GAO Reports
Here's a look at Government Accountability Office reports
GAO Reports
Featured Stories
Technology Modernization Fund: Small Savings Achieved So Far, but Substantial Future Savings Expected
WASHINGTON, July 23 (TNSLrpt) -- The Government Accountability Office issued the following report:
* * *
Technology Modernization Fund: Small Savings Achieved So Far, but Substantial Future Savings Expected
*
Fast Facts
Aging IT systems can be costly for federal agencies to manage and maintain. The Technology Modernization Fund invests funds in agency projects to modernize these systems, which can save money in the long run.
We reviewed expected savings for projects that received awards. We found that, as of June 2025, about $1.03 billion had been invested in 68 IT modernization projects. ... Show Full Article WASHINGTON, July 23 (TNSLrpt) -- The Government Accountability Office issued the following report: * * * Technology Modernization Fund: Small Savings Achieved So Far, but Substantial Future Savings Expected * Fast Facts Aging IT systems can be costly for federal agencies to manage and maintain. The Technology Modernization Fund invests funds in agency projects to modernize these systems, which can save money in the long run. We reviewed expected savings for projects that received awards. We found that, as of June 2025, about $1.03 billion had been invested in 68 IT modernization projects.
Of these 68 projects:
24 expect to save $1.06 billion combined
11 have already saved $13.5 million in total
Some haven't saved money yet or don't expect to
Many projects anticipate seeing results further down the line-potentially over a billion in total additional savings.
The words Legacy Technology placed superimposed on two computer keys.
Highlights
What GAO Found
The Technology Modernization Fund (TMF) invests funding in agency projects to, among other things, modernize aging federal information technology (IT) systems. From fiscal years 2018 through 2025, the TMF received over $1 billion in net appropriations, of which the Technology Modernization Board invested about $1.03 billion in 68 unclassified projects (see figure).
As of June 2025 (the latest data available at the time of this analysis), 24 TMF projects expected to achieve total savings of about $1.06 billion. Eleven of these projects had collectively realized savings of about $13.5 million, and 13 had not yet begun to achieve savings. While savings thus far have been small, the amount is not unexpected given that 21 projects-with expected savings of about $1.04 billion, or 98.3 percent of the total-anticipate achieving their savings in fiscal year 2027 or later. Thirty-seven projects did not expect any cost savings, but are intended to provide other value, such as mitigating security risks. Seven other projects were cancelled prior to June 2025 and no longer expect savings.
Most of the projects were still active as of June 2025. Of the six completed TMF projects that expected cost savings, two met or were on track to meet their expected savings (within 10 percent) and four did not meet or were not on track to meet their savings. Officials for the projects that did not meet their expected savings attributed it to various reasons, such as the removal of planned functionality and higher system migration costs than planned, which led to tens of millions less in actual savings than estimated.
As required under the Competition in Contracting Act of 1984, all procurements, with certain exceptions, must use full and open competition so that any qualified entity can submit an offer. Of 177 TMF contract actions, the majority (154, or 87 percent) were awarded using competitive procedures. This accounted for about $713.1 million (96 percent) of the total funding awarded. In 23 instances where agencies awarded contract actions without such procedures, the agencies documented authorized exceptions.
Why GAO Did This Study
The federal government has faced longstanding problems in managing its IT. The Modernizing Government Technology Act established the TMF to help address key IT modernization challenges. The Act stated that TMF funds should be used to procure commercial products and services using full and open competition to the greatest extent practicable. The Office of Management and Budget (OMB) issued guidance to agencies applying for TMF funds, directing that project proposals include a reliable estimate of any project-related cost savings.
The act includes a provision for GAO to report biennially on the TMF and the expected cost savings of projects that received funding. This fourth report identifies the (1) approved TMF projects, their invested funds, and their expected and actual cost savings; (2) extent to which agencies' completed projects met their expected cost savings targets; and (3) extent to which the agencies used full and open competition for any acquisitions related to TMF invested projects.
GAO analyzed and summarized TMF financial data and documentation, including cost estimates, associated with 68 projects in which GSA had invested funds as of June 2025. For applicable completed projects, GAO compared the difference between expected and realized cost savings to OMB's variance threshold of 10 percent.
GAO analyzed contract documentation for 32 projects that issued 177 contract actions between March 1, 2023, and June 2, 2025. GAO determined whether each one was awarded using full and open competition, in accordance with the Competition in Contracting Act of 1984 and the Federal Acquisition Regulation. GAO also interviewed relevant agency officials.
For more information, contact Carol C. Harris at HarrisCC@gao.gov.
***
Original text here: https://www.gao.gov/products/gao-26-107737
* * *
Technology Modernization Fund: Small Savings Achieved So Far, but Substantial Future Savings Expected
*
Fast Facts
Aging IT systems can be costly for federal agencies to manage and maintain. The Technology Modernization Fund invests funds in agency projects to modernize these systems, which can save money in the long run.
We reviewed expected savings for projects that received awards. We found that, as of June 2025, about $1.03 billion had been invested in 68 IT modernization projects. ... Show Full Article WASHINGTON, July 23 (TNSLrpt) -- The Government Accountability Office issued the following report: * * * Technology Modernization Fund: Small Savings Achieved So Far, but Substantial Future Savings Expected * Fast Facts Aging IT systems can be costly for federal agencies to manage and maintain. The Technology Modernization Fund invests funds in agency projects to modernize these systems, which can save money in the long run. We reviewed expected savings for projects that received awards. We found that, as of June 2025, about $1.03 billion had been invested in 68 IT modernization projects.
Of these 68 projects:
24 expect to save $1.06 billion combined
11 have already saved $13.5 million in total
Some haven't saved money yet or don't expect to
Many projects anticipate seeing results further down the line-potentially over a billion in total additional savings.
The words Legacy Technology placed superimposed on two computer keys.
Highlights
What GAO Found
The Technology Modernization Fund (TMF) invests funding in agency projects to, among other things, modernize aging federal information technology (IT) systems. From fiscal years 2018 through 2025, the TMF received over $1 billion in net appropriations, of which the Technology Modernization Board invested about $1.03 billion in 68 unclassified projects (see figure).
As of June 2025 (the latest data available at the time of this analysis), 24 TMF projects expected to achieve total savings of about $1.06 billion. Eleven of these projects had collectively realized savings of about $13.5 million, and 13 had not yet begun to achieve savings. While savings thus far have been small, the amount is not unexpected given that 21 projects-with expected savings of about $1.04 billion, or 98.3 percent of the total-anticipate achieving their savings in fiscal year 2027 or later. Thirty-seven projects did not expect any cost savings, but are intended to provide other value, such as mitigating security risks. Seven other projects were cancelled prior to June 2025 and no longer expect savings.
Most of the projects were still active as of June 2025. Of the six completed TMF projects that expected cost savings, two met or were on track to meet their expected savings (within 10 percent) and four did not meet or were not on track to meet their savings. Officials for the projects that did not meet their expected savings attributed it to various reasons, such as the removal of planned functionality and higher system migration costs than planned, which led to tens of millions less in actual savings than estimated.
As required under the Competition in Contracting Act of 1984, all procurements, with certain exceptions, must use full and open competition so that any qualified entity can submit an offer. Of 177 TMF contract actions, the majority (154, or 87 percent) were awarded using competitive procedures. This accounted for about $713.1 million (96 percent) of the total funding awarded. In 23 instances where agencies awarded contract actions without such procedures, the agencies documented authorized exceptions.
Why GAO Did This Study
The federal government has faced longstanding problems in managing its IT. The Modernizing Government Technology Act established the TMF to help address key IT modernization challenges. The Act stated that TMF funds should be used to procure commercial products and services using full and open competition to the greatest extent practicable. The Office of Management and Budget (OMB) issued guidance to agencies applying for TMF funds, directing that project proposals include a reliable estimate of any project-related cost savings.
The act includes a provision for GAO to report biennially on the TMF and the expected cost savings of projects that received funding. This fourth report identifies the (1) approved TMF projects, their invested funds, and their expected and actual cost savings; (2) extent to which agencies' completed projects met their expected cost savings targets; and (3) extent to which the agencies used full and open competition for any acquisitions related to TMF invested projects.
GAO analyzed and summarized TMF financial data and documentation, including cost estimates, associated with 68 projects in which GSA had invested funds as of June 2025. For applicable completed projects, GAO compared the difference between expected and realized cost savings to OMB's variance threshold of 10 percent.
GAO analyzed contract documentation for 32 projects that issued 177 contract actions between March 1, 2023, and June 2, 2025. GAO determined whether each one was awarded using full and open competition, in accordance with the Competition in Contracting Act of 1984 and the Federal Acquisition Regulation. GAO also interviewed relevant agency officials.
For more information, contact Carol C. Harris at HarrisCC@gao.gov.
***
Original text here: https://www.gao.gov/products/gao-26-107737
NASA: Assessments of Major Projects
WASHINGTON, July 23 (TNSLrpt) -- The Government Accountability Office issued the following report:
* * *
NASA: Assessments of Major Projects
*
Fast Facts
NASA's major projects explore Earth, the moon and solar system, and beyond. One project, the Orion crew capsule, enabled the second Artemis mission-4 astronauts successfully orbited the moon. Most projects stayed within their cost and schedule targets.
NASA announced big updates to future Artemis missions and paused work on some related projects in early 2026. It also reduced its workforce by over 20% as part of government-wide reduction ... Show Full Article WASHINGTON, July 23 (TNSLrpt) -- The Government Accountability Office issued the following report: * * * NASA: Assessments of Major Projects * Fast Facts NASA's major projects explore Earth, the moon and solar system, and beyond. One project, the Orion crew capsule, enabled the second Artemis mission-4 astronauts successfully orbited the moon. Most projects stayed within their cost and schedule targets. NASA announced big updates to future Artemis missions and paused work on some related projects in early 2026. It also reduced its workforce by over 20% as part of government-wide reductionefforts in 2025-and many projects are feeling the effects.
We made prior recommendations that NASA hasn't fully implemented. We'll continue to monitor NASA's major projects and workforce challenges.
The Artemis II Mission Successfully Launched in April 2026
A shuttle launching
Highlights
What GAO Found
Most of the National Aeronautics and Space Administration's (NASA) major projects in development reported no schedule delays or cost overruns in the last year. These projects are in the phase of building and testing their designs. Two of these 18 projects reported annual schedule delays (totaling 2 months) and three reported cost overruns (totaling $501.4 million). Similarly, the portfolio's cumulative costs and delays increased slightly, from $4.4 billion to nearly $4.7 billion and from 13.1 years to 14 years, respectively. The Orion crew capsule accounts for over half of the major projects' annual cost overruns and almost 75 percent of their cumulative cost overruns.
Cost and Schedule Performance for NASA's Major Projects Portfolio, 2025-2026
In February and March 2026, NASA announced significant changes to its Artemis missions-its effort to create a sustained lunar operations. The changes included revising the focus of the planned Artemis III, IV, and V missions, and pausing work on three Artemis projects. These projects include the Gateway, a small space station in lunar orbit that would have supported lunar missions. Under its new plan, NASA plans to shift its focus to infrastructure that enables sustained lunar surface operations.
Implementing changes to the Artemis missions will create acquisition management challenges for NASA as each Artemis-related project adjusts to the new plans. For example, two Artemis projects were reporting technical and programmatic risks that were likely to delay their schedules. Acting on GAO's prior recommendations to improve cost transparency, establish cost and schedule controls, and better manage acquisition risk could provide opportunities for NASA to strengthen its acquisition management.
In response to the administration's directive to reduce the size of the federal workforce, NASA reduced its civil servant workforce by 4,000 staff-or nearly 22 percent-in 2025. To date, 25 of 36 projects have reported effects from the reduced staffing. Subsequently, in February 2026, the NASA Administrator announced plans to resume hiring and address skill gaps. The President's fiscal year 2027 budget request, however, proposes to reduce funding for NASA by more than 20 percent. This request contributes to the ongoing uncertainty as to whether NASA will be able to hire the workforce needed to address skills gaps.
GAO will continue to closely monitor NASA's management of the Artemis projects, as well as the agency's efforts to address workforce challenges.
Why GAO Did This Study
NASA plans to invest at least $70 billion in estimated life-cycle costs for its portfolio of major projects (those with costs over $250 million). These projects aim to explore the solar system, return U.S. astronauts to the lunar surface, and advance aeronautic technologies. House explanatory statements have included provisions for GAO to prepare status reports on these projects. This is GAO's 18th annual report in response to those provisions.
GAO assessed (1) the cost and schedule performance of NASA's major projects in development; (2) the risks that could affect major project performance in the future; and (3) how NASA's workforce reductions since March 2025 have impacted its ability to manage its portfolio of major projects. This report also includes summaries of NASA's 36 major projects.
GAO collected and analyzed data on the 36 current NASA major projects; visited NASA facilities; interviewed officials; analyzed cost and schedule performance for the 18 projects in development; reviewed NASA's recent changes to the Artemis missions; analyzed workforce data; and reviewed documents and reports.
Recommendations
In its prior work, GAO made multiple recommendations to improve NASA's management of major projects. NASA has generally agreed with these recommendations, but has not yet addressed some in the areas of cost transparency and program cost and schedule controls. As of May 2026, NASA also had not yet fully implemented two recommendations to improve its acquisition management, which GAO identified as high priority.
***
Original text here: https://www.gao.gov/products/gao-26-108556
* * *
NASA: Assessments of Major Projects
*
Fast Facts
NASA's major projects explore Earth, the moon and solar system, and beyond. One project, the Orion crew capsule, enabled the second Artemis mission-4 astronauts successfully orbited the moon. Most projects stayed within their cost and schedule targets.
NASA announced big updates to future Artemis missions and paused work on some related projects in early 2026. It also reduced its workforce by over 20% as part of government-wide reduction ... Show Full Article WASHINGTON, July 23 (TNSLrpt) -- The Government Accountability Office issued the following report: * * * NASA: Assessments of Major Projects * Fast Facts NASA's major projects explore Earth, the moon and solar system, and beyond. One project, the Orion crew capsule, enabled the second Artemis mission-4 astronauts successfully orbited the moon. Most projects stayed within their cost and schedule targets. NASA announced big updates to future Artemis missions and paused work on some related projects in early 2026. It also reduced its workforce by over 20% as part of government-wide reductionefforts in 2025-and many projects are feeling the effects.
We made prior recommendations that NASA hasn't fully implemented. We'll continue to monitor NASA's major projects and workforce challenges.
The Artemis II Mission Successfully Launched in April 2026
A shuttle launching
Highlights
What GAO Found
Most of the National Aeronautics and Space Administration's (NASA) major projects in development reported no schedule delays or cost overruns in the last year. These projects are in the phase of building and testing their designs. Two of these 18 projects reported annual schedule delays (totaling 2 months) and three reported cost overruns (totaling $501.4 million). Similarly, the portfolio's cumulative costs and delays increased slightly, from $4.4 billion to nearly $4.7 billion and from 13.1 years to 14 years, respectively. The Orion crew capsule accounts for over half of the major projects' annual cost overruns and almost 75 percent of their cumulative cost overruns.
Cost and Schedule Performance for NASA's Major Projects Portfolio, 2025-2026
In February and March 2026, NASA announced significant changes to its Artemis missions-its effort to create a sustained lunar operations. The changes included revising the focus of the planned Artemis III, IV, and V missions, and pausing work on three Artemis projects. These projects include the Gateway, a small space station in lunar orbit that would have supported lunar missions. Under its new plan, NASA plans to shift its focus to infrastructure that enables sustained lunar surface operations.
Implementing changes to the Artemis missions will create acquisition management challenges for NASA as each Artemis-related project adjusts to the new plans. For example, two Artemis projects were reporting technical and programmatic risks that were likely to delay their schedules. Acting on GAO's prior recommendations to improve cost transparency, establish cost and schedule controls, and better manage acquisition risk could provide opportunities for NASA to strengthen its acquisition management.
In response to the administration's directive to reduce the size of the federal workforce, NASA reduced its civil servant workforce by 4,000 staff-or nearly 22 percent-in 2025. To date, 25 of 36 projects have reported effects from the reduced staffing. Subsequently, in February 2026, the NASA Administrator announced plans to resume hiring and address skill gaps. The President's fiscal year 2027 budget request, however, proposes to reduce funding for NASA by more than 20 percent. This request contributes to the ongoing uncertainty as to whether NASA will be able to hire the workforce needed to address skills gaps.
GAO will continue to closely monitor NASA's management of the Artemis projects, as well as the agency's efforts to address workforce challenges.
Why GAO Did This Study
NASA plans to invest at least $70 billion in estimated life-cycle costs for its portfolio of major projects (those with costs over $250 million). These projects aim to explore the solar system, return U.S. astronauts to the lunar surface, and advance aeronautic technologies. House explanatory statements have included provisions for GAO to prepare status reports on these projects. This is GAO's 18th annual report in response to those provisions.
GAO assessed (1) the cost and schedule performance of NASA's major projects in development; (2) the risks that could affect major project performance in the future; and (3) how NASA's workforce reductions since March 2025 have impacted its ability to manage its portfolio of major projects. This report also includes summaries of NASA's 36 major projects.
GAO collected and analyzed data on the 36 current NASA major projects; visited NASA facilities; interviewed officials; analyzed cost and schedule performance for the 18 projects in development; reviewed NASA's recent changes to the Artemis missions; analyzed workforce data; and reviewed documents and reports.
Recommendations
In its prior work, GAO made multiple recommendations to improve NASA's management of major projects. NASA has generally agreed with these recommendations, but has not yet addressed some in the areas of cost transparency and program cost and schedule controls. As of May 2026, NASA also had not yet fully implemented two recommendations to improve its acquisition management, which GAO identified as high priority.
***
Original text here: https://www.gao.gov/products/gao-26-108556
Combating Fraud: Managing Risks in Federally Funded, State-Administered Programs
WASHINGTON, July 23 (TNSLrpt) -- The Government Accountability Office issued the following report:
* * *
Combating Fraud: Managing Risks in Federally Funded, State-Administered Programs
*
Fast Facts
The federal government relies on state and local governments to administer some of its benefit and grant programs. An estimated $1.2 trillion went to these programs in FY 2025.
This Q&A report looks at the 20 programs that receive nearly all of this funding-Medicaid, SNAP, and disaster assistance for example. We describe how each program is administered, including who distributes and safeguards ... Show Full Article WASHINGTON, July 23 (TNSLrpt) -- The Government Accountability Office issued the following report: * * * Combating Fraud: Managing Risks in Federally Funded, State-Administered Programs * Fast Facts The federal government relies on state and local governments to administer some of its benefit and grant programs. An estimated $1.2 trillion went to these programs in FY 2025. This Q&A report looks at the 20 programs that receive nearly all of this funding-Medicaid, SNAP, and disaster assistance for example. We describe how each program is administered, including who distributes and safeguardsthe funds.
We also discuss fraud risks in each program and how to mitigate them. For example, federal agencies can follow our Fraud Risk Framework and implement our prior recommendations concerning fraud. We also identify ways Congress can help.
The word Fraud in bold type with the pronunciation and definition following blurred out.
Highlights
What GAO Found
Twenty programs, supporting a broad range of services from health care to disaster assistance, made up nearly 90 percent of federal obligations among programs administered by state and other government entities with obligations of over $100 million in fiscal year 2025. The 20 programs collectively accounted for $1.1 trillion in total federal obligations that year. Subrecipients, contractors, and others can also be involved in these programs, which can be helpful in delivering benefits and services. However, this decentralized structure can leave programs vulnerable to fraud schemes involving all these groups.
Information about fraud risks specific to each of the 20 selected programs varies, in part, because federal agencies have not fully assessed their risks. Of the 20 programs, five documented evidence consistent with identifying risks and assessing the likelihood of those risks to prioritize action; the other 15 did not have such documented evidence.
GAO's review of information from GAO, Office of Inspector General, and state audit reports identified both general and specific fraud risks facing federally funded, state-administered programs.
Examples of General Fraud Risks in Federally Funded, State-Administered Programs
Examples of specific fraud risks GAO identified in the 20 selected programs included cases where a consultant was convicted of falsifying permits used during a $4.3 million airport improvement project; households receiving housing assistance vouchers were underreporting income and landlords were receiving payments for vacant units; and an individual allegedly ran a fraud scheme involving student financial aid applications for over 1,200 people to over 100 schools in 24 states.
GAO's prior work and experiences from the United States and other countries provide insights that can help federal and state agencies, Congress, and others combat fraud. Federal and state agencies can better manage fraud risks and prevent fraud by
* applying GAO frameworks for managing fraud risks and improper payments, as well as other leading practices;
* leveraging available federal analytic resources, such as the Do Not Pay program, to verify recipient identity and eligibility before issuing federal funds; and
* implementing recommendations from GAO and other oversight entities that would address existing program vulnerabilities.
Key insights for Congress and federal agencies focus on efforts in three areas: (1) enhancing analytics for detecting fraud, (2) increasing transparency with prevention activities through reporting and data, and (3) adapting approaches to federal programs and professions to address evolving fraud threats.
Why GAO Did This Study
GAO estimated that the federal government loses between $233 billion and $521 billion annually to fraud, according to data from fiscal years 2018 through 2022. This represented 3 percent to 7 percent of average federal obligations government-wide. While fraud risks can vary substantially by program, every dollar or resource diverted to fraudsters hinders the federal government's ability to achieve its goals.
GAO was asked to review fraud risks in federally funded, state-administered programs. This report-the first in a body of work-provides information on 20 of the largest programs, how they are administered and overseen, what is known about fraud risks and related risk factors in these programs, and examples of leading practices and controls to address the risks.
GAO reviewed USAspending.gov data for fiscal year 2025 to identify and select programs. It also reviewed program information, such as from GAO, Congressional Research Service, Office of Inspector General, and state audit organization reports; federal laws, regulations, and agency documents requested from the 20 selected programs; and fraud cases adjudicated by the Department of Justice. GAO reviewed existing research and criteria on practices and controls to address fraud risks, including GAO's Fraud Risk Framework and those identified by experts within the U.S. and internationally.
Recommendations
GAO has 22 open recommendations to agencies related to fraud risk management among the programs reviewed. This report also offers key insights for combating fraud, including open GAO recommendations for Congress to enhance data analytics resources and reporting requirements. GAO will continue to monitor actions, including proposed legislation being considered by Congress, that would address these recommendations.
***
Original text here: https://www.gao.gov/products/gao-26-109100
* * *
Combating Fraud: Managing Risks in Federally Funded, State-Administered Programs
*
Fast Facts
The federal government relies on state and local governments to administer some of its benefit and grant programs. An estimated $1.2 trillion went to these programs in FY 2025.
This Q&A report looks at the 20 programs that receive nearly all of this funding-Medicaid, SNAP, and disaster assistance for example. We describe how each program is administered, including who distributes and safeguards ... Show Full Article WASHINGTON, July 23 (TNSLrpt) -- The Government Accountability Office issued the following report: * * * Combating Fraud: Managing Risks in Federally Funded, State-Administered Programs * Fast Facts The federal government relies on state and local governments to administer some of its benefit and grant programs. An estimated $1.2 trillion went to these programs in FY 2025. This Q&A report looks at the 20 programs that receive nearly all of this funding-Medicaid, SNAP, and disaster assistance for example. We describe how each program is administered, including who distributes and safeguardsthe funds.
We also discuss fraud risks in each program and how to mitigate them. For example, federal agencies can follow our Fraud Risk Framework and implement our prior recommendations concerning fraud. We also identify ways Congress can help.
The word Fraud in bold type with the pronunciation and definition following blurred out.
Highlights
What GAO Found
Twenty programs, supporting a broad range of services from health care to disaster assistance, made up nearly 90 percent of federal obligations among programs administered by state and other government entities with obligations of over $100 million in fiscal year 2025. The 20 programs collectively accounted for $1.1 trillion in total federal obligations that year. Subrecipients, contractors, and others can also be involved in these programs, which can be helpful in delivering benefits and services. However, this decentralized structure can leave programs vulnerable to fraud schemes involving all these groups.
Information about fraud risks specific to each of the 20 selected programs varies, in part, because federal agencies have not fully assessed their risks. Of the 20 programs, five documented evidence consistent with identifying risks and assessing the likelihood of those risks to prioritize action; the other 15 did not have such documented evidence.
GAO's review of information from GAO, Office of Inspector General, and state audit reports identified both general and specific fraud risks facing federally funded, state-administered programs.
Examples of General Fraud Risks in Federally Funded, State-Administered Programs
Examples of specific fraud risks GAO identified in the 20 selected programs included cases where a consultant was convicted of falsifying permits used during a $4.3 million airport improvement project; households receiving housing assistance vouchers were underreporting income and landlords were receiving payments for vacant units; and an individual allegedly ran a fraud scheme involving student financial aid applications for over 1,200 people to over 100 schools in 24 states.
GAO's prior work and experiences from the United States and other countries provide insights that can help federal and state agencies, Congress, and others combat fraud. Federal and state agencies can better manage fraud risks and prevent fraud by
* applying GAO frameworks for managing fraud risks and improper payments, as well as other leading practices;
* leveraging available federal analytic resources, such as the Do Not Pay program, to verify recipient identity and eligibility before issuing federal funds; and
* implementing recommendations from GAO and other oversight entities that would address existing program vulnerabilities.
Key insights for Congress and federal agencies focus on efforts in three areas: (1) enhancing analytics for detecting fraud, (2) increasing transparency with prevention activities through reporting and data, and (3) adapting approaches to federal programs and professions to address evolving fraud threats.
Why GAO Did This Study
GAO estimated that the federal government loses between $233 billion and $521 billion annually to fraud, according to data from fiscal years 2018 through 2022. This represented 3 percent to 7 percent of average federal obligations government-wide. While fraud risks can vary substantially by program, every dollar or resource diverted to fraudsters hinders the federal government's ability to achieve its goals.
GAO was asked to review fraud risks in federally funded, state-administered programs. This report-the first in a body of work-provides information on 20 of the largest programs, how they are administered and overseen, what is known about fraud risks and related risk factors in these programs, and examples of leading practices and controls to address the risks.
GAO reviewed USAspending.gov data for fiscal year 2025 to identify and select programs. It also reviewed program information, such as from GAO, Congressional Research Service, Office of Inspector General, and state audit organization reports; federal laws, regulations, and agency documents requested from the 20 selected programs; and fraud cases adjudicated by the Department of Justice. GAO reviewed existing research and criteria on practices and controls to address fraud risks, including GAO's Fraud Risk Framework and those identified by experts within the U.S. and internationally.
Recommendations
GAO has 22 open recommendations to agencies related to fraud risk management among the programs reviewed. This report also offers key insights for combating fraud, including open GAO recommendations for Congress to enhance data analytics resources and reporting requirements. GAO will continue to monitor actions, including proposed legislation being considered by Congress, that would address these recommendations.
***
Original text here: https://www.gao.gov/products/gao-26-109100
Bank Regulatory Reviews: Action Needed to Better Identify and Address Unnecessary or Unduly Burdensome Requirements
WASHINGTON, July 23 (TNSLrpt) -- The Government Accountability Office issued the following report:
* * *
Bank Regulatory Reviews: Action Needed to Better Identify and Address Unnecessary or Unduly Burdensome Requirements
*
Fast Facts
The Economic Growth and Regulatory Paperwork Reduction Act of 1996 requires federal banking agencies to retrospectively review regulations to find and address unnecessary or undue regulatory burdens. However, it's hard to tell if these efforts are effective.
For example, agencies don't have documented procedures for identifying outdated or unnecessary regulations ... Show Full Article WASHINGTON, July 23 (TNSLrpt) -- The Government Accountability Office issued the following report: * * * Bank Regulatory Reviews: Action Needed to Better Identify and Address Unnecessary or Unduly Burdensome Requirements * Fast Facts The Economic Growth and Regulatory Paperwork Reduction Act of 1996 requires federal banking agencies to retrospectively review regulations to find and address unnecessary or undue regulatory burdens. However, it's hard to tell if these efforts are effective. For example, agencies don't have documented procedures for identifying outdated or unnecessary regulationsor determining whether issues raised in reviews warrant action. By having documented procedures and incorporating leading practices, agencies could improve the likelihood that these reviews meaningfully reduce burdens.
We made recommendations to address these issues.
Bank building
Highlights
What GAO Found
The Economic Growth and Regulatory Paperwork Reduction Act of 1996 (EGRPRA) requires the federal banking agencies to solicit and review public comments on their regulations to identify and eliminate outdated, unnecessary, or unduly burdensome regulations on insured depository institutions, as appropriate.
How Federal Banking Agencies Conduct Decennial EGRPRA Reviews
Outcomes from the EGRPRA reviews are often difficult to identify, and their connection to subsequent regulatory actions is often unclear. As a result, it can be difficult to determine the extent to which actions described in the EGRPRA report were driven by the review itself. For example, some actions described in the 2017 EGRPRA report were initiated in response to other statutory requirements, while other actions were initiated before or concurrently with the review. Representatives from six of eight organizations GAO interviewed said the reviews do not often lead to actions to modify or eliminate unnecessary regulations, and a public interest group representative noted that it is difficult to connect the EGRPRA reviews with concrete regulatory changes.
Another reason EGRPRA reviews' outcomes are unclear is that the agencies do not have documented procedures for identifying outdated or unnecessary regulations or determining whether issues raised in the reviews warrant action. Two agencies have draft procedures that could help address these gaps, but they have not yet been fully developed or demonstrated in practice. Implementing documented procedures would help ensure that issues identified through the review are systematically evaluated and lead to clear determinations about whether they warrant action and, where appropriate, regulatory changes. Having documented procedures also is important given the long time frame between EGRPRA reviews.
Additionally, the agencies' EGRPRA review processes reflect some leading practices for retrospective regulatory reviews, such as coordinating across agencies and soliciting public input, but do not fully reflect others. In particular, the agencies have not incorporated practices related to prioritizing which rules to analyze, conducting cost-benefit analysis, and assessing the combined burden of multiple regulations. As a result, they may not consistently focus on the most significant issues, assess regulatory impacts and trade-offs, or understand how multiple regulations collectively affect regulated entities.
Why GAO Did This Study
EGRPRA requires the Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System, Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation, and Office of the Comptroller of the Currency to review their regulations at least once every 10 years and submit a joint report to Congress. As of July 2026, the agencies were conducting their third such review.
The Dodd-Frank Wall Street Reform and Consumer Protection Act includes a provision for GAO to report annually on financial services regulations. This report examines (1) how the federal banking agencies have conducted their EGRPRA reviews, (2) the outcomes of those reviews, and (3) the extent to which they reflect leading practices.
GAO reviewed reports by federal agencies; examined available documentation from the previous and current EGRPRA reviews, guidance, and regulations issued by the federal banking agencies; and interviewed agency officials and eight organizations selected because they submitted EGRPRA comments in the previous and current reviews.
Recommendations
GAO is making six recommendations, specifically that each federal banking agency should (1) implement procedures for identifying outdated, unnecessary, or unduly burdensome regulations and taking actions to address them during their EGRPRA reviews; and (2) incorporate into these reviews a framework for prioritizing rules for retrospective analysis, cost-benefit analysis, and assessment of cumulative regulatory burden. While the agencies outlined some actions they have taken, they neither agreed nor disagreed with the recommendations.
Recommendations for Executive Action
Agency Affected Recommendation Status
Federal Reserve System The Chair of the Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System should complete the development and implementation of documented procedures for identifying outdated, unnecessary, or unduly burdensome regulations and taking action to address them during the EGRPRA review. (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.
Federal Reserve System The Chair of the Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System should incorporate into the agency's EGRPRA review, to the extent practicable, (1) a framework for prioritizing rules for retrospective analysis; (2) cost-benefit analysis; and (3) an assessment of cumulative regulatory burden, where feasible. (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 Deposit Insurance Corporation The Chairman of FDIC should complete the development and implementation of documented procedures for identifying outdated, unnecessary, or unduly burdensome regulations and taking action to address them during the EGRPRA review. (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.
Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation The Chairman of FDIC should incorporate into the agency's EGRPRA review, to the extent practicable, (1) a framework for prioritizing rules for retrospective analysis; (2) cost-benefit analysis; and (3) an assessment of cumulative regulatory burden, where feasible. (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.
Office of the Comptroller of the Currency The Comptroller of the Currency should develop and implement documented procedures for identifying outdated, unnecessary, or unduly burdensome regulations and taking action to address them during the EGRPRA review. (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.
Office of the Comptroller of the Currency The Comptroller of the Currency should incorporate into the agency's EGRPRA review, to the extent practicable, (1) a framework for prioritizing rules for retrospective analysis; (2) cost-benefit analysis; and (3) an assessment of cumulative regulatory burden, where feasible. (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.
See All 6 Recommendations
***
Original text here: https://www.gao.gov/products/gao-26-108027
* * *
Bank Regulatory Reviews: Action Needed to Better Identify and Address Unnecessary or Unduly Burdensome Requirements
*
Fast Facts
The Economic Growth and Regulatory Paperwork Reduction Act of 1996 requires federal banking agencies to retrospectively review regulations to find and address unnecessary or undue regulatory burdens. However, it's hard to tell if these efforts are effective.
For example, agencies don't have documented procedures for identifying outdated or unnecessary regulations ... Show Full Article WASHINGTON, July 23 (TNSLrpt) -- The Government Accountability Office issued the following report: * * * Bank Regulatory Reviews: Action Needed to Better Identify and Address Unnecessary or Unduly Burdensome Requirements * Fast Facts The Economic Growth and Regulatory Paperwork Reduction Act of 1996 requires federal banking agencies to retrospectively review regulations to find and address unnecessary or undue regulatory burdens. However, it's hard to tell if these efforts are effective. For example, agencies don't have documented procedures for identifying outdated or unnecessary regulationsor determining whether issues raised in reviews warrant action. By having documented procedures and incorporating leading practices, agencies could improve the likelihood that these reviews meaningfully reduce burdens.
We made recommendations to address these issues.
Bank building
Highlights
What GAO Found
The Economic Growth and Regulatory Paperwork Reduction Act of 1996 (EGRPRA) requires the federal banking agencies to solicit and review public comments on their regulations to identify and eliminate outdated, unnecessary, or unduly burdensome regulations on insured depository institutions, as appropriate.
How Federal Banking Agencies Conduct Decennial EGRPRA Reviews
Outcomes from the EGRPRA reviews are often difficult to identify, and their connection to subsequent regulatory actions is often unclear. As a result, it can be difficult to determine the extent to which actions described in the EGRPRA report were driven by the review itself. For example, some actions described in the 2017 EGRPRA report were initiated in response to other statutory requirements, while other actions were initiated before or concurrently with the review. Representatives from six of eight organizations GAO interviewed said the reviews do not often lead to actions to modify or eliminate unnecessary regulations, and a public interest group representative noted that it is difficult to connect the EGRPRA reviews with concrete regulatory changes.
Another reason EGRPRA reviews' outcomes are unclear is that the agencies do not have documented procedures for identifying outdated or unnecessary regulations or determining whether issues raised in the reviews warrant action. Two agencies have draft procedures that could help address these gaps, but they have not yet been fully developed or demonstrated in practice. Implementing documented procedures would help ensure that issues identified through the review are systematically evaluated and lead to clear determinations about whether they warrant action and, where appropriate, regulatory changes. Having documented procedures also is important given the long time frame between EGRPRA reviews.
Additionally, the agencies' EGRPRA review processes reflect some leading practices for retrospective regulatory reviews, such as coordinating across agencies and soliciting public input, but do not fully reflect others. In particular, the agencies have not incorporated practices related to prioritizing which rules to analyze, conducting cost-benefit analysis, and assessing the combined burden of multiple regulations. As a result, they may not consistently focus on the most significant issues, assess regulatory impacts and trade-offs, or understand how multiple regulations collectively affect regulated entities.
Why GAO Did This Study
EGRPRA requires the Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System, Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation, and Office of the Comptroller of the Currency to review their regulations at least once every 10 years and submit a joint report to Congress. As of July 2026, the agencies were conducting their third such review.
The Dodd-Frank Wall Street Reform and Consumer Protection Act includes a provision for GAO to report annually on financial services regulations. This report examines (1) how the federal banking agencies have conducted their EGRPRA reviews, (2) the outcomes of those reviews, and (3) the extent to which they reflect leading practices.
GAO reviewed reports by federal agencies; examined available documentation from the previous and current EGRPRA reviews, guidance, and regulations issued by the federal banking agencies; and interviewed agency officials and eight organizations selected because they submitted EGRPRA comments in the previous and current reviews.
Recommendations
GAO is making six recommendations, specifically that each federal banking agency should (1) implement procedures for identifying outdated, unnecessary, or unduly burdensome regulations and taking actions to address them during their EGRPRA reviews; and (2) incorporate into these reviews a framework for prioritizing rules for retrospective analysis, cost-benefit analysis, and assessment of cumulative regulatory burden. While the agencies outlined some actions they have taken, they neither agreed nor disagreed with the recommendations.
Recommendations for Executive Action
Agency Affected Recommendation Status
Federal Reserve System The Chair of the Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System should complete the development and implementation of documented procedures for identifying outdated, unnecessary, or unduly burdensome regulations and taking action to address them during the EGRPRA review. (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.
Federal Reserve System The Chair of the Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System should incorporate into the agency's EGRPRA review, to the extent practicable, (1) a framework for prioritizing rules for retrospective analysis; (2) cost-benefit analysis; and (3) an assessment of cumulative regulatory burden, where feasible. (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 Deposit Insurance Corporation The Chairman of FDIC should complete the development and implementation of documented procedures for identifying outdated, unnecessary, or unduly burdensome regulations and taking action to address them during the EGRPRA review. (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.
Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation The Chairman of FDIC should incorporate into the agency's EGRPRA review, to the extent practicable, (1) a framework for prioritizing rules for retrospective analysis; (2) cost-benefit analysis; and (3) an assessment of cumulative regulatory burden, where feasible. (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.
Office of the Comptroller of the Currency The Comptroller of the Currency should develop and implement documented procedures for identifying outdated, unnecessary, or unduly burdensome regulations and taking action to address them during the EGRPRA review. (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.
Office of the Comptroller of the Currency The Comptroller of the Currency should incorporate into the agency's EGRPRA review, to the extent practicable, (1) a framework for prioritizing rules for retrospective analysis; (2) cost-benefit analysis; and (3) an assessment of cumulative regulatory burden, where feasible. (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.
See All 6 Recommendations
***
Original text here: https://www.gao.gov/products/gao-26-108027
Army Corps of Engineers: Stakeholders and Corps Views on Legal Protections in Project Partnership Agreements
WASHINGTON, July 23 (TNSLrpt) -- The Government Accountability Office issued the following report:
* * *
Army Corps of Engineers: Stakeholders and Corps Views on Legal Protections in Project Partnership Agreements
*
Fast Facts
The U.S. Army Corps of Engineers enters into partnership agreements with sponsors, such as states or Tribes, to carry out water development projects like flood control, ecosystem restoration, and more. The agreements include a clause that generally places responsibility for damages or lawsuits on the sponsors, not the U.S. government.
The Corps and sponsors told us ... Show Full Article WASHINGTON, July 23 (TNSLrpt) -- The Government Accountability Office issued the following report: * * * Army Corps of Engineers: Stakeholders and Corps Views on Legal Protections in Project Partnership Agreements * Fast Facts The U.S. Army Corps of Engineers enters into partnership agreements with sponsors, such as states or Tribes, to carry out water development projects like flood control, ecosystem restoration, and more. The agreements include a clause that generally places responsibility for damages or lawsuits on the sponsors, not the U.S. government. The Corps and sponsors told usthey have a strong partnership. But sponsors also said they're concerned about the protection clause. For example, they noted the clause may conflict with state laws and expose sponsors to greater liability.
The Corps said it works with sponsors to address their concerns.
The Los Angeles River Ecosystem Restoration Project
A bridge with cars on it over a river with several large concrete structures running parallel in the river.
Highlights
What GAO Found
The U.S. Army Corps of Engineers enters into Project Partnership Agreements (PPA) with nonfederal sponsors to execute water resources projects. These PPAs include a clause to "hold and save the Government from damages arising from the project" except those due to the fault or negligence of the U.S. or its contractors. Corps officials said the clause may protect the federal government from legal costs by discouraging litigation-a key advantage.
Nonfederal sponsors described disadvantages they perceive with the clause. These include concerns about the scope of liability and conflicts with certain state laws. Corps officials said the agency has taken steps to address these reported disadvantages, such as including a provision in PPAs stating that the PPA does not obligate future appropriations where it would conflict with state law. Both Corps officials and nonfederal sponsors said that the clause has not been tested in court, so the financial impact of the clause remains uncertain.
Nonfederal sponsors and other stakeholders offered a range of recommendations to address what they reported as disadvantages of the clause. However, Corps officials told GAO that implementing such recommendations would increase costs for the Corps and conflict with statutory requirements. Even in light of the reported disadvantages, Corps officials and nonfederal sponsors continue to enter into PPAs, and they described a strong partnership.
Examples of Recommendations by Nonfederal Sponsors and Stakeholders to Address Reported Disadvantages of the Hold and Save Clause
The Bureau of Land Management, Bureau of Reclamation, and U.S. Forest Service also include clauses in agreements to protect the U.S. against damages. To address related concerns, these agencies have taken steps such as allowing parties to purchase insurance instead. However, Corps officials said their legal requirements differ from other agencies, and therefore they cannot offer similar flexibilities.
Why GAO Did This Study
Through its Civil Works program, the Corps plans, designs, and constructs water resources projects nationwide for purposes including flood risk management, navigation, and ecosystem restoration. In fiscal year 2025, the Corps received approximately $8.8 billion to carry out these projects.
For such projects, the Corps enters into PPAs with nonfederal sponsors, which can include states, local governments and Tribes. Nonfederal sponsors have reported concerns about the statutorily required hold and save clause in these agreements.
The Thomas R. Carper Water Resources Development Act of 2024 includes a provision for GAO to review issues related to federal legal protections in PPAs, among other things. This report provides information on reported advantages and disadvantages of the clause, actions taken to address the reported disadvantages, recommendations by nonfederal sponsors and others regarding such clauses, approaches used by selected federal agencies to address concerns about similar clauses that protect the U.S. against damages, and Corps responses.
GAO reviewed relevant federal regulations, statutes, agency policies, and sample agreements. GAO also interviewed a group of 12 nonfederal sponsors, two other relevant stakeholders, and Corps headquarters and district officials based on certain criteria.
For more information, contact Steve D. Morris at Morriss@gao.gov.
***
Original text here: https://www.gao.gov/products/gao-26-108625
* * *
Army Corps of Engineers: Stakeholders and Corps Views on Legal Protections in Project Partnership Agreements
*
Fast Facts
The U.S. Army Corps of Engineers enters into partnership agreements with sponsors, such as states or Tribes, to carry out water development projects like flood control, ecosystem restoration, and more. The agreements include a clause that generally places responsibility for damages or lawsuits on the sponsors, not the U.S. government.
The Corps and sponsors told us ... Show Full Article WASHINGTON, July 23 (TNSLrpt) -- The Government Accountability Office issued the following report: * * * Army Corps of Engineers: Stakeholders and Corps Views on Legal Protections in Project Partnership Agreements * Fast Facts The U.S. Army Corps of Engineers enters into partnership agreements with sponsors, such as states or Tribes, to carry out water development projects like flood control, ecosystem restoration, and more. The agreements include a clause that generally places responsibility for damages or lawsuits on the sponsors, not the U.S. government. The Corps and sponsors told usthey have a strong partnership. But sponsors also said they're concerned about the protection clause. For example, they noted the clause may conflict with state laws and expose sponsors to greater liability.
The Corps said it works with sponsors to address their concerns.
The Los Angeles River Ecosystem Restoration Project
A bridge with cars on it over a river with several large concrete structures running parallel in the river.
Highlights
What GAO Found
The U.S. Army Corps of Engineers enters into Project Partnership Agreements (PPA) with nonfederal sponsors to execute water resources projects. These PPAs include a clause to "hold and save the Government from damages arising from the project" except those due to the fault or negligence of the U.S. or its contractors. Corps officials said the clause may protect the federal government from legal costs by discouraging litigation-a key advantage.
Nonfederal sponsors described disadvantages they perceive with the clause. These include concerns about the scope of liability and conflicts with certain state laws. Corps officials said the agency has taken steps to address these reported disadvantages, such as including a provision in PPAs stating that the PPA does not obligate future appropriations where it would conflict with state law. Both Corps officials and nonfederal sponsors said that the clause has not been tested in court, so the financial impact of the clause remains uncertain.
Nonfederal sponsors and other stakeholders offered a range of recommendations to address what they reported as disadvantages of the clause. However, Corps officials told GAO that implementing such recommendations would increase costs for the Corps and conflict with statutory requirements. Even in light of the reported disadvantages, Corps officials and nonfederal sponsors continue to enter into PPAs, and they described a strong partnership.
Examples of Recommendations by Nonfederal Sponsors and Stakeholders to Address Reported Disadvantages of the Hold and Save Clause
The Bureau of Land Management, Bureau of Reclamation, and U.S. Forest Service also include clauses in agreements to protect the U.S. against damages. To address related concerns, these agencies have taken steps such as allowing parties to purchase insurance instead. However, Corps officials said their legal requirements differ from other agencies, and therefore they cannot offer similar flexibilities.
Why GAO Did This Study
Through its Civil Works program, the Corps plans, designs, and constructs water resources projects nationwide for purposes including flood risk management, navigation, and ecosystem restoration. In fiscal year 2025, the Corps received approximately $8.8 billion to carry out these projects.
For such projects, the Corps enters into PPAs with nonfederal sponsors, which can include states, local governments and Tribes. Nonfederal sponsors have reported concerns about the statutorily required hold and save clause in these agreements.
The Thomas R. Carper Water Resources Development Act of 2024 includes a provision for GAO to review issues related to federal legal protections in PPAs, among other things. This report provides information on reported advantages and disadvantages of the clause, actions taken to address the reported disadvantages, recommendations by nonfederal sponsors and others regarding such clauses, approaches used by selected federal agencies to address concerns about similar clauses that protect the U.S. against damages, and Corps responses.
GAO reviewed relevant federal regulations, statutes, agency policies, and sample agreements. GAO also interviewed a group of 12 nonfederal sponsors, two other relevant stakeholders, and Corps headquarters and district officials based on certain criteria.
For more information, contact Steve D. Morris at Morriss@gao.gov.
***
Original text here: https://www.gao.gov/products/gao-26-108625
Critical Minerals: Reducing U.S. Import Reliance with Substitution and Recycling Technologies
WASHINGTON, July 22 (TNSLrpt) -- The Government Accountability Office issued the following report:
* * *
Critical Minerals: Reducing U.S. Import Reliance with Substitution and Recycling Technologies
*
Fast Facts
The U.S. relies on imports for many critical minerals that are essential to the battery and semiconductor industries. But their supply chains are vulnerable to disruptions.
We looked at how substitution and recycling technologies might reduce reliance on imports. Battery recycling-extracting minerals from batteries for reuse-could reduce imports in 2 to 3 years. Policy options that ... Show Full Article WASHINGTON, July 22 (TNSLrpt) -- The Government Accountability Office issued the following report: * * * Critical Minerals: Reducing U.S. Import Reliance with Substitution and Recycling Technologies * Fast Facts The U.S. relies on imports for many critical minerals that are essential to the battery and semiconductor industries. But their supply chains are vulnerable to disruptions. We looked at how substitution and recycling technologies might reduce reliance on imports. Battery recycling-extracting minerals from batteries for reuse-could reduce imports in 2 to 3 years. Policy options thatcould help reach this goal include establishing infrastructure for collecting and recycling materials.
By contrast, substitution and recycling may not reduce short-term import reliance in the semiconductor industry.
An electronic chip with small rock-like items on it.
Highlights
What GAO Found
Technologies like batteries and semiconductors are essential to the U.S. economy but rely on imports of lithium, gallium, and other critical minerals. GAO found that substitution and recycling technologies could help reduce U.S. reliance on these imports. But progress is likely to take many years in some cases.
Potential for technologies to reduce critical mineral import reliance
For batteries, substitution and recycling technologies offer near-term potential. For example, using lithium iron phosphate batteries for stationary grid energy storage might reduce imports of cobalt, manganese, and nickel in the next 2 to 3 years. But these batteries do not perform as well in other applications, like long-haul electric vehicles, due to their lower energy density. Lithium-free batteries are not yet commercially mature. Battery recycling technologies are mature and offer a pathway to reduce imports for copper, cobalt, lithium, and nickel in 2 to 3 years. These technologies aim to recover critical minerals at high rates through chemical leaching and smelting. Experts told GAO, however, that U.S. battery recyclers lack capacity. Additionally, available inputs for recycling (referred to as feedstock) are often landfilled or exported for processing.
For semiconductors, most substitution and recycling technologies are likely years away from maturity. Substitution is unlikely to have a near-term effect on import reliance of minerals, such as gallium and indium, because other materials do not perform as well as these critical minerals across the same conditions. Experts told GAO that industry will not adopt substitutes until they can perform at the same level as current semiconductor materials in the intended application. Technologies to recycle minerals from semiconductors also face challenges, such as an underdeveloped market. Semiconductor manufacturing scrap is a potential source of recycled minerals, though this is not yet standard practice in the U.S. Discarded electronics are another potentially large source, but their critical mineral content is low, and those minerals are generally mixed and bonded with other materials. Technologies to recycle this form of electronic waste are in pilot-stage development.
GAO identified four policy options that could support the goal of reducing critical mineral import reliance and help address challenges to recycling and substitution technologies. These options identify possible actions by policymakers, which include legislative bodies, government agencies (federal, state, and local), academia, standards-setting organizations, industry, and other groups. In general, these technologies have potential, with policy action, to reduce some of this reliance in the near, medium, or long term. See below for details on these options.
Policymakers could also choose to pursue non-technological policy approaches, such as increased domestic mining. Many non-technological approaches are the subject of current and proposed legislation and executive action (see report p. 6).
Policy options to support reducing critical mineral import reliance and address challenges to substitution and recycling technologies
Establish domestic manufacturing capacity for viable substitutes (report p. 23)
Policymakers could consider building or repurposing existing manufacturing capacity to produce substitute technologies for batteries and semiconductors.
Potential implementation approaches
* Providing support for private capital investments in manufacturing plants for commercially available battery technologies.
* Establishing facilities or partnerships to perform pilot-scale testing of semiconductor substitutes.
Opportunities and Considerations
* Domestic manufacturing capacity could allow for near-term production of commercially available substitute technologies like lithium iron phosphate batteries, which could reduce import reliance on critical minerals like cobalt and nickel.
* Battery and semiconductor production facilities are costly and tend to be specialized for the production of a particular technology.
Establish domestic recycling capacity (report p. 24)
Policymakers could build domestic infrastructure to bolster the domestic capacity to recycle batteries and semiconductors.
Potential implementation approaches
* Providing support for private investment in factories for new battery recycling.
* Collecting and sharing data on manufacturing scrap and end-of-life devices containing batteries and semiconductors.
* Reviewing and streamlining permitting requirements and hazardous waste designations.
Opportunities and Considerations
* Expanded domestic infrastructure could reduce or eliminate the need to ship partially processed batteries overseas for recycling.
* Building domestic recycling infrastructure may not reduce import reliance for selected critical minerals in the near term, since building new or repurposing existing infrastructure can take a decade or more and require significant investment.
Secure inputs for recycling (report p. 24)
Policymakers could support efforts to collect, sort, transport, and store manufacturing scrap and end-of-life devices for recycling and reuse.
Potential implementation approaches
* Establishing and overseeing national and local electronic waste collection programs that provide education and resources (e.g., drop-off locations) for consumers.
* Providing financial incentives for industry to collect or retain manufacturing scrap and end-of-life devices for recycling.
Opportunities and Considerations
* Securing a consistent supply of inputs for recycling and reuse could help reduce the need for critical mineral importation in the near term.
* Although mature battery recycling technologies exist, securing additional inputs may exacerbate challenges related to the safety, transportation, and handling of hazardous materials.
* Without demand and competitively priced recycled semiconductor materials, it may be difficult for recyclers to scale their operations and offset the amount of imported minerals required in the near term.
Support research, development, and testing (report p. 25)
Policymakers could continue or grow support for research, development, and testing of substitution and recycling technologies.
Potential implementation approaches
* Supporting research to improve performance of lithium-free batteries.
* Supporting research into battery recycling technologies that reduce or avoid the cost, waste issues, and environmental impact of current techniques.
* Encouraging targeted materials research focused on semiconductor substitutes that maintain or enhance material performance and reduce the use of critical minerals when possible.
* Supporting research on more efficient semiconductor recycling technologies that recover more critical minerals.
Opportunities and Considerations
* Increased research could help overcome current limitations of existing technologies, resulting in better performance (e.g., higher energy density batteries, larger bandgap semiconductors) or higher commercialization potential (e.g., improved recovery of minerals from semiconductors).
* Research, development, and testing efforts may not yield mature technologies in the near term.
Source: GAO. | GAO-26-108687
Why GAO Did This Study
The U.S. considers 60 minerals as critical because they are essential to the nation's economy or security and have supply chains vulnerable to disruption.
Several critical minerals are key to the functioning of batteries and semiconductors, which have applications in electric vehicles, stationary grid energy storage, consumer electronics, and the defense industry. For example, lithium is a key component of modern batteries that are both lightweight and energy-dense. Semiconductors rely on the unique electrical properties of critical minerals such as gallium, germanium, arsenic, and indium.
U.S. executive and legislative branch policymakers have a long-standing goal to reduce critical mineral import reliance, through technological innovations and other approaches.
This report examines: (1) substitution and recycling technologies to reduce import reliance on critical minerals within the battery and semiconductor industries, (2) challenges to the development and adoption of these technologies, and (3) policy options to support reducing reliance.
To conduct this technology assessment, GAO interviewed federal officials and experts and reviewed academic papers, agency and expert documentation, and federal policy. GAO identified four policy options in this report (see next page).
For more information, contact Sarah Harvey at HarveyS@gao.gov.
***
Original text here: https://www.gao.gov/products/gao-26-108687
* * *
Critical Minerals: Reducing U.S. Import Reliance with Substitution and Recycling Technologies
*
Fast Facts
The U.S. relies on imports for many critical minerals that are essential to the battery and semiconductor industries. But their supply chains are vulnerable to disruptions.
We looked at how substitution and recycling technologies might reduce reliance on imports. Battery recycling-extracting minerals from batteries for reuse-could reduce imports in 2 to 3 years. Policy options that ... Show Full Article WASHINGTON, July 22 (TNSLrpt) -- The Government Accountability Office issued the following report: * * * Critical Minerals: Reducing U.S. Import Reliance with Substitution and Recycling Technologies * Fast Facts The U.S. relies on imports for many critical minerals that are essential to the battery and semiconductor industries. But their supply chains are vulnerable to disruptions. We looked at how substitution and recycling technologies might reduce reliance on imports. Battery recycling-extracting minerals from batteries for reuse-could reduce imports in 2 to 3 years. Policy options thatcould help reach this goal include establishing infrastructure for collecting and recycling materials.
By contrast, substitution and recycling may not reduce short-term import reliance in the semiconductor industry.
An electronic chip with small rock-like items on it.
Highlights
What GAO Found
Technologies like batteries and semiconductors are essential to the U.S. economy but rely on imports of lithium, gallium, and other critical minerals. GAO found that substitution and recycling technologies could help reduce U.S. reliance on these imports. But progress is likely to take many years in some cases.
Potential for technologies to reduce critical mineral import reliance
For batteries, substitution and recycling technologies offer near-term potential. For example, using lithium iron phosphate batteries for stationary grid energy storage might reduce imports of cobalt, manganese, and nickel in the next 2 to 3 years. But these batteries do not perform as well in other applications, like long-haul electric vehicles, due to their lower energy density. Lithium-free batteries are not yet commercially mature. Battery recycling technologies are mature and offer a pathway to reduce imports for copper, cobalt, lithium, and nickel in 2 to 3 years. These technologies aim to recover critical minerals at high rates through chemical leaching and smelting. Experts told GAO, however, that U.S. battery recyclers lack capacity. Additionally, available inputs for recycling (referred to as feedstock) are often landfilled or exported for processing.
For semiconductors, most substitution and recycling technologies are likely years away from maturity. Substitution is unlikely to have a near-term effect on import reliance of minerals, such as gallium and indium, because other materials do not perform as well as these critical minerals across the same conditions. Experts told GAO that industry will not adopt substitutes until they can perform at the same level as current semiconductor materials in the intended application. Technologies to recycle minerals from semiconductors also face challenges, such as an underdeveloped market. Semiconductor manufacturing scrap is a potential source of recycled minerals, though this is not yet standard practice in the U.S. Discarded electronics are another potentially large source, but their critical mineral content is low, and those minerals are generally mixed and bonded with other materials. Technologies to recycle this form of electronic waste are in pilot-stage development.
GAO identified four policy options that could support the goal of reducing critical mineral import reliance and help address challenges to recycling and substitution technologies. These options identify possible actions by policymakers, which include legislative bodies, government agencies (federal, state, and local), academia, standards-setting organizations, industry, and other groups. In general, these technologies have potential, with policy action, to reduce some of this reliance in the near, medium, or long term. See below for details on these options.
Policymakers could also choose to pursue non-technological policy approaches, such as increased domestic mining. Many non-technological approaches are the subject of current and proposed legislation and executive action (see report p. 6).
Policy options to support reducing critical mineral import reliance and address challenges to substitution and recycling technologies
Establish domestic manufacturing capacity for viable substitutes (report p. 23)
Policymakers could consider building or repurposing existing manufacturing capacity to produce substitute technologies for batteries and semiconductors.
Potential implementation approaches
* Providing support for private capital investments in manufacturing plants for commercially available battery technologies.
* Establishing facilities or partnerships to perform pilot-scale testing of semiconductor substitutes.
Opportunities and Considerations
* Domestic manufacturing capacity could allow for near-term production of commercially available substitute technologies like lithium iron phosphate batteries, which could reduce import reliance on critical minerals like cobalt and nickel.
* Battery and semiconductor production facilities are costly and tend to be specialized for the production of a particular technology.
Establish domestic recycling capacity (report p. 24)
Policymakers could build domestic infrastructure to bolster the domestic capacity to recycle batteries and semiconductors.
Potential implementation approaches
* Providing support for private investment in factories for new battery recycling.
* Collecting and sharing data on manufacturing scrap and end-of-life devices containing batteries and semiconductors.
* Reviewing and streamlining permitting requirements and hazardous waste designations.
Opportunities and Considerations
* Expanded domestic infrastructure could reduce or eliminate the need to ship partially processed batteries overseas for recycling.
* Building domestic recycling infrastructure may not reduce import reliance for selected critical minerals in the near term, since building new or repurposing existing infrastructure can take a decade or more and require significant investment.
Secure inputs for recycling (report p. 24)
Policymakers could support efforts to collect, sort, transport, and store manufacturing scrap and end-of-life devices for recycling and reuse.
Potential implementation approaches
* Establishing and overseeing national and local electronic waste collection programs that provide education and resources (e.g., drop-off locations) for consumers.
* Providing financial incentives for industry to collect or retain manufacturing scrap and end-of-life devices for recycling.
Opportunities and Considerations
* Securing a consistent supply of inputs for recycling and reuse could help reduce the need for critical mineral importation in the near term.
* Although mature battery recycling technologies exist, securing additional inputs may exacerbate challenges related to the safety, transportation, and handling of hazardous materials.
* Without demand and competitively priced recycled semiconductor materials, it may be difficult for recyclers to scale their operations and offset the amount of imported minerals required in the near term.
Support research, development, and testing (report p. 25)
Policymakers could continue or grow support for research, development, and testing of substitution and recycling technologies.
Potential implementation approaches
* Supporting research to improve performance of lithium-free batteries.
* Supporting research into battery recycling technologies that reduce or avoid the cost, waste issues, and environmental impact of current techniques.
* Encouraging targeted materials research focused on semiconductor substitutes that maintain or enhance material performance and reduce the use of critical minerals when possible.
* Supporting research on more efficient semiconductor recycling technologies that recover more critical minerals.
Opportunities and Considerations
* Increased research could help overcome current limitations of existing technologies, resulting in better performance (e.g., higher energy density batteries, larger bandgap semiconductors) or higher commercialization potential (e.g., improved recovery of minerals from semiconductors).
* Research, development, and testing efforts may not yield mature technologies in the near term.
Source: GAO. | GAO-26-108687
Why GAO Did This Study
The U.S. considers 60 minerals as critical because they are essential to the nation's economy or security and have supply chains vulnerable to disruption.
Several critical minerals are key to the functioning of batteries and semiconductors, which have applications in electric vehicles, stationary grid energy storage, consumer electronics, and the defense industry. For example, lithium is a key component of modern batteries that are both lightweight and energy-dense. Semiconductors rely on the unique electrical properties of critical minerals such as gallium, germanium, arsenic, and indium.
U.S. executive and legislative branch policymakers have a long-standing goal to reduce critical mineral import reliance, through technological innovations and other approaches.
This report examines: (1) substitution and recycling technologies to reduce import reliance on critical minerals within the battery and semiconductor industries, (2) challenges to the development and adoption of these technologies, and (3) policy options to support reducing reliance.
To conduct this technology assessment, GAO interviewed federal officials and experts and reviewed academic papers, agency and expert documentation, and federal policy. GAO identified four policy options in this report (see next page).
For more information, contact Sarah Harvey at HarveyS@gao.gov.
***
Original text here: https://www.gao.gov/products/gao-26-108687
Cybersecurity Regulations: Multiple Sectors Are Subject to Potentially Duplicative Reporting Requirements
WASHINGTON, July 22 (TNSLrpt) -- The Government Accountability Office issued the following report:
* * *
Cybersecurity Regulations: Multiple Sectors Are Subject to Potentially Duplicative Reporting Requirements
*
Fast Facts
The nation's critical infrastructure is supported by IT systems-most of which are owned by the private sector. Federal agencies have issued many cybersecurity regulations for these systems.
We found that 80 of the 117 regulations we identified (about 70%) had the same kind of reporting requirement as another regulation. For example, the Securities and Exchange Commission ... Show Full Article WASHINGTON, July 22 (TNSLrpt) -- The Government Accountability Office issued the following report: * * * Cybersecurity Regulations: Multiple Sectors Are Subject to Potentially Duplicative Reporting Requirements * Fast Facts The nation's critical infrastructure is supported by IT systems-most of which are owned by the private sector. Federal agencies have issued many cybersecurity regulations for these systems. We found that 80 of the 117 regulations we identified (about 70%) had the same kind of reporting requirement as another regulation. For example, the Securities and Exchange Commissionrequires publicly traded companies across different sectors to provide cybersecurity plans. However, this may duplicate or conflict with similar requirements in other regulations.
The administration intends to issue an implementation plan to streamline cybersecurity regulations.
A gavel laying on top of a computer circuit board
Highlights
What GAO Found
GAO identified 117 cybersecurity regulations established by 37 federal agencies for private entities, spanning nine critical infrastructure sectors. Most of those regulations either contain the same kind of reporting requirement applicable to a sector or the same reporting requirement as at least one other regulation, which may lead to duplication. Specifically, 80 of the 117 regulations (about 70 percent) had at least 125 total reporting requirements (see figure), with some regulations requiring multiple types of reporting.
Cybersecurity Regulations with Reporting Requirements, as of June 2026
These regulations included sector-specific and cross-sector reporting requirements for private sector entities that may be required to report similar or different cybersecurity information to multiple agencies. For example, a proposed rule from the Department of Homeland Security related to cybersecurity incident reporting by critical infrastructure sectors acknowledged that it may be potentially duplicative with one or more of the 15 existing financial sector regulations that also require such incident reporting. Additionally, cross-sector regulations may duplicate or conflict with regulations focused on a specific sector. For example, one from the Securities and Exchange Commission that requires publicly traded companies across different sectors to provide cybersecurity plans may duplicate or conflict with regulations focused on a specific sector. GAO has ongoing work to obtain additional industry perspectives on federal cybersecurity regulations, including where they perceive overlap and duplication within selected critical infrastructure sectors.
Federal law and the April 2024 National Security Memorandum-22 established the Office of the National Cyber Director (ONCD) as the lead agency responsible for coordinating efforts to streamline, or harmonize, the development and adoption of consistent standards and regulations. ONCD and other federal agencies have initiated actions in recent years to harmonize cybersecurity regulations but have made limited progress. In March 2026, the White House issued a new national cyber strategy which established harmonization and reducing compliance burdens as a priority. According to the strategy, the administration intends to release implementation plans, which could help identify clear lead agency roles, responsibilities, and next steps while enhancing the cybersecurity of the nation's critical infrastructure.
Why GAO Did This Study
Nearly all the nation's critical infrastructure are supported by computer-based information systems, and it is vital that public and private sectors work together to protect them. Federal agencies have issued numerous regulations to help protect the nation's critical infrastructure, which is mostly owned by the private sector. However, according to ONCD, when critical infrastructure sectors are subject to multiple cybersecurity regulations, the result can lead to conflicting guidance, inconsistencies, increased compliance costs and redundancies for regulated entities. Consistency is important to avoid overlap, duplication, or conflicting requirements.
GAO was asked to review federal cybersecurity regulations to identify opportunities for harmonization. This report determines the extent to which federal cybersecurity regulations and requirements are potentially duplicative or conflicting for regulated private sector entities.
GAO reviewed the Electronic Code of Federal Regulations to identify cybersecurity regulations and assess them for potentially duplicative and conflicting reporting requirements. GAO also reviewed available harmonization plans and analyses from ONCD and the Department of Homeland Security. GAO also interviewed relevant officials.
We provided a draft of this report to ONCD for review and comment. ONCD did not provide comments on the report.
For more information, contact David Hinchman at hinchmand@gao.gov.
***
Original text here: https://www.gao.gov/products/gao-26-108606
* * *
Cybersecurity Regulations: Multiple Sectors Are Subject to Potentially Duplicative Reporting Requirements
*
Fast Facts
The nation's critical infrastructure is supported by IT systems-most of which are owned by the private sector. Federal agencies have issued many cybersecurity regulations for these systems.
We found that 80 of the 117 regulations we identified (about 70%) had the same kind of reporting requirement as another regulation. For example, the Securities and Exchange Commission ... Show Full Article WASHINGTON, July 22 (TNSLrpt) -- The Government Accountability Office issued the following report: * * * Cybersecurity Regulations: Multiple Sectors Are Subject to Potentially Duplicative Reporting Requirements * Fast Facts The nation's critical infrastructure is supported by IT systems-most of which are owned by the private sector. Federal agencies have issued many cybersecurity regulations for these systems. We found that 80 of the 117 regulations we identified (about 70%) had the same kind of reporting requirement as another regulation. For example, the Securities and Exchange Commissionrequires publicly traded companies across different sectors to provide cybersecurity plans. However, this may duplicate or conflict with similar requirements in other regulations.
The administration intends to issue an implementation plan to streamline cybersecurity regulations.
A gavel laying on top of a computer circuit board
Highlights
What GAO Found
GAO identified 117 cybersecurity regulations established by 37 federal agencies for private entities, spanning nine critical infrastructure sectors. Most of those regulations either contain the same kind of reporting requirement applicable to a sector or the same reporting requirement as at least one other regulation, which may lead to duplication. Specifically, 80 of the 117 regulations (about 70 percent) had at least 125 total reporting requirements (see figure), with some regulations requiring multiple types of reporting.
Cybersecurity Regulations with Reporting Requirements, as of June 2026
These regulations included sector-specific and cross-sector reporting requirements for private sector entities that may be required to report similar or different cybersecurity information to multiple agencies. For example, a proposed rule from the Department of Homeland Security related to cybersecurity incident reporting by critical infrastructure sectors acknowledged that it may be potentially duplicative with one or more of the 15 existing financial sector regulations that also require such incident reporting. Additionally, cross-sector regulations may duplicate or conflict with regulations focused on a specific sector. For example, one from the Securities and Exchange Commission that requires publicly traded companies across different sectors to provide cybersecurity plans may duplicate or conflict with regulations focused on a specific sector. GAO has ongoing work to obtain additional industry perspectives on federal cybersecurity regulations, including where they perceive overlap and duplication within selected critical infrastructure sectors.
Federal law and the April 2024 National Security Memorandum-22 established the Office of the National Cyber Director (ONCD) as the lead agency responsible for coordinating efforts to streamline, or harmonize, the development and adoption of consistent standards and regulations. ONCD and other federal agencies have initiated actions in recent years to harmonize cybersecurity regulations but have made limited progress. In March 2026, the White House issued a new national cyber strategy which established harmonization and reducing compliance burdens as a priority. According to the strategy, the administration intends to release implementation plans, which could help identify clear lead agency roles, responsibilities, and next steps while enhancing the cybersecurity of the nation's critical infrastructure.
Why GAO Did This Study
Nearly all the nation's critical infrastructure are supported by computer-based information systems, and it is vital that public and private sectors work together to protect them. Federal agencies have issued numerous regulations to help protect the nation's critical infrastructure, which is mostly owned by the private sector. However, according to ONCD, when critical infrastructure sectors are subject to multiple cybersecurity regulations, the result can lead to conflicting guidance, inconsistencies, increased compliance costs and redundancies for regulated entities. Consistency is important to avoid overlap, duplication, or conflicting requirements.
GAO was asked to review federal cybersecurity regulations to identify opportunities for harmonization. This report determines the extent to which federal cybersecurity regulations and requirements are potentially duplicative or conflicting for regulated private sector entities.
GAO reviewed the Electronic Code of Federal Regulations to identify cybersecurity regulations and assess them for potentially duplicative and conflicting reporting requirements. GAO also reviewed available harmonization plans and analyses from ONCD and the Department of Homeland Security. GAO also interviewed relevant officials.
We provided a draft of this report to ONCD for review and comment. ONCD did not provide comments on the report.
For more information, contact David Hinchman at hinchmand@gao.gov.
***
Original text here: https://www.gao.gov/products/gao-26-108606
Broadband: Actions Needed to Strengthen Fragmented Federal Effort
WASHINGTON, July 22 (TNSLrpt) -- The Government Accountability Office issued the following report:
* * *
Broadband: Actions Needed to Strengthen Fragmented Federal Effort
*
Fast Facts
We testified on federal efforts to increase access to broadband internet.
Our testimony, given before the House Subcommittee on Communications and Technology, Committee on Energy and Commerce, is primarily based on
Broadband: National Strategy Needed to Guide Federal Efforts to Reduce Digital Divide
Broadband Programs: Agencies Need to Further Improve Their Data Quality and Coordination Efforts
We also ... Show Full Article WASHINGTON, July 22 (TNSLrpt) -- The Government Accountability Office issued the following report: * * * Broadband: Actions Needed to Strengthen Fragmented Federal Effort * Fast Facts We testified on federal efforts to increase access to broadband internet. Our testimony, given before the House Subcommittee on Communications and Technology, Committee on Energy and Commerce, is primarily based on Broadband: National Strategy Needed to Guide Federal Efforts to Reduce Digital Divide Broadband Programs: Agencies Need to Further Improve Their Data Quality and Coordination Efforts We alsodiscuss recommendations we've made.
GAO Testimony to Congress written next to an image of the U.S. Capitol.
Highlights
What GAO Found
Federal broadband efforts are fragmented, with over 100 programs administered by 15 agencies, as GAO reported in May 2022. Some programs support broadband as their main purpose, while others support broadband as one possible purpose (see figure).
The Mosaic of Federal Programs with Broadband as a Main Purpose as of November 2021, by Purpose Category
GAO has found that a national strategy, continued interagency coordination, and better mapping data could strengthen federal broadband efforts.
National Strategy. Strategies to coordinate programs that address issues of broad national need can help mitigate the negative effects of fragmented federal programs, but no national strategy exists for federal broadband efforts. In May 2022, GAO recommended creating such a strategy to synchronize these efforts.
Interagency Coordination. With or without a national strategy, effective coordination among agencies that administer broadband programs is also important. In April 2025, GAO reported that the Federal Communications Commission (FCC), National Telecommunications and Information Administration (NTIA), and Departments of Agriculture (USDA) and the Treasury coordinate to administer the bulk of federal broadband funding and have mechanisms in place to do so. GAO recommended improvements to further strengthen those efforts. Agency officials reported taking steps to implement these recommendations, but have not yet fully addressed them, as of July 2026.
Mapping Data. Agencies rely on FCC's National Broadband Map-which displays where broadband is already available-to target tens of billions of dollars in federal broadband funding, but the accuracy of the map's availability data is uncertain. In April 2025, GAO recommended FCC document and evaluate the effectiveness of its processes for ensuring the map's data quality. Not doing so could increase the risk of inaccurate data on the map, which could jeopardize agencies' ability to make effective funding decisions. FCC has not yet addressed the recommendations as of July 2026, but officials reported taking steps to do so.
Why GAO Did This Study
Access to broadband is critical for employment, education, health care, and other daily activities. The federal government has invested tens of billions of dollars over the past decade across a myriad of broadband-related programs managed by different agencies. Yet millions of Americans lack broadband access.
Information on where broadband is already available is key to expanding access. Coordination among the federal agencies that administer the various federal programs is also key, particularly since U.S. broadband efforts are not guided by an overarching national strategy.
This testimony discusses findings from GAO's previous reports on (1) a national broadband strategy and interagency coordination efforts, and (2) FCC's efforts to ensure the quality of data in its National Broadband Map. It is primarily based on GAO's May 2022 and April 2025 reports.
Recommendations
In May 2022, GAO recommended that the Executive Office of the President develop a national broadband strategy. The Executive Office of the President did not take a position on the recommendation. In April 2025, GAO recommended that FCC, NTIA, USDA, and Treasury strengthen aspects of their coordination; and that FCC strengthen aspects of its processes for ensuring the quality of the National Broadband Map's data. FCC, NTIA, and Treasury agreed with these recommendations; USDA did not take a position. GAO will continue to monitor the agencies' progress in implementing the recommendations.
***
Original text here: https://www.gao.gov/products/gao-26-109297
* * *
Broadband: Actions Needed to Strengthen Fragmented Federal Effort
*
Fast Facts
We testified on federal efforts to increase access to broadband internet.
Our testimony, given before the House Subcommittee on Communications and Technology, Committee on Energy and Commerce, is primarily based on
Broadband: National Strategy Needed to Guide Federal Efforts to Reduce Digital Divide
Broadband Programs: Agencies Need to Further Improve Their Data Quality and Coordination Efforts
We also ... Show Full Article WASHINGTON, July 22 (TNSLrpt) -- The Government Accountability Office issued the following report: * * * Broadband: Actions Needed to Strengthen Fragmented Federal Effort * Fast Facts We testified on federal efforts to increase access to broadband internet. Our testimony, given before the House Subcommittee on Communications and Technology, Committee on Energy and Commerce, is primarily based on Broadband: National Strategy Needed to Guide Federal Efforts to Reduce Digital Divide Broadband Programs: Agencies Need to Further Improve Their Data Quality and Coordination Efforts We alsodiscuss recommendations we've made.
GAO Testimony to Congress written next to an image of the U.S. Capitol.
Highlights
What GAO Found
Federal broadband efforts are fragmented, with over 100 programs administered by 15 agencies, as GAO reported in May 2022. Some programs support broadband as their main purpose, while others support broadband as one possible purpose (see figure).
The Mosaic of Federal Programs with Broadband as a Main Purpose as of November 2021, by Purpose Category
GAO has found that a national strategy, continued interagency coordination, and better mapping data could strengthen federal broadband efforts.
National Strategy. Strategies to coordinate programs that address issues of broad national need can help mitigate the negative effects of fragmented federal programs, but no national strategy exists for federal broadband efforts. In May 2022, GAO recommended creating such a strategy to synchronize these efforts.
Interagency Coordination. With or without a national strategy, effective coordination among agencies that administer broadband programs is also important. In April 2025, GAO reported that the Federal Communications Commission (FCC), National Telecommunications and Information Administration (NTIA), and Departments of Agriculture (USDA) and the Treasury coordinate to administer the bulk of federal broadband funding and have mechanisms in place to do so. GAO recommended improvements to further strengthen those efforts. Agency officials reported taking steps to implement these recommendations, but have not yet fully addressed them, as of July 2026.
Mapping Data. Agencies rely on FCC's National Broadband Map-which displays where broadband is already available-to target tens of billions of dollars in federal broadband funding, but the accuracy of the map's availability data is uncertain. In April 2025, GAO recommended FCC document and evaluate the effectiveness of its processes for ensuring the map's data quality. Not doing so could increase the risk of inaccurate data on the map, which could jeopardize agencies' ability to make effective funding decisions. FCC has not yet addressed the recommendations as of July 2026, but officials reported taking steps to do so.
Why GAO Did This Study
Access to broadband is critical for employment, education, health care, and other daily activities. The federal government has invested tens of billions of dollars over the past decade across a myriad of broadband-related programs managed by different agencies. Yet millions of Americans lack broadband access.
Information on where broadband is already available is key to expanding access. Coordination among the federal agencies that administer the various federal programs is also key, particularly since U.S. broadband efforts are not guided by an overarching national strategy.
This testimony discusses findings from GAO's previous reports on (1) a national broadband strategy and interagency coordination efforts, and (2) FCC's efforts to ensure the quality of data in its National Broadband Map. It is primarily based on GAO's May 2022 and April 2025 reports.
Recommendations
In May 2022, GAO recommended that the Executive Office of the President develop a national broadband strategy. The Executive Office of the President did not take a position on the recommendation. In April 2025, GAO recommended that FCC, NTIA, USDA, and Treasury strengthen aspects of their coordination; and that FCC strengthen aspects of its processes for ensuring the quality of the National Broadband Map's data. FCC, NTIA, and Treasury agreed with these recommendations; USDA did not take a position. GAO will continue to monitor the agencies' progress in implementing the recommendations.
***
Original text here: https://www.gao.gov/products/gao-26-109297