What GAO Found The Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) reduced its workforce by 29 percent in 2025 and modified the types of programs it funds in response to presidential directives and executive branch guidance. HUD largely achieved workforce reductions through deferred resignation programs. Over half the employees who separated had at least 10 years of service at HUD, including 41 percent with more than 20 years of service. HUD did not publish notice of any reorganization plans that led to field office closures in 2025, though in 2026 it announced plans to consolidate one field office into a nearby regional office. Workforce Changes at the Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) in 2025 Note: Percentages may not sum to 100 due to rounding. About half of HUD’s 68 active grant programs made new awards in fiscal year 2025, but the median value of those awards was higher than in previous years. HUD also terminated about 21 percent of its active contracts in 2025, valued at about $367 million. Most terminated contracts involved professional or IT services. Representatives of 20 stakeholder organizations GAO interviewed—including fair housing grantees and agencies, public housing agencies, and Section 8 project-based rental assistance property managers—reported confusion, delays, and operational disruptions following HUD’s changes. Nearly all said that experienced points of contact had left, making it harder to navigate HUD programs. Fair housing stakeholders reported reducing services or staffing during monthslong funding gaps. Stakeholders also reported delays with physical inspections of HUD-assisted properties. Since January 2025, HUD has reported launching initiatives aimed at increasing efficiency and streamlining operations. For example, HUD reported developing a unified grants system to standardize grant administration and a project voucher initiative to automate aspects of rental assistance processing. HUD did not respond to GAO’s requests to discuss these initiatives or provide supporting documentation. As a result, Congress and the public have limited information on the status or effectiveness of these initiatives. Why GAO Did This Study HUD administers programs related to housing assistance, community development, and fair housing. To carry out these programs, HUD headquarters and field staff work with public housing agencies, private property owners, nonprofit organizations, and other stakeholders. Executive orders and other actions issued in 2025 called for workforce and program changes at HUD. GAO was asked to examine the effects of these changes. This report describes (1) changes HUD made to its workforce, field office structure, and grant and contract spending in 2025; (2) effects of those changes on selected HUD functions reported by housing stakeholders; and (3) steps HUD has publicly reported to manage the changes. HUD did not respond to GAO’s requests for information throughout the audit. GAO analyzed publicly available 2025 data on HUD’s workforce, terminated contracts, and grant spending. GAO selected three HUD functions for review, chosen to reflect a mix of funding levels and other criteria: (1) enforcement of the Fair Housing Act and Violence Against Women Act of 1994, (2) administration of the Section 8 Project-Based Rental Assistance Program, and (3) coordination of inspections of HUD-assisted properties. GAO also conducted four site visits and interviewed representatives of a nongeneralizable selection of 20 local and national housing organizations, including public housing agencies and fair housing organizations. GAO also reviewed court documents and publicly available data, and agency documentation related to HUD’s workforce and efficiency planning. For more information, contact Jill Naamane at naamanej@gao.gov.

What GAO Found Body-worn cameras provide law enforcement personnel with the capability to record interactions with the public. When initiating their body-worn camera programs, the U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP) and Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) each developed a plan that included key components of a comprehensive program management plan. However, CBP and ICE have not updated their program plans since 2022 and 2024, respectively. They have therefore not taken into account significant changes in the program, such as increases in the number of cameras scheduled for deployment and a 2025 pause in further camera deployment. Body-Worn Camera and Functional Buttons CBP and ICE have stated desired results for their programs, including enhancing officer safety, transparency, accountability, and public trust. Although CBP and ICE implemented some measures to track information about camera availability and reliability, they have not implemented results-oriented performance goals and measures. Doing so would help them assess the results of their body-worn camera programs. For example, potential goals and measures might involve use of footage in use of force investigations. CBP and ICE have established policies related to camera use and the management of footage and implemented related oversight mechanisms to help ensure compliance with policy. These include supervisory controls on camera use and monthly reviews of footage to help ensure proper categorization. However, additional controls—such as mechanisms that automatically activate the camera when a related action occurs (e.g., when emergency lights are engaged)—would provide better assurance that ICE personnel capture footage in accordance with policy. Most CBP and ICE offices have not developed specific operational guidance that explains how personnel should use, or not use, cameras under their unique operational circumstances. The lack of guidance at this operational level increases the risk that CBP and ICE personnel will fail to use the cameras as required under policy. Why GAO Did This Study CBP and ICE began deploying cameras in fiscal years 2021 and 2024, respectively. As of June 2026, CBP had deployed approximately 11,500 cameras, with nearly all of these deployments to Border Patrol. As of April 2026, ICE had deployed approximately 4,800 cameras, almost evenly to Enforcement and Removal Operations and Homeland Security Investigations. GAO was asked to review CBP and ICE’s (1) body-worn camera program planning; (2) measures to assess program impact; and (3) mechanisms that help ensure that personnel carry out related responsibilities appropriately. GAO reviewed agency documents, including Department of Homeland Security, CBP, and ICE directives on body-worn camera use. GAO also analyzed CBP and ICE data on actual and planned deployment of cameras to component personnel. GAO interviewed DHS, CBP, and ICE headquarters officials and users of the cameras at 10 field locations that vary in geographic location and status of camera deployment.

What GAO Found Artificial intelligence (AI) is being used in a variety of scenarios, or use cases, in the Department of Defense (DOD). In guidance, DOD established AI Ethical Principles and the concept of Responsible AI to ensure the safety and trustworthiness of AI systems. DOD further defined six tenets to guide Responsible AI implementation. Most of the 10 DOD components GAO surveyed reported taking at least initial steps to establish oversight and implement Responsible AI tenets in the selected surveyed use cases. The Office of the Chief Digital and AI Officer (CDAO), through its Responsible AI Division, established the Responsible AI Working Council as the working-level collaborative group for Responsible AI. However, CDAO officials said the council did not meet from late 2024 until August 2025. Officials from four DOD components told GAO they faced Responsible AI implementation challenges during this time that would have benefited from collaboration. Six of 10 surveyed components reported that sharing Responsible AI resources and best practices would benefit their implementation efforts. Although officials said the council resumed meetings in August 2025, it is at risk of lapsing again as it does not have a charter that defines roles and responsibilities and specifies meeting frequency. Another lapse could increase the risk of DOD facing Responsible AI implementation issues, such as inconsistent interpretation of related guidance, that it would not have the collaborative capacity to swiftly and effectively resolve. CDAO officials identified additional actions that could help DOD implement Responsible AI. However, CDAO has experienced staffing shortages that have hindered its ability to take these actions. Specifically, officials said that as of February 2026, only three of the 10 authorized positions for the Responsible AI Division were filled. Responsible AI enables DOD to more quickly adopt AI. By addressing current workforce needs for the Responsible AI Division, CDAO could make more progress toward its goal of accelerating AI across DOD. GAO previously made recommendations on issues related to DOD’s AI collaboration and workforce. DOD has not fully addressed those recommendations. Congressional action to ensure that DOD takes steps to fully address those prior recommendations would help position the department to meet its AI goals. U.S. Marine Corps Service Members Conduct Training Using an Artificial Intelligence-Enabled System Why GAO Did This Study AI has changed the national security landscape. U.S. adversaries and competitors are investing heavily in AI and AI-enabled capabilities in ways that threaten global security. As DOD speeds AI development, it is critical for the department to do so responsibly so that warfighters can quickly and confidently adopt it. Senate Report 118-188 accompanying a bill for the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2025 includes a provision for GAO to review the implementation and oversight of DOD’s Responsible AI guidance, among other things. This report discusses DOD’s approach to the responsible use of AI, including related guidance, implementation, and oversight. GAO collected and reviewed DOD documentation related to Responsible AI. GAO also conducted a survey of 10 DOD components to understand how they have implemented Responsible AI tenets in 10 selected use cases. GAO also interviewed cognizant DOD officials.

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

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