What GAO Found In February 2026, GAO identified five open recommendations under the purview of the National Science Foundation (NSF) Chief Information Officer (CIO), from previously issued work. Each of these recommendations relate to the Improving IT Acquisitions and Management GAO High-Risk area. For example, GAO previously recommended that NSF develop guidance regarding standardizing cloud service-level agreements. Further, GAO recommended that NSF complete annual reviews of its IT portfolio consistent with federal requirements. The CIO's continued attention to these recommendations will help ensure the effective use of IT at the agency. Why GAO Did This Study CIO open recommendations are outstanding GAO recommendations that warrant the attention of agency CIOs because their implementation could significantly improve government IT operations by securing IT systems, identifying cost savings, improving major government programs, eliminating mismanagement of IT programs and processes, or ensuring that IT programs comply with laws, among others. For more information, contact Nick Marinos at marinosn@gao.gov.

What GAO Found Research that involves modifying pathogens that have the potential to cause a pandemic—sometimes referred to as “gain-of-function research of concern”—has been a topic of debate. Based on GAO’s review of literature and other sources, this research has advanced scientific knowledge of how pathogens infect humans and transmit and cause disease. However, there is no broad agreement on the extent to which this research has directly led to the development of vaccines and therapeutics, such as for COVID-19. There was broad consensus that gain-of-function research of concern can pose biosafety and biosecurity risks. This is because this research can involve enhancing the transmissibility or virulence of pathogens that have the potential to cause widespread and uncontrollable disease, resulting in significant morbidity and mortality if they were to be accidentally or deliberately released from a lab. Scientist Conducting Pathogen Research As part of its effort to lead the federal public health and medical response to potential biological threats and emerging infectious diseases, the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) provides funding for, and conducts research on, pathogens of varying risk level. GAO found that HHS procedures for reviewing research—including research that can be considered gain-of-function research of concern—generally include identifying and assessing the risks of the pathogen and the proposed experiment and assessing the adequacy and appropriateness of proposed risk mitigation strategies. If risks cannot be mitigated, HHS agencies can decide not to fund or conduct the research. However, GAO also found that HHS does not always share key information on these risk reviews with the public. For example, HHS reports to federal stakeholders about the number of research projects involving certain higher risk pathogens and the related risks and associated mitigation measures but does not report more widely. Some HHS officials told GAO they supported sharing general information about their risk reviews with the public. HHS has also reported that transparency helps to ensure public trust in federally funded scientific research. Sharing such information would help provide greater assurance to the public, science community, and Congress that HHS has procedures to manage risks. Why GAO Did This Study Recently introduced legislation and executive actions have aimed to restrict or ban federal departments and agencies, like HHS, from conducting or funding gain-of-function research of concern. GAO was asked to review the outcomes of gain-of-function research of concern and related risk mitigation strategies. This report (1) describes findings from literature and reports that discuss outcomes of gain-of-function research of concern and (2) examines HHS’s procedures for reviewing risk and risk mitigation strategies for research involving pathogens. GAO identified outcomes of gain-of-function research of concern by reviewing literature and other sources published from 2019 to 2024. GAO reviewed HHS procedures for reviewing risks and risk mitigation strategies and federal policies and guidance for the oversight of higher-risk pathogen research and interviewed HHS officials. GAO also interviewed eight biosafety and biosecurity experts selected because they authored relevant articles and had experience with gain-of-function research of concern.

What GAO Found The No Surprises Act, among its provisions, generally prohibits providers from balance billing in certain circumstances—such as emergency services—for individuals with private health insurance. Balance billing is when insured patients receive a bill from an out-of-network health care provider for the amount above any applicable cost-sharing that exceeds the health plan or issuer’s payment. An unexpected balance bill is referred to as a surprise bill. GAO analyzed the percentage of claims that were in-network for selected specialties to examine potential changes in network participation after the act’s implementation. Increases in the percentage of in-network claims may indicate increases in provider participation, while decreases may indicate reduced participation. Among specialties likely to be affected by the No Suprises Act protections—emergency medicine, radiology, anesthesiology, and air ambulance—the percentage of in-network claims increased for three of the four specialties after the act took effect. For example, GAO found the percentage of in-network facility claims (typically submitted by hospitals) and professional claims (typically submitted by physicians) for emergency medicine declined before the No Surprises Act took effect, then increased afterward. Percentage of In-Network Facility (Hospital) and Professional (Physician) Claims for Emergency Medicine, 2019–2023 Payment changes for the selected services largely reflected continuations of trends prior to the No Surprises Act taking effect. For example, the inflation-adjusted payment for in-network emergency medicine services billed by facilities increased in 2022 and 2023, continuing the trend since 2019. Meanwhile, the inflation-adjusted payment for in-network emergency services billed by physicians or their practices decreased in 2022 and 2023, continuing previous trends. Why GAO Did This Study Health plans or issuers contract with certain providers by negotiating payment rates to create provider networks that serve their patients. In-network providers accept negotiated payment rates (including any applicable patient financial responsibility) as full payment. Providers outside of that network do not have such contracts and have not agreed to a payment rate with the issuer. This can cause financial strain for patients if the providers bill them for the charges exceeding the issuer’s payment. The No Surprises Act was enacted on December 27, 2020. The act’s protections against surprise bills took effect beginning January 1, 2022. The Consolidated Appropriations Act, 2021, includes a provision for GAO to review the effects of the No Surprises Act. This report describes (1) changes in network participation, as measured by the percentage of in-network claims billed, for selected provider specialties before and after the No Surprises Act went into effect and (2) changes in payments for selected services before and after the No Surprises Act went into effect. GAO analyzed a large dataset that included health insurance claims, specifically looking at four specialties most likely to be affected by the No Surprises Act’s prohibition on balance billing. GAO examined trends in in-network claims and payments from 2019 through 2023. GAO also interviewed representatives from 20 stakeholder groups, including specialty provider associations, issuers, and state insurance departments, to discuss changes in network participation and payment rates after the No Surprises Act took effect. The Department of Health and Human Services and Department of Labor provided technical comments, which we incorporated as appropriate. For more information, contact John E. Dicken at dickenj@gao.gov.

What GAO Found Under the Bayh-Dole Act of 1980, federal agencies can, in certain circumstances, exercise the authority known as march-in rights when an invention that arose from federally funded research is involved. March-in-rights entail an agency requiring a recipient of its funding to issue a license to a third party to develop the invention. Agencies have never exercised march-in rights. In December 2023, the National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST) published draft guidance that sought to clarify when agencies could exercise this authority. It proposed using the price of a product resulting from a federally funded invention as a factor for exercising march-in rights. According to the guidance, price could be used under two of the four statutory criteria: practical application and health or safety need (see figure). The draft guidance was developed through a NIST-led interagency process. As of December 2025, NIST did not have a timeline for finalizing the guidance, citing a lack of interagency consensus. NIST Draft Guidance Proposed Using Price as a Factor Under Two Statutory Criteria for Exercising March-In Rights Among the 51,762 public comments on the draft guidance, more than 47,000 comments (about 91 percent) expressed support for the draft guidance, with the remainder expressing opposition. Most comments in favor of the guidance expressed concern about high prescription drug prices and support for using march-in rights to lower them. Comments opposing the guidance—including all comments submitted by universities—raised concerns about potential adverse effects, such as reducing universities’ ability to license inventions and businesses’ ability to attract investment to develop the inventions into products. Because march-in rights have never been exercised, it is only possible to discuss hypothetical impacts of implementing the draft guidance. A federal agency could exercise march-in rights based on product price only if a product resulting from a federally funded invention has an unexpired patent subject to Bayh-Dole. Therefore, the potential for march-in is higher for technologies with a high volume of patenting activity arising from federally funded research, such as pharmaceuticals, computer technology, and electrical machinery. Although most public comments on the draft guidance expressed support for using march-in rights to lower drug prices, studies estimate that march-in based on price would likely affect a small number of drugs. This is because most drugs have patents that are not subject to Bayh-Dole. Why GAO Did This Study Federal agencies fund universities and other organizations to conduct research, which can lead to new inventions. Under the Bayh-Dole Act, recipients of federal funding can retain patent rights to the inventions and license them to other parties. To protect public interest in these inventions, the act allows federal agencies to retain certain rights, including march-in rights. These permit an agency to require a recipient to issue a license to a third party, when the circumstances meet at least one of four criteria specified in the act. If the recipient refuses, the agency itself can grant a license. Agencies can initiate march-in proceedings on their own or in response to requests from external parties. Since the passage of the Bayh-Dole Act, agencies have received about a dozen march-in requests; most of these addressed lowering the price of drugs or other medical technologies. For all the requests, agencies declined to exercise march-in rights. GAO was asked to review development of NIST’s draft guidance and its potential impacts. This report examines: (1) key elements of the draft guidance and the NIST-led interagency process for developing it; (2) stakeholder views on the draft guidance, as reflected in public comments; and (3) available information about the potential impacts of exercising march-in rights based on price. GAO reviewed applicable laws and regulations, analyzed public comments and patent data, reviewed studies estimating how many drugs could be affected by exercising march-in rights based on price, and interviewed agency officials. For more information, contact Candice N. Wright at wrightc@gao.gov.

What GAO Found With few exceptions, in states subject to Public Law 280 (P.L. 280), Tribes share criminal jurisdiction with the state, rather than the federal government, when a tribal citizen commits a crime or, in certain circumstances, is the victim of a crime in Indian country. However, P.L. 280 currently has limited effect on criminal jurisdiction in Alaska—a mandatory P.L. 280 state—because the Alaska Native Claims Settlement Act of 1971 eliminated most of the state’s Indian country. Nevertheless, Tribes in Alaska have inherent authority to exercise certain criminal jurisdiction which, due to other laws, is concurrent with the state. While Alaska and Department of Justice (DOJ) officials had consistent views, officials from the Department of the Interior’s Bureau of Indian Affairs (BIA) shared varying views on this concurrent jurisdiction during GAO’s review. By documenting BIA’s position on concurrent criminal jurisdiction in Alaska and making it readily available, BIA may help ensure consistent understanding of the authority of Tribes in Alaska. Alaska’s status as a mandatory P.L. 280 state may affect Tribes’ access to certain federal public safety and justice funding. Specifically, BIA data for fiscal years 2017 through 2021 (the most recent data available) showed that Tribes in Alaska and other mandatory P.L. 280 states received less funding than Tribes in all other states in the lower 48. Officials stated that BIA has limited discretionary funding and generally must continue to fund Tribes with existing funding agreements for public safety and justice programs at the same level as the prior year. When new discretionary funding is available, BIA officials stated they generally prioritize this funding for Tribes that do not receive public safety and justice services from their respective states. However, BIA has not documented criteria for entering into new funding agreements with Tribes for the first time. By doing so, BIA could provide greater transparency on funding decisions, particularly if Congress appropriates additional funding. BIA Public Safety and Justice Estimated Needs and Expenditures to Federally Recognized Tribes and Tribal Organizations, Fiscal Year 2017 Through 2021 Tribes by P.L. 280 status Tribal needs estimate BIA expenditures Alaska (Mandatory P.L. 280) $3,046,624,000 $59,519,000 Mandatory P.L. 280 states in the lower 48 $2,827,096,000 $151,738,000 All other states in the lower 48 $8,695,641,000 $1,864,373,000 Source: GAO analysis of Bureau of Indian Affairs (BIA) Tribal Law and Order Act reports for fiscal years 2017 through 2021. | GAO-26-107533 Tribal leaders, Alaska Native community members, as well as federal and state officials identified numerous challenges related to public safety and justice in Alaska Native communities. In general, these challenges included high crime rates and limited public safety infrastructure, funding resources, and training. Federal, state, and tribal officials identified various efforts to improve public safety and justice in Alaska, including state-tribal wellness courts. Why GAO Did This Study In 1953, P.L. 280 rescinded most federal criminal jurisdiction in Indian country in certain states and provided it to these select states. As of January 2026, this affects approximately 65 percent of the 575 federally recognized Tribes, including Alaska—a state with one of the highest crime rates in the U.S.. Following the passage of subsequent federal legislation, some uncertainty has been raised about the extent to which P.L. 280 is applicable in the state of Alaska. GAO was asked to review P.L. 280’s effect on public safety and justice on Alaska Native communities.This report addresses (1) the extent to which P.L. 280 affects criminal jurisdiction in Alaska; (2) the effects of P.L.280 on Tribes in Alaska; and (3) views on public safety and criminal justice challenges in Alaska. Among other methods, GAO analyzed relevant laws and federal memoranda on tribal jurisdiction in Alaska, as well as federal crime and funding data for fiscal years 2017 through 2024. GAO interviewed BIA and DOJ officials, as well as non-governmental stakeholders. GAO conducted listening sessions with a non-generalizable sample of over 50 tribal leaders and Alaska Native community members.

Our prior work on the Sentinel program and the Air Force’s planning for the transition from Minuteman III to Sentinel revealed multiple challenges and opportunities. Air Force’s Current and Future Intercontinental Ballistic Missile Systems Our key findings on the Sentinel program include the following: Opportunities during restructuring. As a result of the Nunn-McCurdy breach, the Under Secretary of Defense for Acquisition and Sustainment rescinded Sentinel’s Milestone B approval and related program baselines. Milestone B approval is a decision allowing major defense acquisition programs to enter into system development and demonstration prior to production and deployment. The Air Force is restructuring the program as it proceeds toward obtaining new Milestone B approval. The program’s first flight of the Sentinel missile has slipped about 4 years from original estimates and is now planned to occur in March 2028. However, the breach has provided the Air Force the opportunity to address fundamental issues with the program, including resolving issues with key design tools and performance requirements and finalizing the launch facility design. Future program outcomes will depend on the extent to which the Air Force takes advantage of this opportunity to correct earlier missteps. Major Events in the Sentinel System Development Options to lower costs and arrest delays. Sentinel program officials continue to evaluate options to potentially redesign portions of the weapon system for cost reductions and are looking at avenues to minimize further schedule delays. For example, the Air Force is reevaluating system requirements and evaluating changes to the acquisition strategy—both of which could limit further cost and schedule growth. Software risks. Sentinel is software-intensive, and development progress remains slower than anticipated. These delays have raised concerns from program officials about the prime contractor’s ability to complete the program’s software in a timely manner. Software risks remain because, notwithstanding how long the program has been in development, the Air Force and Sentinel contractor have yet to finalize software design or software development metrics, and are replanning the delivery schedule. Benefits of the new system. Sentinel program officials expect that Sentinel will provide the nation with a significantly more capable ICBM system with modular capacity to adapt as threats and technology evolve. Further, officials stated that the Air Force and the Office of the Secretary of Defense are actively mitigating risks to ensure there are no capability gaps during the Minuteman III to Sentinel transition. Our key findings from our 2025 report on the Air Force’s planning for the transition to Sentinel while concurrently operating Minuteman III include the following: Opportunity to improve risk management. The transition from Minuteman III to Sentinel involves a complex, total weapon system replacement. But the Air Force hasn’t developed a risk management plan for the most complex project the service has ever undertaken. A very large project that costs $1 billion or more, affects 1 million or more people, and runs for years may be referred to as a megaproject. Megaprojects are extremely risky ventures, notoriously difficult to manage, and often fail to achieve their original objectives. Research has found that planners can better position a megaproject for success by investing appropriate time at the front end to develop the tools and processes to identify and manage risks. Components of the Minuteman III Intercontinental Ballistic Missile System Sustainment risks for Minuteman III. As a result of delays to Sentinel, the Air Force may need to operate Minuteman III through 2050, 14 years longer than planned. Prolonged operation of the aging system presents sustainment risks. Addressing these risks in a transition risk management plan would help ensure the system meets requirements during the transition. Flight testing risks for Minuteman III. Sentinel delays also mean the Air Force will need to carefully manage the supply of parts for Minuteman III flight testing. The Minuteman III program conducts multiple flight tests per year to provide confidence in weapon system performance. The Air Force will need sufficient time to ensure the necessary parts are available for prolonged testing. A coordinated ICBM flight test plan would enable the Air Force to determine the quantity and type of parts the service needs to be able to test Minuteman III for another 2 decades. Training for Air Force security forces. DOD will need to complete Sentinel launch facility test and evaluation activities early in the transition to inform DOD and Air Force security policy updates. Because security forces incorporate these updates into unit-level operating instructions, these policy updates will be needed to train Air Force security forces for the transition. The Big Picture The Air Force aims to replace the 50-year-old Minuteman III intercontinental ballistic missile (ICBM) system, part of the nation’s strategic nuclear deterrent, with the new and upgraded Sentinel system. But Sentinel is years behind schedule and proving far costlier than expected. In 2024, the Air Force notified Congress that the Sentinel program had breached a statutory cost growth threshold—known as a Nunn-McCurdy unit cost breach—which triggered a statutorily required review process. The Nunn-McCurdy statute is a tool for Congress to use to hold the Defense Department (DOD) accountable for unit cost growth on major defense acquisition programs. The Air Force is restructuring the Sentinel program to try and improve affordability. The Air Force estimated that the program would cost at least $141 billion, but the actual costs remain uncertain. Sentinel delays mean the Air Force will need to operate the aging Minuteman III longer than planned. The Minuteman III system consists of more than 600 facilities across five states including missile silos and command bunkers, all of which must be replaced. Air Force leadership has described this megaproject as the most significant and complex infrastructure project in the service’s history. Sound planning will be essential for the Air Force to successfully manage a project of this scale while meeting round-the-clock nuclear deterrent requirements. Challenges and Opportunities DOD and the Air Force are working to restructure the Sentinel program to ensure the program meets cost, schedule, and performance requirements. While working to obtain new Milestone B approval, the Air Force has the opportunity to correct program deficiencies that led to the 2024 Nunn-McCurdy unit costs breach, including by developing an integrated master schedule, maturing software development tools and processes, and finalizing the design of the Sentinel launch facility. The Air Force can also use the Sentinel program’s restructuring period to bolster its project management framework, as we recommended, to better position the service for a successful transition from Minuteman III to Sentinel. Key recommendations from our 2025 report on the transition: ➢ The Air Force should develop a transition risk management plan, including a plan to address Minuteman III sustainment risks. ➢ The Air Force should expeditiously develop a post-2030 Minuteman III operational test launch plan that is aligned with a Sentinel fielding plan. ➢ The Air Force should develop a plan to complete the necessary Sentinel launch facility test and evaluation activities that will inform DOD security policy updates. For more information, contact Joseph W. Kirschbaum at KirschbaumJ@gao.gov.

What GAO Found Air cargo volume handled by Puerto Rico’s three international airports fluctuated between 2015 and 2024, hitting a low of 501 million pounds in 2019 before increasing to 621 million pounds in 2024, according to Bureau of Transportation Statistics’s air carrier data. The largest of these airports, Luis Muñoz Marín in San Juan, increased cargo volumes over this period, while volumes declined at the second largest airport, Rafael Hernández in Aguadilla. Mercedita Airport in Ponce is not regularly used as a cargo airport. Health care-related goods—including pharmaceuticals and medical devices—accounted for about half of the reported cargo volume leaving Puerto Rico, according to Census trade data. Air Cargo Traffic for International Airports in Puerto Rico (in pounds), 2015–2024 Note: Data do not include traffic between Puerto Rico’s airports. Mercedita International Airport, which annually handled between 0 and 50,000 pounds of cargo, is included in the total but not separately. According to air cargo stakeholders GAO interviewed, some conditions at Puerto Rico’s international airports can support existing air cargo operations, but improvements are needed for growth. Stakeholders noted recent improvements to airport infrastructure in San Juan, including expanding access roads. However, they also identified additional improvements needed, such as enhancing warehouses and cold storage space at all airports. They also identified needed operational improvements. For example, agency officials, including from U.S. Customs and Border Protection and the Department of Agriculture, noted that there were limited staff available to inspect cargo, which could affect timeliness should operations increase. Puerto Rico has pursued several initiatives to promote growth in air cargo operations, including seeking expanded authority for some air carriers to transfer cargo. In addition, Puerto Rico has developed an air cargo strategy and worked with health care manufacturers and the logistics sector to increase collaboration and standardize pharmaceutical handling practices at its international airports. Why GAO Did This Study Aviation is critical for delivering time-sensitive goods like health care products. With the growth of e-commerce, it is also a means to rapidly deliver consumer goods. Puerto Rico is promoting air cargo operations as a means of increasing economic development. The FAA Reauthorization Act of 2024 includes a provision for GAO to study air cargo operations in Puerto Rico. This report describes (1) trends in air cargo operations from 2015 through 2024 at Puerto Rico’s three international airports, (2) conditions at these airports to support air cargo operations and improvements needed for growth, and (3) government and industry efforts to promote air cargo growth and potential effects of such growth. GAO analyzed Bureau of Transportation Statistics and U.S. Census Bureau air cargo data. GAO also interviewed officials from the Departments of Agriculture, Commerce, Homeland Security, and Transportation; interviewed Puerto Rico government officials, including airport officials at Puerto Rico’s three international airports; and reviewed associated documents from these entities. GAO also interviewed a nongeneralizable sample of 29 air cargo stakeholders, including air carriers and health care manufacturers with perspectives on air cargo operations and infrastructure at Puerto Rico’s airports. GAO observed air cargo operations and infrastructure conditions in Puerto Rico. For more information, contact Danielle Giese at giesed@gao.gov.

What GAO Found The Inflation Reduction Act (IRA) provided significant supplemental funding for Tribes and programs that serve Tribes. As of December 19, 2025, the Bureau of Indian Affairs—under Indian Affairs in the Department of the Interior—had 143 IRA-funded projects totaling about $360 million to support tribal electrification, community resilience, and fish hatcheries across its 12 regions. However, per an executive order, some funds were paused for disbursement in January 2025. This led to schedule delays and potential cost increases for projects, impacting Tribes, according to officials and tribal representatives we interviewed. In December 2025, Interior was conducting a review of all active IRA-funded projects to ensure alignment with administration priorities, according to communications we reviewed. Status of Inflation Reduction Act (IRA) Project Awards by Bureau of Indian Affairs (BIA) Region, as of Dec. 19, 2025 In millions of dollars BIA region Total amount in IRA project awards (number of projects) Total amount initially paused as of Mar. 3, 2025 (percent of total awarded) Total amount obligated but not yet expended as of Dec. 19, 2025 (percent of total awarded) Total amount not yet obligated as of Dec. 19, 2025 (percent of total awarded) Alaska 119.9 (39 projects) 98.0 (82%) 39.1 (33%) 39.6 (33%) Eastern 20.0 (8 projects) 13.2 (66%) 5.1 (25%) 0.0 (0%) Eastern Oklahoma 10.9 (3 projects) 6.7 (62%) 2.8 (26%) 0.0 (0%) Great Plains 25.5 (11 projects) 8.6 (34%) 5.5 (22%) 0.5 (2%) Midwest 30.2 (9 projects) 25.9 (86%) 10.7 (35%) 5.8 (19%) Navajo 17.8 (3 projects) 17.4 (98%) 8.7 (49%) 0.0 (0%) Northwest 43.3 (34 projects) 11.6 (27%) 4.5 (10%) 5.9 (14%) Pacific 31.2 (19 projects) 21.8 (70%) 4.0 (13%) 12.6 (40%) Rocky Mountain 12.4 (3 projects) 2.2 (18%) 0 (0%) 0.0 (0%) Southern Plains 11.2 (3 projects) 1.5 (13%) 0 (0%) 1.5 (13%) Southwest 19.5 (4 projects) 14.7 (76%) 11.9 (61%) 0.0 (0%) Western 17.6 (7 projects) 7.3 (42%) 1.6 (9%) 5.0 (28%) Total 359.5 (143 projects) 229.0 (64%) 93.8 (26%) 70.9 (20%) Source: GAO analysis of data from the Department of the Interior’s Indian Affairs. | GAO-26-107940 Note: Amounts are for specific projects and do not include funds for administrative costs or funds not allocated to a specific region. Numbers may not sum to totals because of rounding. Amounts paused as of March 3, 2025, refer to amounts paused after Executive Order 14154 of January 20, 2025, “Unleashing American Energy,” 90 Fed. Reg. 8353 (Jan. 29, 2025). According to BIA officials, previously obligated funds were later released in response to an April 2025 court order. Amounts not yet obligated prior to the executive order were placed under review but could be released on a case-by-case basis, according to officials. As of December 16, 2025, Interior was conducting an expanded review of all active IRA project awards to ensure alignment with administration priorities, according to communications we reviewed. Federal regional officials told GAO that IRA implementation increased overall workload and exacerbated existing regional workforce capacity challenges, impacting their ability to meet overall workload demands. For example, some regions faced competing priorities and assigned staff outside their area of expertise to implement IRA programs. Additionally, IRA implementation took place in the context of longstanding workforce capacity challenges, such as extended vacancies and a limited talent pool for hiring. Indian Affairs’ regional workforce has experienced varying degrees of attrition since fiscal year 2022, when the IRA was enacted. On average, Indian Affairs’ regional offices had a 10 percent annual staff attrition rate from fiscal year 2022 through fiscal year 2024. In fiscal year 2025, several changes to Indian Affairs’ workforce policies and staffing took place as part of government-wide efforts to downsize and restructure the federal workforce. These staffing changes were expected to reduce the regional workforce by at least 23 percent from the beginning of fiscal year 2025 through December 31, 2025, according to GAO’s analysis. Indian Affairs has taken actions to help meet IRA and overall workload demands, including authorizing overtime, using contractors, and increasing the number of officials certified to award funding to Tribes. However, officials and tribal representatives GAO interviewed identified opportunities for further actions to streamline existing policies, processes, systems, and requirements to reduce administrative burden for Indian Affairs staff and Tribes. Systematically identifying and assessing such opportunities, and developing a comprehensive plan to implement them, could enable the agency to better meet regional workload demands and support Tribes. Additionally, GAO found that assessing Tribes’ technical assistance needs and formally assessing the resources necessary for technical assistance to support expanded use of self-determination contracts and self-governance compacts—which create flexibilities for Tribes to administer federally funded programs—could help reduce regional workload to support long-term tribal development and resilience. Why GAO Did This Study The Inflation Reduction Act (IRA) provided $385 million to the Bureau of Indian Affairs for programs serving Tribes. Indian Affairs’ 12 regional offices provide services directly to Tribes or funding for tribally administered programs, including natural resources, real estate services, transportation, and tribal services. In November 2024, GAO reported that components implementing IRA programs in Indian Affairs’ Central Offices experienced increased workload that exacerbated existing capacity challenges, making meeting mission needs difficult across competing priorities. The IRA includes a provision for GAO to support oversight of the distribution and use of IRA funds. This report addresses IRA implementation in Indian Affairs’ regional offices, regional workforce capacity since the IRA was enacted, and opportunities to meet overall regional workload demands to support Tribes.