Official source comparison

Observed versions 113 & 114

The extracted text differs.

Reports News from the GAO Reports News from the GAO. https://www.gao.gov/rss/reports.xml Fri, 23 Oct 2026 10:59:17 -0400 GAO https://www.gao.gov/themes/custom/gao_uswds/img/gao-logo-rss.gif Reports News from the GAO https://www.gao.gov/rss/reports.xml Feed provided by GAO. State Department: Standards for Overseas Housing Need Review [Reissued with revisions on Oct. 21, 2026] https://www.gao.gov/products/gao-26-107965 What GAO Found The Department of State last updated its standards for overseas housing space in 1991, according to State officials. Those standards may no longer align with State’s goal of providing Foreign Service personnel living abroad with housing comparable to the Washington, D.C., metropolitan area. In the last 35 years, median housing costs in the Washington, D.C., area have increased at a faster rate than Foreign Service personnel salaries. In addition, State’s method for measuring overseas housing does not align with the domestic industry standards typically followed by housing appraisers in the U.S., which may prevent State from comparing its overseas housing to housing in the Washington D.C. area. Without reviewing and updating, as applicable, its overseas housing policy, State may be paying for larger residential units than necessary for its Foreign Service personnel. State’s posts largely adhered to overseas housing cost and space standards, with 87 percent and 81 percent of units meeting those standards, respectively. Posts must request waivers to exceed these standards. Rental cost waivers resulted in overages of under 2 percent of annual lease costs in 2025, representing $8.8 million of the total $497 million in lease costs. GAO found the use of cost and space waivers varied by rank, family size, and locality. For example, executive officers and smaller families most frequently used cost and space waivers. Additionally, posts designated with more difficult living conditions used space waivers more frequently and exceeded standards by the largest margin. Examples of Residences Provided to Foreign Service Personnel Living Overseas State officials from the three posts that GAO selected for illustrative purposes, in Côte d’Ivoire, France, and Thailand, identified various challenges that limited their ability to provide and manage overseas housing for Foreign Service personnel. The challenges included resource constraints, limited suitable housing, and disparate systems tracking housing data. State’s Staff Housing Opportunity Purchase program aims to address some of these challenges by enabling eligible posts to acquire residential properties using proceeds from the global sales of excess properties. This initiative supports the provision of high-quality housing while generating long-term savings for the U.S. government through reduced lease costs, according to State officials. Why GAO Did This Study Around the world, State employees play critical roles in achieving U.S. foreign policy. State seeks to provide Foreign Service personnel serving abroad with safe and secure housing at a cost most advantageous to the U.S. government. GAO was asked to review the housing benefit for Foreign Service personnel serving abroad. This report examines (1) the extent to which State updates its overseas housing standards to ensure they align with its goal of providing adequate housing, (2) the extent to which State adheres to its overseas housing standards at posts, and (3) the challenges State faces in adhering to its overseas housing standards at selected posts. GAO reviewed relevant laws, policies, and guidance documents, and collected State data on overseas housing for fiscal year 2025 to analyze housing availability, size, costs, and waivers. GAO analyzed changes to housing affordability and Foreign Service personnel salaries in the Washington, D.C., area from 1993 to 2023—the latest available data. GAO also interviewed State officials at headquarters and at three overseas posts. GAO selected these posts to illustrate conditions for different regions, a range of embassy sizes, a mix of both owned and leased properties, and a mix of space and cost waivers. Mon, 10 Aug 2026 07:28:52 -0400 /products/gao-26-107965 Nuclear Waste: Future Land Use Planning at Selected DOE Cleanup Sites https://www.gao.gov/products/gao-27-108063 What GAO Found The Department of Energy (DOE) created initial future land use plans in coordination with local communities as early as 1992 at six cleanup sites GAO selected for review. These plans inform but do not bind assumptions about future land use that DOE and regulators make when selecting a cleanup remedy at a site. The remedy selected during the cleanup process has lasting consequences for how a parcel of land can be used, even after DOE transfers or leases it to another federal agency, a state or local government, or a private party. For example, any future use that would increase exposure to residual contamination above the contemplated level could undermine the protectiveness of the remedy. Accordingly, assumptions about future land use provide a framework for the range of uses that are safely available for a given parcel after cleanup. The Department of Energy’s (DOE) General Process for Identifying Future Land Use and Subsequent Cleanup and Transfer Decisions at Selected Cleanup Sites At the Oak Ridge, Paducah, Portsmouth, and Savannah River sites, DOE and regulators established cleanup levels that aligned with DOE’s initial future land use plans for these sites. DOE agreed to clean up most of the contaminated areas at these sites to support industrial use. For nearly a third of the Hanford site and most of the contaminated areas of the Idaho site, DOE and regulators set more stringent cleanup standards than needed to meet DOE’s anticipated conservation, preservation, or industrial uses for the land. However, while they agreed to cleanup standards based on residential use, future residential use is unlikely. They said it would be difficult to go back and calculate the cost difference between cleaning up to support residential and the other uses, but others noted cleaning up to support residential use is typically more costly. DOE has transferred or leased a small amount of land to the community or private entities for industrial use at five of the sites. DOE recently announced new initiatives for energy development, integrated hubs for nuclear fuel cycle activities, or co-located data centers to support artificial intelligence infrastructure. Some community stakeholders have expressed interest in more land transfers, and they generally expressed support for industrial reuse. DOE officials and stakeholders cited some potential benefits, such as economic growth, high-quality jobs, or local tax revenue. They also cited potential drawbacks, such as taking focus and resources away from cleanup, pollution and site recontamination risks, and future DOE liabilities. Why GAO Did This Study DOE is responsible for cleaning up sites contaminated from decades of nuclear weapons production and research. DOE estimates cleaning up 15 remaining sites will cost between $641 billion and $840 billion and be completed in 2100. When making cleanup decisions, DOE and its regulators assess risk to people who may use the land in the future—such as for industrial or residential purposes—to inform its approach and set cleanup standards. Senate Report 118-188 includes a provision for GAO to report on DOE’s future land use planning at cleanup sites. This report describes (1) DOE’s role in future land use determinations, (2) how cleanup decisions align with initial land use plans, and (3) what land DOE has transferred or leased to local communities. GAO reviewed laws, regulations, policies, and agency documents at six sites selected to represent a range of regulatory frameworks, stages of cleanup, and future land uses. GAO visited two of the sites and interviewed DOE officials, regulators, tribal officials, and community stakeholders. Fri, 16 Oct 2026 09:42:29 -0400 /products/gao-27-108063 Critical Minerals: Limited Available Information on the Full Extent of Foreign Investment in Mining on Federal Lands https://www.gao.gov/products/gao-27-108094 What GAO Found The U.S critical mineral supply chain faces numerous constraints, including the need for substantial capital investment and limited domestic processing capacity. The U.S. exports large quantities of domestically extracted ore to Canada, Mexico, and China, among other countries. Copper Mine on Federal Lands The Bureau of Land Management (BLM) and the Forest Service oversee hardrock mines on federal land. As of February 2026, there were 632 approved hardrock mining plans of operation on federal land. The 1872 Mining Law generally requires mining claimants to be U.S. citizens or business entities incorporated in the U.S. Foreign businesses can meet this requirement by having a U.S. subsidiary serve as the claimant. While there is limited available information on the full extent of foreign investment in mining on federal lands and parent-subsidiary relationships, GAO reviewed ownership information of 43 claimants and operators associated with critical mineral mines on federal lands. GAO determined ownership for 32 of those companies and found that 14 were subsidiaries of foreign entities. GAO found that none of the 14 had Chinese-owned parent companies, but in at least two cases, Chinese entities had financial interest in the foreign parent companies. The 1872 Mining Law does not contain a provision requiring BLM or Forest Service to collect information on foreign parent companies nor does it require claimants or operators to submit information regarding foreign ownership. However, other federal agencies have some authorities and processes to identify foreign investment in mining. For example, the Committee on Foreign Investment in the United States, chaired by the Department of the Treasury, can review foreign investment in mining as it relates to potential national security concerns. Why GAO Did This Study Critical minerals are essential to the economic and national security of the United States. These minerals, including copper, lithium, and zinc, are key components in advanced technologies and have vulnerable supply chains. As demand for these minerals increases, U.S. access to critical minerals has become a key topic in domestic policymaking and international relations. Recently, the administration and Congressional entities have expressed concerns over U.S. dependence on imports and the role of potential adversary nations, such as the People’s Republic of China (China), in the U.S. supply chain of critical minerals. Most critical minerals that can be mined in the U.S. are obtained through hardrock mining, some of which occurs on federal lands. However, policymakers have raised questions about the full amount and extent of foreign investment in those mines. This report provides information on hardrock mining that occurs on federal lands, foreign investment in mining on federal lands, and steps federal agencies take to identify foreign investment. It also provides information on the amount of extracted critical minerals exported from the U.S. from 2019 through 2025. GAO reviewed ownership information using a variety of sources for 43 claimants and operators associated with critical mineral mines, analyzed federal laws, and interviewed officials. In a related report (GAO-27-108196), GAO reports on BLM’s role in collecting citizenship information from mining claimants. For more information, contact Dr. Nagla'a El-Hodiri at elhodirin@gao.gov. Fri, 16 Oct 2026 07:40:00 -0400 /products/gao-27-108094 Research Security: NIH Action Needed to Strengthen Foreign Interference Risk Management https://www.gao.gov/products/gao-27-107848 What GAO Found The National Institutes of Health (NIH) funds extramural research through awards to universities and other institutions. Implementation of federal research securit

Reports News from the GAO Reports News from the GAO. https://www.gao.gov/rss/reports.xml Fri, 23 Oct 2026 10:24:16 -0400 GAO https://www.gao.gov/themes/custom/gao_uswds/img/gao-logo-rss.gif Reports News from the GAO https://www.gao.gov/rss/reports.xml Feed provided by GAO. State Department: Standards for Overseas Housing Need Review [Reissued with revisions on Oct. 21, 2026] https://www.gao.gov/products/gao-26-107965 What GAO Found The Department of State last updated its standards for overseas housing space in 1991, according to State officials. Those standards may no longer align with State’s goal of providing Foreign Service personnel living abroad with housing comparable to the Washington, D.C., metropolitan area. In the last 35 years, median housing costs in the Washington, D.C., area have increased at a faster rate than Foreign Service personnel salaries. In addition, State’s method for measuring overseas housing does not align with the domestic industry standards typically followed by housing appraisers in the U.S., which may prevent State from comparing its overseas housing to housing in the Washington D.C. area. Without reviewing and updating, as applicable, its overseas housing policy, State may be paying for larger residential units than necessary for its Foreign Service personnel. State’s posts largely adhered to overseas housing cost and space standards, with 87 percent and 81 percent of units meeting those standards, respectively. Posts must request waivers to exceed these standards. Rental cost waivers resulted in overages of under 2 percent of annual lease costs in 2025, representing $8.8 million of the total $497 million in lease costs. GAO found the use of cost and space waivers varied by rank, family size, and locality. For example, executive officers and smaller families most frequently used cost and space waivers. Additionally, posts designated with more difficult living conditions used space waivers more frequently and exceeded standards by the largest margin. Examples of Residences Provided to Foreign Service Personnel Living Overseas State officials from the three posts that GAO selected for illustrative purposes, in Côte d’Ivoire, France, and Thailand, identified various challenges that limited their ability to provide and manage overseas housing for Foreign Service personnel. The challenges included resource constraints, limited suitable housing, and disparate systems tracking housing data. State’s Staff Housing Opportunity Purchase program aims to address some of these challenges by enabling eligible posts to acquire residential properties using proceeds from the global sales of excess properties. This initiative supports the provision of high-quality housing while generating long-term savings for the U.S. government through reduced lease costs, according to State officials. Why GAO Did This Study Around the world, State employees play critical roles in achieving U.S. foreign policy. State seeks to provide Foreign Service personnel serving abroad with safe and secure housing at a cost most advantageous to the U.S. government. GAO was asked to review the housing benefit for Foreign Service personnel serving abroad. This report examines (1) the extent to which State updates its overseas housing standards to ensure they align with its goal of providing adequate housing, (2) the extent to which State adheres to its overseas housing standards at posts, and (3) the challenges State faces in adhering to its overseas housing standards at selected posts. GAO reviewed relevant laws, policies, and guidance documents, and collected State data on overseas housing for fiscal year 2025 to analyze housing availability, size, costs, and waivers. GAO analyzed changes to housing affordability and Foreign Service personnel salaries in the Washington, D.C., area from 1993 to 2023—the latest available data. GAO also interviewed State officials at headquarters and at three overseas posts. GAO selected these posts to illustrate conditions for different regions, a range of embassy sizes, a mix of both owned and leased properties, and a mix of space and cost waivers. Mon, 10 Aug 2026 07:28:52 -0400 /products/gao-26-107965 Nuclear Waste: Future Land Use Planning at Selected DOE Cleanup Sites https://www.gao.gov/products/gao-27-108063 What GAO Found The Department of Energy (DOE) created initial future land use plans in coordination with local communities as early as 1992 at six cleanup sites GAO selected for review. These plans inform but do not bind assumptions about future land use that DOE and regulators make when selecting a cleanup remedy at a site. The remedy selected during the cleanup process has lasting consequences for how a parcel of land can be used, even after DOE transfers or leases it to another federal agency, a state or local government, or a private party. For example, any future use that would increase exposure to residual contamination above the contemplated level could undermine the protectiveness of the remedy. Accordingly, assumptions about future land use provide a framework for the range of uses that are safely available for a given parcel after cleanup. The Department of Energy’s (DOE) General Process for Identifying Future Land Use and Subsequent Cleanup and Transfer Decisions at Selected Cleanup Sites At the Oak Ridge, Paducah, Portsmouth, and Savannah River sites, DOE and regulators established cleanup levels that aligned with DOE’s initial future land use plans for these sites. DOE agreed to clean up most of the contaminated areas at these sites to support industrial use. For nearly a third of the Hanford site and most of the contaminated areas of the Idaho site, DOE and regulators set more stringent cleanup standards than needed to meet DOE’s anticipated conservation, preservation, or industrial uses for the land. However, while they agreed to cleanup standards based on residential use, future residential use is unlikely. They said it would be difficult to go back and calculate the cost difference between cleaning up to support residential and the other uses, but others noted cleaning up to support residential use is typically more costly. DOE has transferred or leased a small amount of land to the community or private entities for industrial use at five of the sites. DOE recently announced new initiatives for energy development, integrated hubs for nuclear fuel cycle activities, or co-located data centers to support artificial intelligence infrastructure. Some community stakeholders have expressed interest in more land transfers, and they generally expressed support for industrial reuse. DOE officials and stakeholders cited some potential benefits, such as economic growth, high-quality jobs, or local tax revenue. They also cited potential drawbacks, such as taking focus and resources away from cleanup, pollution and site recontamination risks, and future DOE liabilities. Why GAO Did This Study DOE is responsible for cleaning up sites contaminated from decades of nuclear weapons production and research. DOE estimates cleaning up 15 remaining sites will cost between $641 billion and $840 billion and be completed in 2100. When making cleanup decisions, DOE and its regulators assess risk to people who may use the land in the future—such as for industrial or residential purposes—to inform its approach and set cleanup standards. Senate Report 118-188 includes a provision for GAO to report on DOE’s future land use planning at cleanup sites. This report describes (1) DOE’s role in future land use determinations, (2) how cleanup decisions align with initial land use plans, and (3) what land DOE has transferred or leased to local communities. GAO reviewed laws, regulations, policies, and agency documents at six sites selected to represent a range of regulatory frameworks, stages of cleanup, and future land uses. GAO visited two of the sites and interviewed DOE officials, regulators, tribal officials, and community stakeholders. Fri, 16 Oct 2026 09:42:29 -0400 /products/gao-27-108063 Critical Minerals: Limited Available Information on the Full Extent of Foreign Investment in Mining on Federal Lands https://www.gao.gov/products/gao-27-108094 What GAO Found The U.S critical mineral supply chain faces numerous constraints, including the need for substantial capital investment and limited domestic processing capacity. The U.S. exports large quantities of domestically extracted ore to Canada, Mexico, and China, among other countries. Copper Mine on Federal Lands The Bureau of Land Management (BLM) and the Forest Service oversee hardrock mines on federal land. As of February 2026, there were 632 approved hardrock mining plans of operation on federal land. The 1872 Mining Law generally requires mining claimants to be U.S. citizens or business entities incorporated in the U.S. Foreign businesses can meet this requirement by having a U.S. subsidiary serve as the claimant. While there is limited available information on the full extent of foreign investment in mining on federal lands and parent-subsidiary relationships, GAO reviewed ownership information of 43 claimants and operators associated with critical mineral mines on federal lands. GAO determined ownership for 32 of those companies and found that 14 were subsidiaries of foreign entities. GAO found that none of the 14 had Chinese-owned parent companies, but in at least two cases, Chinese entities had financial interest in the foreign parent companies. The 1872 Mining Law does not contain a provision requiring BLM or Forest Service to collect information on foreign parent companies nor does it require claimants or operators to submit information regarding foreign ownership. However, other federal agencies have some authorities and processes to identify foreign investment in mining. For example, the Committee on Foreign Investment in the United States, chaired by the Department of the Treasury, can review foreign investment in mining as it relates to potential national security concerns. Why GAO Did This Study Critical minerals are essential to the economic and national security of the United States. These minerals, including copper, lithium, and zinc, are key components in advanced technologies and have vulnerable supply chains. As demand for these minerals increases, U.S. access to critical minerals has become a key topic in domestic policymaking and international relations. Recently, the administration and Congressional entities have expressed concerns over U.S. dependence on imports and the role of potential adversary nations, such as the People’s Republic of China (China), in the U.S. supply chain of critical minerals. Most critical minerals that can be mined in the U.S. are obtained through hardrock mining, some of which occurs on federal lands. However, policymakers have raised questions about the full amount and extent of foreign investment in those mines. This report provides information on hardrock mining that occurs on federal lands, foreign investment in mining on federal lands, and steps federal agencies take to identify foreign investment. It also provides information on the amount of extracted critical minerals exported from the U.S. from 2019 through 2025. GAO reviewed ownership information using a variety of sources for 43 claimants and operators associated with critical mineral mines, analyzed federal laws, and interviewed officials. In a related report (GAO-27-108196), GAO reports on BLM’s role in collecting citizenship information from mining claimants. For more information, contact Dr. Nagla'a El-Hodiri at elhodirin@gao.gov. Fri, 16 Oct 2026 07:40:00 -0400 /products/gao-27-108094 Research Security: NIH Action Needed to Strengthen Foreign Interference Risk Management https://www.gao.gov/products/gao-27-107848 What GAO Found The National Institutes of Health (NIH) funds extramural research through awards to universities and other institutions. Implementation of federal research securit

Preview limited to 12,000 characters per version. Native snapshots remain available in the source history.