Special Use Spaces in a Federal Building GSA, which manages federal real property for tenant agencies, publishes an online list of meeting spaces that agencies volunteered to share. The list includes information such as room descriptions and a point of contact to reserve the space. However, the list is not comprehensive—some tenant agencies have not added their space to the list, and some GSA rooms are not on the list. GSA periodically emails agencies to request that they update the list, and it relies on agencies to distribute the list to their staff. However, most agency officials GAO interviewed in selected buildings were not aware of GSA’s list. GSA officials noted that federal turnover in 2025 contributed to reduced awareness of the list. They said that starting in 2025, more of their reminder emails were undelivered. Officials said they worked with agencies to update their contacts, and that they may be able to use other mechanisms to more broadly distribute the list. Improving the comprehensiveness of the list and agency awareness of it could help agencies share special use spaces, which could in turn potentially reduce costs by supporting GSA’s efforts to ensure efficient use of federal space. Why GAO Did This Study In recent years, GSA and others have taken steps to reduce unneeded federal real property, particularly office space, but building utilization across the federal government remains low. The Thomas R. Carper Water Resources Development Act of 2024 includes a provision for GAO to report on the use of special use spaces in federal buildings to determine levels of use and identify opportunities for sharing, collocating, and other efficiencies. This report addresses 1) how agencies share special use spaces in selected GSA-owned and -leased buildings, 2) the reported benefits and challenges related to sharing special use spaces, and 3) GSA’s efforts to promote sharing of special use spaces. GAO conducted in-person site visits at six federal buildings selected for geographic diversity and whether there were multiple tenants, among other criteria. These site visits were composed of 1) a review of data or documentation; 2) observation of special use spaces; 3) interviews with GSA officials; and 4) interviews with officials from federal tenant agencies in those buildings. GAO also reviewed available GSA documentation and assessed GSA efforts against its strategic goals and GAO leading practices for interagency collaboration.