GAO Reports
Here's a look at Government Accountability Office reports
Featured Stories
Department of Energy: Plan Needed to Meet Statutory Requirements for Clean Energy Demonstration Projects
WASHINGTON, Feb. 11 (TNSLrpt) -- The Government Accountability Office issued the following report:* * *
Department of Energy: Plan Needed to Meet Statutory Requirements for Clean Energy Demonstration Projects
*
Fast Facts
The Department of Energy created the Office of Clean Energy Demonstrations in 2021 to manage $27 billion in funding for clean energy projects. As of November 2025, OCED had committed over $18 billion to about 100 projects.
OCED needs to oversee these projects and had developed a plan to do so. However, a significant decrease in its workforce and other changes in 2025 ... Show Full Article WASHINGTON, Feb. 11 (TNSLrpt) -- The Government Accountability Office issued the following report: * * * Department of Energy: Plan Needed to Meet Statutory Requirements for Clean Energy Demonstration Projects * Fast Facts The Department of Energy created the Office of Clean Energy Demonstrations in 2021 to manage $27 billion in funding for clean energy projects. As of November 2025, OCED had committed over $18 billion to about 100 projects. OCED needs to oversee these projects and had developed a plan to do so. However, a significant decrease in its workforce and other changes in 2025have reduced its oversight capacity. A proposal to cut its entire budget creates further uncertainty.
DOE faces the risk that it will not be able to robustly oversee these funds. We recommend that DOE develop a plan to address this.
Building with Department of Energy sign in front of it.
Highlights
What GAO Found
DOE established the Office of Clean Energy Demonstrations (OCED) in December 2021 to manage the historic amount of funding appropriated to DOE for demonstration projects. Key responsibilities include managing projects and assessing lessons learned to improve project oversight.
OCED projects vary in scale and cover diverse clean energy technologies, including hydrogen and advanced nuclear energy. Generally, at least 50 percent of the project costs are borne by the project awardees. As of November 2025, OCED had committed over $18 billion to about 100 projects, although 35 of these projects have been identified for termination.
To manage projects, OCED developed a framework that included a phased project approach and independent assessments at key oversight points to reduce organizational biases. Previously, OCED estimated it would need 351 staff to be fully staffed for the expected number of demonstration projects.
There have been significant changes at OCED in 2025 affecting its capacity, including a significant decrease in workforce and contract support. OCED lost 85 percent of its staff (from 285 staff to about 40) between January and June 2025. This included all independent assessment staff. Further, in February 2025, OCED issued a stop work order on almost all contracts supporting the office.
Office of Clean Energy Demonstrations (OCED) Workforce Changes from January 2025 to June 2025 and OCED's Committed Funds and Projects as of November 2025
Currently, it is unclear how DOE plans to meet its statutory requirements to manage projects given OCED's limited capacity. The office is unlikely to be able to conduct in-depth project reviews at key oversight decision points and an OCED official said the office will likely move some aspects of OCED's oversight to other DOE offices. For example, the Office of Project Management agreed to conduct independent assessments, but that office lost about 60 percent of its staff in 2025. Without a plan to meet the statutory requirements of managing projects and assessing lessons learned, DOE faces increased risks of not having the capacity to manage and oversee billions of dollars of federal funding for demonstration projects.
Why GAO Did This Study
The Infrastructure Investment and Jobs Act (IIJA) of 2021 requires the Department of Energy (DOE) to establish a program for clean energy demonstration projects. Roughly $27 billion was appropriated to DOE for large-scale clean energy demonstration projects.
Congress included a provision in the IIJA for GAO to examine the oversight of demonstration projects and recommend changes for the purpose of better carrying out the program.
This report examines (1) recent changes at OCED and (2) DOE's capacity to successfully manage projects given these changes.
GAO reviewed DOE and OCED documents, including policies, guidance, and award documentation. GAO also interviewed DOE officials and stakeholders, including surveying 45 recipients of OCED awards.
Recommendations
GAO recommends that the Secretary of Energy develop a plan to meet statutory requirements for managing projects and assessing lessons learned for clean energy demonstration projects. DOE agreed with GAO's recommendation.
Recommendations for Executive Action
Agency Affected Recommendation Status
Department of Energy The Secretary of Energy should develop a plan to meet statutory requirements for managing projects and assessing lessons learned for clean energy demonstration projects. (Recommendation 1)
Open Actions to satisfy the intent of the recommendation have not been taken or are being planned.
When we confirm what actions the agency has taken in response to this recommendation, we will provide updated information.
***
Original text here: https://www.gao.gov/products/gao-26-107997
Coast Guard: Additional Actions Needed to Address Reports of Community Discrimination Against Service Members
WASHINGTON, Feb. 11 (TNSLrpt) -- The Government Accountability Office issued the following report:* * *
Coast Guard: Additional Actions Needed to Address Reports of Community Discrimination Against Service Members
*
Fast Facts
The Coast Guard is responsible for ensuring its members are supported as they rotate between different duty stations. This includes investigating reports of local community hostility, harassment, and discrimination against Coast Guard members or their families. For example, a Coast Guard member might report that they were refused service in a restaurant because of ... Show Full Article WASHINGTON, Feb. 11 (TNSLrpt) -- The Government Accountability Office issued the following report: * * * Coast Guard: Additional Actions Needed to Address Reports of Community Discrimination Against Service Members * Fast Facts The Coast Guard is responsible for ensuring its members are supported as they rotate between different duty stations. This includes investigating reports of local community hostility, harassment, and discrimination against Coast Guard members or their families. For example, a Coast Guard member might report that they were refused service in a restaurant because oftheir race.
In this Q&A, we found that Coast Guard commands interpreted policies differently and weren't always aware of tools to track reported incidents. The Coast Guard also doesn't have a standard process to collect related documents.
Our recommendations address these issues.
Service members speak to residents during a Coast Guard community day event.
A group of people gathered on an outside parking lot on a sunny day. Coast Guard personnel in dark blue uniforms are talking to people. A large map is propped up on the ground.
Highlights
What GAO Found
The Coast Guard has over 40,000 active-duty military personnel who often reside in communities near their Coast Guard duty stations. Coast Guard units are often situated along major waterways and coastlines in remote or high vacation rental areas. Coast Guard members and their families may experience incidents of hostility, harassment, and discrimination from members of their community.
Coast Guard members reported 112 incidents of community hostility, harassment, or discrimination directed towards them or their family from fiscal years 1998 through 2024. Most of these incidents, which the Coast Guard calls social climate incidents, were perceived to be motivated by race or ethnicity. More than half of these incidents were reported from fiscal year 2019 through fiscal year 2024. For example, in one incident a Coast Guard member reported that a restaurant refused to provide them service because of their race. In another incident, a service member reported that they were subjected to racial slurs by a community member in a grocery store.
Reported Perceived Motivation in Coast Guard Social Climate Incidents From Fiscal Years 1998 through 2024
GAO found that Coast Guard commands have generally followed the social climate incident policies outlined in the Coast Guard Civil Rights Manual. However, district commands reported different interpretations of the definition, specifically as to whether social climate incidents are limited to legally protected classes. As a result, the Coast Guard may not have implemented its definition of a social climate incident consistently.
By clarifying its definition of these incidents, the Coast Guard could better ensure commands apply policies consistently. Furthermore, the Civil Rights Directorate (CRD) was unable to locate any documentation for six of the 30 reported social climate incidents from fiscal years 2020 through 2024 that GAO selected to review. Developing and implementing a standardized process for the collection and retention of documents would help the CRD better oversee and manage the response to social climate incidents.
The CRD provides Coast Guard members access to an internal website that tracks all reported social climate incidents and displays incident trends, including the location and type of incident. However, seven of the nine Coast Guard district commands GAO interviewed were not aware of this tool. By ensuring that all commands are consistently made aware of available tools, the Coast Guard could better prepare them to prevent and respond to incidents related to the social climate in the communities they serve.
Why GAO Did This Study
The Coast Guard mandates that all personnel be treated fairly and with respect to successfully carry out its missions, including within the communities in which they live. According to the Coast Guard, social climate incidents can have a negative impact on service members and their families. Under the Coast Guard's Civil Rights Manual, the CRD is the headquarters office responsible for overseeing the management of reported social climate incidents. According to the Manual, one of the CRD's strategic goals is to conduct activities and develop tools that assist and support commands in proactively preventing unlawful discrimination.
GAO was asked to examine policies and procedures that the Coast Guard has in place to track, monitor, and address social climate incidents. This report provides information on available data on social climate incidents, the extent to which the Coast Guard follows social climate incident policies and procedures, and how the Coast Guard responds to social climate incidents.
GAO reviewed relevant laws and Coast Guard policies and procedures, analyzed Coast Guard data, and interviewed agency officials. Specifically, GAO interviewed CRD officials, including Civil Rights Service Providers. GAO also interviewed commands from all nine Coast Guard districts as well as commands from four of 36 Coast Guard sectors and selected units within those sectors. GAO reviewed available Coast Guard data on social climate incidents reported from fiscal years 1998 through 2024 and analyzed the underlying documentation for a non-generalizable sample of 25 social climate incidents reported from fiscal years 2020 through 2024.
Recommendations
GAO is making three recommendations, including that the Coast Guard clarify its definition of a social climate incident, implement a standardized process for the collection and retention of required social climate incident documentation, and ensure that all commands are consistently made aware of social climate incident tools. The Department of Homeland Security agreed.
Recommendations for Executive Action
Agency Affected Recommendation Status
United States Coast Guard The Commandant of the Coast Guard should ensure that the CRD reviews and clarifies the definition of a social climate incident and ensure that the term is defined the same way in all agency policies, including its Civil Rights Manual and Assignments Manual. (Recommendation 1)
Open Actions to satisfy the intent of the recommendation have not been taken or are being planned.
When we confirm what actions the agency has taken in response to this recommendation, we will provide updated information.
United States Coast Guard The Commandant of the Coast Guard should ensure that the CRD develops and implements a standardized process for the collection and retention of required social climate incident documentation. (Recommendation 2)
Open Actions to satisfy the intent of the recommendation have not been taken or are being planned.
When we confirm what actions the agency has taken in response to this recommendation, we will provide updated information.
United States Coast Guard The Commandant of the Coast Guard should ensure that the CRD consistently makes all commands aware of the CRD's social climate incident tools, including the incident reporting data provided through the internal SharePoint website. (Recommendation 3)
Open Actions to satisfy the intent of the recommendation have not been taken or are being planned.
When we confirm what actions the agency has taken in response to this recommendation, we will provide updated information.
***
Original text here: https://www.gao.gov/products/gao-26-107875
Bureau of Prisons: Actions Needed to Better Achieve Financial and Other Benefits of Moving Individuals to Halfway Houses on Time
WASHINGTON, Feb. 11 (TNSLrpt) -- The Government Accountability Office issued the following report:* * *
Bureau of Prisons: Actions Needed to Better Achieve Financial and Other Benefits of Moving Individuals to Halfway Houses on Time
*
Fast Facts
The Federal Bureau of Prisons is responsible for the care and custody of incarcerated people. Some people nearing the end of their sentences may be transferred to a halfway house that can help them prepare to re-enter their communities.
But the Bureau:
Doesn't know how many people are eligible to be transferred to a halfway house or should have ... Show Full Article WASHINGTON, Feb. 11 (TNSLrpt) -- The Government Accountability Office issued the following report: * * * Bureau of Prisons: Actions Needed to Better Achieve Financial and Other Benefits of Moving Individuals to Halfway Houses on Time * Fast Facts The Federal Bureau of Prisons is responsible for the care and custody of incarcerated people. Some people nearing the end of their sentences may be transferred to a halfway house that can help them prepare to re-enter their communities. But the Bureau: Doesn't know how many people are eligible to be transferred to a halfway house or should havebeen transferred already
Doesn't have the halfway house capacity to accommodate all people who may be eligible to transfer
Paid halfway houses late about 70% of the time, spending millions of dollars in late fees
Our recommendations address these and other issues.
Hall with a door, a ramp, a window and water fountains. The words getting out, staying out, and starting over on the wall.
Highlights
What GAO Found
The Federal Bureau of Prisons (BOP) does not know how many individuals are currently in prison that could have already transferred to home confinement or a residential reentry center (RRC), also known as a halfway house. BOP officials said they do not know because the dates individuals are eligible to transfer are not readily available. GAO found that some individuals have remained in federal prisons despite being eligible to relocate to home confinement or an RRC. For instance, GAO found that BOP did not apply all the earned time toward placement in RRCs and home confinement for 21,190 of 29,934 individuals reviewed, for reasons such as insufficient RRC capacity and court orders. However, the full scale of this issue is unknown due to the lack of readily available data on eligibility dates. Until BOP maintains and monitors such data, it cannot ensure individuals transfer on time and take corrective action when timely transfers do not occur. As a result, BOP cannot ensure individuals receive the services and have the opportunities available at an RRC or home confinement, such as finding employment and long-term housing and reconnecting with the community. BOP has reported that such services can also help reduce recidivism.
Limited capacity in BOP contracted RRCs and home confinement spaces was a reason that individuals did not transfer on time, according to BOP officials. However, BOP does not know the full extent of this shortage because it has not comprehensively assessed its capacity and related budgetary needs. Without these assessments, BOP cannot ensure it has enough space for incarcerated individuals to transfer on time. BOP could also miss opportunities to increase revenues and decrease costs to the federal government. For instance, BOP said that individuals who have resided in an RRC are less likely to return to prison.
GAO also found that BOP made roughly 65,000 late payments to contractors, including RRCs, from fiscal year 2022 through March 2025. As a result, the agency paid $12.5 million in interest penalties as part of $2.8 billion in payments to contractors. In addition, GAO found that BOP paid RRCs late about 70 percent of the time, from fiscal years 2023 through 2024. RRC staff said they face hardships due to the late payments-needing private loans to pay staff. One RRC representative said late payments have made some RRCs reluctant to bid for new BOP contracts, which can further complicate BOP's plans to expand capacity. By implementing a corrective action plan to address its late payments, BOP could save federal funds and better position itself to expand RRC capacity.
BOP's Late Payments to RRCs and Other Contractors, October 2021-March 2025
Why GAO Did This Study
BOP contracts with roughly 150 RRCs across the U.S. to help incarcerated individuals reenter their communities upon completion of their sentences. RRCs facilitate reentry services (e.g., employment services, drug treatment, and classroom education) to individuals who reside in RRCs or who are on home confinement. RRCs can help individuals rebuild ties to their community and reduce the likelihood that they will commit future crimes.
GAO was asked to review BOP's use of RRCs. This report examines, among other things, how many individuals in BOP custody are eligible to transfer to RRCs and home confinement; the extent BOP knows its RRC capacity needs across the U.S.; and the extent BOP has paid RRCs and other contractors on time.
GAO reviewed relevant federal laws, BOP policies and documents, and BOP data on RRCs, including payments to contractors. In addition, GAO selected seven RRCs and three BOP field offices and interviewed residents and staff. GAO selected locations based on criteria such as geographic dispersion and the size of RRCs within an area. GAO also interviewed BOP officials responsible for residential reentry management and oversight.
Recommendations
GAO is making seven recommendations to BOP, including to maintain and monitor readily available data on RRC and home confinement eligibility dates, assess its RRC and home confinement capacity and budgetary needs, and implement a corrective action plan to address the causes of late payments. BOP concurred with our recommendations.
Recommendations for Executive Action
Agency Affected Recommendation Status
Bureau of Prisons The BOP Director should maintain readily available data on the dates incarcerated individuals are eligible to transfer to RRCs or home confinement, across the bureau. This includes the eligibility date pursuant to the First Step Act, Second Chance Act, and any other incentives or benefits available to incarcerated individuals regardless of the availability of RRC and home confinement space. (Recommendation 1)
Open Actions to satisfy the intent of the recommendation have not been taken or are being planned.
When we confirm what actions the agency has taken in response to this recommendation, we will provide updated information.
Bureau of Prisons The BOP Director should monitor, across the bureau, whether individuals transfer to RRCs and home confinement on time, and if not, take corrective action. (Recommendation 2)
Open Actions to satisfy the intent of the recommendation have not been taken or are being planned.
When we confirm what actions the agency has taken in response to this recommendation, we will provide updated information.
Bureau of Prisons The BOP Director should more comprehensively assess its RRC capacity needs, including locations and number of RRC spaces. The assessment should consider all time available to incarcerated individuals for prerelease custody, including time under the First Step Act, Second Chance Act, and the Residential Drug Abuse Program. (Recommendation 3)
Open Actions to satisfy the intent of the recommendation have not been taken or are being planned.
When we confirm what actions the agency has taken in response to this recommendation, we will provide updated information.
Bureau of Prisons The BOP Director should, after determining RRC capacity needs, determine the related budgetary needs. (Recommendation 4)
Open Actions to satisfy the intent of the recommendation have not been taken or are being planned.
When we confirm what actions the agency has taken in response to this recommendation, we will provide updated information.
Bureau of Prisons The BOP Director should develop and implement a plan-including timeframes, roles, and responsibilities-for addressing known challenges in reaching a sufficient level of prerelease custody capacity. (Recommendation 5)
Open Actions to satisfy the intent of the recommendation have not been taken or are being planned.
When we confirm what actions the agency has taken in response to this recommendation, we will provide updated information.
Bureau of Prisons The BOP Director should ensure its market analysis for RRC contracts is aligned with leading practices for developing and assessing models. (Recommendation 6)
Open Actions to satisfy the intent of the recommendation have not been taken or are being planned.
When we confirm what actions the agency has taken in response to this recommendation, we will provide updated information.
Bureau of Prisons The BOP Director should develop and implement a corrective action plan that addresses the root causes of BOP's late payments to contractors. The implementation plan should include timeframes and identify individuals responsible for taking corrective actions. (Recommendation 7)
Open Actions to satisfy the intent of the recommendation have not been taken or are being planned.
When we confirm what actions the agency has taken in response to this recommendation, we will provide updated information.
See All 7 Recommendations
***
Original text here: https://www.gao.gov/products/gao-26-107353
Nonbank Mortgage Companies: Ginnie Mae and FHFA Could Enhance Financial Monitoring
WASHINGTON, Feb. 10 (TNSLrpt) -- The Government Accountability Office issued the following report:* * *
Nonbank Mortgage Companies: Ginnie Mae and FHFA Could Enhance Financial Monitoring
*
Fast Facts
Many mortgage companies aren't banks and don't take deposits to fund loans. "Nonbank" mortgage companies rely on short-term funding instead, which can leave them more vulnerable to failure in economic downturns.
Nonbanks make and service most of the loans packaged into federally backed mortgage securities. Sales of these securities to investors help fund more loans. A major nonbank failure ... Show Full Article WASHINGTON, Feb. 10 (TNSLrpt) -- The Government Accountability Office issued the following report: * * * Nonbank Mortgage Companies: Ginnie Mae and FHFA Could Enhance Financial Monitoring * Fast Facts Many mortgage companies aren't banks and don't take deposits to fund loans. "Nonbank" mortgage companies rely on short-term funding instead, which can leave them more vulnerable to failure in economic downturns. Nonbanks make and service most of the loans packaged into federally backed mortgage securities. Sales of these securities to investors help fund more loans. A major nonbank failurecould disrupt mortgage lending and leave the government on the hook to cover losses.
Ginnie Mae and the Federal Housing Finance Agency monitor nonbanks' financial conditions but don't fully assess their funding risks.
Our recommendations address this and more.
Stock image of a house and coins.
Highlights
What GAO Found
Over the past decade, housing finance increasingly relied on nonbank mortgage companies (nondepository institutions specializing in mortgage lending). Nonbanks now originate and service most loans in the over $9 trillion in securities guaranteed by Ginnie Mae, a government-owned corporation, and by Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, which are under Federal Housing Finance Agency (FHFA) conservatorship. From 2014 to 2024, the share of such loans serviced by nonbanks grew from 27 percent to 66 percent. But nonbanks have certain risks, such as reliance on short-term credit that may become unavailable during economic downturns. The failure of a large nonbank-or multiple smaller ones-could disrupt mortgage markets and increase federal fiscal exposure.
Percentage of Mortgage Loans in Federally Backed Securities Serviced by Nonbanks, by Dollar Volume, 2014-2024
Ginnie Mae and FHFA have processes to assess the financial condition of nonbanks, but opportunities exist to enhance their processes.
* Financial data. Both agencies analyze nonbanks' self-reported financial data to support their nonbank monitoring. However, GAO found that FHFA does not have written procedures to assess the reliability of these data, reducing assurance that its analytical results are dependable.
* Watch lists. Both agencies produce watch lists of nonbanks that pose relatively higher risks, based partly on financial data. But, based on GAO's analysis, both agencies' processes do not fully assess key risks of certain short-term credit lines. As a result, the agencies may not be fully considering information material to watch list determinations.
* Scenario analyses. Both agencies analyze the effect of changing economic conditions on nonbank financial health. To help manage its counterparty risk from nonbanks, Ginnie Mae performs a detailed analysis and uses a comprehensive economic stress scenario. But Ginnie Mae's focus on a single adverse scenario does not reflect a fuller range of possible outcomes-potentially diminishing its ability to prepare for how different scenarios could affect its portfolio and financial exposure.
Why GAO Did This Study
Nonbank mortgage companies generally do not have a federal regulator overseeing their safety and soundness. But Ginnie Mae and FHFA, which support the stability of markets for mortgage-backed securities, play a role in monitoring these entities.
Since 2013, GAO has designated the federal role in housing finance as a high-risk area. This report examines the (1) role of nonbanks in the mortgage market since 2014, including their benefits and risks; and (2) extent to which Ginnie Mae and FHFA designed processes to assess the financial condition of nonbank mortgage companies.
GAO reviewed Ginnie Mae and FHFA policies, procedures, and analysis of nonbanks. GAO analyzed industry and government data on mortgage loans originated or serviced by nonbanks in 2014-2024. GAO also interviewed FHFA, Ginnie Mae, and Financial Stability Oversight Council officials, as well as researchers and subject matter experts from industry and consumer groups.
Recommendations
GAO is making four recommendations: for FHFA to develop procedures to assess the reliability of nonbank data it uses for monitoring, FHFA and Ginnie Mae to improve their processes for assessing risks of nonbank use of short-term credit lines, and Ginnie Mae to consider additional nonbank stress scenarios. FHFA and Ginnie Mae agreed with GAO's recommendations.
Recommendations for Executive Action
Agency Affected Recommendation Status
Federal Housing Finance Agency The Director of FHFA should ensure that the Counterparty Risk and Policy Branch develops procedures for assessing the reliability of MBFRF data used for monitoring activities and for treating potentially unreliable data. (Recommendation 1)
Open Actions to satisfy the intent of the recommendation have not been taken or are being planned.
When we confirm what actions the agency has taken in response to this recommendation, we will provide updated information.
Government National Mortgage Association (Ginnie Mae) The President of Ginnie Mae should ensure that the Office of Enterprise Risk develops guidance requiring analysts to consistently review key components of warehouse lending risk, including the committed funding amount, as part of the manual credit review process. (Recommendation 2)
Open Actions to satisfy the intent of the recommendation have not been taken or are being planned.
When we confirm what actions the agency has taken in response to this recommendation, we will provide updated information.
Federal Housing Finance Agency The Director of FHFA should ensure that the Counterparty Risk and Policy Branch assesses the feasibility and utility of incorporating all key components of warehouse lending risk in its risk scoring process. (Recommendation 3)
Open Actions to satisfy the intent of the recommendation have not been taken or are being planned.
When we confirm what actions the agency has taken in response to this recommendation, we will provide updated information.
Government National Mortgage Association (Ginnie Mae) The President of Ginnie Mae should ensure that the Office of Enterprise Risk incorporates consideration of alternative economic scenarios into Ginnie Mae's stress testing framework. (Recommendation 4)
Open Actions to satisfy the intent of the recommendation have not been taken or are being planned.
When we confirm what actions the agency has taken in response to this recommendation, we will provide updated information.
***
Original text here: https://www.gao.gov/products/gao-26-107436
Biosafety and Biosecurity: Comparing the U.S. and Selected G20 Members
WASHINGTON, Feb. 10 (TNSLrpt) -- The Government Accountability Office issued the following report:* * *
Biosafety and Biosecurity: Comparing the U.S. and Selected G20 Members
*
Fast Facts
Research labs study and store bacteria, viruses, and other biological agents to prevent and treat infectious diseases. Incidents involving these agents could threaten the health of researchers, nearby communities, or the general public. Biosafety and biosecurity practices ensure lab staff work safely, communities are protected, and harmful agents aren't misused.
Almost all countries we examined had public ... Show Full Article WASHINGTON, Feb. 10 (TNSLrpt) -- The Government Accountability Office issued the following report: * * * Biosafety and Biosecurity: Comparing the U.S. and Selected G20 Members * Fast Facts Research labs study and store bacteria, viruses, and other biological agents to prevent and treat infectious diseases. Incidents involving these agents could threaten the health of researchers, nearby communities, or the general public. Biosafety and biosecurity practices ensure lab staff work safely, communities are protected, and harmful agents aren't misused. Almost all countries we examined had publicguidance with similarities to the U.S.'s. But documentation varied widely, including for high-risk biological agents (e.g., Ebola virus).
Having national guidance in place is important for governments to ensure biosafety and biosecurity.
A person wears protective gear while working in a biological research lab.
Highlights
What GAO Found
To understand, prevent, and treat infectious diseases, researchers study biological agents, such as bacteria and viruses. In the U.S., federal agencies have established guidelines to help ensure that U.S. biomedical research labs minimize biosafety and biosecurity risks. Certain principles or "key components" of biosafety and biosecurity may help reduce risks of all biological agents and research. GAO identified 10 key components that describe key steps a U.S. lab should take to mitigate the risks of biological agent research.
The comparability of the selected Group of Twenty (G20) members' relevant guidance documents to the 10 U.S. key components varied widely. Nine of the 10 selected G20 members in GAO's review had documents that were comparable to one or more of the U.S key components for all biological agents and research.
The U.S. key components include additional precautions for specified high-risk agents-such as Ebola virus-and research. Guidance documents from Australia, Canada, and China included comparable language to most of the additional precautions GAO identified for U.S. key components of biosafety and biosecurity.
National guidance documents addressing biosafety and biosecurity are important, but other factors might also influence a G20 member's biosafety and biosecurity. For example, Australian officials told GAO that state and territory governments play a role in managing biosecurity, such as responding to animal disease outbreaks.
Why GAO Did This Study
Governments use laws, regulations, policies, and guidelines to help achieve goals, such as protecting public health and safety. Biosafety helps protect lab workers, the community, and the environment from accidental exposure to or release of biological agents. Biosecurity helps protect against the loss, theft, deliberate release, or misuse of biological agents.
The CARES Act includes a provision for GAO to monitor federal efforts in response to the COVID-19 pandemic. GAO was also asked to compare the biosafety and biosecurity standards of G20 members with U.S. standards. This report examines the extent to which selected G20 members' publicly available guidance documents reflect (1) selected key components of U.S. biosafety and biosecurity for all biological agents and research and (2) additional precautions of the U.S. biosafety and biosecurity key components specific to high-risk biological agents and research.
GAO analyzed core U.S. biosafety and biosecurity documents to identify 10 selected key components of U.S. biosafety and biosecurity for biomedical research labs. For each key component, GAO identified subcomponents or additional precautions for high-risk agents and research.
GAO analyzed selected G20 members' publicly available guidance documents, such as national laws, regulations, policies, and guidelines. GAO examined whether members' documents had components that were comparable, somewhat comparable, or not comparable to the 10 U.S. key components. GAO did not evaluate the extent to which each member implements or enforces these documents.
For more information, contact Karen L. Howard, PhD at HowardK@gao.gov.
***
Original text here: https://www.gao.gov/products/gao-26-107338
COVID-19 Relief: IRS Can Use Lessons Learned to Address and Prevent Improper Payments in Future Tax Programs
WASHINGTON, Feb. 10 (TNSLrpt) -- The Government Accountability Office issued the following report:* * *
COVID-19 Relief: IRS Can Use Lessons Learned to Address and Prevent Improper Payments in Future Tax Programs
*
Fast Facts
The Employee Retention Credit helped employers keep paying employees during the COVID-19 pandemic. IRS had processed nearly 5 million claims for this credit as of June 2025.
But IRS received a large number of improper claims and was overwhelmed. The agency was unable to issue most payments for the credit until after the unemployment rate returned to pre-pandemic levels. ... Show Full Article WASHINGTON, Feb. 10 (TNSLrpt) -- The Government Accountability Office issued the following report: * * * COVID-19 Relief: IRS Can Use Lessons Learned to Address and Prevent Improper Payments in Future Tax Programs * Fast Facts The Employee Retention Credit helped employers keep paying employees during the COVID-19 pandemic. IRS had processed nearly 5 million claims for this credit as of June 2025. But IRS received a large number of improper claims and was overwhelmed. The agency was unable to issue most payments for the credit until after the unemployment rate returned to pre-pandemic levels.
Multiple factors contributed to such claims. For example, some marketing companies convinced confused employers to file claims in order to receive a portion of the money.
Our recommendations can help IRS prepare for future emergency employment tax credits.
Employee Retention Tax Credit
A calculator and pen lay on a paper with the writing "Employee Retention Tax Credit."
Highlights
What GAO Found
As of June 2025, the Internal Revenue Service (IRS) processed nearly 5 million Employee Retention Credit (ERC) claims. IRS moved quickly to administer ERC but was less prepared to assess improper payment risks and process a surge in claims. To address improper claims, IRS implemented a processing moratorium in September 2023. IRS closed most claims by December 31, 2025, according to IRS officials. GAO identified six lessons from ERC design and administration.
Lessons Learned from the Design and Administration of Employee Retention Credit
Offering Relief Through Employment Taxes Provides Benefits and Challenges
* Benefits include availability to employers without tax liability. Challenges include interactions with income tax.
Some Design Decisions Increased Complexity and Improper Payment Risk
* Complex and retroactive eligibility criteria complicated eligibility determination.
The Internal Revenue Service (IRS) Would Have Benefitted from a Comprehensive Plan for Managing Employee Retention Credit (ERC) Risks
* Timely implementing a 2022 GAO recommendation on project planning could have better prepared IRS for a later surge in claims.
IRS Would Have Benefitted from Additional Eligibility Reporting
* Key eligibility information was not required on employment tax returns.
Manual Processing for Amended Returns Complicated Compliance Efforts
* Paper-only amended returns limited IRS's ability to capture key data.
ERC Implementation Could Have Benefitted from More Timely and Consistent Communication with Stakeholders.
* IRS did not regularly communicate status of ERC processing.
Source: GAO. | GAO-26-107456
These lessons could help policymakers consider future emergency employment tax relief, and help IRS better prepare for it. IRS did not complete an improper payment estimate for ERC, as required in law. The Department of the Treasury said it would not do so for pandemic programs as they are short term. However, a timely estimate could have helped identify root causes of improper payments earlier and developing one now could guide future decisions on employment tax relief. The statute of limitations for assessing tax on certain paid improper ERCs has expired. However, IRS can still pursue fraud cases indefinitely.
Employers primarily claimed ERC on paper amended returns. IRS enabled electronic filing in mid-2024 but continued to process the returns manually. Automated processing would yield cost savings and expedite refunds. IRS's last public update on ERC processing status was in October 2024, leaving uncertainties about cash flow among some employers. IRS also did not follow all risk management and internal control principles from GAO's A Framework for Managing Improper Payments in Emergency Assistance Programs. IRS could reduce future improper payments by incorporating this framework into its policies.
As a consequence of its design and administrative challenges, most ERC claims were not paid in 2020 or 2021, the eligibility period for the credit. About 83 percent of ERC refunds-about $235 billion-were issued in 2022 through June 2025, well after unemployment had returned to its pre-pandemic level.
Why GAO Did This Study
The ERC-which encouraged employers to keep paying employees during the COVID-19 pandemic-had provided about $283 billion to employers as of June 2025. GAO previously found that implementing new initiatives-such as the ERC-is a challenge for IRS. A law passed in July 2025 affected ERC by, in part, disallowing certain unpaid claims made after January 31, 2024.
In response to a request, this report presents lessons learned on the ERC's design and administration, examines actions IRS can take to be better prepared for emergency employment tax relief, and describes economic conditions-such as unemployment levels-surrounding ERC.
To identify lessons learned, GAO reviewed literature and interviewed experts and agency officials about the ERC's design and implementation. GAO observed ERC processing at an IRS campus. GAO compared documents with selected practices for managing payments in emergency programs (GAO-23-105876). GAO also analyzed IRS data on ERC processing and compared it with economic data.
Recommendations
GAO is making four recommendations to IRS, including that it develop and report an improper payment estimate for ERC, automate amended employment tax return processing, provide an update to the public on ERC processing, and include key principles on managing improper payments in emergency assistance programs in its policies. IRS agreed with one recommendation, partially agreed with another, and disagreed with two. GAO maintains that all four recommendations are warranted, as explained in the report.
Recommendations for Executive Action
Agency Affected Recommendation Status
Internal Revenue Service The Commissioner of Internal Revenue should develop and report an improper payment estimate for ERC payments. (Recommendation 1)
Open Actions to satisfy the intent of the recommendation have not been taken or are being planned.
When we confirm what actions the agency has taken in response to this recommendation, we will provide updated information.
Internal Revenue Service The Commissioner of Internal Revenue should include amended employment tax returns in its modernization efforts for processing and for data capture. (Recommendation 2)
Open Actions to satisfy the intent of the recommendation have not been taken or are being planned.
When we confirm what actions the agency has taken in response to this recommendation, we will provide updated information.
Internal Revenue Service The Commissioner of Internal Revenue should update the public about the current status of ERC claims. (Recommendation 3)
Open Actions to satisfy the intent of the recommendation have not been taken or are being planned.
When we confirm what actions the agency has taken in response to this recommendation, we will provide updated information.
Internal Revenue Service The Commissioner of Internal Revenue should develop policies to ensure that-when implementing emergency employment tax relief-the agency adheres to the five principles in GAO's A Framework for Managing Improper Payments in Emergency Assistance Programs. (Recommendation 4)
Open Actions to satisfy the intent of the recommendation have not been taken or are being planned.
When we confirm what actions the agency has taken in response to this recommendation, we will provide updated information.
***
Original text here: https://www.gao.gov/products/gao-26-107456