What GAO Found To operate as effectively and efficiently as possible, Congress, the administration, and federal managers must have ready access to reliable and complete financial and performance information—both for individual federal entities and for the federal government as a whole. GAO’s report on the U.S. government’s consolidated financial statements for fiscal years 2024 and 2023 discusses progress that has been made, but also underscores that much work remains to improve federal financial management and that the federal government continues to face an unsustainable long-term fiscal path. The federal government’s net costs were about $7.4 trillion in fiscal year 2024. Fiscal Year 2024 Net Costs of U.S. Government Operations ($7.4 Trillion) GAO found the following: Certain material weaknesses in internal control over financial reporting and other limitations resulted in conditions that prevented GAO from expressing an opinion on the accrual-based consolidated financial statements as of and for the fiscal years ended September 30, 2024, and 2023. Significant uncertainties, primarily related to the achievement of projected reductions in Medicare cost growth, prevented GAO from expressing an opinion on the sustainability financial statements, which consist of the 2024 and 2023 Statements of Long-Term Fiscal Projections; the 2024, 2023, 2022, 2021, and 2020 Statements of Social Insurance; and the 2024 and 2023 Statements of Changes in Social Insurance Amounts. A material weakness in internal control also prevented GAO from expressing an opinion on the 2024 and 2023 Statements of Long-Term Fiscal Projections. Material weaknesses resulted in ineffective internal control over financial reporting for fiscal year 2024. Material weaknesses and other scope limitations, discussed above, limited tests of compliance with selected provisions of applicable laws, regulations, contracts, and grant agreements for fiscal year 2024. Three major impediments have continued to prevent GAO from rendering an opinion on the federal government’s accrual-based consolidated financial statements: (1) serious financial management problems at the Department of Defense, (2) the federal government’s inability to adequately account for intragovernmental activity and balances between federal entities, and (3) weaknesses in the federal government’s process for preparing the consolidated financial statements. Efforts are under way to resolve these issues. In addition, the Small Business Administration (SBA) and Department of Education were unable to obtain opinions on their fiscal years 2024 and 2023 financial statements because they could not adequately support their respective reported loans receivable and loan guarantees. The material weaknesses underlying the three major impediments and the financial management challenges at SBA and Education (1) hamper the federal government’s ability to reliably report a significant portion of its assets, liabilities, costs, and other related information; (2) affect the federal government’s ability to reliably measure the full cost, as well as the financial and nonfinancial performance, of certain programs and activities; (3) impair the federal government’s ability to adequately safeguard significant assets and properly record various transactions; and (4) hinder the federal government from having reliable, useful, and timely financial information to operate effectively and efficiently. Two other continuing material weaknesses are the federal government’s inability to (1) determine the full extent to which improper payments, including fraud, occur and reasonably assure that appropriate actions are taken to reduce them and (2) identify and resolve information system control deficiencies and manage information security risks on an ongoing basis. The fiscal year 2024 government-wide total of reported improper payment estimates was $162 billion, but it did not include estimates for certain government programs. Twelve of the 24 agencies covered by the Chief Financial Officers Act of 1990 reported material weaknesses or significant deficiencies in information system controls. The Statement of Long-Term Fiscal Projections and related information show that based on current revenue and spending policies, the federal government continues to face an unsustainable long-term fiscal path. Since 2017, GAO has suggested that Congress develop a strategy to place the federal government on a sustainable fiscal path. It is vital that the United States remains in a strong economic position to meet its social and security needs, as well as to preserve flexibility to address unforeseen events such as an economic downturn or large-scale disaster. In 2015, GAO first recommended Congress consider alternative approaches to the current debt limit process. In December 2024, GAO recommended that Congress consider immediately replacing the debt limit with an approach that links debt decisions to spending and revenue decisions at the time they are made. The current debt limit is a legal limit on the total amount of federal debt that can be outstanding at one time. Last-minute negotiations on the debt limit can increase the risk of a default on government debt and other obligations. A default would disrupt financial markets, with immediate, potentially severe consequences for businesses and households. A default could also inflict long-lasting damage to the economy and could worsen the fiscal outlook. In commenting on a draft of this report, Department of the Treasury and Office of Management and Budget (OMB) officials expressed their continuing commitment to addressing the problems this report outlines. Why GAO Did This Study The Secretary of the Treasury, in coordination with the Director of OMB, is required to annually submit audited financial statements for the U.S. government to the President and Congress. GAO is required to audit these statements. The Government Management Reform Act of 1994 has required such reporting, covering the executive branch of government, beginning with financial statements prepared for fiscal year 1997. The consolidated financial statements include the legislative and judicial branches. For more information, contact Dawn Simpson at (202) 512-3406 or simpsondb@gao.gov or Robert F. Dacey at (202) 512-3406 or daceyr@gao.gov.

What GAO Found The Office of Personnel Management's (OPM) Workforce Planning Guide outlines a five-step process for workforce planning efforts: (1) setting the strategic direction, (2) conducting workforce analyses, (3) developing workforce action plans, (4) implementing and monitoring workforce planning, and (5) evaluating and revising these efforts. Within the five steps are 15 applicable practices that are central to effectively managing the cybersecurity workforce. Of the 15 applicable practices, the Department of Homeland Security fully implemented 14 of them. However, the other four selected departments were not as consistent in their implementation of the practices (see figure). Extent to Which Selected Departments Implemented the 15 Applicable Practices for Workforce Planning Most of the selected departments reported that they had not fully implemented all 15 practices due, in part, to managing their cybersecurity workforces at the component level rather than the departmental level, as intended by OPM. Until the departments implement these practices, they will likely be challenged in having a cybersecurity workforce with the necessary skills to protect federal IT systems and enable the government's day-to-day functions. Officials at the five selected departments cited three primary types of cybersecurity workforce management challenges: inadequate funding, difficulties with recruitment, and difficulties with retention. The departments described actions taken to mitigate these challenges. However, none of the departments had evaluated their actions taken to determine the extent to which they had been effective in addressing the challenges. Without evaluating the effectiveness of their mitigation actions, department officials will not know the extent to which their actions are addressing identified challenges and strengthening the cybersecurity workforce. Why GAO Did This Study Cybersecurity professionals are critical to developing, managing, and protecting the systems that support federal operations. The Federal Information Security Modernization Act (FISMA) of 2014 includes a provision for GAO to periodically evaluate federal agencies' information security practices. GAO's specific objectives were to (1) determine the extent to which selected departments implemented cybersecurity workforce practices, and (2) describe the selected departments' cybersecurity workforce challenges and mitigation actions and the extent to which they evaluated the effectiveness of those actions. To do so, GAO identified the five federal non-military departments with the largest number of cybersecurity employees. GAO assessed the departments' cybersecurity workforce documentation against applicable leading practices. Further, GAO interviewed officials from the selected departments regarding workforce practices and challenges.

What GAO Found Over half of the country's infant formula is purchased by state agencies through the Special Supplemental Nutrition Program for Women, Infants, and Children (WIC). Since 1989, federal law has generally required WIC state agencies to use a single-supplier competitive system for infant formula. States solicit bids from formula manufacturers for the lowest net price after accounting for a rebate amount given to the state. The manufacturer with the winning bid is awarded a multi-year contract to provide formula for WIC participants in a state or in a group of states that are part of a contracting alliance. As of August 2024, two manufacturers held almost all of WIC contracts in the United States (see figure). WIC Contract Manufacturers for Milk-Based Infant Formula by State, August 2024 From 2013 to 2023, U.S. infant formula prices were generally stable or decreased, according to GAO's analysis of retail sales data adjusted for inflation. For instance, the average price of milk-based powder formula—the most commonly purchased formula type—was relatively stable from 2013 to 2020 then fell by 11 percent from 2020 to 2023. During this same period (2020 to 2023), the size of rebates from formula manufacturers to states in newly awarded contracts fell by 27 percent after years of increases, according to GAO's analysis of U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) data (see figure). A number of trends were present in the infant formula market at this time, including a decline in the number of formula-fed infants and the temporary removal of tariffs on foreign formula. However, GAO's analysis was not designed to evaluate the role of these factors in determining national price or rebate trends over time. Rebates on Milk-Based Powder Infant Formula in Newly Awarded WIC Contracts, 2008–2023 The WIC single-supplier competitive system modestly increased prices for infant formula products of the winning brand, according to GAO's regression analysis of 2018-2023 infant formula sales data. Winning a WIC contract caused an average price increase of 1.7 percent for the formula products specified in WIC contracts—about 30 cents for a typical 12-ounce container of powder formula. It also caused a 0.3 percent price increase for other formula products of the same brand. Winning a contract also greatly increased the winning brand's overall market share in a state (see figure). Estimated Average Infant Formula Brands' Market Share of Selected Products Before and After a New State WIC Infant Formula Contract Was Initiated, 2018–2023 The key advantage of the current system is that rebate savings allow states to serve more eligible participants. About one-fifth of WIC participants were served monthly with $1.6 billion in rebate savings in 2023, according to USDA estimates. Disadvantages include limited choice for WIC participants and increased retail prices, which adversely affect non-WIC consumers. The reliance on a single-supplier can also leave states vulnerable to supply chain disruptions, which Congress and USDA took steps to mitigate. For example, USDA implemented provisions of the Access to Baby Formula Act of 2022 that require WIC state agencies to prepare plans in case of any future supply chain disruptions. Alternative approaches identified in research and stakeholder interviews could address some disadvantages of the current system but would be unlikely to result in the same level of cost savings compared to the current system. For example, states could contract with more than one manufacturer to provide WIC participants additional choices and mitigate potential supply disruptions. However, state agencies could face additional administrative burdens in managing multiple contracts, and manufacturers would likely reduce the size of their rebates to states without the guarantee of an exclusive contract. Why GAO Did This Study WIC provided food assistance to more than 6 million low-income pregnant and postpartum women, infants, and young children each month in fiscal year 2023. WIC is administered by USDA and state agencies. For infant formula, state agencies use a competitive bidding system. The manufacturer offering the lowest net price after a rebate to the state becomes that state's single-supplier of formula for WIC participants. In 2022, a national infant formula shortage raised questions about how this system for WIC affects the infant formula market. This report examines (1) trends in the price of infant formula and the rebates states receive from manufacturers, (2) how the WIC single-supplier competitive system affects infant formula prices and the formula market, (3) advantages and disadvantages of the current system for WIC and (4) alternatives to the current system. GAO reviewed 31 studies determined to be methodologically sound and analyzed 2013–2023 retail sales data on infant formula (the most current at the time of analysis). GAO also reviewed 2013–2024 USDA data on states' WIC contracts. GAO conducted an econometric analysis to assess the effect of winning a WIC contract on retail formula prices, sales, and market share within a state. GAO interviewed federal agency officials and various stakeholders, including researchers; representatives of associations, retailers, and formula manufacturers; and officials from eight states that serve large numbers of WIC infants or that had provided formula to WIC participants outside the retail market. For more information, contact Kathryn A. Larin at (202) 512-7215 or larink@gao.gov or Michael Hoffman at (202) 512-2700 or hoffmanme@gao.gov.

What GAO Found The American Rescue Plan Act of 2021 (ARPA) was enacted on March 11, 2021, and included a temporary 100 percent subsidy toward continued health care coverage for individuals who lost their jobs during the COVID-19 pandemic. Employers were to offer continued coverage, free of charge, to individuals after certain qualifying events and could receive tax credits to offset the costs. To implement the subsidy, the Department of Labor's Employee Benefits Security Administration (EBSA) and the Department of the Treasury's Internal Revenue Service (IRS) used existing processes in an expedited fashion to facilitate the offer of subsidized health insurance through the Consolidated Omnibus Budget Reconciliation Act of 1985 (COBRA). As part of their efforts, both agencies developed guidance for individuals and employers, educated the public, and updated internal systems under a tight timeline. The agencies released six of the eight pieces of guidance within 30 days of enactment of ARPA. Timeline of Selected EBSA and IRS Guidance on COVID-19-related COBRA Subsidy (March 11, 2021–September 30, 2021) The tight timeline for implementing the COBRA subsidy resulted in challenges for employers and administrators, according to seven of eight selected employer groups and administrators GAO interviewed, with some noting challenges early in the implementation process. These challenges related to the requirement that employers and administrators send COBRA notices to eligible individuals and included uncertainty about the interpretation of the eligibility requirements and shortened timelines for sending the required COBRA notices. More than 30,000 employers reported to IRS that their former employees utilized approximately $1.2 billion in COBRA subsidies during the pandemic. The number of individuals who received the subsidy is unknown, according to employment tax returns IRS processed as of February 2024 and agency officials. However, IRS is conducting selected audits of employment tax returns for compliance with tax credits including the COBRA subsidy. GAO's literature review did not find any studies that examined the effects of the COBRA subsidy during the pandemic. However, two of three selected employee groups GAO interviewed said the subsidy benefited those in industries that were disproportionately affected by job loss during the pandemic, such as the entertainment industry. Why GAO Did This Study Millions of workers lost their jobs during the COVID-19 pandemic. While COBRA generally provides certain individuals with the right to maintain their employer-sponsored health coverage after certain qualifying events, not all individuals enroll due to its high cost. GAO was asked to review the responsible federal agencies' implementation of the COBRA subsidy. In this report, GAO describes (1) EBSA's and IRS's implementation of the COBRA subsidy and related challenges identified by selected stakeholders and (2) information on the utilization and effects of the COBRA subsidy. GAO reviewed agency documents and interviewed officials on how the agencies developed guidance, disseminated information, updated systems, and ensured adherence to ARPA's requirements. GAO reviewed aggregate data from IRS on the number and type of employers that claimed the COBRA tax credit and the amount of credits claimed. GAO conducted a literature search for studies that examined the effects of the subsidy on enrollment. GAO also interviewed external stakeholders representing employers, administrators, and employees on their experiences with the COBRA subsidy. For more information, contact John Dicken at (202) 512-7114 or dickenj@gao.gov.

What GAO Found Certain wearable technologies (wearables) may provide some benefits to workers experiencing musculoskeletal pain or discomfort, such as back pain, but GAO found limited evidence to support wearables’ ability to reduce injuries. GAO examined the effects on worker safety of two of the most commonly deployed wearable technologies in manufacturing and warehousing: exoskeletons and ergonomic sensors. Illustration of automotive manufacturing workers wearing arm-support exoskeletons Exoskeletons are designed to reduce muscular fatigue and injuries by providing support to specific muscle groups. Laboratory studies generally show that exoskeletons can reduce muscle strain in a controlled environment. Deployments in the workplace, however, have produced limited public studies demonstrating a reduction in worker injuries, in part due to the short duration of many field studies. Ergonomic sensors are designed to detect postures or motions that could cause injury. Ergonomic sensor manufacturers have self-reported case studies with improved safety outcomes. GAO, however, found limited evidence that current ergonomic sensors improve worker safety, in part because multiple factors contribute to musculoskeletal injuries and posture measurements alone may not accurately predict risk. Stakeholders have described several challenges from their past experiences deploying exoskeletons and ergonomic sensors. For example: Workers expressed concerns about the practicality of wearables. Workers are more likely to use wearables that are comfortable and convenient for their jobs. Warehousing and manufacturing company representatives expressed that they may prefer to deploy other injury hazard controls—such as elimination or substitution—before considering wearables. For example, providing a lift table to eliminate a worker’s need to lift objects may be more effective at preventing injuries than using a back-support exoskeleton. Many stakeholder groups voiced concerns about data that some wearables may collect, particularly regarding data ownership, privacy, and security. The wearables market is evolving quickly. Stakeholders told GAO they need more time to assess how well ongoing efforts address these challenges. GAO identified a set of ongoing activities that stakeholder groups (such as wearables manufacturers and companies interested in deploying wearables) are undertaking. These activities include collecting additional data on accuracy and efficacy of wearables and gathering worker feedback as wearables are deployed. Additionally, national consensus committees are currently developing standards to address these challenges. Stakeholders told GAO that continuing these activities may address current challenges and did not favor other policy actions, such as additional standards and regulations. Why GAO Did This Study In 2021, musculoskeletal injuries cost employers at least $17.7 billion. Workers in manufacturing and warehousing experienced these injuries at higher rates than all of private industry. Companies are investigating wearables as one option for injury prevention. Wearables that may help reduce musculoskeletal injuries include exoskeletons, which aim to relieve strain in specific muscle groups, and ergonomic sensors, which analyze posture to identify possible injury risks. GAO was asked to assess the use of wearables in industrial workplaces and their effect on workers. This report discusses (1) the extent to which select wearable technologies affect worker safety, (2) challenges that exist for deployment of wearable technologies in the workplace, and (3) associated ongoing activities that stakeholders are currently undertaking to help address the challenges. In conducting this assessment, GAO reviewed relevant literature; interviewed federal officials, academic researchers, wearables manufacturers, private companies with experience deploying wearables, a nonprofit organization, and worker organizations; conducted two visits to sites deploying wearables; and attended a conference on ergonomics. For more information, contact Karen L. Howard, PhD, at (202) 512-6888 or HowardK@gao.gov.

What GAO Found Nationwide, state spending on Temporary Assistance for Needy Families (TANF) “non-assistance” services—such as work activities, education, and training activities—increased as a percentage of total TANF spending between fiscal year 2015 and fiscal year 2022 (from 40.8 to 44.2 percent). During that period, “assistance” spending, including cash payments to needy families, decreased as a percentage of total spending (from 27.2 to 25.2 percent). Individual state spending on those categories varied. See figure below for total fiscal year 2022 spending and transfers by TANF category. Temporary Assistance for Needy Families Funds Spent or Transferred, Fiscal Year 2022 Officials GAO interviewed from selected states said they considered various factors—such as the number of families eligible for cash assistance, legislative priorities, and historical precedent—when making decisions about assistance and non-assistance spending and transfers to other allowable block grants. Selected states attributed increases in unspent funds (from $4 billion in 2015 to $9 billion in 2022, nationwide) to overestimation of program needs and availability of other time-limited federal funds, such as those for COVID-19 relief. States are required to file various reports on their TANF expenditures with the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS). However, GAO found that: In March 2024, seven states (out of 31 whose reported expenditures required narrative explanations) were missing or had incomplete narratives for fiscal year 2022. New control activities to improve the completeness of required reporting would enhance HHS oversight of states' TANF spending. States' reporting does not include detailed information on aspects of TANF expenditures—such as information on planned non-assistance spending or on subgrantees that administer TANF-funded programs. This type of information could strengthen oversight, potentially including that of improper payments, and guide future decision-making on TANF. While current law limits what information HHS can collect from states, HHS could identify additional reporting requirements within its existing statutory authority to enhance the completeness of states' reporting. Further, Congress could consider providing HHS statutory authority to collect additional information as appropriate for oversight purposes. Why GAO Did This Study Since 1996, the TANF block grant has annually provided $16.5 billion in federal funding to states to help low-income families. In addition, states collectively spend approximately $15 billion of their own funds. States have broad flexibility to use these funds to meet TANF's statutory purposes. There is limited detail reported on state spending of these federal funds. GAO was asked to review TANF spending. This report addresses, among other things, trends in states' use of TANF funds; selected states' TANF budget decisions; and the extent to which HHS collects expenditure data for oversight purposes. This report is part of a series of reports on TANF to be issued in the coming months. GAO analyzed HHS TANF expenditure data; reviewed federal laws, HHS regulations and guidance, and TANF reporting; interviewed HHS officials and officials in eight selected states. GAO selected these states to reflect a range of geographic regions and poverty rates.

What GAO Found The Early Hearing Detection and Intervention (EHDI) program, administered by the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS), tracks the screening and diagnosis of infants for hearing loss and refers them for appropriate intervention services. Within HHS, the Health Resources and Services Administration (HRSA) uses data the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) collects to measure EHDI program performance. HRSA and CDC have adopted age-defined care standards, known as the 1-3-6 benchmarks, to measure program performance on a national level. According to the 1-3-6 benchmarks, all infants should be screened for hearing loss before 1 month of age, and those that do not pass the screening should see a specialist to diagnose any hearing loss, as well as the cause, before 3 months of age. By 6 months of age, infants who are identified as deaf or hard of hearing should be enrolled in early intervention services for support in developing communication skills. Hearing Screening of a Newborn Infant Starting with 2021 data, CDC and HRSA agreed to change the measure the agencies use to assess state EHDI program progress against the 1-3-6 benchmarks. Previously, HRSA used a measure that did not count all infants who were eligible for follow-up care. For example, infants would not have been counted if their families could not be contacted by the state EHDI program to confirm whether the infants received follow-up care. HRSA plans to use a different performance measure to assess state progress starting with the 2024-2029 grant cycle that includes all infants with possible hearing loss as they progress through diagnostic and intervention services, according to HRSA officials. Officials from both agencies told GAO they are aware that the new measure will show a lower percentage of infants receiving timely access to services, but they agree it is a more accurate way to measure such access. HRSA and CDC have taken steps to help address state challenges meeting EHDI benchmarks. For example, a 2023 program-wide survey and interviews with five of the six states GAO selected have found that shortages in experienced pediatric audiologists pose a challenge to improving access to timely diagnosis. HHS has taken steps to help states address this challenge by directing its technical assistance centers to focus on promising practices, such as the use of telehealth services, to overcome provider shortages. In fiscal year 2024, HRSA set a new program requirement for state EHDI programs to measure language acquisition outcomes—that is, developing the comprehension and use of language. To help states begin collecting and measuring language acquisition outcomes, HHS agencies have taken actions such as conducting a pilot program and providing additional funding to strengthen state infrastructure to collect outcomes information. HHS also has efforts underway to address states’ reported challenges, such as providing technical assistance to increase states’ capacity for data collection. HHS agencies took several actions to improve the EHDI program’s ability to identify and address disparities in access to services for children who are deaf or hard of hearing. HRSA required state EHDI programs to submit diversity and inclusion plans in 2021 to identify and address disparities in EHDI service access—differences in availability of services between groups defined by characteristics such as ethnicity or economic resources. However, GAO found that HRSA is unable to determine whether individual state EHDI programs’ efforts have been successful in addressing disparities in access because HRSA did not require states to set performance goals as part of their diversity and inclusion plans. Further, GAO found that HRSA did not assess the results of the plans to understand how the plans might be updated or used to better address disparities in access in the 2024-2029 funding cycle. With a requirement in place for state EHDI programs to set and report on performance goals, states can demonstrate their progress in addressing access disparities for their identified underserved populations. In addition, HRSA’s assessment of states’ progress can inform future plans to support state EHDI programs. Doing so would better ensure children in underserved populations receive the care they need. State EHDI programs have a variety of ongoing efforts to meet HRSA’s requirement to support families with a child who has hearing loss. Those efforts include: (1) parent-to-parent support through specially-trained parent guides who have a child who is deaf or hard of hearing; (2) adult deaf mentors who can help parents better understand what their child’s life might be like as a deaf or hard of hearing person; and (3) automatic referral processes to connect families with newly-diagnosed children to family support services to eliminate barriers to participation. Why GAO Did This Study About one in every 500 infants is identified as deaf or hard of hearing. Receiving early intervention services can help children meet speech, language, social, and emotional development milestones. For example, with appropriate services, children can develop the comprehension and use of language, known as language acquisition. HRSA provides grants to 59 states and territories (states) to support their data tracking and referral efforts. For the current grant cycle, HRSA awarded $235,000 per year to each state. In addition, HRSA has provided additional funding through competitive grant opportunities to state EHDI programs for targeted purposes. The Early Hearing Detection and Intervention Act of 2022 includes a provision for GAO to review the EHDI program. This report (1) describes how HRSA measures EHDI program performance; (2) describes HRSA and CDC efforts to address state programs' reported challenges meeting EHDI benchmarks; (3) describes what HRSA and CDC have done to support state efforts to improve language acquisition and any challenges states may face in improving language acquisition; (4) examines HHS agencies' actions to identify and address disparities in EHDI program access; and (5) describes HRSA's efforts to help ensure support is available to parents of children with a hearing loss diagnosis. To do this work, GAO analyzed HHS program documentation and relevant data from 2008 (the first year almost all states reported the same data since the creation of the program in 2000) to 2021 (most currently available at the time of GAO's review). GAO also interviewed HHS officials and six state EHDI program grantees, selected to vary by factors such as geography and whether they received additional funding to support enhanced data collection. The six selected states were Alaska, Connecticut, Georgia, Minnesota, Ohio, and Puerto Rico. GAO also reviewed documentation and interviewed officials from the Department of Education (Education) on their interactions with the EHDI program and data-sharing at the state level between state EHDI program offices and Education-funded offices that administer early intervention programs. GAO reviewed diversity and inclusion plans from all 59 states' EHDI program offices. In addition to interviews with the four technical assistance centers HRSA funded in the last two funding cycles, GAO also interviewed three selected advocacy organizations. These organizations were the National Association of the Deaf, the Alexander Graham Bell Association for the Deaf and Hard of Hearing, and the American Society for Deaf Children.

What GAO Found The Department of Energy (DOE), led by the Office of Science's Fusion Energy Sciences (FES) program, has taken steps to facilitate fusion energy commercialization through public-private partnerships. These efforts represented about 1.2 percent (about $36 million) of FES's total funding obligations on average during fiscal years 2020 through 2023. The rest of FES's funding obligations (about 98.8 percent on average, or about $740.8 million) went to efforts to study, among other things, the science of plasma, collaborate internationally, and maintain facilities. DOE officials indicated that the relatively limited scale of investment in initiatives to facilitate commercialization largely reflects the immature state of fusion energy technology, which GAO reported on in March 2023. Another DOE entity—Advanced Research Projects Agency-Energy (ARPA-E)—obligated nearly $50 million in fiscal year 2020, and about $8.7 million on average during fiscal years 2021 through 2023 to fusion energy commercialization projects. A Fusion Device at the Department of Energy's Princeton Plasma Physics Laboratory DOE has taken some steps to develop a vision and strategy for commercial fusion energy. For example, DOE joined an interagency working group aimed at accelerating fusion energy, among other innovations. FES created a division in April 2024 to manage strategic partnerships with private and public entities and support the transition to fusion energy demonstration and deployment activities. FES also released reports on its vision and strategy in June 2024 that identified risks to fusion energy commercialization. Although DOE has initiated planning efforts to facilitate fusion energy commercialization, whether DOE sustains these efforts is uncertain. DOE officials told GAO the interagency working group has been inactive. Working group organizers told GAO that fusion technology is in the early stages and deferred to DOE on how to facilitate commercialization. Further, DOE does not indicate with specificity or with timelines how it plans to respond to the risks identified in its June 2024 strategy. DOE's pending planning effort is expected to outline metrics and timelines. Finalizing and implementing ongoing planning efforts would better position DOE to make progress toward accelerating fusion energy commercialization and meeting the U.S. goal of net-zero greenhouse gas emissions by 2050. Why GAO Did This Study Fusion, the process that powers the sun, could produce commercial electric power to help meet growing clean energy needs if technical, economic, and other challenges are overcome. Fusion is also one of five prioritized areas to meet the U.S. goal of net-zero greenhouse gas emissions by 2050. Congress appropriated about $760 million for FES in fiscal year 2023 to support fusion activities, including public-private partnerships. GAO was asked to examine DOE's steps to reach the federal vision to accelerate fusion energy commercialization. This report examines (1) the status of DOE's initiatives to facilitate fusion energy commercialization, and (2) the extent to which DOE has planned for facilitating such commercialization. GAO reviewed DOE documents; analyzed budgetary data; and interviewed federal officials and a nongeneralizable sample of eight stakeholders representing universities, industry, and interest groups. GAO selected these stakeholders based on their participation in or publication about DOE's fusion energy initiatives, and to provide a range of perspectives.