GAO Reports
Here's a look at Government Accountability Office reports
Featured Stories
Privacy and Cybersecurity: VA Has Made Progress Enhancing Security Controls for Protected Health Information
WASHINGTON, May 21 (TNSLrpt) -- The Government Accountability Office issued the following report:
* * *
Privacy and Cybersecurity: VA Has Made Progress Enhancing Security Controls for Protected Health Information
*
Fast Facts
The Department of Veterans Affairs delivers health care to millions of veterans. In the process, VA uses external service providers to create, maintain, and transmit protected health information. VA took steps to protect the privacy of information that it shared with these service providers. For example, VA regularly enters into agreements with them to ensure they meet
... Show Full Article
WASHINGTON, May 21 (TNSLrpt) -- The Government Accountability Office issued the following report:
* * *
Privacy and Cybersecurity: VA Has Made Progress Enhancing Security Controls for Protected Health Information
*
Fast Facts
The Department of Veterans Affairs delivers health care to millions of veterans. In the process, VA uses external service providers to create, maintain, and transmit protected health information. VA took steps to protect the privacy of information that it shared with these service providers. For example, VA regularly enters into agreements with them to ensure they meetthe requirements of health information privacy laws.
Additionally, VA's Million Veteran Program collects veterans' genetic data for research. VA has recently implemented a number of additional security controls to further protect this data.
A person wearing a white coat and a stethoscope sitting at a desk typing on a laptop.
Highlights
What GAO Found
The Veterans Health Administration (VHA) uses the services of external entities, known as business associates, to act on behalf of health care providers or other business associates to create, receive, maintain, or transmit protected health information (PHI). Veterans Affairs (VA) has implemented PHI sharing agreements with these entities to ensure they address requirements of the Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act of 1996 (HIPAA) Privacy Rule. GAO reviewed 73 randomly selected sharing agreements and found that 100 percent of them included all 12 HIPAA Privacy Rule requirements for use and disclosure of PHI. Further, VHA documented responsibilities for conducting performance audits to confirm that external entities are protecting veterans' PHI.
VA took steps to secure the health information in a key system used by its Million Veteran Program (MVP), which is focused on examining how genetics, lifestyle, military experiences, and exposures affect health and wellness in veterans. However, deficiencies existed in certain cybersecurity controls related to asset and risk management; configuration management; identity and access management; and continuous monitoring and logging. As a result of these deficiencies, VA had reduced assurance of the confidentiality and integrity of sensitive health information in the MVP. In September 2025, GAO made 13 recommendations to VA to address these deficiencies.
Since September 2025, VA implemented nine of the 13 recommendations and partially implemented three others (see figure). GAO will continue to monitor VA's progress in implementing the remaining recommendations.
Figure: VA Progress, as of March 2026, in Addressing 13 GAO Recommendations Made in September 2025
Why GAO Did This Study
Within VA, VHA oversees the delivery of health care services to millions of veterans. The amount of PHI used by VHA and shared with external entities highlights the importance of protecting the privacy of PHI.
Further, VA is responsible for the cybersecurity of veterans' sensitive health data, such as information in systems used to support its MVP. Since launching in 2011, about 1 million veterans have joined MVP, making it the nation's largest biorepository of veteran data.
GAO was asked to review VA's privacy and cybersecurity efforts. In September 2025, GAO issued a sensitive report with limited distribution on the extent to which VHA oversaw the privacy of veterans' health information shared with external entities, and the extent to which VA protected the confidentiality and integrity of veterans' health information in its MVP, among other things. In that report, GAO identified security control deficiencies in a system supporting MVP and made 13 recommendations to address them.
This report is a public version of the September 2025 report, with sensitive information removed. For this public report, GAO also determined the extent to which VA had taken corrective actions to address the previously identified security control deficiencies and the 13 related recommendations for improvement. GAO reviewed supporting documents and interviewed agency officials regarding VA's actions to address these recommendations.
For more information, contact Jennifer R. Franks at FranksJ@gao.gov.
***
Original text here: https://www.gao.gov/products/gao-26-108651
Federal Research: Agencies Should Better Manage Anticipated Publishing Cost Increases Amid Shift to Public Access
WASHINGTON, May 21 (TNSLrpt) -- The Government Accountability Office issued the following report:
* * *
Federal Research: Agencies Should Better Manage Anticipated Publishing Cost Increases Amid Shift to Public Access
*
Fast Facts
The U.S. government funds billions of dollars in research each year. However, results of the research are often behind expensive paywalls. This makes it harder for others to read and build on it.
In 2022, the Office of Science and Technology Policy told agencies to make new federally funded research immediately public for free. But without subscription revenue,
... Show Full Article
WASHINGTON, May 21 (TNSLrpt) -- The Government Accountability Office issued the following report:
* * *
Federal Research: Agencies Should Better Manage Anticipated Publishing Cost Increases Amid Shift to Public Access
*
Fast Facts
The U.S. government funds billions of dollars in research each year. However, results of the research are often behind expensive paywalls. This makes it harder for others to read and build on it.
In 2022, the Office of Science and Technology Policy told agencies to make new federally funded research immediately public for free. But without subscription revenue,publishers need to charge fees to make research publications accessible.
Agencies can cover these fees. We estimate the fees could cost the government up to $1 billion a year, but most agencies aren't ready for these costs.
We made recommendations to address this and other issues.
A laptop's web browser visiting the PubMed landing page on the National Institutes of Health website.
Highlights
What GAO Found
In 2022 The Office of Science and Technology Policy (OSTP) directed federal agencies to make research results freely accessible to the public immediately when published. In response, seven of the nine agencies GAO reviewed issued updated plans or policies. The Department of Transportation and the Nuclear Regulatory Commission were still drafting updated plans and policies at the time of our review. Five agencies' plans or policies fully met OSTP's guidance. The National Science Foundation's and U.S. Department of Agriculture's plans did not fully address OSTP's guidance for reuse rights. These rights describe how others can share, modify, or use the research. Better alignment with OSTP's guidance could help ensure this research can be built upon by others.
Amid the federal shift to public access, publishers are changing their business models to remain viable without subscription revenue and will require authors to pay to have their publications made open access. Agencies allow grant funds to cover these charges. Assuming historical patterns continue, the new policies and publishers' responses may result in significant agency cost growth. This would mean less money for research (see figure). However, only the National Institutes of Health has planned to manage these potential costs. Additional analysis could help other agencies better manage costs, which may triple annually.
Estimated Spending on Publishing Charges for Selected Agencies
Increased public access can improve the visibility of research and enable readers to identify problems with specific publications more quickly. However, according to stakeholders GAO spoke with, pay-to-publish models may encourage publishers to lower publication standards to publish more articles.
In 2024, OSTP published an economic analysis on expanding public access, but it did not fully reflect all five of GAO's key elements of an economic analysis. Notably, the scope did not address the goal of estimating the potential costs and other effects. Ensuring that future analyses are consistent with the key elements can help agencies better understand the cost implications of their new policies.
Why GAO Did This Study
The U.S. government is one of the largest funders of scientific research globally. The results of federally funded research are ordinarily shared through scholarly publications. But many of these publications were restricted to paid subscribers. GAO was asked to examine agencies' efforts to implement OSTP's 2022 guidance.
This report examines: (1) the extent to which selected agencies' public access plans and policies are consistent with federal guidance, (2) how the scholarly publishing industry is responding to the federal shift to public access and how this affects selected agencies and journal market dynamics, (3) the potential effects of expanding public access to federally funded research, and (4) the extent to which OSTP's 2024 economic analysis of public access followed GAO's key elements for an economic analysis.
GAO selected nine agencies with a mix of research funding levels and assessed their public access plans and policies against OSTP guidelines. GAO reviewed available literature and data and interviewed nongovernmental stakeholders, such as publishers and universities. Further, GAO assessed OSTP's economic analysis against GAO's key elements that serve as a framework for assessing an economic analysis.
Recommendations
GAO is making 11 recommendations to nine agencies to ensure public access plans meet federal requirements and assess budgetary and economic effects of expanding public access. Four of these agencies concurred with GAO's recommendations and five agencies had no comments.
Recommendations for Executive Action
Agency Affected Recommendation Status
National Science Foundation The Director of NSF, in finalizing the public access policy, should ensure that the policy addresses: (1) the prerequisites needed to make publications publicly available by default, (2) use or re-use rights, and (3) which restrictions, such as attribution, apply to publicly accessible scholarly publications funded by the agency. (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.
Department of Agriculture The Secretary of Agriculture, in finalizing the agency's public access policy, should ensure that the policy addresses use or re-use rights for its funded scholarly publications. (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.
Department of Defense The Secretary of Defense should conduct an analysis of how the agency's research efforts and budget may be affected by expected expenditure increases resulting from its December 2024 public access plan and update the plan as appropriate. (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.
Department of Energy The Secretary of Energy should conduct an analysis of how the agency's research efforts and budget may be affected by expected expenditure increases resulting from its October 2024 public access policy and update the policy as appropriate. (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.
Department of Transportation The Secretary of Transportation should conduct an analysis of how the agency's research efforts and budget may be affected by expected expenditure increases resulting from its forthcoming public access policy and update the policy as appropriate. (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.
National Aeronautics and Space Administration The Administrator of NASA should conduct an analysis of how the agency's research efforts and budget may be affected by expected expenditure increases resulting from its November 2024 public access plan and update the plan as appropriate. (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.
National Science Foundation The Director of NSF should conduct an analysis of how the agency's research efforts and budget may be affected by expected expenditure increases resulting and ensure its forthcoming public access policy reflects the results of the analysis. (Recommendation 7)
Open Actions to satisfy the intent of the recommendation have not been taken or are being planned.
When we confirm what actions the agency has taken in response to this recommendation, we will provide updated information.
Nuclear Regulatory Commission The Chairman of NRC should develop a plan to analyze how the agency's research efforts and budget may be affected by its forthcoming public access plan. (Recommendation 8)
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.
Social Security Administration The Commissioner of SSA should conduct an analysis of how the agency's research efforts and budget may be affected by expected expenditure increases resulting from its December 2023 public access plan and update the plan as appropriate. (Recommendation 9)
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.
Department of Agriculture The Secretary of Agriculture should conduct an analysis of how the agency's research efforts and budget may be affected by expected expenditure increases and ensure its forthcoming public access policy reflects the results of the analysis. (Recommendation 10)
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 Science and Technology Policy The Director of OSTP should conduct an analysis on the potential effects of its 2022 guidance and ensure this analysis aligns with GAO's key elements of an economic analysis. OSTP should update its 2022 guidance based on the findings of this analysis, as appropriate. (Recommendation 11)
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 11 Recommendations
***
Original text here: https://www.gao.gov/products/gao-26-107738
Critical Infrastructure Protection: Actions Needed to Address Persistent Cybersecurity Threats to the Water and Wastewater Sector
WASHINGTON, May 21 (TNSLrpt) -- The Government Accountability Office issued the following report:
* * *
Critical Infrastructure Protection: Actions Needed to Address Persistent Cybersecurity Threats to the Water and Wastewater Sector
*
Fast Facts
We testified on the cybersecurity of drinking water and wastewater systems.
Our testimony, given before the House Committee on Science, Space, and Technology's Subcommittee on the Environment, is based on:
Critical Infrastructure Protection: EPA Urgently Needs a Strategy to Address Cybersecurity Risks to Water and Wastewater Systems
It also
... Show Full Article
WASHINGTON, May 21 (TNSLrpt) -- The Government Accountability Office issued the following report:
* * *
Critical Infrastructure Protection: Actions Needed to Address Persistent Cybersecurity Threats to the Water and Wastewater Sector
*
Fast Facts
We testified on the cybersecurity of drinking water and wastewater systems.
Our testimony, given before the House Committee on Science, Space, and Technology's Subcommittee on the Environment, is based on:
Critical Infrastructure Protection: EPA Urgently Needs a Strategy to Address Cybersecurity Risks to Water and Wastewater Systems
It alsodiscusses recommendations we've made and the Environmental Protection Agency's efforts to address them.
Capitol building with the words GAO Testimony to Congress.
Highlights
What GAO Found
Threat actors, such as state-sponsored hackers or criminal groups, are increasingly capable of carrying out cyberattacks on water and wastewater systems. This capability comes from the increasing connections between operational technologies-which control valves, pumps, and other physical devices-and internet-enabled devices. Internet-enabled devices can provide remote access to control pumps and other infrastructure. Remote access can be helpful over large and widely distributed water and sewer systems. However, the convergence of operational technologies and internet-enabled devices has also increased the ability of online attackers to reach critical operational systems.
Water and wastewater systems have faced challenges reducing their vulnerability to cyberattacks. For example, systems have varying levels of cybersecurity capabilities. Systems are also managing workforce shortages and older technologies that are difficult to update with modern cybersecurity protections. Systems must also prioritize limited financial resources, so meeting regulatory requirements for clean and safe water may out-compete cybersecurity investments.
Water and Wastewater Systems are Vulnerable to Cyberattack
In 2024, GAO found that the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) had not performed key cybersecurity risk management steps for the sector and made recommendations to address these shortfalls. In response, EPA conducted a water sector risk assessment and developed a risk management plan to guide its efforts to mitigate priority risks.
GAO also reported that EPA had faced legal challenges in its efforts to ensure water and wastewater entities took action to improve their cybersecurity. In response to GAO's recommendation to evaluate the sufficiency of its legal authorities, EPA identified several critical gaps. Specifically, EPA identified a lack of cybersecurity risk assessment requirements for wastewater systems and certain drinking water systems. EPA also identified significant limitations in its authority under federal drinking water and clean water laws to address those gaps. GAO will continue to monitor how EPA addresses these limitations.
Why GAO Did This Study
Recent cyber incidents and security alerts highlight the vulnerability of the close to 170,000 water and wastewater systems that make up the U.S. water and wastewater systems sector (water sector). The water sector is one of 16 critical infrastructure sectors. GAO has identified the cybersecurity of critical infrastructure as a component of the cybersecurity high-risk area, which is one of nine high-risk areas needing focused executive and congressional attention.
A successful cyberattack on a water or wastewater system could lead to service disruptions that harm public health or the environment. These systems have already experienced ransomware attacks, which use malicious software to deny access to IT systems or data.
EPA is responsible for leading, coordinating, and supporting activities to reduce cybersecurity risk to the water sector. EPA works in partnership with the Department of Homeland Security's Cybersecurity and Infrastructure Security Agency and other federal, state, and local entities.
This statement addresses the cybersecurity challenges facing the water sector and EPA's actions to address the sector's cybersecurity risks.
This statement is based on GAO's August 2024 report on cybersecurity risks to U.S. water and wastewater systems ( GAO-24-106744 ); documents provided by EPA in response to GAO's recommendations; and publicly available information, as of May 2026, regarding challenges and EPA's water sector cybersecurity efforts.
For more information, contact David B. Hinchman at hinchmand@gao.gov or J. Alfredo Gomez at gomezj@gao.gov.
***
Original text here: https://www.gao.gov/products/gao-26-109159
Artificial Intelligence: A Framework to Assess U.S. Competitiveness and Inform Policy Options
WASHINGTON, May 21 (TNSLrpt) -- The Government Accountability Office issued the following report:
* * *
Artificial Intelligence: A Framework to Assess U.S. Competitiveness and Inform Policy Options
*
Fast Facts
The potential for artificial intelligence to spur economic growth, enhance social well-being, and improve national security has led to a global AI race.
How can the U.S. find out if its AI abilities stack up? And what can the U.S. do to improve its standing in the AI competition?
We created a framework that analysts can use to assess U.S. AI competitiveness, which could include
... Show Full Article
WASHINGTON, May 21 (TNSLrpt) -- The Government Accountability Office issued the following report:
* * *
Artificial Intelligence: A Framework to Assess U.S. Competitiveness and Inform Policy Options
*
Fast Facts
The potential for artificial intelligence to spur economic growth, enhance social well-being, and improve national security has led to a global AI race.
How can the U.S. find out if its AI abilities stack up? And what can the U.S. do to improve its standing in the AI competition?
We created a framework that analysts can use to assess U.S. AI competitiveness, which could includecomparing to other nations or analyzing the nation's AI progress over time.
The framework helps analysts identify policy options that policymakers could use to improve U.S. competitiveness in AI.
The letters A I sitting on top of a zoomed in microchip with lots of metallic colors and many intricate pathways.
Highlights
How to Use the Framework
GAO's framework is a method for assessing AI capabilities and capacity in the U.S. and its competitiveness. A nation's competitiveness in AI is how well it develops or deploys AI technologies compared to other nations. Policymakers may be interested in knowing how the U.S. compares to other nations in the AI race. GAO developed this framework to help analysts from government, industry, academia, and elsewhere obtain and provide structured information to policymakers about AI competitiveness.
The complexity of factors affecting AI competitiveness makes it difficult to decide which factors are more important than others. The framework organizes relevant factors into four pillars: Science & Technology, Human Capital, Governance, and Economy. Each pillar is further divided into subpillars, such as R&D; laws, regulations and policies; workforce; and investment and financing. Analysts can use these pillars and subpillars to systematically consider the breadth of factors relevant to the needs of policymakers seeking information on our nation's AI capabilities and capacity versus those of other nations.
Factors Affecting AI Competitiveness
Analysts can use the framework for different purposes and policymaker needs. For example, if U.S. policymakers express interest in helping U.S. companies export AI technologies, analysts can use the framework to rank the U.S. and its peers in their progress toward outcomes of AI competitiveness, such as the ability to influence global technology standards. These rankings can in turn inform policies to help the U.S. improve its AI capabilities, capacity, and competitiveness.
The framework involves four steps that allow analysts to tailor their assessment:
1. Focus the assessment by selecting targeted outcomes of AI competitiveness.
2. Identify indicators for measurement or evaluation.
3. Conduct data analysis.
4. Develop policy options and final product.
Framework for Assessing AI Competitiveness
Why GAO Developed This Framework
Artificial intelligence (AI) could spur economic growth, enhance societal well-being, and improve national security. These possibilities have led to a global AI competition, in which nations that fall behind risk losing economic advantages and global influence. To be competitive, the U.S. needs to consider risks of AI deployment, such as job dislocation and increased energy consumption.
Assessing U.S. competitiveness in AI presents challenges. The ability of the U.S. to successfully develop and deploy AI technologies depends on a broad mix of factors, including private and public investment, talent attraction, regulatory environments, and computing infrastructure. GAO was asked to develop a framework to assess U.S. AI capabilities, capacity, and competitiveness compared to other nations. GAO developed this framework to help analysts prioritize among the many factors that affect AI competitiveness. The framework is also designed to help analysts develop policy options to improve U.S. competitiveness.
To develop this framework, GAO conducted a literature search to find articles on frameworks and measurements to evaluate AI capabilities and capacity and reviewed key reports on AI competitiveness and assessment methods. GAO also interviewed, surveyed, and met with experts from government agencies, academia, industry, nonprofit organizations, and more.
For more information, contact Candice Wright at WrightC@gao.gov. or Sterling Thomas at ThomasS2@gao.gov.
***
Original text here: https://www.gao.gov/products/gao-26-107624
Service Member Rights: Intelligence Community Guidance Could Better Address Reemployment Protections
WASHINGTON, May 21 (TNSLrpt) -- The Government Accountability Office issued the following report:
* * *
Service Member Rights: Intelligence Community Guidance Could Better Address Reemployment Protections
*
Fast Facts
There are 18 intelligence community agencies and organizations in the federal government. They have guidance that provides protections to service members under the Uniformed Services Employment and Reemployment Rights Act.
Of these 18 agencies and organizations, 7 must include specific reemployment information for service members in their guidance by law. However, 4 of these
... Show Full Article
WASHINGTON, May 21 (TNSLrpt) -- The Government Accountability Office issued the following report:
* * *
Service Member Rights: Intelligence Community Guidance Could Better Address Reemployment Protections
*
Fast Facts
There are 18 intelligence community agencies and organizations in the federal government. They have guidance that provides protections to service members under the Uniformed Services Employment and Reemployment Rights Act.
Of these 18 agencies and organizations, 7 must include specific reemployment information for service members in their guidance by law. However, 4 of these7 haven't included everything that the Act requires, such as procedures for the Inspector General to investigate and resolve alleged violations.
We recommended that these 4 agencies and organizations include all required information in their guidance.
United States flag and military identification tags.
Highlights
What GAO Found
There are 18 intelligence community (IC) elements in the federal government. These elements have implemented a range of guidance through various sources to provide protections to service members under the Uniformed Services Employment and Reemployment Rights Act of 1994, as amended (USERRA).
Of these 18 IC elements, seven have statutory requirements under USERRA that are distinct from those of other federal agencies. These statutory requirements are delineated in USERRA under sections 4315 and 4325 of title 38, U.S. Code and include statutory provisions that apply to the seven IC elements listed in the figure below.
These seven IC elements have statutory requirements to provide reemployment protections under USERRA and include five provisions that are statutorily required to be in their guidance. However, GAO found that four of these IC elements-DIA, NRO, NSA, and FBI-have not included all five of these provisions in their guidance.
Better meeting the intent of sections 4315 and 4325 of title 38, U.S. Code, could help these four elements stave off potential issues. For example, it could help ensure that service members are not being discriminated against because of their military service. By including in their guidance all five of the IC reemployment provisions that are statutorily required, DIA, NRO, NSA, and FBI can better ensure service members are informed of their rights under USERRA.
GAO also found that the seven IC elements have reemployed all service members that went on military duty for 30 days or more from fiscal years 2019 through 2025, according to data reported by officials from these elements.
Why GAO Did This Study
USERRA prohibits employers from discriminating and retaliating against veterans and service members because of their military status or service. Specifically, USERRA protects the employment and reemployment rights of service members who temporarily leave government or private sector civilian jobs to perform military or other uniformed service.
The Senator Elizabeth Dole 21st Century Veterans Healthcare and Benefits Improvement Act includes a provision for GAO to examine how the IC protects rights afforded to service members under USERRA. This report describes the guidance that IC elements have implemented to provide protections to service members under USERRA, and examines the extent to which the seven IC elements include the five provisions that are statutorily required to be in their guidance.
GAO assessed guidance against statutory requirements under USERRA, analyzed reemployment and claims data, and interviewed relevant officials about their efforts to provide reemployment protections to service members.
Recommendations
GAO is making four recommendations to better address reemployment protections for service members, specifically that DIA, NRO, NSA, and FBI include within their guidance all five of the provisions that are statutorily required. DIA, NRO, NSA, and FBI concurred with GAO's recommendations.
Recommendations for Executive Action
Agency Affected Recommendation Status
Department of Defense The Secretary of Defense should ensure that the Director of the DIA includes within DIA's guidance all five of the IC reemployment provisions, as required by sections 4315 and 4325 of title 38, U.S. Code. (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.
Department of Defense The Secretary of Defense should ensure that the Director of the NRO includes within NRO's guidance all five of the IC reemployment provisions as required by sections 4315 and 4325 of title 38, U.S. Code. (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.
Department of Defense The Secretary of Defense should ensure that the Director of the NSA includes within NSA's guidance all five of the IC reemployment provisions as required by sections 4315 and 4325 of title 38, U.S. Code. (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.
Department of Justice The Attorney General should ensure that the Director of the FBI includes within FBI's guidance all five of the IC reemployment provisions as required by sections 4315 and 4325 of title 38, U.S. Code. (Recommendation 4)
Open Actions to satisfy the intent of the recommendation have not been taken or are being planned.
When we confirm what actions the agency has taken in response to this recommendation, we will provide updated information.
***
Original text here: https://www.gao.gov/products/gao-26-108133
Civil Monetary Penalties: Federal Agencies' Compliance with the 2025 Annual Inflation Adjustment Requirements
WASHINGTON, May 20 (TNSLrpt) -- The Government Accountability Office issued the following report:
* * *
Civil Monetary Penalties: Federal Agencies' Compliance with the 2025 Annual Inflation Adjustment Requirements
*
Fast Facts
When enforcing regulations, federal agencies use fines to hold violators accountable and to deter future violations. But if agencies don't regularly adjust these fines for inflation, they may become less effective.
Congress enacted the Federal Civil Penalties Inflation Adjustment Act of 1990 partly to address this issue. In 2015, Congress amended the act to require
... Show Full Article
WASHINGTON, May 20 (TNSLrpt) -- The Government Accountability Office issued the following report:
* * *
Civil Monetary Penalties: Federal Agencies' Compliance with the 2025 Annual Inflation Adjustment Requirements
*
Fast Facts
When enforcing regulations, federal agencies use fines to hold violators accountable and to deter future violations. But if agencies don't regularly adjust these fines for inflation, they may become less effective.
Congress enacted the Federal Civil Penalties Inflation Adjustment Act of 1990 partly to address this issue. In 2015, Congress amended the act to requireGAO to annually review agencies' compliance with certain provisions.
For 2025, we found that the majority of the 49 agencies that could be subject to the act adjusted their fines to account for inflation and published them in the Federal Register and Agency Financial Reports.
A courtroom gavel placed on several twenty-dollar bills.
Highlights
What GAO Found
In this 10th annual review, GAO found that most federal agencies that could be subject to the Federal Civil Penalties Inflation Adjustment Act of 1990, as amended (IAA), have published civil monetary penalty inflation adjustments for 2025 in the Federal Register and reported related information in their 2025 or 2024 agency financial reports (AFR) or equivalent. All 49 agencies GAO reviewed for 2025 correctly calculated the 2025 civil monetary penalty annual inflation adjustment amounts. However, one agency did not publish its inflation adjustment in the Federal Register as of December 31, 2025, and did not report the required information in its 2025 AFR for its civil monetary penalties.
Why GAO Did This Study
The IAA includes a provision, added in 2015, for GAO to annually submit to Congress a report assessing agencies' compliance with the annual inflation adjustments the act requires.
For more information, please contact Paula M. Rascona at rasconap@gao.gov.
***
Original text here: https://www.gao.gov/products/gao-26-108940
