What GAO Found For decades, GAO has found that the federal government does not sufficiently coordinate or integrate crosscutting activities to improve its performance or address crosscutting management weaknesses. GAO held discussions with participants including former Office of Management and Budget (OMB) political appointees and staff, former cross-agency priority (CAP) goal leaders, and subject-matter specialists in performance management from outside of government. Participants said that CAP goals (4-year outcome-oriented goals) have provided a framework for addressing crosscutting federal performance issues. However, participants in all three groups told GAO that the implementation of CAP goals could be strengthened. Discussion group participants shared their views on ways to help OMB and agencies more effectively implement CAP goals. These views are summarized as five broad approaches in the figure. Figure: Approaches to Improve CAP Goal Implementation Identified by Discussion Groups Note: These actions are not listed in any specific rank or order, and their inclusion should not be interpreted as a GAO endorsement. Implementing any one action or a combination of actions could require considerations such as implementation feasibility, resource and legal constraints, and tradeoffs between actions or taking no action at all. Discussion group participants in all three discussion groups told GAO that the established CAP goal framework often helped to define ownership, created energy around shared priorities, and formed opportunities for agencies to work together. For example, participants shared that customer service CAP goals resonated across multiple administrations and tended to gain momentum over time. However, participants from all three groups also stated that CAP goals’ implementation challenges remained, including the use of inconsistent tools for assessing progress; varying levels of leadership engagement; and limited resources, such as staff and funding, to sustain efforts over time. Discussion group participants suggested actions to help agencies more effectively implement CAP goals. Some of these actions include embedding CAP goal management efforts within federal agencies, capturing and publicly reporting accurate and appropriate data to assess progress, and providing resources to OMB and agencies to accomplish implementation. Participants also highlighted other opportunities and mechanisms to address crosscutting federal performance challenges. Opportunities included creating a national performance council focused on mission delivery. Why GAO Did This Study GAO’s work continues to identify challenges the federal government faces in effectively managing its activities and addressing crosscutting challenges, such as in GAO’s high-risk areas of improving food safety oversight and ensuring cybersecurity. The GPRA Modernization Act of 2010 (GPRAMA) updated the Government Performance and Results Act of 1993 (GPRA) to create a more integrated, crosscutting performance planning and reporting framework to support the federal government’s achievement of results. It requires OMB to work with federal agencies to establish CAP goals to address crosscutting mission areas as well as management challenges. GPRAMA includes a provision for GAO to periodically assess the act’s implementation, including the CAP goals. This report examines discussion participants’ views on the CAP goal framework for addressing crosscutting federal performance challenges, and approaches to more effectively implement CAP goals and other opportunities. GAO held a series of discussion groups and interviews in May and June 2025. Participants in these discussion groups and interviews represented three previous administrations that had implemented CAP goals. GAO also reviewed requirements related to CAP goals; related OMB A-11 guidance; information about CAP goals on Performance.gov; and GAO’s prior work on CAP goals, GPRAMA implementation, and performance management. For more information, contact Lori Atkinson at atkinsonl@gao.gov.

What GAO Found The Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) obligated about $13.6 million for 14 renewable energy projects through hazard mitigation assistance programs from fiscal years 2022 through 2024, the most recent 3 years of available data. These projects included small-scale solar generation, such as rooftop solar panels, microgrids, or solar generators for backup power for communities or public buildings. For example, projects included solar panels for a hospital, a sheriff’s office, and a recreation center to provide backup power during outages. FEMA provided this funding through FEMA’s hazard mitigation assistance programs, which include the Hazard Mitigation Grant Program, Pre-Disaster Mitigation Congressionally Directed Spending, and Building Resilient Infrastructure and Communities program. Figure 1: Residential Rooftop Solar Panels For these projects, FEMA generally required applicants to demonstrate the cost effectiveness of their projects through a benefit-cost analysis—a quantitative analysis comparing the project’s avoided future damage to the costs over the project lifetime. Under federal laws and FEMA policy, only cost-effective hazard mitigation activities are eligible for funding from FEMA’s Hazard Mitigation Grant Program, Pre-Disaster Mitigation Congressionally Directed Spending, and Building Resilient Infrastructure and Communities program. FEMA provides applicants with a benefit-cost analysis toolkit to assist applicants with conducting benefit-cost analyses. GAO reported on the challenges applicants face performing a benefit-cost analysis, including the amount of resources and data needed, as well as steps FEMA was taking to make completing benefit-cost analyses easier for state and local jurisdictions. Why GAO Did This Study Natural hazards can damage energy and other infrastructure—including renewable energy—and pose threats to the reliability of the electricity grid. Specifically, extreme weather events have been the principal contributors to an increase in the frequency and duration of power outages in the United States. Power outages can affect residential, commercial, industrial, and other customers’ ability to use electricity for lighting, heating, cooling, refrigeration, public transportation, and other daily needs. FEMA manages several assistance programs that can be used to fund projects to mitigate the impacts of natural hazards. These can include renewable energy projects, such as microgrids or backup power, to minimize the impact of power outages. This report examines what funding FEMA has provided for renewable energy projects from fiscal years 2022 through 2024, and what FEMA requires from applicants to demonstrate cost effectiveness of projects. To do this work, GAO reviewed relevant legal requirements, FEMA data, FEMA program policies and guidance, and prior GAO reports. GAO also interviewed FEMA and Department of Energy officials and selected stakeholders knowledgeable about the role of renewable energy in hazard mitigation and FEMA funding. For more information, contact Janet McKelvey at mckelveyj@gao.gov.

What GAO Found The Financial Crimes Enforcement Network (FinCEN) collects and shares beneficial ownership information to help prevent misuse of corporate structures to conceal illicit financial activities. Beneficial owners are individuals who directly or indirectly own or control a certain percentage of ownership interests in, or exercise substantial control over, a reporting company. In early 2024, FinCEN began to securely collect, process, store, and manage in its IT system beneficial ownership information submitted by required filers. It also began to implement a five-phase program to allow authorized users—such as federal agencies engaged in national security, intelligence, or law enforcement—to request access to the system. FinCEN completed its first phase (a pilot program) by granting six federal law enforcement agencies access to its IT system. Agency searches fell sharply in October 2024 and generally remained low through March 2026 (see figure). FinCEN attributed the decline to lawsuits, program changes, and its March 2025 interim final rule, which exempted about 99 percent of entities previously required to report their information. Three agencies also ended the pilot program. Beneficial Ownership Information System Searches Conducted by Six Federal Agencies, June 2024–March 2026 FinCEN paused accepting and processing access requests under its second phase in December 2024 because of ongoing lawsuits but resumed its efforts in spring 2025. As of August 2025, FinCEN was processing requests from 22 federal agencies but largely paused its efforts again in December 2025 while working to finalize its interim final rule. FinCEN also delayed time frames for implementing the remaining program phases. To protect the security and confidentiality of beneficial ownership information, FinCEN implemented processes to oversee agencies and revised its oversight procedures. FinCEN conducts monthly reviews to monitor individual users’ access to and use of its IT system and automatically deletes inactive users. FinCEN officials said the agency also began annual audits of four pilot agencies to assess their compliance with program requirements. In early 2025, FinCEN revised its oversight procedures to include guidance for escalating compliance concerns. The new procedures do not specify the types of noncompliance that would result in suspension or termination of an agency’s access. However, in March 2026, FinCEN officials said the agency was developing additional procedures to address noncompliance, including suspensions or termination of access, as additional agencies may be granted access under the second phase. Why GAO Did This Study The Corporate Transparency Act, enacted in 2021, requires certain legal entities to report their beneficial ownership information to FinCEN. This requirement supports U.S. efforts to prevent bad actors from using shell companies or other opaque ownership structures to benefit from illicit activity. The act required FinCEN to adopt regulations to safeguard this information from unauthorized use. In late 2024 and early 2025, lawsuits challenging the Corporate Transparency Act resulted in two district courts initially pausing reporting deadlines. In February 2025, FinCEN extended the reporting deadlines for most reporting companies because of the litigation. In March 2025, FinCEN issued an interim final rule that exempted all U.S. companies and U.S. persons from the beneficial ownership information reporting requirements. The act also includes a provision for GAO to determine how FinCEN is protecting access to and use of beneficial ownership information. This report is the second in a series of seven annual reports (beginning with GAO-25-107403). This report examines (1) the status of FinCEN’s efforts to grant agencies access to beneficial ownership information and (2) the mechanisms it implemented to oversee agencies’ access to and use of the information. GAO reviewed FinCEN’s policies and procedures for beneficial ownership information access, analyzed related documents, and interviewed FinCEN officials. For more information, contact Michael E. Clements at clementsm@gao.gov.

What GAO Found The Federal Agency Performance Act of 2024 (FAPA) amends statutory requirements for the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) and federal agencies to manage performance and address crosscutting issues, such as improving food safety and ensuring cybersecurity. For example, OMB is now required to achieve crosscutting goals within a presidential term and agencies are required to conduct strategic reviews to assess whether relevant organizations, programs, and activities are contributing as planned to progress on agency goals. OMB has made limited progress in implementing new requirements. For example, OMB established new crosscutting goals in December 2025—within the first year of the administration as required. However, OMB’s August 2025 guidance to agencies does not address all statutory requirements for strategic reviews. For example, the guidance does not fully address four requirements related to involving agency leaders and stakeholders. Without guidance that accurately communicates each requirement, agencies risk conducting ineffective strategic reviews, limiting the usefulness of the information decision-makers have to improve performance and ensure that crosscutting issues are addressed. The Departments of Homeland Security (DHS) and the Treasury had policies, procedures, and guidance for their strategic review processes that addressed most, but not all requirements. The Department of State and the General Services Administration (GSA) have not developed such documents. Further, none of the four agencies GAO selected had fully implemented new requirements for strategic reviews. Without documents that fully reflect requirements, the four agencies risk conducting strategic reviews that do not sufficiently assess progress toward their goals nor provide agency leaders with the information they need to identify risks and improve performance. Extent to Which Strategic Review Documents Address Requirements DHS, Treasury, and GSA have plans to implement strategic reviews in 2026—the first year after OMB issued guidance—but State would not confirm plans to do so. Without conducting annual reviews, State leadership is missing a critical opportunity to assess performance to learn what worked well and what did not and identify actions to improve results moving forward. Why GAO Did This Study To effectively address crosscutting issues such as delivering disaster relief, the federal government needs to coordinate efforts across organizational boundaries. GAO’s work continues to identify challenges the federal government faces in effectively managing its activities and addressing crosscutting issues. FAPA includes provisions for GAO to review its implementation. This report assesses the extent to which (1) OMB implemented FAPA’s new government-wide requirements, and (2) selected agencies addressed FAPA’s strategic review requirements. To do so, GAO reviewed information on Performance.gov and OMB’s 2025 annual update to guidance. GAO also reviewed policies, procedures, and guidance and interviewed relevant officials at the four selected agencies about their strategic review processes and coordination with OMB. GAO selected four agencies from a population of 13 that were included in its past work on strategic reviews. The four selected agencies ranged in size (i.e., number of full-time equivalent employees) and varied in types of missions, programs, and activities.