What GAO Found The Department of the Interior’s Indian Affairs took actions to reduce its workforce in 2025 after presidential directives, executive branch-wide guidance, and directives from the Secretary of the Interior. Its total workforce, which was 7,470 in January 2025, decreased by a net 11 percent (846 staff) to 6,624 as of July 2025. Net Decrease in Staff Across Indian Affairs Components Since January 2025 Staff separations through two deferred resignation programs accounted for most of the decrease. Indian Affairs implemented the first program, as directed by the Office of Personnel Management for executive agencies, in January and February 2025. Indian Affairs offered another program in May to (1) comply with executive direction and (2) offer voluntary separation to staff concerned about potential involuntary reductions in force. Some positions were excluded from the May program—such as positions in law enforcement, social work, and permitting—because of the nature of their job functions and responsibilities. Indian Affairs officials said they had not yet analyzed projected cost savings or operational impacts from these staff reductions. However, officials observed that many staff who separated through the two programs were already eligible for retirement. Some remaining staff took on additional responsibilities to mitigate the effects of reductions. Some Indian Affairs staff said the reductions would exacerbate preexisting staffing limitations in their offices and make it more difficult to carry out their responsibilities serving Tribes. Tribal leaders voiced concerns about the effects of the staff reductions. Some stated that Indian Affairs already did not have adequate staff to effectively carry out U.S. trust responsibilities and that service delivery was impaired. GAO has previously reported on the effect of long-standing shortcomings in workforce capacity at Indian Affairs and has several open recommendations to the agency to improve workforce planning. Indian Affairs officials said there were no plans to reorganize or further reduce the workforce as of December 2025, but existing functions might need to be restructured or realigned to achieve administration priorities. Officials said they would develop supporting plans, if needed, to satisfy future policy decisions. Indian Affairs did not provide any comments on this report. Why GAO Did This Study The U.S. has undertaken a unique trust responsibility to protect and support Tribes and their members through treaties, statutes, and historical relations with Tribes. Federal laws require federal agencies to provide a variety of services and benefits to Tribes and their members. Indian Affairs provides services directly to Tribes or funding for tribally administered programs, including support for tribal government operations, law enforcement, and natural resources management. GAO was asked to review Indian Affairs’ actions to downsize its workforce since January 2025. This report describes actions taken by Indian Affairs to reduce the size of the workforce, the number of staff reductions in 2025, initial observations from Tribes and Indian Affairs employees, and any Indian Affairs plans for additional workforce reductions. GAO reviewed statutes, regulations, executive orders, guidance, and information from ongoing and prior work on Indian Affairs’ capacity and workforce planning. GAO reviewed workforce data from January 25, 2025, through July 31, 2025. GAO interviewed officials from Indian Affairs about actions, data, observations, and plans for downsizing its workforce and reviewed published comments that Tribes provided at tribal consultations. For more information, contact Anna Maria Ortiz at OrtizA@gao.gov.

What GAO Found In January 2026, GAO identified 95 open recommendations under the purview of the Department of State's Chief Information Officer (CIO), including 71 that are sensitive, from previously issued work. Each of these recommendations relates to a GAO High-Risk area: (1) Ensuring the Cybersecurity of the Nation or (2) Improving IT Acquisitions and Management. In addition, GAO has designated two of the 95 as priority recommendations. For example, GAO previously recommended that State develop and maintain a department-wide risk portfolio to prioritize significant cybersecurity risks per federal guidance. Further, GAO recommended that State fully implement all event logging requirements as directed by the Office of Management and Budget. GAO also previously recommended that the department develop a plan to monitor the progress of its IT recruitment programs and processes. The CIO's continued attention to these recommendations will help ensure the secure and effective use of IT at the department. Why GAO Did This Study CIO open recommendations are outstanding GAO recommendations that warrant the attention of agency CIOs because their implementation could significantly improve government IT operations by securing IT systems, identifying cost savings, improving major government programs, eliminating mismanagement of IT programs and processes, or ensuring that IT programs comply with laws, among others. For more information, contact Nick Marinos at marinosn@gao.gov.

What GAO Found The Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) is working to further enable drone operations such as drone delivery. Currently, drone operators must obtain a waiver or exemption from FAA to fly beyond their visual line of sight and show, among other things, how they will detect and avoid other aircraft. Existing technologies that can be used for that purpose include those that use GPS, sensors, or radar. Specifically, drones can use Automatic Dependent Surveillance-Broadcast (ADS-B) to detect and avoid manned aircraft that use ADS-B to broadcast their position information using GPS. Camera or acoustic sensors, or ground radar, can also be used to detect aircraft that are not broadcasting. FAA-approved waivers have mostly relied on ADS-B, which drone stakeholders said is more effective than sensors or radar. Some stakeholders said that using other technologies with ADS-B could be a safer option but presents challenges such as increased weight, affecting safety. Drone Receiving an Automatic Dependent Surveillance-Broadcast (ADS-B) Signal and Using a Camera to Detect Aircraft FAA envisions a future National Airspace System (NAS) that is information-centric, where all airspace users, including drones, share location information electronically. According to FAA, limitations with existing technologies require the development of a new technology that, unlike ADS-B, enables two-way communication between drones and other aircraft. FAA officials said it intends to develop performance-based standards and safety requirements for industry to use in developing that technology. In August 2025, FAA proposed new regulations that would require drones flying beyond visual line of sight of the operator to detect and avoid other aircraft. However, FAA has not identified specific actions such as clear roles or technical milestones timelines, which could help FAA and industry move toward two-way communication between drones and other aircraft. Congress tasked FAA with the responsibility to develop an information-centric NAS and develop an integrated plan for the future NAS by May 2027. Developing specific actions could build upon FAA’s drone integration efforts and help ensure safety for all airspace users in the future NAS. Why GAO Did This Study Drones are the fastest-growing segment of U.S. aviation, according to FAA. In 2025, FAA forecasted that the commercial drone fleet would exceed one million by the end of 2025 and grow to 1.18 million by 2029. Operators are starting to use drones for activities including package delivery and public safety. With increasing drone activity, there are growing concerns about potential collisions between drones and other aircraft. The FAA Reauthorization Act of 2024 requires GAO to review technologies for drones to detect and avoid manned aircraft at low altitudes. This report examines technologies available for drones to detect and avoid manned aircraft, stakeholder perspectives on these technologies; and FAA’s plans for drone operations in an information-centric NAS. GAO reviewed FAA documents related to integrating drones into the national airspace, including documents related to detect and avoid technology. GAO interviewed FAA and 24 stakeholders from industry and government. GAO focused on small drones (defined as those weighing less than 55 pounds) because they fly at low altitude and provisions for this review in the FAA Reauthorization Act of 2024 specified that GAO focus on low-altitude airspace.

What GAO Found GAO found that the Air Force accurately accounted for general equipment that contractors hold, at selected locations, in two of its accountable property systems of record. Specifically, GAO was able to verify all 187 records that Reliability, Availability, and Maintainability for Pods & Integrated Systems reported as being maintained at the Raytheon Missile Systems facility. That system had accurate records for the pods that are normally affixed to a variety of aircraft the Air Force operates. In addition, GAO was able to verify all sample items tested from the Defense Property Accountability System, which had accurate records for items such as trucks and other vehicles used by Air Force contractors. However, GAO found that the Air Force has not accurately accounted for general equipment that contractors hold, at selected locations, in its Stock Control System (D035) accountable property systems. Specifically, GAO could not locate 18 of the 96 sampled items at the Reliance Test & Technology facility at Eglin Air Force Base in Valparaiso, Florida. In addition, GAO could not locate 58 of the104 sampled items at the Standard Aero facility in San Antonio, Texas, such as a torque adapter, an electric synthesizer, and a gear assembly adapter. In addition, the D035 system lacks item descriptions and serial numbers, making it impossible to track and distinguish between items that share the same national stock number. Specifically, if a contractor has multiple of the same general equipment item provided to it, the Air Force cannot determine when one of the items is returned, or which item should be updated in the D035 system. The Air Force could see a significant improvement in the accuracy of general equipment information in the D035 system by ensuring that all equipment records have item descriptions and serial numbers. GAO also found that the Air Force’s D035 system did not accurately record equipment that contractors returned when no longer needed for contract performance. This is because the Air Force Program Office did not establish an integrated product team to create proper disposition instructions and system updates as required by policy. As a result, the Air Force may be unaware of general equipment it has in stock and risks purchasing items unnecessarily. Why GAO Did This Study In fiscal year 2024, the Air Force reported $118.4 billion of the Department of Defense (DOD) consolidated $443.5 billion of general equipment, a portion of which is in the possession of a contractor. DOD has long-standing issues with tracking and reporting equipment for financial reporting purposes. GAO performed this audit related to its statutory requirement to audit the U.S. government’s consolidated financial statements. This report examines the extent to which the Air Force has properly recorded general equipment contractors hold in its accountable property systems of record. GAO reviewed relevant annual financial reports and DOD and Air Force guidance, regulations, manuals, and instructions. In addition, GAO visited five locations to test samples of general equipment contractors hold. GAO’s testing focused on locating items at the contractor location and selecting a sample of general equipment that was physically observed at the location to trace back to the Air Force accountable property system of record. GAO also interviewed Air Force and contractor officials.

What GAO Found The National Institutes of Health (NIH) and Food and Drug Administration (FDA) awarded about $276 million from fiscal years 2022 through 2025 to implement the Accelerating Access to Critical Therapies for ALS Act (ACT for ALS Act). Most of this funding was awarded by (1) NIH for grants that supported access to investigational drugs—drugs not yet approved for marketing by FDA—for individuals with amyotrophic lateral sclerosis (ALS) and related research (45 percent) and (2) NIH and FDA for a public-private partnership focused on rare neurodegenerative disease research (45 percent). FDA also awarded grants and contracts for research to further scientific knowledge on ALS and other rare neurodegenerative diseases and for the clinical development of therapies (10 percent). About 750 individuals with ALS are expected to receive access to investigational drugs through the NIH grants. Summary of Funding Awarded by NIH and FDA to Implement the Accelerating Critical Therapies for ALS Act, Fiscal Years (FY) 2022 through 2025 (in millions)   FY22 FY23 FY24 FY25 TOTAL NIH grants for access to amyotrophic lateral sclerosis (ALS) investigational drugs and related research $18.1 $32.5 $39.2 $35.4 $125.3 (45%) NIH and FDA funding for rare neurodegenerative disease public-private partnership $5.5 $42.3 $36.0 $40.6 $124.4 (45%) FDA grants and contracts for ALS and other rare neurodegenerative disease research $5.8 $5.1 $5.5 $10.1 $26.5 (10%) TOTAL $29.4 $79.9 $80.7 $86.2 $276.3 Source: GAO analysis of documentation from the National Institutes of Health (NIH) and Food and Drug Administration (FDA) and interviews with agency officials, as of December 2025. | GAO-26-107691 Note: The awarded funds include those appropriated by Congress specifically to implement the act, as well as funds identified by FDA from other sources. Totals may not add up due to rounding and do not include funds used to administer the funding awarded. NIH and FDA officials identified challenges to implementing the ACT for ALS Act (particularly in fiscal year 2022) and took actions to address those within their control. For example, applicants had limited time to apply for NIH grants in fiscal year 2022 because appropriations were not available until midway through the fiscal year. As a result, in later years NIH posted requests for grant applications prior to appropriations being enacted. However, other challenges were outside the agencies’ control—including no direct appropriations to FDA to support its priorities for other rare neurodegenerative diseases for the public-private partnership, according to agency officials. Stakeholder interviews, available literature, and NIH data indicated benefits of NIH and FDA funding, such as increases in the number and geographic diversity of clinic sites providing access to ALS investigational drugs. However, most of the research funded by NIH and FDA is ongoing and the full effects are not yet known. Anticipated benefits include increased data on ALS and addressing research gaps for ALS and other rare neurodegenerative diseases. For example, stakeholders expect these data to be useful to ALS research because the data will meet high data quality standards and will be available for other researchers. Why GAO Did This Study ALS is a rare, progressive, and ultimately fatal neurological disorder. As with other rare diseases, diagnosis may be delayed, affecting the eligibility of individuals with ALS to participate in clinical trials. ALS has no cure and limited treatment options. Physicians or drug sponsors can request FDA authorization to make investigational drugs available outside of clinical trials for individuals with serious or life-threatening diseases through FDA’s expanded access pathway. The ACT for ALS Act includes a provision for GAO to report on the funding NIH and FDA awarded to implement the act. This report describes the funding NIH and FDA awarded to implement the act, challenges NIH and FDA identified in awarding that funding, and what is known about the effect of the funding on research and development of therapies for ALS and other rare neurodegenerative diseases. GAO reviewed relevant laws, congressional reports, NIH and FDA documentation, and grant and contract applications and progress reports. GAO also reviewed relevant data in NIH databases as of November 2025 on the research studies funded to implement the act. GAO interviewed NIH and FDA officials and a nongeneralizable sample of 21 stakeholders—including national associations, NIH and FDA grant recipients, drug sponsors, clinic sites, public-private partnership entities, and a committee of individuals with ALS and caregivers. GAO selected stakeholders to attain variation in perspectives on ALS research implemented through the act and in organization type involved in clinical research. GAO also reviewed research relevant to the awarded funding published from January 2019 through September 2025. For more information, contact John E. Dicken at dickenj@gao.gov.

What GAO Found In prior work, GAO identified challenges that have hindered the Coast Guard’s ability to meet its maritime security operation demands. GAO made the following recommendations to help address challenges pertaining to the Coast Guard’s workforce and assets, which it has yet to fully address. Workforce. In November 2019, GAO found that the Coast Guard lacked assurance that it had the right mix of deployable specialized forces personnel—who have capabilities needed to combat maritime threats—in the right units. GAO made two recommendations to address these issues. Further, in April 2025, GAO reported that even with increased recruiting, the service was approximately 2,600 service members (8.5 percent) short of its enlisted workforce target at the end of fiscal year 2024. GAO recommended that the service develop a plan to support its workforce retention. Vessels and aircraft. In June 2025 GAO found that the Medium Endurance Cutter’s availability to conduct missions declined from fiscal year 2020 through fiscal year 2024 due, in part, to maintenance challenges that limit its maritime security operations. This is exacerbated by persistent and longstanding challenges managing its planned $40 billion acquisition programs to modernize vessels and aircraft. In November 2025, GAO found that continued delays and cost overruns with the Offshore Patrol Cutter program—a high priority acquisition—are likely because of outdated cost estimates and incomplete ship design. GAO made nine recommendations to address these issues, including that Coast Guard stabilize design before constructing more ships. Coast Guard Deployable Specialized Forces Conducting Drug Interdiction Mission Why GAO Did This Study The U.S. government has identified transnational and domestic criminal organizations as a significant threat to the public, law enforcement, and national security. The Coast Guard is a component of the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) and is the nation’s lead federal maritime law enforcement agency. It received nearly $25 billion in supplemental funding in fiscal year 2025 for various acquisitions and in support of efforts to modernize operations and capabilities. It conducts maritime security operations, including law enforcement boardings, drug interdiction, and other missions. The Coast Guard employs personnel and assets—including aircraft and vessels—to conduct maritime security operations. This statement discusses Coast Guard challenges GAO previously identified related to its maritime security operations and actions to help address these challenges. This statement is based primarily on seven GAO reports published from November 2019 to January 2026.

What GAO Found Shared services are the delivery of common services to federal agencies through consolidated, standardized capabilities offered through designated lead provider agencies. The Office of Management and Budget (OMB) designated four lead agencies to serve as Quality Service Management Offices for centralizing certain shared services, with the General Services Administration (GSA) responsible for overall coordination. Each of the four agencies offers and manages a marketplace of shared services in four functional areas: cybersecurity, financial management, grants management, and human resources. Across the federal government, many agencies and their components’ adoption of shared services varied by functional area (see figure). Number of Federal Customer Agencies Adopting Shared Services by Functional Area, as of July 2025 Note: The term “customer agencies” refers to customers from the Chief Financial Officers Act (CFO Act) agencies, which may include individual bureaus or components within a larger agency. It also includes non-CFO Act agencies, independent agencies, and commissions that use shared services. Agencies identified various benefits, such as operational efficiencies and cost savings, but no barriers to adopting shared services. However, agencies identified challenges, including finding services that met both operational needs and legal requirements, shared services operating outdated legacy IT systems, and difficulties integrating shared services into their agencies. As coordinators, GSA and the lead agencies have addressed some of these challenges. For example, they have expanded the marketplace of services to better meet agencies’ needs. However, key leadership roles vital to making decisions about shared services remain unfilled due, in part, to a lack of OMB engagement. Further, GSA and agencies do not have comprehensive data on how well shared services are meeting agencies’ needs. The absence of leadership commitment and data to inform decision-making are contributing factors to limiting the amount of cost savings and benefits. Why GAO Did This Study The federal government can increase efficiency and reduce duplicative efforts by consolidating certain mission-support services—such as payroll or travel—within a smaller number of federal agency providers. In 2019, OMB estimated that moving to shared services could save the government between $1.25 and $7.5 billion of the $25 billion a year spent on those services. The explanatory statement accompanying the Consolidated Appropriations Act, 2023 includes a provision for GAO to review the adoption of shared technology platforms and services. This report (1) describes the level of shared service adoption across federal agencies; and (2) describes the benefits, barriers, and challenges federal agencies face in adopting shared services and determines the extent to which they have mitigated the challenges. GAO analyzed documentation from GSA and the Quality Service Management Offices on government-wide federal shared service adoption. GAO also administered a questionnaire on adoption, benefits, barriers, and challenges to six randomly selected agencies and two agencies selected due to their extensive experience using shared services. GAO compared coordinating agencies’ efforts to mitigate the identified challenges against OMB guidance. GAO also interviewed agency officials.

What GAO Found According to national surveys of federal, tribal, state, and local law enforcement agencies, the number of law enforcement officers who resigned or retired generally increased from fiscal years 2019 through 2024, which contributed to overall decreases in officer staffing. Law enforcement agencies reported taking steps to recruit and retain officers by enhancing benefits and compensation, and diversifying their recruitment techniques. The Department of Justice's Office of Community Oriented Policing Services Hiring Program provides funding to support hiring initiatives at tribal, state, local, and territorial law enforcement agencies. Studies show a relationship between local law enforcement staffing levels and crime rates. For example, studies included in our review of literature showed that increasing the number of law enforcement officers resulted in reduced crime. Why GAO Did This Study The Recruit and Retain Act, which became law in 2024, includes a provision for GAO to report on the effects of recruitment and attrition rates on federal, tribal, state, and local law enforcement agencies in the United States. This report provides information on how staffing levels at selected federal law enforcement agencies changed from fiscal years 2020 through 2024, recruitment and retention of law enforcement officers, and the effects staffing levels may have had on public safety. For this work, we conducted a literature search to identify studies, articles, and other publications from academia, law enforcement associations, and government sources relevant to the recruitment and retention of law enforcement personnel. We reviewed selected literature and documentation and conducted interviews with representatives of eight selected federal agencies from four departments. We also interviewed representatives from 10 law enforcement associations to obtain their perspectives on law enforcement personnel staffing recruitment and retention. Membership of these selected associations represents a cross-section of law enforcement personnel from across the country. In addition, we reviewed previous surveys of law enforcement personnel on recruitment and retention conducted by law enforcement associations. For more information, contact Gretta Goodwin at GoodwinG@gao.gov.

What GAO Found Agencies at the federal, state, and local levels have facilities capable of analyzing emerging street drugs—psychoactive substances newly circulating in the drug market. For example, the Drug Enforcement Administration and U.S. Customs and Border Protection have forensic laboratories that can analyze seized drugs and identify emerging substances. Current laboratory-based technologies can detect and identify emerging street drugs when appropriate methods (protocols) and reference standards are available. Portable technologies can detect drugs at the point of seizure but face accuracy challenges due, in part, to user error. Technology manufacturers told GAO they are developing more lay-friendly user interfaces and operational methods. From fiscal year 2019 through 2024, the Departments of Justice and Health and Human Services awarded a combined total of about $12.5 million in grants for the development of new methods and technologies for analyzing emerging street drugs. New methods and technologies may make laboratory processes more consistent, among other enhancements. Method development can be done on faster timelines than technology development. While new methods and technologies could enhance some capabilities, forensic scientists face key challenges with analyzing emerging street drugs, including: Lack of resources. Laboratories GAO spoke to consistently referenced insufficient staffing and time. Unstandardized reporting. According to stakeholders, varying reporting requirements at thestate and local levels can lead to gaps in data. Limited information sharing. Law enforcement may not always share up-to-date information about emerging drugs with medical examiners and hospitals. If these challenges could be addressed, laboratories could be in a better position to meet the nation’s needs for emerging drug analysis. However, GAO is not making recommendations to address these challenges because they are primarily faced by state and local laboratories. Illustration of Challenges Faced by Forensic Laboratories Why GAO Did This Study The U.S. is facing a public health crisis with the rapidly changing and increasingly complex landscape of emerging street drugs. Overdose deaths related to fentanyl mixed with veterinary tranquilizers, such as xylazine and medetomidine, have increased in recent years according to agency data. This mixture can be fatal because opioid overdose reversal medication does not affect these tranquilizers. The ability to rapidly identify new street drugs as they emerge could save lives. The Testing, Rapid Analysis, and Narcotic Quality Research Act of 2023 (Pub. L. No. 118-23, 137 Stat. 125, 126-27, § 3) includes a provision for GAO to review the capabilities of the federal government and state and local agencies to detect, identify, and analyze new psychoactive substances, which GAO refers to as “emerging street drugs” in this report. This report addresses (1) methods and technologies that are available or in development for emerging street drug analysis at federal and selected state and local laboratories and in the field, (2) timelines for developing new methods and technologies for the identification of emerging street drugs, (3) federal grant programs funding the development of new methods and technologies, and (4) federal and selected state and local facilities that analyze emerging street drugs and the key challenges they face. GAO interviewed officials and reviewed documents from 16 components of seven federal agencies that have ongoing efforts in drug analysis. GAO also visited or interviewed officials from 15 state and local laboratories from three different regions in the U.S. Further, GAO reviewed scientific literature and interviewed additional stakeholders, including technology manufacturers and grantees. For more information, contact: Karen L. Howard at HowardK@gao.gov or Triana McNeil at McNeilT@gao.gov.

What GAO Found The Food and Drug Administration (FDA) regulates a wide variety of products used by U.S. consumers. These products include human food, human and veterinary medical products, cosmetics, and tobacco products. According to FDA, the products for which it has oversight responsibilities accounted for about 21 cents of every dollar spent by U.S. consumers in 2024. FDA’s oversight responsibilities changed during the period of GAO’s review—fiscal year 2008 through fiscal year 2024. For example, in 2009, the agency received authority to regulate new types of products, such as cigarettes and other tobacco products. In 2011, FDA was directed by law to increase the number of required food safety inspections. In 2022, FDA’s authority to regulate cosmetics was expanded to include recall authority for certain products. FDA’s overall funding increased from fiscal years 2008 through 2024, largely from user fees. Over this 17-year period, the agency went from being funded mostly through discretionary appropriations (which FDA refers to as budget authority) to being funded in nearly equal amounts by user fees and budget authority. User fees are paid by manufacturers and other regulated entities. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) Overall Funding, by Funding Source, Fiscal Year 2008 through Fiscal Year 2024 Increases in FDA’s user fee funding during this time came from both new user fee authorizations (e.g., tobacco products) and the growth of existing user fees (e.g., human drugs). Food and Drug Administration (FDA) Funding by Product Areas and Funding Source, Fiscal Year 2008 and Fiscal Year 2023 FDA has faced staffing challenges related to recruiting, retaining, and training staff as reported by GAO and others from January 2020 through January 2025. These staffing issues have presented challenges for FDA’s food and drug inspections. For example, in 2024, GAO reported that because of staffing challenges the agency was not able to complete as many drug inspections as it had in prior years. GAO and others also reported during this same period that FDA had challenges with managing other resources, such as its information technology systems for collecting safety and quality complaints. Why GAO Did This Study FDA, an agency within the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS), regulates more than $3.9 trillion worth of food, medical products, and tobacco products produced in the U.S. and abroad. Prior to 2020, GAO reported that FDA faced challenges that could affect the agency’s ability to perform its oversight responsibilities. These concerns contributed to the addition of FDA’s oversight of medical products and food safety to GAO’s High-Risk List in 2009 and 2007, respectively. In addition, these concerns contributed to two other areas on GAO’s High-Risk List: (1) HHS’s leadership and coordination of public health emergencies, and (2) skills gaps in the federal workforce. Given the breadth of these concerns, GAO undertook a review at the initiative of the Comptroller General in consultation with congressional committees to provide the Congress with contextual information on FDA’s capacity to meet its oversight responsibilities. This report provides information on changes in FDA’s responsibilities, funding, and staffing from fiscal year 2008 through fiscal year 2024. It also provides information on challenges affecting FDA’s capacity to meet its oversight responsibilities that GAO and others identified in reports issued from January 2020 through January 2025.

What GAO Found The Office for Civil Rights (OCR) within the Department of Education (Education) enforces several federal civil rights laws, including laws that prohibit discrimination on the basis of race, color, and national origin; sex; disability; and age. Under most of these laws, OCR's enforcement authority extends to institutions that receive funds from Education, such as state educational agencies, elementary and secondary school systems, and colleges and universities. In March 2025, about half of OCR's 575 staff were placed on paid administrative leave, and seven of OCR's 12 regional offices were closed as part of agencywide Reduction-in-Force (RIF) and reorganization efforts. Based on Education's court filings, GAO calculated that paying salaries and benefits to OCR staff who were subject to the RIF cost between $18 million and $24 million from mid-March through September 5, 2025. GAO calculated that it cost an additional $10.5 to $14 million for the staff remaining on administrative leave from September 8 through December 12, 2025. In December 2025, Education recalled to work those OCR staff subject to the March 2025 RIF. Agency officials said that since the March 2025 RIF, OCR has kept up with its workload and met its mission without these staff. They noted that Education decided to recall these staff to contribute to the enforcement of existing civil rights complaints. These officials also said that there is always work to be done and the agency will continue utilizing available resources to do so. Subsequently, in early January 2026, Education rescinded the RIF actions for OCR staff. From March to September 2025, OCR received over 9,000 complaints of alleged discrimination and resolved over 7,000. About 90 percent of these were resolved by Education dismissing the complaints. Education did not demonstrate that it accounted for all potential costs and savings associated with its RIF and reorganization actions, and did not document its analyses, though Office of Management and Budget (OMB) and Office of Personnel Management (OPM) guidance directed it to do so. Without fully accounting for costs and savings and documenting its analyses, Education lacks reasonable assurance that its actions achieved the stated goal of reforming its federal workforce to maximize efficiency and productivity, including whether such actions improved service to the American people, increased productivity, or saved taxpayer dollars. GAO recommends that Education estimate the full costs and savings associated with the Reduction-in-Force and reorganization actions it initiated in March 2025, and document its analysis. Education disagreed with the recommendation, stating that it had rescinded the RIFs for OCR staff and taken action to return those employees to active duty. GAO continues to believe that Education should conduct and document such an analysis, as discussed in the report. Why GAO Did This Study In response to an Executive Order, Education announced a RIF and reorganization in March 2025 that would cut OCR's workforce by about half. However, subsequent preliminary injunctions prohibited Education from doing so. According to Education, all RIF actions were paused as of November 21, 2025. Education rescinded the RIF actions for OCR staff in early January 2026. GAO was asked to examine issues related to OCR's operations in light of recent RIF actions. This report provides information about OCR RIF actions, including associated costs and savings and OCR's workload in relation to these actions. GAO reviewed relevant federal laws and OCR's Case Processing Manual. GAO assessed RIF actions against relevant federal guidance from OMB and OPM. In addition, GAO analyzed publicly available information from court filings that Education submitted in federal court, the President's fiscal year 2026 budget request for OCR, and data that Education provided to Congress.

What GAO Found Federal Bureau of Prisons (BOP) institutions generally make menstrual products available to incarcerated and detained individuals; however, a few of the 29 institutions that housed women in fiscal year 2024 do not fully adhere to all required elements of BOP’s policy. For example, based on site visits and questionnaire responses, GAO found that not all institutions provide the five required types of products in common areas or replenish menstrual products within 24 hours. BOP has two oversight mechanisms to monitor whether institutions adhere to its policy. However, neither mechanism has systematically assessed, detected, and rectified all deficiencies across BOP institutions related to providing menstrual products. By conducting routine, systematic oversight, BOP could better ensure that menstrual products are consistently, appropriately, and equitably available and accessible to incarcerated and detained individuals. Of the 31 Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) facilities GAO visited or whose officials responded to GAO’s questionnaire, facilities generally make at least some menstrual products available to detained individuals. However, ICE’s detention standards do not have specific detail to allow its oversight mechanism to detect variation in access to menstrual products. ICE conducts inspections of facilities against their assigned detention standards, which outline how facilities are to provide safe, secure, and humane confinement. Without more detailed language in these standards, inspections cannot detect deficiencies related to access to menstrual products. GAO found variation in (1) the types of menstrual products facilities provide, (2) how facilities provide products, and (3) the quantity limits that facilities apply. By revising the detention standards to clarify requirements, ICE could better ensure menstrual products are consistently, appropriately, and equitably available and accessible to detained individuals. Examples of the Provision of Menstrual Products at Bureau of Prisons (BOP) Institutions and Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) Facilities Why GAO Did This Study BOP and ICE incarcerated and detained tens of thousands of women in fiscal year 2024. These agencies are responsible for caring for the individuals in their custody. This includes providing hygiene items like menstrual products. GAO was asked to review the availability and accessibility of menstrual products for vulnerable populations, including incarcerated and detained individuals. This report examines the extent to which (1) BOP provides access to menstrual products for incarcerated and detained individuals and (2) ICE provides access to menstrual products for detained individuals. GAO visited a nongeneralizable sample of five BOP institutions and three ICE facilities. These locations were selected based on the number of individuals housed and security level or facility type, among other criteria. During these visits, GAO observed the provision of menstrual products and interviewed facility staff and incarcerated and detained individuals. GAO also reviewed agency documents and conducted a web-based survey of 29 BOP institutions and 52 ICE facilities. GAO analyzed the responses received from officials from 100 percent of BOP institutions and 58 percent of ICE facilities (30).

What GAO Found GAO made significant accomplishments in FY 2025, as detailed in this Performance and Accountability Report for Fiscal Year (FY) 2025 (see figure). In the spirit of the Government Performance and Results Act, this annual report informs the Congress and the American people about what GAO has achieved on their behalf. This report describes GAO's performance measures, results, and accountability processes for FY 2025. In assessing our performance, we compared actual results against targets and goals that were set in our annual performance plan and performance budget, and that were developed to help carry out our strategic plan. An overview of our annual measures and targets for 2025 is available here, along with links to a complete set of our strategic planning and performance and accountability reports. This report includes a performance and financial snapshot for the American taxpayer for FY 2025, a letter from the Acting Comptroller General, and five parts. Part I: Management's Discussion and Analysis. This section includes a statement attesting to the completeness and reliability of the performance and financial data in this report and the effectiveness of our internal control over financial reporting. It includes a summary of our mission, organizational structure, strategies we use to achieve our goals, and processes for measuring our performance. In addition, it discusses our agency-wide performance results and use of resources in FY 2025. It also includes information on management challenges, external factors that affect our performance, and future challenges and priorities. Part II: Performance Information. This section includes details on our performance results by strategic goal in FY 2025 and our targets for FY 2026. Part III: Financial Information. This section includes details on our finances in FY 2025, including a letter from our Chief Financial Officer, audited financial statements and notes, and the reports from our external auditor and Audit Advisory Committee. This section also includes an explanation of the information each of our financial statements conveys. Part IV: Inspector General's (IG) View of GAO's Management Challenges. This section includes our IG's perspective of our agency's management challenges. Part V: Appendixes. This section provides the report's abbreviations and describes how we ensure the completeness and reliability of the data for each of our performance measures. Why GAO Did This Study As a legislative branch agency, GAO is exempt from many laws that apply to executive branch agencies. However, GAO generally holds itself to the spirit of many such laws, including the Government Performance and Results Act and the Federal Managers' Financial Integrity Act. Accordingly, the FY 2025 Performance and Accountability Report provides information on GAO's work, which it considers comparable to that reported by executive branch agencies that choose to prepare annual Performance and Accountability Reports in lieu of separate Agency Financial Reports. For more information, contact Rebecca Gambler at GamblerR@gao.gov.

What GAO Found In January 2026, GAO identified 38 open recommendations under the purview of the Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) Chief Information Officer (CIO), from previously issued work. Each of these recommendations relates to a GAO High-Risk area: (1) Ensuring the Cybersecurity of the Nation or (2) Improving IT Acquisitions and Management. In addition, GAO has designated four of the 38 as priority recommendations. For example, GAO previously recommended that VA fully implement all event logging requirements on the systems used to detect, investigate, and remediate cyber threats as directed by the Office of Management and Budget. Further, GAO recommended that VA develop guidance regarding standardizing cloud service-level agreements. GAO also previously recommended that the department ensure that it compares its inventories of active software licenses to purchased licenses to identify opportunities to reduce costs and improve investment decisions. The CIO's continued attention to these recommendations will help ensure the secure and effective use of IT at the department. Why GAO Did This Study CIO open recommendations are outstanding GAO recommendations that warrant the attention of agency CIOs because their implementation could significantly improve government IT operations by securing IT systems, identifying cost savings, improving major government programs, eliminating mismanagement of IT programs and processes, or ensuring that IT programs comply with laws, among others. For more information, contact Nick Marinos at marinosn@gao.gov.

What GAO Found Individuals 55 and older accounted for about 22 percent of participants (769,000 individuals) across six selected federal workforce development programs GAO examined using program year 2023 data. Program year 2023, which ran from July 2023 through June 2024, was the most recent complete year of data available at the time of this review. Compared to younger participants, older adults were less likely to find a job after exiting a program. For example, about 60 percent of older adults reported having a job in the second quarter after exiting Department of Labor (DOL) Workforce Innovation and Opportunity Act (WIOA) programs in program year 2023. In contrast, about 69 percent of participants ages 40–54 and 73 percent of participants ages 16–39 reported having a job. Similarly, about 50 percent of older adults in the Department of Education’s Vocational Rehabilitation program reported having a job, compared to about 54 percent of participants ages 40–54 and 58 percent of participants ages 16–39. Exit from a program generally occurs when a participant has not received services for 90 days and does not have plans to receive future services. Older workers (41 total) who GAO interviewed at 10 job centers in five states said participating in federal workforce development programs helped them learn digital literacy skills and get employment and training opportunities in their communities. They also noted challenges, such as limited numbers of employers participating in job fairs and few openings in some workforce programs. Additionally, they said they faced challenges finding jobs, including challenges navigating the job application process, developing new skills, and managing potential age discrimination by employers. Older Adults Using Job Center Services Job center officials GAO interviewed at the 10 centers said older workers they served had unique employment needs compared to younger workers. Some state and local partners in locations GAO visited had initiatives to address the needs of older workers. However, DOL, which administers most of these programs, does not facilitate information sharing among these partners on promising practices that could support older workers. Doing so could help DOL strengthen workforce system support for older workers, improve their employment rates and earnings, and bring their valuable knowledge and experience to the workplace. Why GAO Did This Study Older workers represent an increasing share of the U.S. workforce. From 2003 to 2023, individuals 55 and older increased their share of the workforce from 15 percent to 23 percent, according to Bureau of Labor Statistics data. Federal workforce development programs may help older workers manage challenges that could affect their ability to find and retain jobs, such as demand for new skills or limited knowledge of effective job search strategies. These programs are administered primarily by DOL and Education through a network of state and local partners, including job centers that provide employment and training services to all jobseekers. GAO was asked to examine employment support for older workers. This report provides information on the percentage of workforce development program participants who are 55 and older, their rates of employment after exiting these programs, and their perspectives as participants in these programs. This report also examines the extent to which DOL has helped state and local partners share information with one another to support older workers. To provide this information, GAO analyzed DOL and Education program data to compare the employment outcomes of older and younger participants in six workforce development programs (out of 38 programs that serve adults). GAO focused on four core Workforce Innovation and Opportunity Act (WIOA) programs that serve older workers, among other customers, and two other programs in which older workers make up a large share of participants. GAO also held nine non-generalizable discussions with small groups of older workers at job centers in five states to learn from their experiences seeking employment and participating in workforce programs. GAO selected locations in which individuals 55 and older represented a substantial share of program participants within these local areas and that reflected variation in geographic and economic conditions. GAO reviewed, for all 50 states, program year 2024 WIOA State Plans that outline their 4-year workforce development strategies. Additionally, GAO interviewed state and local partners, including job center officials, about initiatives focused on older workers within their states. GAO also interviewed DOL and Education officials about their coordination on issues related to older workers.

What GAO Found Assistive technology—such as pencil grips, calculators, and screen readers—can help students with disabilities more fully participate at school. Staff from the eight school districts that GAO visited provided examples of assistive technology that students use in the classroom (see figure). Limited knowledge about assistive technology was a key challenge, according to staff from all eight school districts GAO visited. For example, staff in many school districts said that teachers often only think of high-tech devices and may not consider simpler low-tech devices that could meet students’ individual needs. In addition, rapidly changing technology can make it difficult for school district and school staff to keep abreast of current assistive technology options. School district staff also described how broad challenges pertaining to public education adversely affected their ability to provide assistive technology to students with disabilities. These included insufficient time and opportunities for training, staffing issues (e.g., shortages and high turnover), technology issues, and funding constraints. Examples of Assistive Technology Used in School Districts GAO Visited The eight school districts GAO visited sometimes formed assistive technology teams and used external resources, which helped mitigate some of the challenges described above. Specifically, four districts had assistive technology teams that helped improve coordination and increase staff knowledge about assistive technology, according to school district officials. The teams—generally comprised of district special education staff—help school staff develop standardized processes to identify the best assistive technology for students’ needs, document assistive technology use in students’ individualized education programs, and acquire assistive technology. In addition, district officials in all eight school districts said that they used federal, state, or regional resources to train school staff or provide assistive technology to students. These included external training, expert consultations, libraries that loan assistive technology, and guidance such as Education’s 2024 Myths and Facts Surrounding Assistive Technology Devices and Services. Why GAO Did This Study The Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA) requires that all children with disabilities receive a free appropriate public education. Under IDEA, assistive technology must be considered for students receiving special education services. Little is known about how this requirement is implemented locally. GAO was asked to review how schools make decisions about providing assistive technology to students with disabilities. This report describes (1) the assistive technology selected school districts provide to students and the challenges they face doing so, and (2) strategies and resources selected school districts use to provide assistive technology to students and mitigate challenges. GAO visited four states—Minnesota, Pennsylvania, Texas, and Wyoming— selected for variation in factors such as percentage of students with disabilities and presence of state-level assistive technology initiatives. GAO interviewed staff from state and regional education agencies, eight school districts, and eight schools. GAO selected districts for variation in factors such as urbanicity and assistive technology initiatives. In addition, GAO interviewed officials and reviewed documents from the U.S. Department of Education (Education), the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services (HHS), and both departments’ relevant technical assistance centers. GAO also conducted a web-based survey of all 93 Parent Centers—family technical assistance centers funded by Education—and received a response rate of 88 percent. We provided a draft of this report to Education and HHS for review and comment. Education provided technical comments, which we incorporated as appropriate. HHS did not provide any comments on the report. For more information, contact Jacqueline M. Nowicki at nowickij@gao.gov.

What GAO Found To promote global financial stability, U.S. and foreign banking regulators negotiate and develop nonbinding minimum capital standards for banks through the Basel Committee on Banking Supervision. U.S. members are the Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System (FRB), Federal Reserve Bank of New York, Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation (FDIC), and Office of the Comptroller of the Currency (OCC). The Basel Committee expects members to treat Committee work as confidential. Its internal regulations state that internal discussions and the analyses on which they are based should be kept confidential. It also has a process for collecting sensitive bank data (for assessing the effect of standards on select banks), which requires analysts to sign a confidentiality agreement intended to protect the data. The Committee imposes no penalties for violating these expectations, but could take informal action (e.g., restrict a member’s access to information). U.S. members vary in the extent to which they are subject to the Federal Records Act and have different policies for retaining Basel Committee and related documents as records under the act: FRB’s policy expressly covers its work on international organizations, including the Committee, and FRB also issued related guidance. FDIC’s policy does not expressly cover its Committee work, but FDIC officials said the policy applies. FDIC also has a procedure directing staff to document their Committee work to share with leadership. OCC’s policy does not expressly cover its Committee work. OCC officials said that only documents used as background or working files in rulemaking to implement Basel standards are considered records under their policy. OCC’s policy does not instruct staff whether to treat—and thus retain—Basel Committee or related documents as records under the Federal Records Act when first created or received. The act requires covered agencies to preserve records documenting the organization’s functions and decisions and to communicate records management responsibilities to staff. However, OCC has not clarified how to treat Committee and related documents, citing its current policy as sufficient. Taking such action could help OCC ensure staff retain documents needed to support rulemaking, consult leadership during Committee negotiations, and demonstrate accountability. U.S. members said they process Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) requests for Basel Committee or related records in the same way as other FOIA requests. In 2019–2024, FRB received two FOIA requests related to the Committee and FDIC received one. FRB identified information responsive to the requests but deemed it confidential and therefore exempt from FOIA disclosure. FDIC provided the requested information. Why GAO Did This Study In 2025, GAO reported on U.S. participation in the Basel Committee’s development of Basel III bank capital standards. U.S. members told GAO that Committee discussions and related information are governed by confidentiality expectations. GAO was asked to review these expectations and their potential implications. Among its objectives, this report examines the Basel Committee’s confidentiality expectations; U.S. members’ records retention policies for their Committee work; and U.S. members’ processes for handling FOIA requests for Committee or related records. GAO reviewed Committee and U.S. member documents on confidentiality expectations and associated penalties. GAO assessed relevant records retention policies of U.S. members against provisions in the Federal Records Act and its associated regulations. GAO also reviewed relevant FOIA regulations and data on related requests and interviewed U.S. Committee members.

What GAO Found In January 2026, GAO identified 17 open recommendations under the purview of the U.S. Department of Agriculture's (USDA) Chief Information Officer (CIO) from previously issued work. Each of these recommendations relates to a GAO High-Risk area: (1) Ensuring the Cybersecurity of the Nation or (2) Improving IT Acquisitions and Management. In addition, GAO has designated two of the 17 as priority recommendations. For example, GAO previously recommended that USDA establish a time frame for incorporating privacy into an organization-wide risk management strategy that should include the department's risk tolerance. Further, GAO recommended that USDA complete annual reviews of its IT portfolio consistent with federal requirements. GAO also previously recommended that the department manage its software licenses more effectively by implementing procedures to track usage. The CIO's continued attention to these recommendations will help ensure the secure and effective use of IT at the department. Why GAO Did This Study CIO open recommendations are outstanding GAO recommendations that warrant the attention of agency CIOs because their implementation could significantly improve government IT operations by securing IT systems, identifying cost savings, improving major government programs, eliminating mismanagement of IT programs and processes, or ensuring that IT programs comply with laws, among others. For more information, contact Nick Marinos at marinosn@gao.gov.