What GAO Found In February 2025, the Department of Education’s Office of Federal Student Aid (FSA) stopped assessing student loan servicers on accuracy and call quality due to lack of staff capacity, according to agency officials. Prior to discontinuing these quarterly assessments, FSA assessed servicers on these metrics for two quarters through the following actions. Accuracy. FSA would review data for borrowers in servicer systems and compare it to data in FSA systems to determine if servicers were keeping accurate records for borrowers. Call quality. FSA would review phone calls between borrowers and servicers to determine if servicers were providing good and accurate customer service. The decision to stop assessing these performance metrics occurred shortly after the new administration began issuing presidential directives and guidance on downsizing the federal workforce in January 2025. Education reported that between January and December 2025, the number of staff at FSA dropped from 1,433 to 777, a reduction of 656 personnel. Prior to FSA discontinuing this oversight, most servicers did not meet the performance standards for accuracy and faced corresponding financial penalties of about $850,000. FSA continued to assess servicer performance on their other performance metrics, which it characterized as less labor intensive to monitor. Student Loan Servicer Performance on Accuracy Metric In September 2025, FSA officials said Education was working to implement more efficient oversight methods that leverage data analysis and exploring possible changes to the contract performance standards. However, as of December 2025, FSA was not using any replacement methods for overseeing accuracy and call quality and had not changed the performance standards. By not assessing servicer accuracy and call quality, FSA lacks assurance that borrower records are correct and that servicers are giving borrowers quality information. Inaccurate records can result in borrowers being billed for incorrect amounts or placed in the wrong repayment status. Additionally, borrowers need to be given accurate information when they call for help. Addressing these gaps in servicer oversight will assist Education in carrying out its statutory responsibilities and also help the government avoid overpaying servicers for poor performance. Why GAO Did This Study FSA is statutorily responsible for managing federal student aid programs and overseeing contracted student loan servicers. The servicers process loan payments, provide borrowers with information on repayment plans and forgiveness options, and maintain loan records. In April 2024, FSA implemented new contracts for its student loan servicers that set performance standards for student loan servicers on six metrics, including accuracy and call quality. Under these contracts, FSA enforces financial penalties if servicers do not meet performance standards related to these metrics. GAO was asked to review Education’s capacity to carry out its statutory responsibilities. This report examines the extent to which recent staffing reductions have affected how FSA carries out its responsibilities to oversee loan servicers. Additional reports will examine related topics at other offices within Education. For this report, GAO reviewed FSA documentation, servicer performance and billing reports, and relevant laws. GAO also interviewed FSA officials as well as representatives of borrower advocacy organizations.

What GAO Found For an estimated 77 percent (about 12,300) of the nation’s museums, the condition of at least one building system (e.g., heating, ventilation, and air conditioning) or building issue puts their collections at risk of damage or loss, according to GAO’s survey of museums. An estimated 73 percent, or about 11,900 museums, cited at least one building system or facility issue that poses a potential health or safety concern. Further, GAO estimates that nearly half of museums identified physical accessibility, such as inaccessible entrances, as a potential concern. Museum representatives said they have no options but to store collections in areas that experience water leaks or uncontrolled temperature or humidity. Fine Art Stored in Bathroom (left) and Tribal Files and Artifacts Stored in Basement That Experiences Flooding Risk (right) The total cost to repair museums nationwide is unknown. Stakeholders cite challenges with limited museum resources to conduct facility assessments and expertise required to report accurate cost estimates for repairs. An estimated 85 percent (about 13,700) of museums report having a backlog of deferred maintenance and repair, and an estimated 80 percent expect deferred maintenance to persist or increase in the next 3 years based on projected budgets and planned projects. An estimated 49 percent, or about 7,900 museums, have a deferred maintenance backlog of more than $100,000 each. Common challenges to addressing facility repair cited by museums in response to GAO’s survey are funding availability and construction costs. Specifically, funding is a key challenge to addressing maintenance and repairs for an estimated 85 percent of museums. An estimated 80 percent of museums use donations or fundraising to address repairs. However, reliance on fundraising can pose challenges, particularly in rural areas with limited funding opportunities, or for museums with limited expertise or capacity for fundraising. Why GAO Did This Study Museums preserve history and serve an educational role. However, many museums are in aging buildings, and their building systems may need repair or replacement to prevent damage to collections. While the federal agency, the Institute of Museum and Library Services (IMLS), supports museum programs and services, museums are prohibited from using IMLS funds for building construction. The Joint Explanatory Statement accompanying the Departments of Labor, Health and Human Services, and Education, and Related Agencies Appropriations Act, 2024, includes a provision for GAO to study the availability and conditions of museum facilities. This report examines the reported physical conditions of museum facilities and the estimated cost and challenges to addressing facility repair needs. GAO’s scope included public (other than federal) and private nonprofit museums, excluding museum disciplines focused on living collections, like zoos. GAO conducted a sample survey generalizable to an in-scope population of nearly 16,700 museums in 50 states and the District of Columbia. The survey results can be found on the “Additional Data” link of GAO’s website. GAO visited 17 museums across two Tribal Nations, six states, the District of Columbia, and Puerto Rico. GAO selected these jurisdictions based on state or territorial funding for museum facilities, the number of natural disasters experienced in the last 5 years, and geography. GAO also interviewed officials from IMLS; local and tribal museums; state museum associations; and other museum stakeholders, including the American Alliance of Museums; Association of Tribal Archives, Libraries, and Museums; and Small Museum Association. For more information, contact David Marroni at marronid@gao.gov.

What GAO Found The concentration of private, stand-alone dental and vision insurance markets varied among states across both the group and individual insurance markets, according to 2024 enrollment data from the National Association of Insurance Commissioners (NAIC), the most recent available at the time of our analysis. The concentration of a market refers to the degree to which a small number of companies control a large part of the market. Across all states, the combined market share of the three largest insurers in each state ranged from about 38 to about 98 percent of enrollment for the dental group market, and from about 41 percent to about 96 percent for the vision group market (see table). 2024 Group Market Share for the Three Largest and Single Largest Stand-Alone Dental and Vision Insurers   Range of market share of three largest insurers (percentage) Median market share of three largest insurers (percentage) Range of market share of single largest insurer (percentage) Median market share of single largest insurer (percentage) Median number of insurers per state Dental group market 37.9 – 97.5 66.8 13.6 – 95.1 38.0 39 Vision group market 41.2 – 95.5 77.4 15.8 – 81.9 40.9 28 Source: GAO analysis of data from the National Association of Insurance Commissioners (NAIC). | GAO-26-107787 Note: Market share for each state is based on the total number of individuals insured as of December 31, 2024, as reported by insurers to NAIC. Data from Massachusetts are excluded from the dental insurance market analysis. Vertical integration exists when a company buys into new lines of business in its supply chain that would otherwise be owned by other companies. GAO did not find aggregate data on the extent of vertical integration in the dental or vision insurance markets. Interviewees from the dental industry that GAO spoke with said vertical integration in the dental insurance market is limited, with one interviewee noting that vertical integration in the dental industry is only a recent development. Some interviewees from the vision industry commented that vertical integration exists in the vision insurance market, including insurer ownership of provider offices, lens and frame manufacturers, and eyewear retail brands. Limited information was available to assess the effects of concentration and vertical integration in private dental and vision insurance markets. GAO found two peer-reviewed studies that discussed the effects of concentration of dental insurance markets, including reduced reimbursements for dental services paid by insurers to providers in more concentrated markets. Some of the interviewees from the dental and vision industries that GAO spoke with shared nongeneralizable observations about the effects of concentration and vertical integration based on their experiences, including limiting providers’ ability to negotiate contracts and reimbursement with insurers in concentrated markets. Some dental industry interviewees noted a lack of opportunity to evaluate the effects of vertical integration due to limited instances of vertical integration among dental insurers. Why GAO Did This Study The market for private health insurance in the United States is highly concentrated, which may reduce competition. Concentrated markets may also exist within private dental and vision insurance, which may be sold separately from health insurance. About one in four Americans had such stand-alone dental or vision insurance in 2024, according to data from NAIC and the Census Bureau. In addition, vertical integration may exist within these markets. Studies suggest vertical integration may result in efficiencies and cost savings but may also reduce competition in a market. GAO was asked to review concentration of and vertical integration in dental and vision insurance markets. This report describes (1) the concentration of and vertical integration in private dental and vision insurance markets; and (2) what is known about the effects of concentration and vertical integration on competition in private dental and vision insurance markets. GAO analyzed 2024 enrollment data from NAIC on fully insured, stand-alone dental and vision plans to determine insurer market share by state. GAO also conducted a literature review to examine peer-reviewed studies published in the last 10 years. In addition, GAO interviewed a non-generalizable sample of seven stakeholder groups representing dental and vision insurers, dental and vision care providers, and purchasers of dental and vision care plans. GAO also interviewed a dental industry subject matter expert who recently published a peer-reviewed study on market concentration. For our report findings based on NAIC data, we provided a draft of these findings to NAIC for third-party review. NAIC had no comments. For more information, contact John Dicken at dickenj@gao.gov.

What GAO Found In fiscal years 2018 through 2023, the U.S. Agency for International Development (USAID) allocated about $9 billion and the State Department allocated about $5 billion for democracy assistance overseas. As the figure shows, allocations for the six categories of democracy assistance fluctuated during this period. U.S. Democracy Assistance Allocations, Fiscal Years 2018–2023   USAID and State officials and representatives of organizations implementing U.S. democracy assistance in four countries GAO selected for its review identified several types of challenges they faced in providing this assistance. These challenges comprised actions by the countries' governments, such as harassment of civil society and media; aspects of the operating environment in each country, such as weak government capacity; and actions of U.S. and other donors, including competing diplomatic and democracy assistance priorities. In the four selected countries, USAID and State did not plan to mitigate the risk that democracy assistance programs might have to shift, pause, or cease award activities that benefitted government entities. In fiscal years 2021 through 2024, after reported antidemocratic actions by the governments of some of the four countries, USAID and State paused or ceased assistance involving interaction with government entities and shifted assistance to nongovernmental entities. Agency officials told GAO that redirecting the assistance involved loss of programmatic momentum and confusion about how to proceed. GAO's review of 12 awards found USAID and State had not developed plans to mitigate this risk. According to agency officials, USAID and State did not require such planning. A January 2025 executive order paused all U.S. foreign development assistance. In April 2025, State began a reorganization of the department, and in July 2025, the Secretary of State announced that USAID had ceased implementing foreign assistance. For future democracy assistance, establishing a requirement to mitigate the risk of having to redirect it away from host-country government entities would help State ensure that any decisions to pivot assistance are implemented efficiently. Why GAO Did This Study The quality of democracy has eroded in countries across the globe in recent years, according to organizations that construct and monitor democracy indexes. In fiscal years 2018 through 2023, the U.S. allocated more than $2 billion annually for assistance to promote democracy overseas. A 2023 House Appropriations Committee print includes a provision for GAO to assess democracy assistance that USAID and State have provided. This report (1) describes USAID's and State's democracy assistance allocations in fiscal years 2018 through 2023, (2) discusses challenges the agencies and partner organizations identified as affecting the provision of this assistance in selected countries, and (3) examines the extent to which the agencies planned to mitigate specific risks in providing this assistance. GAO analyzed data on democratic erosion and reviewed agency data and documents. GAO also visited El Salvador, Georgia, Sri Lanka, and Tunisia, selected on the basis of data about democratic erosion and U.S. democracy assistance funding. In each country, GAO held discussion groups with agency officials and partner organization representatives. This is a public version of a sensitive report that GAO issued in September 2025. Information that State deemed sensitive has been omitted.

What GAO Found Each year, the federal government spends trillions of dollars on federal programs that support the American people and address policy goals. Statutory provisions first enacted in 2011 require the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) to develop and annually update an inventory of all federal programs. OMB’s January 2025 update to the federal program inventory website demonstrates continued progress in fulfilling statutory requirements. However, OMB has not yet fully addressed 13 of the 20 requirements. For example, the inventory does not yet include all federal programs, such as foreign assistance or defense programs. It also does not provide all required program, spending, and performance information for the more than 2,600 programs currently included in it. Without a complete inventory, decision-makers lack a critical tool to help them better identify and manage fragmentation, overlap, and duplication across the federal government. GAO identified opportunities for OMB to improve the transparency and usefulness of the inventory. GAO found that the inventory was not fully consistent with four out of five related key practices GAO’s work previously identified, which can help ensure federal websites address relevant requirements. Inventory Consistency with Key Practices for Transparent and Useful Websites For example, the practice to fully describe the data involves an action to disclose known data quality issues and limitations. GAO found that OMB had disclosed some inventory data quality issues, such as potential discrepancies between two different sources of program spending data. GAO’s assessment identified additional quality issues, such as inactive programs being included in the inventory and missing spending data. GAO also sought perspectives from 10 organizations that represented actual and potential inventory users. Their feedback at times aligned with GAO’s assessment. For example, five stated that the inventory would be more useful if it more clearly stated its limitations, such as identifying the types of programs not yet included and the proportion of federal spending those programs represent. Without fully incorporating the key practices into its activities for managing the website, OMB cannot ensure that the inventory addresses relevant federal requirements or provides transparent and useful information that meets the needs of various users, such as Congress, agency leaders, and the public. Why GAO Did This Study A comprehensive listing of programs, along with related funding and performance information, would help federal decision-makers and the public better understand what the government does, spends, and achieves each year. The William M. (Mac) Thornberry National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2021 includes provisions for GAO to review program inventory implementation. This is the second report in a series of products responding to those provisions and assesses the extent to which (1) the inventory provides information consistent with statutory requirements, and (2) opportunities exist to improve the transparency and usefulness of the inventory. To address these objectives, GAO compared the information on the January 2025 inventory website to statutory requirements and key practices for transparent and useful websites. GAO also obtained perspectives from 10 selected organizations that represented a range of actual and potential users, such as recipients of federal awards and federal agency management.

What GAO Found Our nation depends on computer-based information systems and electronic data to execute fundamental operations and to process, maintain, and report crucial information. Nearly all federal and nonfederal operations, including the nation’s critical infrastructures, are supported by these systems and data. The 16 critical infrastructure sectors provide essential services—such as electricity distribution, transportation, and health care—that underpin American society (see figure). The safety of these systems and data is critical to public confidence and the nation’s security, economy, and welfare. The 16 Critical Infrastructure Sectors Federal agencies have issued a variety of regulations to help protect the nation’s critical infrastructure. However, these can result in conflicting guidance, inconsistencies, and redundancies. Harmonization refers to the development and adoption of consistent standards and regulations. Such consistency is important when critical infrastructure sectors are subject to multiple cybersecurity regulations so that these requirements will not overlap, duplicate, or contradict each other. Because the private sector owns most of the nation’s critical infrastructure, it is vital that the public and private sectors work together to protect these assets and systems. To this end, various federal agencies are responsible for assisting the private sector in protecting critical infrastructure, including enhancing cybersecurity. GAO has long identified cybersecurity as a government-wide high-risk area. In May 2020, we identified adverse impacts that varying cybersecurity requirements issued by selected federal agencies and related compliance assessments had on state government agencies. Of the 12 recommendations we made to improve coordination in this area, agencies have implemented 11 and partially addressed the remaining recommendation. In June 2024, GAO testified on the efforts initiated to harmonize cybersecurity regulations and the adverse impacts that can occur without such harmonization. GAO convened a panel discussion to gather industry perspectives on the harmonization of cybersecurity regulations. Specifically, participants noted that the Cybersecurity and Infrastructure Security Agency’s effort to provide free guidance, cybersecurity tools, and risk assessments has been helpful. They also said that selected federal agencies have adopted other federal assessment tools to help provide cybersecurity evaluations. However, participants identified negative impacts that their industries experience with multiple and overlapping cybersecurity regulations and how these can result in redundant work and conflicts. These include: Regulation overlap. Sectors are often subject to multiple regulatory frameworks that can result in potentially burdensome and duplicative cybersecurity requirements. Definitions and requirements. Different federal frameworks have similar controls and reporting requirements but have small differences within regulations that create overlap and confusion. Incident reporting requirements. Differences in the amount of detail, time frames, and thresholds required by agencies for reporting cyber incidents make it difficult and technically burdensome to collect and meet reporting requirements with short time frames. Participants noted that progress in harmonizing federal cybersecurity regulations has been made, such as federal agencies providing cybersecurity guidance; however, several participants agreed that this progress was limited. Industry participants discussed challenges federal agencies face in harmonizing cybersecurity regulations. Specifically, they noted that agency reporting requirements can compete with industry priorities. However, many opportunities for harmonizing federal cybersecurity regulations were identified. For example, in the near-term, participants identified opportunities to harmonize existing regulations by renewing or revising existing legislation such as the Cybersecurity Information Sharing Act of 2015. They also noted that an expected regulation on cyber incident reporting could help streamline various other regulations. Further, participants stated that long-term opportunities include establishing a federal working group and metrics for regulatory effectiveness, focusing on deconflicting existing regulations, standardizing terminology, and making shared cybersecurity information confidential. Why GAO Did This Study GAO was asked to gather perspectives of industry participants on the progress that federal agencies are making to harmonize cybersecurity regulations. This report summarizes the perspectives that selected industry participants shared on the impact of federal cybersecurity regulations and federal agencies’ progress, challenges, and opportunities in harmonizing them. GAO convened a panel discussion on September 17, 2025. The panel included seven representatives from different industry organizations across multiple critical infrastructure sectors. The representatives included directors of information technology and cybersecurity, chief information officers, and general counsel and regulatory affairs specialists. For more information, contact David (Dave) Hinchman at HinchmanD@gao.gov.