What GAO Found The Department of Defense (DOD) offers eligible military families with special needs dependents coverage for additional services beyond what is covered by TRICARE health plansthrough the TRICARE Extended Care Health Option (ECHO) program and its ECHO Home Health Care (EHHC) benefit. EHHC provides coverage for additional services to enrollees who are homebound with medically complex conditions. Together, ECHO and its EHHC benefit provide coverage for habilitative services (provided to help individuals keep, learn, or improve skills and functioning for daily living) and respite care (in which a provider temporarily cares for the individual with special needs). EHHC also covers skilled nursing care. TRICARE Programs Providing Health Care Services to Military Families with Special Needs, 2024 Military families with special needs dependents also may be eligible for coverage for home- and community-based services, such as skilled nursing care and respite care, through their state Medicaid program. GAO found that 14 of the 24 programs in seven states it reviewed offered coverage for all three services, and some programs covered more respite care than currently provided by ECHO. GAO also found that military families may experience challenges accessing services through ECHO, which DOD has taken some steps to address. For example, of the 734 authorizations approved for respite care services from 2022 through 2024, less than one third were used. According to ECHO case managers, this lower usage is partly due to the lower number of respite care hours the program covers. Officials from the Defense Health Agency (DHA)—the agency within DOD responsible for managing ECHO—reported taking steps to increase ECHO respite care hours from 16 to 32 hours per month. GAO also found that ECHO’s coverage limit—$36,000 per enrollee, per calendar year—has remained the same since 2009. As such, the coverage limit may not have kept pace with increased health care costs. Additionally, while DHA officials said that the agency plans to compare ECHO benefits with those offered through Medicaid, it has not set goals or a timeline to complete this review. Assessing ECHO’s coverage limit and establishing goals and a timeline for its planned review of ECHO benefits would help DHA determine whether the program is effectively meeting enrollees’ needs. Why GAO Did This Study Individuals with special health care needs navigate complicated health care systems. Military families with special needs children may face additional challenges due to frequent moves across military installations. To address the needs of these military families, DOD provides coverage for health care services through the TRICARE ECHO program. A House report included a provision for GAO to review certain services available to military families. This report describes coverage for nursing care, habilitative services, and respite care available to military families with special needs children through (1) ECHO and (2) Medicaid. It also examines (3) challenges military families may face when seeking access to these services through ECHO and steps DOD has taken to address any challenges. GAO reviewed DOD and Medicaid program policies and documents in seven states with high active-duty military member presence. GAO also interviewed DOD officials, TRICARE representatives, state Medicaid officials, and stakeholder organizations representing military families and the special needs community.

What GAO Found Service coordinators employed by owners or managers of affordable housing link residents to supportive services, such as health care, meals, and transportation. Comprehensive data on service coordinators in rural federally assisted housing are not available. Some agencies, including the U.S. Department of Agriculture and Internal Revenue Service, support rental properties that may employ service coordinators. But they do not administer service coordinator programs, so they do not collect service coordinator data. The Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) operates two programs that fund and collect data on service coordinators in public housing and in privately owned multifamily housing. However, GAO found weaknesses in the quality and use of HUD’s data for the multifamily housing program: HUD has not developed uniformly applied procedures for entering data in its IT system on multifamily properties that fund service coordinators. As a result, HUD cannot accurately determine how many properties have service coordinators or whether these properties comply with program requirements. HUD does not routinely analyze performance reports it requires service coordinators at multifamily properties to prepare. Doing so could help HUD assess program effectiveness. Tasks of HUD-Funded Service Coordinators Stakeholders that GAO interviewed reported that service coordinators in federally assisted housing benefit residents’ well-being, and selected studies reported varied effects. For example, during GAO’s site visits to four rural locations, local stakeholders said service coordinators helped residents avoid eviction and apply for Medicaid. Four of the five studies GAO reviewed that measured potential effects of service coordination reported mixed results on certain resident health, financial, or housing outcomes. According to selected stakeholders and researchers GAO interviewed, key challenges to service coordination in rural areas include managing multiple funding sources, limited service providers, and long distances between properties and services. They also described ways they have tailored efforts to meet these challenges, such as by inviting service providers to meet residents at the properties. Federal agencies also have taken some actions that may help address certain rural service coordination challenges. For example, one of HUD’s programs allows participating housing providers to use some grant funds to directly provide services to residents (e.g., on-site financial literacy classes). Why GAO Did This Study The federal government supports the development or operation of rural affordable rental housing through several agencies. Some residents of federally assisted housing may need supportive services to remain independent and in their homes. Rural populations may face a greater need for these services because they generally have higher percentages of older adults and people with disabilities than their urban counterparts. This report examines (1) the availability and quality of data on service coordinators in rural federally assisted housing, (2) available evidence of their effect on residents' well-being, and (3) any challenges to rural service coordination and approaches to address them. GAO reviewed HUD’s collection and use of service coordinator data, including data entry procedures, and reviewed selected studies on the effect of service coordinators. GAO also interviewed or received written responses from researchers and officials of four federal agencies that support rural housing or supportive services and conducted site visits to four geographically diverse rural areas to interview local service coordinators and stakeholders.

What GAO Found Department of Defense (DOD) components develop their program requirements and estimate needed resources—a phase known as programming—during an annual resourcing process. GAO found that roughly half of DOD components (22 of 40) programmed reductions to their civilian workforces in at least one fiscal year (FY) from FYs 2023–2025. These reductions ranged from 0.1 percent to 9.8 percent of a component’s civilian workforce. GAO’s review of DOD’s FY 2026 budget request identified more reductions than in prior FYs (see figure). Number of Department of Defense (DOD) Components That Programmed Reductions to Civilian Workforces, n=40 Of the 14 components GAO selected for more in-depth review, 11 conducted some analysis of the impacts of workforce reductions during FYs 2023–2025 to inform their decisions. However, some components did not consistently conduct analysis as required or provide related documentation. According to component officials, DOD had not provided guidance for when and how to conduct and document this analysis. The National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2026 includes a provision for DOD to provide additional guidance on analysis required to inform workforce reductions. Additionally, since January 2025, DOD implemented multiple efforts to reduce its civilian workforce outside the programming process. For example, DOD approved about 53,200 applications for deferred resignations. DOD also hired approximately 59,500 fewer civilian employees from January to December 2025 than in recent years due to a hiring freeze. DOD incorporated some of these civilian workforce reductions into the FY 2026 budget request, per officials. While selected components conducted some analysis for their civilian workforce reductions since January 2025, officials reported challenges in doing so. Further, component officials identified both preliminary benefits, such as organizational optimization, and challenges, like strained workforce capacity, resulting from the reductions. However, DOD does not have a plan to assess lessons learned from these workforce reduction efforts—a key practice for project and program management. Without assessing lessons learned, DOD may miss opportunities to better understand reduction impacts, inform strategic human capital management, and mitigate any challenges in future efforts. Why GAO Did This Study DOD’s civilian workforce performs a wide variety of responsibilities and plays an essential role in the department’s success. By law, the Secretary of Defense may not reduce the civilian workforce programmed full-time equivalent levels without conducting an appropriate analysis of the impacts of the reductions on seven elements, such as readiness, workload, and lethality. House Report 118-301 includes a provision for GAO to review this analysis. This report examines (1) DOD components’ programmed civilian workforce reductions for FYs 2023– 2025, (2) the extent to which selected DOD components conducted required analysis to inform programmed civilian workforce reductions for FYs 2023–2025, and (3) the extent to which selected DOD components conducted required analysis to inform selected civilian workforce reductions since January 2025 and assessed lessons learned. GAO analyzed DOD budget and personnel data. GAO also interviewed officials from 14 selected components about analyses for programmed reductions for FYs 2023–2025. GAO further interviewed officials from 12 selected components about analyses to support reductions since January 2025. GAO compared these efforts against section 129a(b) of title 10, U.S. Code, relevant federal internal control standards, and key practices for project and program management.

What GAO Found The Corporate Transparency Act (CTA) requires the Department of the Treasury’s Financial Crimes Enforcement Network (FinCEN) to develop reporting requirements for and create a registry of beneficial owners—individuals who own or control business entities. The CTA and FinCEN’s 2022 beneficial ownership rule explicitly exempts 23 categories of entities from these requirements, largely because they already are subject to federal or state regulation or must report similar information to a governmental authority. Federal and state regulators overseeing exempt categories generally require some identifying information for individuals who may be owners or exercise control over those entities, according to GAO review of regulatory documentation and interviews. In March 2025, FinCEN issued an interim final rule exempting domestic companies and U.S. persons from beneficial ownership reporting requirements. Most of these entities were limited liability companies (LLC) and corporations—the largest categories of U.S.- registered businesses (see figure). The expanded exemption—made to reduce burden on legitimate businesses—applies to over 99 percent of entities that previously were required to report. Numbers of Business Entities Registered in the U.S., July 2025 Most states require entities operating within their borders to file reports that may collect ownership and control information, such as the names of corporate officers and directors or LLC managers and members, according to a 2024 National Association of Secretaries of State report. However, these individuals may not be the beneficial owners or exercise substantial control over the entity. Moreover, states vary in the extent to which they collect such information. U.S.-based shell companies, often structured as LLCs or corporations, can pose significant risks of illicit finance activity. Treasury’s 2026 National Money Laundering Risk Assessment identified several cases in which shell companies were used to facilitate financial crimes, including laundering the proceeds of drug trafficking, cybercrime, and fraud, among others, indicating the continued risk posed by shell companies. The 2025 domestic reporting company exemption may perpetuate these risks because state requirements for reporting ownership and control information vary in scope. Treasury is statutorily required to provide information to law enforcement that could be highly useful and to report to Congress on exempt entities that are significantly abused for illicit finance. However, Treasury has not identified potential actions or taken steps to address gaps in beneficial ownership information resulting from the broadened reporting exemptions. Doing so would better position policymakers and law enforcement to respond to potential shell company misuse while minimizing regulatory burden on legitimate businesses. Why GAO Did This Study Illicit actors frequently use corporate structures such as shell companies to launder criminal proceeds. These structures can be exploited because they allow the identities of people who benefit from or control them to be hidden from law enforcement. The Anti-Money Laundering Act of 2020 includes a provision for GAO to report on the regulation of entities exempted from beneficial ownership reporting and the extent to which they pose significant illicit finance risks. This report (1) describes regulatory and reporting requirements for exempt entities, (2) assesses the extent to which such entities can pose significant risks of illicit finance activity, and (3) examines Treasury’s plans to monitor and report on those risks. GAO reviewed documentation from federal and state regulators related to their collection of ownership and control information on exempted entities and interviewed agency officials. GAO also reviewed reporting requirements in six states, selected largely because they had the highest numbers of filings. In addition, GAO reviewed federal assessments, international standards, and press releases on cases involving exempted entities and interviewed law enforcement officials.

What GAO Found Manufacturers are developing fully electric and hybrid-electric aircraft, mostly for short-range and medium-range flying. These aircraft vary widely in design. Some require a runway for takeoff, while others take off vertically, for example, from the top of a building. They also have a wide variety of potential uses, including air taxi service and cargo transport. The Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) and other entities have also researched technologies that could potentially enable longer-range uses and broader deployment of electric aircraft in the future. Examples of Potential Uses for Electric Aircraft The infrastructure to support electric aircraft at U.S. airports is currently limited. According to FAA, as of December 2025, 47 airports have identified charging stations for electric aircraft in airport plans. The majority of these airports are part of the manufacturer BETA Technologies’ network of charging stations. According to FAA officials and selected stakeholders, airports face a variety of challenges related to installing infrastructure for electric aircraft, including cost, uncertainty about demand, and availability of reliable electricity. As of March 2026, FAA is evaluating electric aircraft and engine designs for certification on a case-by-case basis, but is considering regulatory changes, such as developing dedicated airworthiness standards for electric vertical takeoff and landing aircraft, that could standardize its approach to evaluating these products in the long term. Stakeholders described challenges with FAA’s approach, including insufficient FAA staff with expertise in electric propulsion and limited standardization in the certification process. According to FAA officials, they have hired engineers in disciplines such as propulsion, and deployed experienced personnel as needed to emerging technology areas. However, ensuring that planned skill gap assessments are quantitative and include all mission-critical occupations, as GAO recommended in 2021, would help FAA better understand the skills its workforce needs to respond to technological changes. Why GAO Did This Study Electric propulsion aircraft have the potential to lower operating costs, increase access to air service for regional airports, and reduce environmental impacts and noise from aviation. However, FAA has not yet issued a type certification for a manned electric aircraft as of March 2026, and when such aircraft will be able to commercially operate is not clear. Section 1012 of the FAA Reauthorization Act of 2024 includes a provision for GAO to assess the safe and scalable operation and integration of electric aircraft into the National Airspace System. This report describes (1) the types and uses of electric aircraft in development; (2) the extent of infrastructure deployed at U.S. airports to support electric aircraft, and any challenges airports face in deploying infrastructure; and (3) FAA’s approach to certificating the airworthiness of electric aircraft designs, and related challenges identified by aviation industry stakeholders. GAO analyzed literature on electric aircraft published between 2019 and 2024 and used information from these studies to supplement testimonial evidence from interviews with aviation industry stakeholders and federal officials. GAO also analyzed public information on government and industry efforts to develop electric aircraft. GAO interviewed officials from FAA, the National Aeronautics and Space Administration, the National Laboratory of the Rockies, and a nongeneralizable selection of 30 aviation industry stakeholders, including aircraft and engine manufacturers, airports, fixed-base operators, state departments of transportation, and a flight training school. Eight interviews were conducted as part of site visits to Washington State and Ohio. For more information, contact Derrick Collins at CollinsD@gao.gov.