Official source comparison

Observed versions 96 & 97

The extracted text differs.

Reports News from the GAO Reports News from the GAO. https://www.gao.gov/rss/reports.xml Wed, 21 Oct 2026 09:30:30 -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. 2027-2032 Strategic Plan: Serving Congress and the Nation https://www.gao.gov/products/gao-27-900655 GAO’s Strategic Plan Goals and Objectives form the foundation of the agency’s strategic plan and lay out our long-term strategies to accomplish our goals. For more information, contact Stephen Sanford at SanfordS@gao.gov. Fri, 16 Oct 2026 08:38:20 -0400 /products/gao-27-900655 Federal Real Property: New Occupancy Data Help Agencies Shed Unneeded Office Space But Gaps Limit the Full Picture https://www.gao.gov/products/gao-27-108503 What GAO Found Under the Utilizing Space Efficiently and Improving Technologies (USE IT) Act, enacted in January 2025, federal agencies are now required to collect and report occupancy data. This data is used to calculate utilization rates for agencies’ office space in federally owned buildings and leased locations. While 20 of the 23 agencies that responded to GAO’s survey reported using existing badging systems for this purpose, 16 of these 20 agencies reported supplementing that information with data from other sources such as daily check-in surveys. Nearly all agencies surveyed noted the importance of having easy to implement, cost-effective data collection approaches that they could put in place by the act’s July 2025 implementation deadline. Most agencies reported minimal costs associated with collecting and reporting USE IT Act data—collectively $16 million across 23 agencies in 2025. Agencies’ Use of Approaches to Collect Occupancy Data, as of September 2025 Many agencies told GAO they are either using or plan to use their USE IT Act data to identify and dispose of unneeded real property. Some agency officials told GAO that they have already made decisions to consolidate or dispose of underutilized spaces, informed in part by USE IT Act data, and that they expect to save millions of dollars annually as a result. However, the USE IT Act data submitted to Congress and the public in March 2026 does not have important context—including on GSA-controlled vacant space—needed to fully reflect office space utilization. Without this information, Congress and the public may have an inaccurate impression of the extent to which owned and leased office spaces are being utilized, including some locations that are likely being utilized at lower or higher rates than reported. While surveyed agencies generally agreed that USE IT Act data are helpful, about one-third expressed concerns about how GSA data collection and reporting guidelines affect their utilization rate calculations. Further, some agencies described approaches to collecting and reporting their occupancy data that are inconsistent with GSA guidelines, resulting in data that are incomplete. For example, one agency reported the number of employees that are assigned to each location rather than measuring the extent to which employees were present in those spaces. By coordinating with agencies to improve the consistency and completeness of their occupancy data, GSA could better position agencies to make informed decisions about which underused spaces to prioritize for disposal, potentially leading to tens of millions of dollars in financial savings. Why GAO Did This Study Chronic underutilization of federal buildings is one of the main reasons that the management of federal real property has been on GAO’s High Risk list for more than 20 years. The USE IT Act requires the 24 Chief Financial Officer (CFO) Act agencies to collect and report occupancy data on the number of employees working in certain owned and leased spaces. It also contains a provision for GAO to review the costs to these agencies of this requirement to measure the occupancy and utilization rates of their spaces. This report examines 1) the approaches CFO Act agencies reported using to collect the occupancy data required by the USE IT Act and their associated costs; 2) how agencies are using USE IT Act data to inform real property decisions and what additional information, if any, may help Congress and the public better understand federal office space utilization; and 3) agencies’ concerns about USE IT Act data collection and reporting and GSA’s actions to address these concerns. GAO surveyed the CFO Act agencies about their data collection approaches, associated costs, and any limitations to their data or selected approaches. GAO also reviewed GSA guidelines for USE IT Act data collection, analyzed GSA data on vacant spaces, and conducted in-depth interviews with five agencies selected based on the variety of approaches to collecting occupancy data and the size of their real property portfolios. Fri, 16 Oct 2026 07:18:45 -0400 /products/gao-27-108503 Critical Minerals: BLM Should Ensure Individuals and Businesses Meet Citizenship Requirements for Hardrock Mining Claims https://www.gao.gov/products/gao-27-108196 What GAO Found The Department of the Interior’s Bureau of Land Management (BLM) administers mining claims that grant the exclusive right to extract critical and other hardrock minerals from most federal lands. U.S. mining laws include citizenship requirements for individuals and business entities holding such claims, known as mining claimants. Under these laws, mining claimants generally must be U.S. citizens, which can include individuals as well as business entities incorporated in a U.S. state or territory. Foreign entities are not qualified to be claimants, but their subsidiaries can hold claims if they are incorporated in the U.S. Mining claimants are not required to disclose to BLM if they are a subsidiary of another entity, foreign or domestic, and they do not have to provide information on any foreign investment they may receive. Under BLM’s regulations and guidance, the agency collects basic identifying information from individuals and business entities holding mining claims. However, BLM generally does not collect citizenship information and does not document if mining claimants meet the U.S. citizenship requirements. In addition, BLM officials said the agency rarely verifies the citizenship of mining claimants. As a result, BLM generally does not know whether mining claimants are qualified to hold mining claims. Information the Bureau of Land Management (BLM) Collects from Mining Claimants GAO analyzed a nongeneralizable sample of 15 mining claimants that appeared to be business entities and could not find evidence that seven of the claimants were incorporated in the U.S., as required. BLM was unable to help determine if these entities met the requirement to be incorporated in the U.S. because it did not have the necessary information to do so. Until BLM directs staff to collect citizenship information and document that mining claimants meet the U.S. citizenship requirements, BLM lacks reasonable assurance that only qualified individuals and business entities hold mining claims that allow them to extract and profit from the minerals produced on federal lands. Australia and Canada—examples of top mineral-producing countries—collect detailed information on foreign investors in businesses in their countries. They can use this information to restrict foreign investments in mining and other sectors by prohibiting certain investments or imposing conditions, as each country has done in some cases in recent years. In addition, both countries limit the ability of foreign state-owned enterprises and other foreign investors to acquire control of businesses involving critical minerals. Why GAO Did This Study Critical minerals are vital to the U.S. economy and national security. Federal lands are a significant source of hardrock minerals and include some mining operations supported by foreign investments, according to BLM officials. The administration and Congress have expressed concern about U.S. reliance on foreign sources for critical minerals, and the President has called for expanding mineral production from federal lands. GAO was asked to review issues related to foreign entities’ involvement in mining on federal lands. This report examines (1) the extent to which BLM collects, documents, and reviews mining claimants’ citizenship information and (2) how selected mineral-producing countries address foreign investments in mining. GAO was also asked to report on the extent of foreign investment in mining on federal lands (see GAO-27-108094). GAO reviewed U.S. laws and regulations; analyzed a nongeneralizable sample of mining claimants to assess if they appear to meet citizenship requirements; examined BLM documents; visited three BLM state offices; and interviewed officials and representatives from BLM and other federal and nonfederal entities. GAO also reviewed Australian and Canadian laws, guidance, reports, and written responses to questions. Fri, 16 Oct 2026 07:40:59 -0400 /products/gao-27-108196 Private Health Insurance: Market Concentration in 2024 Was Generally Higher Than in 2011 https://www.gao.gov/products/gao-27-108927 What GAO Found Since 2014, GAO has reported that enrollment in private health insurance plans has been concentrated, meaning a small number of issuers, such as health insurers, enrolled most of the people in a given market. Specifically, GAO considers a market concentrated in a state if three or fewer issuers hold at least 80 percent of the market share of enrollment. For this report, GAO examined the individual (coverage primarily sold to individuals who lack access to group coverage), small-group (coverage offered by small employers), and large-group (coverage offered by large employers) health insurance markets from 2011 through 2024 across states. GAO found that the number of states with concentrated markets generally increased, with recent decreases in the individual market (see figure). Number of States, Including the District of Columbia, Where the Three Largest Issuers Had at Least 80 Percent of Enrollment, 2011 Through 2024 Note: The most recent years in GAO’s series on market concentration, 2023 and 2024, are highlighted in this figure. GAO also examined concentration across the individual insurance exchanges, which are part of the overall individual market. Individual exchanges, which are marketplaces where consumers can compare and select among insurance plans offered by participating issuers, were established by the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act (PPACA). Similar to the overall individual insurance market, the individual exchanges became more concentrated from 2015 through 2020 and then generally less concentrated through 2024. The number of states where the individual exchanges were concentrated increased from 47 states in 2015 to a peak of 51 states in 2020 and then decreased to 49 states in 2024. Why GAO Did This Study Private health insurance is the most common source of health insurance coverage in the United States. Individuals have various options for obtaining private health insurance, including through the individual, small-group, and large-group markets. A concentrated health insurance market may indicate less issuer competition and could affect consumers’ choices of issuers and the premiums they pay for insurance. PPACA includes a provision for GAO to periodically study health insurance market concentration. This report, the seventh in this series, describes changes in the concentration of enrollment among issuers in the overall individual, small-group, and large-group health insurance markets and in the individual insurance exchanges. GAO determined market share in each of the three overall markets and the individual insurance exchanges using enrollment data from 2011 through 2024 that issuers report to the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services and enrollment data that GAO coll

Reports News from the GAO Reports News from the GAO. https://www.gao.gov/rss/reports.xml Wed, 21 Oct 2026 10:44:34 -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.