Official source comparison

Observed versions 196 & 197

The extracted text differs.

Reports News from the GAO Reports News from the GAO. https://www.gao.gov/rss/reports.xml Thu, 05 Nov 2026 08:01:59 -0500 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. October 28, 2026 letter commenting on the International Auditing and Assurance Standards Board's July 2026 Exposure Draft: "Proposed International Standard on Auditing for Audits of Financial Statements of Less Complex Entities (Revised)" https://www.gao.gov/products/e16078 This letter provides GAO's comments on the International Auditing and Assurance Standards Board's (IAASB) Proposed International Standard on Auditing for Audits of Financial Statements of Less Complex Entities (Revised) (ISA for LCE). GAO promulgates generally accepted government auditing standards, which provide professional standards for auditors of government entities in the United States. Thu, 29 Oct 2026 13:05:10 -0400 /products/e16078 Professional Standards Update No. 102 https://www.gao.gov/products/e16067 To alert the audit community to changes in professional standards, we periodically issue Professional Standards Updates (PSU). These updates highlight the effective dates of recently issued standards and guidance related to engagements conducted in accordance with Government Auditing Standards. PSUs contain summary information only, and those affected by a change should refer to the respective standard or guidance for details. Mon, 26 Oct 2026 12:11:08 -0400 /products/e16067 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 Textile Circular Economy: Policy Options for the U.S. https://www.gao.gov/products/gao-27-108142 What GAO Found Developing a textile circular economy includes repairing, reusing, and recycling textiles and making them last longer. Example of a Circular Economy for Textiles In the U.S., a textile circular economy may create potential benefits and involve challenges, according to reports by federal agencies and organizations and stakeholder interviews. Potential benefits could include creating new jobs and markets related to textile repair and recycling, reducing environmental harm, and changing consumer practices. Challenges could include limited funding and domestic infrastructure for nationwide textile collection and recycling efforts. GAO identified a number of policy options—based on relevant literature, site visits, and interviews with 49 stakeholders in the public and private sectors—that federal and state policymakers can consider if the U.S. chooses to develop a textile circular economy. Two of the options are: Developing a textile extended producer responsibility program: makes companies responsible for what happens to their products after use, along with other requirements. Creating tax credits related to a textile circular economy: reduces or offsets the amount of taxes paid by businesses when they contribute to textile circularity efforts, such as reusing textiles or reducing textile waste. Some U.S. states and other countries are proposing, enacting, or implementing most of the identified policy options that can help develop a textile circular economy. For example, U.S. states, the European Union, and others have proposed or enacted legislation to develop textile extended producer responsibility programs. When discussing policy options, stakeholders shared key observations. For example, several stakeholders, including industry groups, told GAO they prefer a federal approach to develop a textile circular economy. A federal approach may provide for coordination, compliance, and consistent implementation across U.S. states or other countries’ legal requirements, among other reasons, according to these stakeholders. However, this would require additional federal coordination and resources and depend on the government’s legal authority to implement a federal approach. Why GAO Did This Study The textile industry is part of a massive, global economic sector—including fiber sourcing, yarn production, and textile manufacturing. Textiles include apparel and other products, such as carpets, footwear, and towels. In response to global increases in the amount of textile consumption and waste, certain U.S. states and other countries have begun to consider and implement policies that can help develop a textile circular economy. GAO was asked to review aspects of developing a textile circular economy. This report continues GAO’s previous work from December 2024 on federal efforts to address textile waste. This report describes (1) the potential benefits and challenges with developing a textile circular economy in the U.S.; (2) the options that policymakers could consider to develop a textile circular economy; and (3) identified proposed, enacted, or implemented policies, both domestically and internationally, and stakeholders’ key observations. GAO reviewed legislation, regulations, federal agency documents, and academic reports. GAO also interviewed a range of stakeholder groups, including government entities (international, federal, and state), industry, academia, and other nonfederal stakeholders, such as representatives from nonprofit organizations. These stakeholders were selected because they have, or will have, a role in ongoing or planned efforts related to a textile circular economy or were recommended by knowledgeable officials. GAO also conducted site visits to the states of Washington and Oregon, as well as France and the Netherlands to meet with private sector organizations involved with various aspects of developing a textile circular economy. For more information, contact J. Alfredo Gómez at gomezj@gao.gov. Fri, 16 Oct 2026 09:35:25 -0400 /products/gao-27-108142 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 r

Reports News from the GAO Reports News from the GAO. https://www.gao.gov/rss/reports.xml Thu, 05 Nov 2026 10:46:00 -0500 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. Immigration Detention: Changes In Inspections of ICE Facilities Raise Questions About Oversight https://www.gao.gov/products/gao-27-109299 What GAO Found Department of Homeland Security (DHS) detention facility inspections have changed at the same time that the number of immigration detention facilities and the size of the detained population have increased. From April 2025 to April 2026, following a January 2025 Executive Order, U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) added over 40 detention facilities that detain noncitizens for over 72 hours. The average daily population of detained noncitizens grew by over 50 percent, to 61,817 individuals, over the timeframe. From fiscal year 2024 to July 2026, three of the four DHS entities that conducted inspections changed the frequency (decreased or increased) or stopped conducting inspections. Changes to Inspections Conducted by DHS Entities from Fiscal Year (FY) 2024 to July 2026 ICE relies on these inspections to identify deficiencies in its facilities and ensure compliance with its detention standards. However, the frequency of inspections has in some cases decreased, there is an increased reliance on self-inspections, and processes for these inspections have changed. ICE has not used evidence, such as data on deficiencies identified through inspections and performance information such as the extent to which facilities are in compliance with their contracts, to determine the effects of these recent changes on facility conditions. By using evidence to determine these effects and applying the results to improve oversight, ICE could ensure that facilities provide sound conditions and care for noncitizens, in accordance with its standards. Why GAO Did This Study ICE is authorized to detain noncitizens apprehended for violations of immigration law pending removal proceedings or execution of a removal order. ICE guidance states that ICE must detain noncitizens in the most humane manner possible. ICE has established detention standards that dictate how facilities should operate. ICE relies on various DHS entities within and outside of ICE to assess compliance. These inspections identify deficiencies related to medical care and food service, among other areas. GAO was asked to review compliance with detention standards and related oversight. This report examines (1) changes to DHS inspections of detention facilities since GAO’s last report on this topic (GAO-25-107580) and (2) ICE's use of evidence to inform its oversight of detention facilities in light of the changes. GAO reviewed documentation on DHS’s various oversight mechanisms and how they changed between fiscal year 2024 and July 2026. GAO also analyzed ICE data on the number of facilities that detain noncitizens for over 72 hours and the average daily population from April 2025 to April 2026. GAO interviewed officials responsible for conducting oversight from various offices within DHS. Thu, 05 Nov 2026 07:19:18 -0500 /products/gao-27-109299 Superfund: EPA Should Collect and Use Information on the Effectiveness of Its Recovery of Cleanup Costs https://www.gao.gov/products/gao-27-107925 What GAO Found The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) uses the Hazardous Substance Superfund Trust Fund to finance cleanup costs at Superfund sites where responsible parties cannot be found or cannot pay. In fiscal years 2006 through 2024, the Trust Fund received about $34 billion in constant 2024 dollars, mostly from General Fund transfers. Congress appropriated about $32.8 billion from the Trust Fund for the Superfund program over this period. Revenue from the reinstated Superfund taxes provided substantial funds for the program in fiscal year 2024. In fiscal years 1996 through 2024, the time frame for which reliable data were available, EPA spent about $25.8 billion at nonfederal National Priorities List (NPL) sites. Remedial activities were the largest category, accounting for about half of EPA’s expenditures at these sites. Through its efforts to hold potentially responsible parties accountable for cleanup, EPA has identified at least one such party for most nonfederal NPL sites, according to EPA data. However, EPA has faced challenges recovering costs. Challenges include having fewer experienced potentially responsible party search staff over the last 10 to 15 years and a limited ability to hold such parties liable. GAO estimates that in fiscal years 1996 through 2024, EPA recovered less than half of what it spent at nonfederal NPL sites. EPA Expenditures and Amounts Recovered from Potentially Responsible Parties at Nonfederal NPL Sites, Fiscal Years 1996–2024 Note: Deleted sites are those where cleanup is complete. This analysis includes 1,622 National Priorities List (NPL) sites and expenditures from the Superfund Trust Fund. It is a point-in-time estimate since cost recovery efforts are ongoing, according to EPA officials. EPA has established some Superfund performance goals and measures to ensure it takes timely cost recovery steps but does not have such tools to assess the effectiveness of its cost recovery across nonfederal NPL sites. EPA officials said they have not done this because cost recovery is a continuous process that may take years to complete. However, measuring the effectiveness of its cost recovery performance—such as by region—would allow EPA to determine how much of the billions of dollars in cleanup costs it is recovering and what kinds of efforts work best to successfully recover costs. This would help EPA determine resource needs and target enforcement efforts. Why GAO Did This Study The Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act of 1980, as amended, established the Superfund program to address sites with hazardous substances. Hazardous substances found at Superfund sites have been linked to a variety of human health and environmental problems. The program is administered by EPA, which lists the most contaminated sites on the NPL. Superfund site cleanups are often expensive and lengthy. EPA funds cleanups when it cannot identify parties responsible for the contamination, or when such parties fail to act. The Trust Fund was primarily financed by revenue from Superfund taxes until they expired in 1995. In 2021, Congress began reinstating some Superfund taxes. GAO was asked to review EPA funding, expenditures, and cost recovery at nonfederal NPL sites. This report examines, among other things, (1) funding that the Trust Fund and Superfund program received; (2) amounts EPA spent at nonfederal NPL sites; and (3) the extent to which EPA has identified potentially responsible parties, recovered cleanup costs, and assessed the effectiveness of its cost recovery efforts. GAO analyzed EPA and budget data, visited Superfund sites, and interviewed EPA officials. Thu, 05 Nov 2026 07:15:02 -0500 /products/gao-27-107925 International Collaboration: Federal Banking Agencies Actively Participated in Standard-Setting Bodies https://www.gao.gov/products/gao-27-108190 What GAO Found The Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation, Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System, and Office of the Comptroller of the Currency help develop financial standards by participating in international standard-setting bodies, such as the Basel Committee on Banking Supervision. These banking agencies also conduct joint work with or provide technical assistance to certain bodies in which they are not members. Federal Banking Agencies’ Participation in Key International Standard-Setting Bodies, 2010–2025 The banking agencies were active participants in developing or updating international standards, guidelines, or informational publications from 2010 through 2025. Along with other standard-setting body members, they helped develop 22 standards and at least 120 guidelines and informational publications, according to GAO’s review of standard-setting body documentation and agency staff. Members generally are expected but are not legally required to implement standards domestically, whereas implementation of guidelines and informational publications is encouraged but not expected. The banking agencies implemented international standards primarily through domestic rulemaking. For example, Basel Committee implementation-monitoring reports state that, as of May 2026, the banking agencies had proposed 27 rules to implement the Basel standards, 18 of which had been finalized. They also adopted some guidelines and informational publications developed by international standard-setting bodies. Standard-setting bodies promoted implementation through assessments, peer reviews, and other monitoring activities. However, agency staff stated that domestic policy objectives and internal deliberations primarily drove agency implementation actions. The banking agencies used several mechanisms to oversee their participation in standards development. Through multilayered internal review processes, senior officials reviewed staff work, while agency leaders approved policy positions and represented their respective agencies in key meetings. The agencies are also subject to several external forms of oversight and transparency, including congressional hearings and reporting, public consultations by standard-setting bodies, and disclosures in annual reports. Why GAO Did This Study Some Members of Congress have raised questions about the transparency of international standard setting. For example, some Members of Congress have stated that the banking agencies have implemented domestic regulations that closely reflect international standards developed with limited input from U.S. stakeholders. GAO was asked to review federal banking agencies’ participation in developing international standards. This report examines, for 2010 through 2025, (1) the extent to which federal banking agencies participated in the development of international standards; (2) how the federal banking agencies have implemented the standards and how standard-setting bodies promote their implementation; and (3) the mechanisms for overseeing the federal banking agencies’ development of international standards, among other objectives. GAO analyzed federal banking agency documents, including policies, procedures, and annual reports; standard-setting body publications; and relevant academic and policy literature. GAO also interviewed officials from the banking agencies. GAO also interviewed 18 stakeholders—eight academics, three private sector lawyers, and seven advocacy organizations—selected for their expertise in international financial standard setting and range of views on oversight of developing such binding agreements or nonbinding instruments. For more information, contact Michael E. Clements at clementsm@gao.gov. Thu, 05 Nov 2026 07:11:03 -0500 /products/gao-27-108190 District of Columbia Charter Schools: Key Changes Made to Academic Accountability System https://www.gao.gov/products/gao-27-109048 What GAO Found The DC Public Charter School Board (PCSB) uses a multi-step process, including interviews and public hearings, to screen applicants. PCSB also requires applicants to meet several decision criteria (see figure). In the past 5 years PCSB has made a few key changes to the charter school application process. Changes include requiring that charters fill a demonstrated need and that prospective schools complete a preapplication process. Additionally, PCSB has shifted the application timeline to the fall from the spring. DC Public Charter School Board (PCSB) Application Decision Criteria Note: For more details, see figure 1 in GAO-27-109048 In the last 5 years, two schools applied for new charters and PCSB denied both. By comparison, in the prev

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