What GAO Found Department of Homeland Security (DHS) law enforcement agencies reported using over 20 types of detection, observation, and monitoring technologies in fiscal year 2023. This includes both technologies the agencies owned or leased, as well as technologies the agencies accessed through third parties such as commercial vendors and other law enforcement agencies. For example, all three selected DHS law enforcement agencies reported that they have agreements to query or view information from third-party automated license plate readers, providing law enforcement personnel with access to a nationwide source of license plate data. The selected DHS agencies also reported using a variety of analytic software, including some based on artificial intelligence (AI), that can enhance the capabilities of their detection, observation, and monitoring technologies. Figure: Examples of Detection, Observation, and Monitoring Technology DHS is developing policies and procedures to address bias risk from technologies that use AI, but it does not have policies or procedures to assess bias risks from the use of all detection, observation, and monitoring technology. DHS law enforcement agencies may seek out advice from DHS's Office for Civil Rights and Civil Liberties (CRCL) on bias issues related to technology use; however, there are no requirements to do so. As a result, CRCL's level of review of detection, observation, and monitoring technologies has varied. By developing policies and procedures to assess and address the risk of bias posed by DHS law enforcement agencies' use of detection, observation, and monitoring technologies, CRCL could help ensure these technologies are not infringing on civil rights and civil liberties by introducing bias. Technology use policies GAO reviewed at U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP), U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE), and Secret Service did not always address key privacy protections. DHS conducts privacy impact assessments to provide the public with information on how the agency plans to address key privacy protections. Policies, however, are needed to direct employees in how they are to implement these privacy protections when using a particular technology. By requiring that policies for the use of each technology address key privacy protections, DHS agencies would have better assurance that the privacy protections are being implemented and that technology users are aware of their responsibilities to protect privacy. Why GAO Did This Study Technologies such as automated license plate readers and drones can support federal law enforcement activities. However, the use of these technologies in public spaces—where a warrant is not necessarily required prior to use—has led to concerns about how law enforcement is protecting civil rights, civil liberties, and privacy. GAO was asked to review federal law enforcement's use of detection, observation, and monitoring technologies. This report examines 1) the use of these technologies in public spaces without a warrant by selected DHS law enforcement agencies and 2) the extent to which the agencies have policies to assess the use of technologies for bias and protect privacy. GAO selected CBP, ICE, and the Secret Service within DHS based on various factors, including the large number of law enforcement officers in these agencies. GAO administered a structured questionnaire and reviewed documents, such as technology policies. GAO also interviewed agency officials.

What GAO Found The U.S. Department of Agriculture's (USDA) Farm Service Agency (FSA) is responsible for distributing $3.1 billion in loan debt assistance appropriated under the Inflation Reduction Act of 2022 (IRA) to distressed borrowers with qualifying farm loans. As of April 2024, GAO found that FSA had distributed approximately $2.3 billion to borrowers who were delinquent on their FSA or other qualifying loan. According to FSA officials, about 44 percent of FSA delinquent loans received assistance. Approximately half of the borrowers (52 percent) received $25,000 or less. About half of all assistance distributed went to borrowers in the Plains and South regions—areas where delinquent farm loan amounts were highest. In October 2024, FSA officials said they are using $250 million of the remaining funds to assist about 4,600 borrowers. GAO will continue to track the distribution and use of the funds. Inflation Reduction Act Section 22006 Assistance Recipients by Region, as of April 29, 2024 According to agency officials, FSA is taking steps to measure the impact of IRA loan debt assistance. For example, FSA is tracking whether such assistance has resulted in improvements in borrowers' delinquency rates, the number of loan accounts in bankruptcy, and foreclosure rates. FSA expects to complete its performance monitoring and report results later this year. Why GAO Did This Study Federal farm loan programs serve as a safety net for agricultural producers. The programs provide an important source of credit when farmers and ranchers are otherwise unable to secure a commercial loan. Disruptions from the COVID-19 pandemic and climate-related weather events put agricultural producers at risk of falling behind on loan payments and potentially losing their farms and ranches. Congress appropriated $3.1 billion to the Secretary of Agriculture for loan debt assistance under section 22006 of IRA. FSA's financial assistance pays off delinquent loan amounts and covers the next payment with no additional debt incurred by the borrower. The IRA also provides that GAO support oversight of the distribution and use of funds appropriated under the act. This report describes the status of FSA's distribution of loan debt assistance to qualifying borrowers under IRA Section 22006 from October 2022 through April 2024. GAO analyzed FSA data as of April 29, 2024 (the most recent data available), including borrowers’ loan status, amounts of financial assistance, and the location of their farm or ranch, or where their loans were serviced. GAO reviewed federal laws, program eligibility requirements, and FSA handbooks on farm loans. GAO also interviewed FSA officials to discuss actions the agency is taking to implement IRA Section 22006. For more information, contact Steve Morris at (202) 512-3841 or Morriss@gao.gov.

What GAO Found Amphibious warfare ships are critical for Marine Corps missions, but the Navy has struggled to ensure they are available for operations and training. In some cases, ships in the amphibious fleet have not been available for years at a time. The Navy and Marine Corps are working to agree on a ship availability goal but have yet to complete a metrics-based analysis to support such a goal. Until the Navy completes this analysis, it risks jeopardizing its ability to align amphibious ship schedules with the Marine Corps units that deploy on them. As of March 2024, half of the amphibious fleet is in poor condition and these ships are not on track to meet their expected service lives. Navy Assessment of the Condition of the Amphibious Warfare Fleet GAO identified factors that contributed to the fleet's poor condition and reduced its availability for Marine Corps' operations and training. For example, the Navy faces challenges with spare parts, reliability of ship systems, and canceled maintenance. GAO found that the Navy canceled maintenance for aging amphibious ships it planned to divest before completing the required waiver process. Navy officials said they no longer plan to cancel maintenance prior to completing the process, but the Navy has yet to update its maintenance policy to reflect that decision. Updating the policy would help ensure ships the Navy plans to divest do not miss maintenance if Congress restricts funds for divestment. The Navy is likely to face difficulties meeting a statutory requirement to have at least 31 amphibious ships in the future given the age of many ships and other factors. The Navy is considering extending the service life for some ships to meet the 31-ship requirement. However, these efforts will require up to $1 billion per ship, according to the Navy, with six ships needing service life extensions in the next 3 decades amid rising ship construction costs and maintenance backlogs. Why GAO Did This Study The Navy maintains a fleet of large amphibious warfare ships that are used primarily for Marine Corps missions, such as amphibious assault and humanitarian response. There are currently 32 amphibious warfare ships in this fleet, one more than the minimum the Navy is statutorily required to maintain. House Report 117-397 includes a provision for GAO to review plans for the amphibious warfare fleet. GAO's report examines the extent to which (1) the Navy and Marine Corps are addressing challenges with fleet availability; (2) the Navy is addressing maintenance challenges; and (3) the Navy is positioned to meet its fleet size requirements into the future. GAO reviewed Navy and Marine Corps documentation and interviewed officials responsible for overseeing fleet availability, maintenance, and new ship acquisition plans. GAO also visited six ships and spoke with officers and crew about maintenance issues.

Tribal applicants experience systemic barriers to access federal programs, funding, and services. For example, federal cost-share requirements can create obstacles for Tribes with limited financial resources to match funds. GAO has made recommendations to several agencies to help alleviate these barriers. The Big Picture The Office of Management and Budget annually reports the amount of federal funding by fiscal year that benefits or relates to American Indians and Alaska Natives (AI/AN). We have found that when Tribes compete with others for funding, they may receive a small portion of the total amount. We and others have previously found that limited access to federal funds and services contribute to long-standing disparities between AI/AN individuals and other Americans. For decades, we have identified challenges Tribes face in navigating federal programs and accessing federal funding. Although agencies have made progress in some areas by addressing our recommendations, systemic barriers remain across a variety of federal efforts. Additionally, in 2023, Executive Order 14112 recognized the undue burden placed on Tribes when accessing federal funds. The Executive Order directed agencies to proactively and systematically identify and address these burdens, including their root causes, where possible. It also acknowledged that such actions would be consistent with the federal government's commitment to fulfilling its trust responsibility. This Snapshot summarizes our recent findings about barriers to access and ways some agencies have addressed them, often in response to our recommendations. What GAO’s Work Shows We identified the following challenges Tribes may face when accessing federal agencies' programs and services: capacity limitations, financial constraints, limited agency communication, and remoteness of Tribes and federal agencies' limited awareness of tribal traditions and cultures. These obstacles in combination with common program characteristics can create additional barriers for Tribes seeking federal assistance. Managing administrative burdens such as application and reporting requirements can strain Tribes' staffing capacity. For instance, Tribes may not have program staff or may require additional technical assistance. We also found that Tribes can experience challenges navigating applications for multiple federal programs; and smaller Tribes can have limited capacity such as fewer staff to fill out program applications, especially for competitive grants, which has limited their access to federal assistance. To address this barrier, some agencies have provided financial assistance to help Tribes build capacity to the extent allowed by law; and minimized administrative burdens by streamlining applications; adopting compatible templates, policies, and procedures across agencies; and using self-determination contracts, self-governance compacts, or other flexible program delivery mechanisms, whenever possible. Financial constraints may hinder access to federal programs. For example, tribal governments generally do not have access to the traditional taxes that state and local governments can levy and therefore must rely on a combination of federal funds and economic development initiatives to support their operations. We have also reported that federal programs' cost-share requirements can be an obstacle for Tribes that do not have the resources to provide matching funds; and additional financial burdens for grant recipients—such as upfront costs before reimbursement—could be impossible for some Tribes to pay. Also, federal processing delays, such as those during the COVID-19 pandemic, have resulted in increased costs and short spending time frames for Tribes. To address this barrier, we have found that some agencies have lowered cost-share requirements to the extent allowed by law and better supported tribal economic development and planning by improving federal processes to ensure timely service delivery; and Congress has lowered cost-share requirements and established longer spending time frames to use federal relief funds. Limited agency communication with Tribes, such as a lack of or ineffective consultations, can contribute to delayed payments to Tribes. Some Tribes have also experienced agency officials' limited knowledge of historical context, combined with a lack of in-depth training on tribal consultations, which can result in agency officials reacting defensively and hinder effective consultations; delays or limited agency outreach on relevant information, including grant opportunities, which can impede Tribes' ability to act effectively; and a lack of constructive feedback from federal agencies on grant applications, which can delay or hinder Tribes' decisionmaking in pursuing other funding options. To address this barrier, some agencies have provided training to their staff on effective government-to-government consultation practices, such as collaborative agenda setting, understanding historical context and key concepts such as treaty rights; improved outreach efforts to increase access to information, such as funding opportunities and technical assistance on applications; and provided constructive feedback to tribal applicants in a timely manner to inform Tribes' decision-making and planning efforts. The remote locations of some Tribes may pose challenges due to limited infrastructure and hinder access to federal services. Additionally, agencies sometimes have a limited understanding of Tribes' traditional practices and may not consider Indigenous ecological knowledge and stewardship practices. To address this barrier, some agencies have incorporated consideration of infrastructure barriers, as well as traditional ecological knowledge and stewardship practices in federal program design and administration to the extent allowed by law; and increased regional outreach to Tribes and built relationships to improve agencies' ability to work with Tribes and respect tribal approaches. For more information, contact Anna Maria Ortiz at (202) 512-3841, or OrtizA@gao.gov.

What GAO Found In October 2022, the Department of Commerce’s Bureau of Industry and Security (BIS) issued a new rule to control the export of advanced semiconductors and related manufacturing equipment. Advanced semiconductors can be used for artificial intelligence, including in medical diagnosis and for military purposes, such as modeling nuclear explosions. Engineer Holding a Semiconductor The stated goal of BIS’s advanced semiconductors rule was to address U.S. national security and foreign policy interest and to counter the People’s Republic of China’s access to advanced computing to modernize its military, including nuclear weapons development, advanced intelligence collection and analysis, and surveillance. BIS published the rule as an “interim final” rule, which enabled enforcement of the rule before the end of a public comment period. BIS took this approach to avoid stockpiling of controlled items and to address other national security or foreign policy concerns. BIS issued two additional rules in 2023 that revised the controls of the 2022 rule. BIS also updated the technical specifications of the items controlled by these three rules and provided information requested by public commenters, such as on refined definitions and public briefings. After October 2023, BIS conducted reviews of its export controls, including reviewing public comments on existing rules. As a result of these reviews, BIS issued an April 2024 update to the rules. In September, BIS updated the Commerce Control List, among other changes. To develop, implement, and enforce compliance with the rules, BIS works with offices from six other U.S. agencies: the Departments of Defense, Energy, Homeland Security, Justice, State, and the Treasury. The roles of these agencies include providing technical or scientific expertise to Commerce, reviewing proposed rules, reviewing export license applications, conducting outreach to private sector and foreign partner governments to improve compliance with the rules, verifying the validity of licenses at the border, and investigating and prosecuting violations of the rules, among others. The private sector has taken steps to comply with the new rules, according to GAO’s analysis of public comments, BIS documents, and other sources, as well as a number of interviews with private sector representatives. Compliance steps that companies took include updating and maintaining compliance programs and self-reporting potential violations. GAO’s analysis identified 10 reported compliance challenges, including lack of clarity of the rules. For example, specific Export Control Classification Numbers and what they encompass were unclear, leading some companies to ask whether an appliance would be considered a “computer” for the purposes of the export control rules. BIS reported taking steps to address some of these challenges, including by soliciting feedback, refining definitions, and engaging with the private sector. For instance, BIS conducted briefings, seminars, and other outreach in the U.S. and overseas to increase public understanding of the export control rules and to collect industry feedback on ways to improve the rules’ clarity. BIS officials also told GAO that BIS plans to review the rules and publish periodic updates as needed, to match advancing technology and to improve the clarity of the rules, among other reasons. Why GAO Did This Study GAO was asked to report on BIS’s development and implementation of three advanced semiconductor and related manufacturing equipment export control rules promulgated in 2022 and 2023, as well as what is known about private sector compliance efforts. This report provides information on steps BIS has taken and plans to take, and on the roles of other U.S. agencies in developing, implementing, and enforcing the rules and in engaging with foreign partners. It also provides information on compliance steps companies have taken and challenges they have encountered, based on private sector public comments on the rules, as well as GAO interviews with Commerce and representatives from four advanced semiconductor industry companies, and two industry associations. GAO selected the companies that fulfilled specific criteria, such as whether they had developed, manufactured, or sold a product targeted by the rules, or submitted a public comment to the rules. GAO selected external counsel and industry associations based on a number of criteria, such as whether they had submitted a public comment on the rules or represented multiple companies in the U.S. semiconductor industry. In addition, the report describes steps Commerce has taken to address these challenges. A forthcoming GAO report will examine the steps BIS has taken to enforce the export control rules on advanced semiconductors and related manufacturing equipment, as well as BIS efforts to engage with key foreign partners regarding the rules. An additional forthcoming GAO report will examine BIS’s processes and resources to control exports more broadly. For more information, contact Nagla’a El-Hodiri at (202) 512-7279 or elhodirin@gao.gov.

What GAO Found Most Americans get their health coverage from private health plans. In 2023, about 165 million individuals got their health coverage from an employer plan and 16.3 million got their coverage from plans purchased through Marketplaces established through the 2010 Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act. One of the costs for private health plans is the premium that needs to be paid for enrollment. GAO compared monthly premiums per covered individual for employer-sponsored and Marketplace plans using Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality survey data and Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services' (CMS) Marketplace data, respectively. GAO found that for the 33 states included in its review (those that used the Healthcare.gov platform), in 2022, the estimated average monthly premiums for employer-sponsored plans were lower than the average premiums for Marketplace plans. However, stakeholders noted that differences in covered populations, such as in health status, complicate comparability of premiums between these two types of plans. Additionally, after employer contributions to employee premiums and federal premium tax credits for Marketplace plans, the average estimated monthly enrollee contributions to premiums per covered individual for employer-sponsored plans were higher than the average enrollee contributions to premiums for Marketplace plans. Taxes complicate comparability because enrollee contributions to employer-sponsored plans do not reflect their cost after tax savings. Average Monthly Premiums and Enrollee Contributions Per Covered Individual for Employer-Sponsored Plans (estimated) and Marketplace Plans in the 33 States That Used the Healthcare.gov Platform, 2022 Note: Enrollee contributions to premiums for employer-sponsored health plans are made with pre-tax dollars, which results in tax savings for enrollees. Enrollee contributions to premiums for Marketplace plans are generally made with after-tax dollars. Premiums for both employer-sponsored and Marketplace plans varied across the 33 states in 2022. In addition, for employer-sponsored plans, they varied by industry and for Marketplace plans they varied by tier of coverage. GAO found that differences in plan designs complicated comparisons of cost sharing across plans. For example, in 2022, estimated average deductibles for employer-sponsored plans were lower than for Marketplace plans, but GAO estimated that a higher percentage of Marketplace plan enrollees were in plans with no deductible. Why GAO Did This Study Private health plan spending is projected to exceed $1.5 trillion in 2024. This has financial implications for enrollees, who pay for either all or part of their premiums; for employers who typically contribute to employees' premiums costs; and for the federal government, which provides tax incentives and other financial support for Marketplace and employer-sponsored plans. GAO was asked to compare employer-sponsored plans to Marketplace plans. In this report, GAO describes, among other objectives, how average employer-sponsored plan premiums compared to Marketplace plans; and how average cost sharing to consumers in employer-sponsored plans compared to that of Marketplace plans. GAO reviewed Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality Medical Expenditure Panel Survey Insurance Component data on employer-sponsored plans and CMS Marketplace individual market plan data to estimate enrollment-weighted average premiums and cost sharing in 2022 in 33 states. These states were selected because they used the Healthcare.gov platform in 2022 (the most recent year of data available at the time of the review); thus, complete and comparable data were available for Marketplace plans across those states. Additionally, GAO interviewed officials from the Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality, CMS, the Department of the Treasury, and representatives from six stakeholder groups, such as those representing insurers and policy researchers, selected to reflect a range of expertise on the topics under review. For more information, contact John E. Dicken at (202) 512-7114 or dickenj@gao.gov.