What GAO Found Department of Justice (DOJ) preliminary data indicate there were approximately 8,500 reported allegations of sexual abuse in federal prisons from 2014 through 2022, the most recent year that aggregate data were available. These data include allegations of sexual abuse of incarcerated individuals, including alleged abuse perpetrated by other incarcerated individuals and by Bureau of Prisons (BOP) employees. GAO identified challenges that could limit the effectiveness of BOP’s Prison Rape Elimination Act (PREA) audits, held every three years. These audits assess BOP facilities’ compliance with the National Standards to Prevent, Detect, and Respond to Prison Rape (PREA Standards) that were published by DOJ. Challenges that Could Limit the Effectiveness of PREA Audits Audit Goals. The goal of the audits is to determine facilities’ compliance with the PREA Standards, not for auditors to detect ongoing sexual abuse at the facilities. For example, auditors review whether facilities have PREA policies in place and collect PREA data, but auditors have no specific instructions to detect whether there is ongoing abuse at the facilities. Some BOP facilities passed their PREA audits despite widespread ongoing sexual abuse. Audit Contract.BOP’s current contracting approach for PREA audits may create risks that result in audits not meeting requirements. For example, BOP’s contract for conducting PREA audits conflicts with the Auditor Handbook regarding the amount of time to spend conducting the audit. This poses risks that auditors might not have sufficient time for onsite tasks (e.g., interviewing incarcerated individuals and staff). Auditor Access. GAO identified challenges with auditors accessing BOP documentation during PREA audits. BOP has implemented a new file sharing system, but does not have a plan to evaluate whether the system will address this challenge. By identifying options for audits to better detect ongoing sexual abuse in facilities, addressing risks in the audit contract, and evaluating its new file sharing system, BOP would be better positioned to ensure the effectiveness of its PREA audits. The PREA Standards were implemented in 2012. Since their implementation, there have been significant technological advancements, changes to correctional practices, and lessons learned. Despite these developments, GAO found that the PREA Standards have not been updated to reflect these changes. By conducting a review of the PREA Standards, DOJ could identify opportunities to strengthen prevention, detection, and response to sexual abuse in correctional facilities. Why GAO Did This Study PREA was enacted to prevent, detect, and respond to sexual abuse in U.S. prisons and jails. BOP oversees about 141,000 incarcerated individuals. However, in recent years, several BOP employees have been convicted of sexually abusing incarcerated individuals at men’s and women’s facilities. Since 2022, nine BOP employees have been convicted of sexual abuse at one women’s facility, for example, including the warden and a chaplain. GAO was asked to review BOP’s efforts to address prison rape. This report examines the (1) number of sexual abuse allegations in BOP facilities from 2014 through 2022, (2) extent that BOP leverages oversight mechanisms to detect sexual abuse, and (3) challenges BOP faces in facilitating the reporting process and reducing sexual abuse. GAO reviewed relevant federal laws, BOP policies and documents, and data. GAO also interviewed BOP officials responsible for implementing PREA. In addition, GAO visited four BOP facilities to, among other things, conduct nongeneralizable interviews with incarcerated individuals and staff. GAO selected facilities based on variety in location, gender, and number of sexual abuse allegations.

What GAO Found GAO found that 242 federal programs, inclusive of 12 tax expenditures, provide a range of benefits and services to pregnant women, children through age 5, or their families, among other groups. Of the 242 programs, 15 provide some amount of direct services solely to this population. Fiscal Year 2024 Federal Programs That Provide Some Amount of Direct Services Solely to Pregnant Women, Children Through Age 5, or Their Families, by Agency The 15 programs are fragmented across five federal agencies, meaning the programs overlap across the agencies to some extent—with similar populations or services. However, the programs are not duplicative because they vary in beneficiary population characteristics or type of services provided. Officials from all 15 programs reported coordinating with other programs serving pregnant women, children through age 5, or their families. Coordination improves agencies’ ability to provide services and improves outcomes for beneficiaries. Three of the 15 programs have not fully established a performance management process at the federal level—in which they set performance goals, collect performance information, and use that information to assess results: HHS’s Preschool Development Grants Birth Through Five Program. HHS officials said this program does not set federal performance goals because it monitors progress toward state-defined goals in order to maximize state flexibility. However, a federal performance management process allows a program to assess national progress across varied state activities. USDA’s Special Supplemental Nutrition Program for Women, Infants, and Children (WIC) Farmers Market Nutrition Program. USDA officials said such a process is not warranted, in part, because the program is small and lacks dedicated funding for this. However, regardless of program size, Congress and taxpayers need to know how effectively tax dollars are being spent. VA’s Veterans Health Administration (VHA) Maternity Care Coordinator Program. Officials said they are working on establishing a process, but have not yet completed it. By fully establishing such a process, the agencies would have a more systematic way to identify potential strategies to reduce any unnecessary fragmentation and overlap, ensure that the programs are achieving their intended results, and target resources appropriately. Why GAO Did This Study Federal programs play a significant role in supporting many pregnant women, children through age 5, and their families by providing services to address their distinct needs. GAO was asked to identify programs that serve pregnant women, children through age 5, or their families. This report examines (1) federal programs that serve this population, including programs that provide some amount of direct services solely to this population; (2) the extent to which duplication, overlap, or fragmentation exists among programs that provide some amount of direct services solely to this population; and (3) the extent to which programs that provide some amount of direct services solely to this population have established a performance management process. GAO identified 250 potentially relevant programs primarily using the federal assistance listings on the System for Award Management website, SAM.gov. To verify the list of programs and collect additional information about them, GAO sent a data collection instrument to the 18 federal agencies that administer the programs. GAO also reviewed relevant agency documentation and interviewed agency officials, as appropriate.

What GAO Found The Department of Energy’s (DOE) Office of Environmental Management (EM) reported over $1.5 billion in repair needs across its about 4,300 operating facilities, as of June 2025. EM’s budget request included over $950 million in maintenance spending in fiscal year 2026, an 80 percent increase since fiscal year 2020. EM Direct-Funded Maintenance and Repair Spending, Fiscal Years (FY) 2020–2026 EM sites and headquarters use data from condition assessments of facilities to make maintenance decisions. EM validates these data for accuracy using scorecards. According to GAO’s analysis, some scorecards included inaccurate or unsupported data and did not have completed corrective action plans. Also, GAO’s review of site responses to a questionnaire found that some sites used different methods to generate data elements categorized as performance measures by a DOE order. As EM uses these data to make decisions for funding repairs, accurate and comparable data would help EM to better plan, prioritize, and fund the continued reduction of its maintenance needs. EM headquarters uses the Master Asset Plan—a document that outlines the infrastructure necessary to meet EM’s current mission requirements—to document its maintenance needs. Eight of 13 EM sites reported that this plan does not capture their maintenance needs, in part because sites have more granular data about their maintenance needs than headquarters uses in this plan. This plan also contains 19 projects identified in a cost savings model that could use surplus funds to produce about $120 million in savings for EM. However, EM has not communicated the benefits of completing these unfunded maintenance projects to Congress. Aligning its plan with EM site needs and communicating potential benefits would help EM to manage its maintenance needs and save millions of dollars in the long term. Why GAO Did This Study EM is responsible for addressing hazardous and radioactive waste at sites contaminated from decades of nuclear weapons production and nuclear energy research. EM has reported significant repair needs and deferred maintenance, which increase safety, cost, and mission risks. EM sites reported that these costs will further increase over the next 5 years. Senate Report 118-188 accompanying a bill for the fiscal year 2025 National Defense Authorization Act includes a provision for GAO to evaluate the status of EM’s infrastructure and how EM completes and prioritizes maintenance of its infrastructure. This report (1) describes the status of EM’s infrastructure, (2) examines the extent to which EM maintenance practices align with DOE policies and guidance, and (3) examines how EM prioritizes maintenance in its budget planning. GAO reviewed data on EM facilities and interviewed EM headquarters, site officials, and contractor staff. GAO also analyzed responses from EM sites to a questionnaire on their infrastructure maintenance and reviewed EM budget materials.

What GAO Found Economic conditions in the Freely Associated States (FAS)—the Federated States of Micronesia (FSM), Republic of the Marshall Islands (RMI), and Republic of Palau—include population loss and economic decline. FSM’s population decreased by 26 percent between the 2010 and 2023 censuses, and RMI lost 20 percent of its population from 2011 to 2021. U.S. and FAS officials said high levels of out-migration have exacerbated skilled labor shortages and rising costs for government services. Though Palau’s population has remained relatively stable, a sharp drop in tourism during the COVID-19 pandemic drove a decline in its gross domestic product from 2019 through 2022. The three countries plan to use compact funding to prioritize education and health. Their allocations of compact grants for fiscal year (FY) 2025 largely support personnel salaries in the education and health sectors, and the countries plan to use compact infrastructure funds for projects that include schools and hospitals. However, FAS officials told GAO that project implementation has encountered obstacles such as delayed compact funds disbursement, rising construction costs, and labor shortages. Examples of Compact-Funded Projects in the Marshall Islands, May 2025 The FAS have not yet met certain oversight requirements established by the amended compacts, while U.S. oversight efforts are underway with some delays. Most documents that FSM, RMI, and Palau are required to submit were not submitted on time, and some remain outstanding. For example, since FY 2019, all three countries’ required single audit reports—critical to U.S. compact oversight efforts—have been late. FAS officials said they are taking steps to improve the reports’ timeliness, such as by increasing financial accounting capacity. U.S. agencies have begun to implement oversight efforts. For example, the U.S.–FSM and U.S.–RMI joint management and accountability committees met in August 2025. However, delayed U.S. appointments to these committees affected members’ ability to discuss all planned issues. Also, the Interagency Group on the Freely Associated States submitted its FY 2024 report on its activities and recommendations for compact implementation to Congress 10 months late. State Department officials told GAO that plans to establish and staff a unit to support FAS relations and compact implementation by March 2029 had been paused due to the federal government’s hiring freeze and operational constraints. Why GAO Did This Study The U.S. has provided economic assistance through compacts of free association to FSM and RMI since 1986 and to Palau since 1994. This assistance—including grants overseen by the U.S. Department of the Interior as well as programs and services provided by various U.S. agencies—is intended to promote the economic advancement and self-sufficiency of the FAS. The compacts also provide the U.S. with military access in these strategically located countries in the Pacific. In 2023, the U.S. signed amended compacts with FSM, RMI, and Palau, extending economic assistance for another 20 years. The compacts provide for, among other things, grant assistance and trust fund contributions for the FSM, RMI, and Palau that total to more than $6 billion collectively through 2043. The Compact of Free Association Amendments Act of 2024 included a provision for GAO to review U.S. assistance provided under the amended 2023 compacts. This report (1) describes economic conditions and associated risks in each of the FAS, (2) describes funding provided under the amended compacts as well as planned uses of the funding, and (3) examines the extent to which the FAS and U.S. agencies have met selected oversight requirements established by the compacts. GAO reviewed relevant documents and data. GAO also observed projects funded by compact assistance and interviewed FAS and U.S. government officials in the three countries in 2025. For more information, contact Latesha Love Grayer at lovegrayerl@gao.gov.

What GAO Found The use of artificial intelligence (AI) could help federal agencies carry out key activities in federal small business contracting and research programs, according to a panel of experts convened by GAO. Examples of such activities include conducting market research, reviewing proposals, and preventing fraud. The Small Business Administration (SBA), which coordinates agencies’ Offices of Small and Disadvantaged Business Utilization and oversees agencies’ Small Business Innovation Research and Technology Transfer programs, also could use AI to support activities such as analyzing data submitted by agencies and helping to draft annual reports. But these potential AI uses also carry risks, including inaccurate outputs and data privacy or security concerns, according to experts and literature. Agencies also may face barriers in adopting AI, including lack of staff with technical expertise and a cumbersome process for authorizing new technologies. Prior to 2025, SBA had a number of AI use cases—specific scenarios in which AI is designed, developed, procured, or used—in various stages of adoption. In March 2025, SBA paused all AI use to review compliance with recent executive orders and reflect updated agency priorities. SBA officials stated that AI use will restart after revised AI policies are implemented. As of April 2026, SBA officials told us that AI policies were still being revised and that the pause remained in effect, except for seven pilot or pre-pilot projects to test the security, value, and performance of different AI capabilities. SBA has not consistently met requirements for publicly reporting AI use cases. SBA reported its first inventory of its AI use cases in March 2026, but requirements to do so have been in development since 2020. SBA officials said they could not determine why inventories had not been published, citing a lack of documentation and turnover among staff responsible for AI reporting. Federal Agency AI Use Case Reporting Requirements and SBA Actions Without policies and procedures for publicly publishing its AI use case inventory, SBA may continue to risk not complying with the Advancing American AI Act. Not reporting AI use cases also hinders transparency and congressional and public oversight of AI use cases. Why GAO Did This Study AI has seen significant advancements in recent years, with new capabilities and risks emerging at a rapid pace, and federal agencies have increasingly adopted its use. Small business contracting and innovation grants—areas coordinated or overseen by SBA—have drawn particular interest from industry, academia, and government as an area with potential applications for AI. GAO was asked to review issues related to federal use of AI in small business contracting and innovation grants. This report discusses the potential use of AI by SBA, agency Offices of Small and Disadvantaged Business Utilization, and Small Business Innovation Research and Technology Transfer programs, as well as SBA’s public reporting of its AI use. To conduct this work, GAO reviewed federal agency documentation and literature on AI and procurement and interviewed officials from SBA, the Department of the Army, the Department of Homeland Security, the Office of Personnel Management, and the National Science Foundation, selected because they had experience using AI relevant to contracting or innovation grants. GAO also convened a panel of experts with specializations in AI technology, federal AI use, and federal procurement.

What GAO Found The Department of Defense (DOD) uses three key processes to determine service member cost-of-living allowances (COLA), with separate programs for service members living in the continental U.S. (CONUS) and outside the continental U.S. (OCONUS). These processes include data on military household spending from the Department of Labor’s Bureau of Labor Statistics, location-specific surveys of shopping patterns, and retail price data for the goods and services that service members typically buy. DOD uses these processes to develop comparative prices for locations where it stations service members. DOD uses average CONUS prices as a baseline for determining eligibility for COLA. Using these processes, DOD determines a COLA rate for each eligible location. Payments to service members in these locations vary based on their spendable income and number of dependents. The department also tracks foreign currency fluctuations relative to the dollar to help determine COLA payments in OCONUS locations. DOD’s Process for Determining COLA Rates, Calendar Year 2024 DOD’s processes for determining COLA rates CONUS and OCONUS have several weaknesses. Additionally, information about COLA rates can be better communicated to service members. Specifically: DOD’s survey for determining service members’ shopping patterns does not use sound sampling practices. DOD does not consistently use existing processes to capture location-specific expenses. DOD has inconsistent processes for determining dependent-based COLA compensation in CONUS and OCONUS. DOD posts information about COLA on a publicly available website, but there are inconsistencies in the amount and type of information local commands provide to service members at locations that receive COLA. Further, some service members told GAO that they did not understand their COLA payments. Taking action to address these issues will help ensure service members are appropriately compensated, which will support their quality of life and their ability to meet mission needs. Why GAO Did This Study DOD assigns its 1.4 million active-duty service members to over 3,500 locations worldwide. DOD provides a COLA to assist service members with nonhousing expenses, such as food, in high cost areas. The conference report accompanying the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2024 includes a provision for GAO to examine DOD’s COLA programs. This report (1) describes the processes DOD uses to determine COLA and payments for service members; and (2) examines the extent to which DOD’s COLA processes are appropriately designed and communicated. GAO analyzed laws, regulations, policies, and COLA rates. GAO interviewed officials responsible for the COLA program and held discussion groups with service members in five locations in Hawaii, Japan, Alaska, Germany, and Virginia. Most of the site visits GAO held were at OCONUS locations because 97 percent of the COLA payments are OCONUS.

What GAO Found When activities impact wetlands, streams, or other waters of the U.S., the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers can require compensatory mitigation activities—such as removing invasive species from wetlands. GAO reviewed Corps oversight of compensatory mitigation activities and found that the three districts it selected had generally improved the frequency of oversight activities, compared with Corps districts selected for a 2005 GAO report. Specifically, the three selected districts’ mitigation files generally included at least one monitoring report, and the three districts improved the degree to which they are performing compliance inspections compared to the districts in the 2005 report. In both 2026 and 2005, GAO found that the Corps (1) can take a variety of enforcement actions if required compensatory mitigation is not performed and (2) relies primarily on negotiation with those responsible for the mitigation as a first step in the enforcement process. Corps Role in Oversight of Compensatory Mitigation While selected Corps districts generally have improved the frequency of oversight activities, districts have taken inconsistent approaches to implementing certain compensatory mitigation requirements in mitigation plans required by Corps regulations. For example, nearly all of the district files GAO reviewed addressed financial assurances—a required part of mitigation plans—which are used to ensure sufficient funding is available to correct or complete a project if the responsible party does not do so. But a number of files lacked sufficient information to support how assurances were established. District officials told GAO that additional guidance from headquarters would help them implement mitigation requirements. Without consistent implementation of the requirements, the Corps cannot ensure that its oversight of mitigation projects will achieve intended environmental outcomes across districts. Why GAO Did This Study Some activities that impact certain wetlands, streams, and other aquatic resources require a Clean Water Act section 404 permit from the Corps. For unavoidable adverse impacts, compensatory mitigation may be required to replace aquatic resource functions. Permittees may perform the work themselves or pay a sponsor to complete the work and assume responsibility for the mitigation project. Congress included a provision in the Water Resources Development Act of 2022 for GAO to review compensatory mitigation activities. This report reviews (1) the extent to which selected Corps districts conduct compensatory mitigation oversight and enforcement activities and (2) guidance the Corps developed for overseeing this mitigation, and how the guidance can be improved. GAO identified and reviewed a sample of 85 files from three selected Corps districts. GAO randomly selected a sample from files that met certain criteria, such as permits issued from fiscal year 2017 through fiscal year 2022. GAO also interviewed agency officials from headquarters and the three districts.

What GAO Found Following the COVID-19 pandemic, the airline industry faced challenges filling pilot vacancies, which network and low-cost airlines addressed by hiring from regional airlines, according to the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA). Those regional pilots’ departures contributed to reductions in regional airline service to small communities, according to selected stakeholders. For example, one network airline told GAO that in 2022 it had to withdraw regional air service from 29 airports, many of which serve small communities. Several trends—like increased airline operating costs and travelers driving to their destination or to a larger airport—have also contributed to the decrease in regional air service to small airports and communities over the last 20 years, according to GAO’s prior work. Data and selected stakeholders indicate that pilot supply has been rebounding in recent years. From 2017 through 2024, for example, pilot certifications grew about 10 percent, with most of the increase starting in 2021. In 2024, pilot hiring slowed at the network and low-cost airlines, in part due to aircraft delivery delays, according to selected stakeholders. This hiring slowdown may have allowed regional airlines to retain pilots and move toward pre-pandemic staffing levels. In addition, regional airlines significantly increased pay to attract and retain pilots, raising the average hourly rate for a first-year first officer from about $52 an hour in 2021 to about $93 an hour in 2024. To help strengthen the pilot pipeline, the FAA Reauthorization Act of 2024 required FAA to take action on two pilot training initiatives by November 2024. Enhanced Qualification Program (EQP). Requires FAA to establish requirements so that qualified air carriers, among others, may provide enhanced training based on a nationally standardized curriculum that includes instruction on airline operations and procedures for eligible pilots seeking a restricted-privileges airline transport pilot certificate. Nationwide office for Designated Pilot Examiners (DPE). Requires FAA to establish a nationwide oversight office and to submit reports to congressional committees evaluating the use of DPEs—experienced pilots designated by the FAA to conduct tests with student pilots. Industry stakeholders told GAO that progress on both initiatives could expedite pilot training. In February 2026, FAA officials told GAO the agency has established EQP requirements internally and set up the DPE national oversight office and has begun oversight. FAA officials said that additional time is needed to complete internal processes before issuing the EQP requirements and the DPE report and that no timelines have been established for issuing either. Establishing and publicly communicating the timelines for issuing the EQP and DPE products would inform external stakeholders—including Congress—of FAA’s plans for meeting the requirements in the FAA Reauthorization Act. Having this timeline information would also help industry stakeholders, such as aviation schools, prepare to support these initiatives and enhance FAA transparency and accountability. Why GAO Did This Study Commercial airline pilots, including regional airline pilots, play a crucial role in facilitating economic activity by ensuring safe and efficient air travel. As in many other highly specialized fields, becoming a commercial airline pilot takes years of training and experience. The FAA Reauthorization Act of 2024 includes a provision for GAO to review the supply of regional airline pilots. This report examines (1) how pilot supply and other factors affected regional airline service during the post-pandemic recovery, according to selected stakeholders; and (2) what the available data and stakeholders indicate about the current and future supply of regional airline pilots. GAO analyzed FAA pilot certification data, Department of Transportation data on regional pilot employment, and data from the Air Line Pilots Association on hourly pay rates for first-year regional airline pilots. GAO interviewed FAA officials to obtain perspectives on pilot supply and agency actions. GAO also interviewed representatives from a nongeneralizable sample of 29 aviation stakeholders, such as network and regional airlines, collegiate aviation schools, and industry associations.

What GAO Found During GAO’s audits of the Internal Revenue Service’s (IRS) fiscal year 2025 financial statements and of its internal control over financial reporting as of September 30, 2025, GAO identified five new deficiencies in internal control over financial reporting. Four of these new deficiencies are sensitive in nature and related to information systems, consisting of three access control deficiencies and one security management control deficiency. The remaining new deficiency was not sensitive in nature and related to IRS’s nonproduction costs, which are part of the financial reporting transaction cycle. This report presents detailed information on the new financial reporting transaction cycle control deficiency and associated recommendation. The separately issued LIMITED OFFICIAL USE ONLY report presents detailed information on the new information system control deficiencies and four recommendations to address them. In addition, GAO determined that IRS had completed corrective actions for 14 of 30 recommendations from GAO’s prior reports related to internal control over financial reporting that were open as of September 30, 2024. IRS’s actions addressed four transaction cycle recommendations, one safeguarding assets recommendation, and nine information system recommendations. This report provides the status of eight previously reported recommendations that are nonsensitive in nature and IRS’s actions to address them as of September 30, 2025. The LIMITED OFFICIAL USE ONLY report contains the status of the 30 previously reported sensitive and nonsensitive recommendations and IRS’s actions to address them as of September 30, 2025. As of September 30, 2025, IRS has 21 open GAO recommendations related to internal control over financial reporting to address three transaction cycle recommendations (including one that is new), one safeguarding assets recommendation, and 17 information system recommendations (including four that are new). The new and continuing control deficiencies related to information systems and safeguarding assets increase the risk of unauthorized access to and modification of data and programs, disclosure of sensitive data, and disruption of critical operations. The new and continuing control deficiencies related to transaction cycles increase the risk of financial statement misstatements. IRS mitigated the potential effect of these control deficiencies primarily through compensating controls that management designed to help detect potential financial statement misstatements. Why GAO Did This Study GAO annually audits IRS’s financial statements and its internal control over financial reporting, including information system controls. This report presents the new deficiencies in internal control over financial reporting identified during GAO’s audits. This report also includes the results of GAO’s fiscal year 2025 follow-up on IRS’s corrective actions to address recommendations contained in GAO’s prior reports related to internal control over financial reporting that were open as of September 30, 2024.

What GAO Found Hydrogen energy technologies offer long-duration energy storage, increased transportation efficiencies, quiet operation, reduced air polluting emissions, and potentially broad availability. For example, hydrogen fuel cell power generation technologies could provide quiet, clean backup power to data centers and other large-scale operations during power outages. These generation technologies could increase overall electricity grid security by providing long-duration energy storage. Currently, hydrogen fuel cells provide about 0.03 percent of utility-scale electricity generation. Current and potential hydrogen energy technologies However, hydrogen energy technologies have not been widely adopted because of hydrogen’s relatively high cost and limited market. Additionally, GAO identified four technical challenges to widespread use: Efficiency and safety. Hydrogen’s physical characteristics make it particulary susceptible to efficiency losses, leakage, and emergency response risks. Infrastructure. Transport and storage infrastructure is generally lacking or confined to certain regions of the U.S., and existing natural gas pipeline infrastructure might not be suitable for hydrogen. Geography. Geographic constraints can increase transport and storage costs for hydrogen users. Regulation and permitting. Unclear federal jurisdiction and lack of standards can slow down projects. Since the 1950s, the U.S. has made periodic investments in hydrogen as a potential power source and transportation fuel. Relevant past legislation cited goals such as energy security and resilience, market competitiveness, and prioritizing use of lower-emission energy technologies. GAO offers seven options that policymakers could consider to advance these goals and address challenges to hydrogen energy use. GAO formulated these options for five policy goals, identified through a review of historical congressional legislation related to hydrogen energy. See tables 1–5 in this report for additional policy options and details. Policy Goals and Policy Options for Hydrogen Energy Technologies Policy goal: Energy security and resilience.   Policy options (report p. 21) Identify energy system vulnerabilities and deploy solutions Identify and address infrastructure needs Develop or clarify regulations, standards, and oversight purview Support research and development (R&D)   Opportunities Could diversify the energy system and improve its resiliency. Could make hydrogen more readily available as a tool to build resilience by producing energy independent of existing electricity grid infrastructure Considerations May reduce staff and financial resources for more cost effective or mature energy technologies that may provide similar benefits. Policy goal: U.S. hydrogen market competitiveness.     Policy options (report p. 22) Implement market-stimulating mechanisms Develop or clarify regulations, standards, and oversight purview Support R&D Evaluate hydrogen energy deployment and utility Opportunities Could help bridge the gap between the higher cost of hydrogen and the price customers are willing to pay Considerations There may not be sufficient or available transport and storage methods to support increased supply and demand. Policy goal: Low-carbon energy transition.   Policy options (report p. 24) Implement market-stimulating mechanisms Identify and address infrastructure needs Develop or clarify regulations, standards, and oversight purview Support R&D Evaluate hydrogen energy deployment and utility Support collaboration and consortia   Opportunities Could help bridge the gap between the higher cost of low carbon hydrogen and the price customers are willing to pay. Could reduce supply chain infrastructure limitations. Could help identify whether, where, and when to use specific technologies. Considerations May reduce staff and financial resources for other policy goals. Resource- or time-intensive regulations or permitting requirements could hinder adoption of hydrogen energy technologies. Policy goal: Prioritize technologies with near-term potential.   Policy options (report p. 27) Implement market-stimulating mechanisms Support R&D Evaluate hydrogen energy deployment and utility   Opportunities Could streamline R&D for technologies on the cusp of commercialization Considerations The most mature technologies may not be competitive in global markets or may not have many utilization opportunities. Policy goal: Research, development, and innovation.   Policy options (report p. 28) Support R&D Evaluate hydrogen deployment and utility Support collaboration and consortia   Opportunities Could enable scientific and technological developments and advancements for hydrogen energy and the larger scientific community. Considerations There is no guarantee that additional R&D will result in technology deployment. Source: GAO. | GAO-26-107932 Why GAO Did This Study Hydrogen is a versatile chemical with many potential uses, including vehicle fuel cells, aviation fuel, and power generation. For decades, interest in hydrogen energy technologies to augment or replace diesel, natural gas, and electricity has garnered billions of dollars in research and development. The U.S. could produce hydrogen in vast quantities from domestically abundant resources. However, hydrogen energy is generally more costly than alternatives and infrastructure is lacking, so whether it will replace incumbent technologies is unclear. This report examines: (1) current and emerging technologies for hydrogen production, transport, storage, and use; (2) potential benefits and challenges to developing or using these technologies; and (3) possible policy options. To conduct this technology assessment, GAO searched the relevant literature; reviewed documents and reports; interviewed stakeholders from government, industry, academia, and nonprofits; conducted site visits; attended a conference; and convened a 3-day meeting of 18 experts from government agencies, industry, academia, and federally funded research and development centers. GAO is identifying policy options in this report. For more information, contact Karen L. Howard, PhD at HowardK@gao.gov.

What GAO Found Across 11 selected UN capital projects that were completed or in progress from December 31, 2014, through December 31, 2024, seven projects were within budget and three were on schedule. For the projects that experienced budget increases and schedule delays, GAO found that multiple factors contributed to the increases and delays. For example, as of May 2025, the Strategic Heritage Plan project (SHP) was 10 percent over budget and 4 years behind schedule. COVID-19 reduced the number of workers who could be on site, causing schedule delays, and challenges coordinating construction work with contractors slowed progress, according to SHP officials. However, the Gigiri Master Plan, located in Nairobi, Kenya, is on budget and on schedule, in part because of effective project monitoring and reporting, with construction expected to be completed in 2029. Coordinating U.S. oversight of UN capital projects is a Department of State responsibility. State’s Bureau of International Organization Affairs (IO) monitors UN capital projects through mechanisms including reviewing reports, attending meetings, and engaging with UN officials. However, GAO found that opportunities exist for State to strengthen its oversight of projects. For example, State IO officials do not systematically monitor key indicators (e.g., budget and schedule) and do not have guidance that identifies indicators, triggers, or steps for taking action to address issues with capital projects. Establishing such guidance could provide a useful tool for fulfilling oversight responsibilities and could help minimize budget or schedule overruns. To help mitigate risks, UN officials identified lessons learned, including through collaboration between project officials and on-the-job experience, and applied them to capital projects. These lessons help projects avoid design complications, increased costs, and schedule delays. They also help strengthen governance and support business continuity through use of swing space (see below). For example, the Gigiri Master Plan and other projects created steering committees to strengthen their governance structures by informing, advising, and constructively challenging the project director. Temporary UN Workspaces Support Continued Operations During Construction Why GAO Did This Study In the past 10 years, the UN has undertaken several significant capital projects, collectively valued at more than $4 billion, with the aim of bringing its workspaces up to modern usability, safety, security, and environmental standards. In 2023, the U.S. was the largest financial contributor to the UN. State, the lead U.S. agency on foreign affairs, advances U.S. interests at the UN. A House Committee Report includes a provision for GAO to review UN capital projects with a total budget of $25 million or more in the past 10 years. This report examines factors that have contributed to changes in budget and schedule for selected UN capital projects, how State monitors the progress of projects, and lessons learned, among other objectives. To address these objectives, GAO selected 11 UN capital projects with budgets of over $25 million that were either completed or ongoing in the period from December 31, 2014, through December 31, 2024. GAO analyzed UN documents, reports, and guidance related to budget, schedule, fraud mitigation, and lessons learned. GAO also interviewed State and UN officials and relevant contractors. Additionally, GAO conducted field visits and met with officials at UN headquarters in New York and at project sites in Geneva.

What GAO Found Limitations in control activities allowed potentially ineligible providers to participate in the Federal Employees Health Benefits (FEHB) program. The Office of Personnel Management (OPM) and its Office of the Inspector General (OIG) have a variety of control activities for identifying ineligible providers. However, GAO found limitations in these control activities. GAO’s data analyses identified FEHB claims from approximately 400 providers who were deceased and over 2,000 additional claims from providers who were excluded from federal programs. While such claims are a small proportion of annual FEHB claims, they represent a risk the agency could mitigate. Taking additional steps to identify providers who are deceased or excluded from other federal programs would help OPM and OPM OIG prevent fraud and improper payments in the FEHB program. For example, comparing death data with FEHB claims could help prevent improper payments or fraud in FEHB claims payments. Selected FEHB carriers do not always comply with requirements for identifying and excluding suspended or debarred providers. GAO found that selected FEHB carriers—which operate health benefit plans—do not always notify patients that their providers are suspended or debarred, as required. Carriers also did not notify OPM OIG when providers may warrant suspension or debarment, as required by OPM OIG policy. Clarifying requirements would help OPM and OPM OIG ensure that patients are not exposed to risks related to suspended or debarred providers. Why GAO Did This Study The FEHB program is the largest employer-sponsored health insurance program in the United Sates. OPM is responsible for managing fraud and improper payment risks in the FEHB program, including risks associated with ineligible health care providers. Ineligible providers can increase costs and may pose safety risks to patients. GAO was asked to review OPM’s efforts to manage provider-related fraud risks in the FEHB program. This report examines the extent to which (1) program control activities allow potentially ineligible providers to participate in the FEHB program; and (2) selected FEHB carriers comply with requirements for identifying and excluding suspended or debarred providers, among other objectives. GAO performed analyses comparing FEHB claims data with various data sets indicating that providers may be ineligible, such as data on deceased providers or providers excluded from other federal programs. GAO also reviewed documents and interviewed officials from OPM, OPM OIG, and FEHB carriers. GAO compared this information with applicable regulations, guidelines, and federal standards for internal control.