The Senate approved H.R. 6500, the Continuing Appropriations and Extensions Act, 2027, by a 90-6 vote. The Government Publishing Office identifies the measure as an engrossed Senate amendment, meaning it is the version passed by the Senate but not yet a law. The bill’s text uses August 8 as the Senate action date and identifies August 7 as the legislative day.

Why September 30 still matters

The federal fiscal year ends September 30, and fiscal year 2027 begins October 1. H.R. 6500 would provide temporary appropriations beginning October 1, but only if the House passes the same measure or reaches an agreement with the Senate and President Donald Trump signs the resulting legislation.

Until that happens, September 30 remains the operative funding deadline. If Congress does not enact a funding law or another continuing resolution by then, affected agencies could face a partial government shutdown.

The House and Senate passed different bills

The House passed its own stopgap, H.R. 9770, on July 21 by a 220-205 vote. The House measure would run through December 4, six days earlier than the Senate version. The Senate’s legislative tracker lists both measures as separate fiscal year 2027 continuing resolutions.

The bills also differ in their program-specific provisions and funding adjustments. The House must decide whether to accept the Senate bill, amend it or pursue another measure when lawmakers return from the August recess in the first week of September. The House calendar establishes the return period but does not by itself guarantee a particular final floor-vote date.

What the Senate measure includes

H.R. 6500 would generally continue fiscal year 2026 appropriations at the existing rate of operations through December 11. Its text also contains exceptions and targeted adjustments, including a surface transportation extension and provisions affecting veterans programs.

The measure addresses food and nutrition programs in more specific ways than a simple across-the-board funding continuation. It provides for mandatory payments and activities under the Food and Nutrition Act to continue at rates intended to maintain program levels under current law. It also allows funding for the Special Supplemental Nutrition Program for Women, Infants, and Children, commonly known as WIC, to be apportioned at a rate necessary to maintain participation, and includes similar treatment for the Commodity Supplemental Food Program.

The bill also allows certain Federal Emergency Management Agency disaster-relief funds to be apportioned at a rate necessary for response and recovery activities. Its surface transportation division defines December 11 as the extension end date, while the veterans division extends or adjusts authorities involving health care, benefits, housing assistance, grants and other programs.

These provisions are not the same as a full-year budget. The text generally bars agencies from starting or resuming projects that did not have funding or authority in fiscal year 2026. It also limits high initial distributions and new grants that could interfere with Congress’s final fiscal year 2027 funding decisions.

What it means for workers and programs

If enacted, the bill would provide temporary operating authority for most agencies, but it would not give the federal government a final fiscal year 2027 budget. A continuing resolution generally carries forward prior-year funding and conditions while restricting new initiatives and some rapid spending decisions.

Federal workers, contractors, grantees, transportation administrators, nutrition assistance officials, disaster-relief operations and veterans programs could therefore experience different effects depending on the final text and agency guidance. The Senate bill specifically addresses several of those areas, but it does not treat every federal program identically.

What to watch next

The next major milestones are the House’s return in early September, any House vote or amendment to H.R. 6500, and the September 30 funding deadline. If the Senate version becomes law, Congress would gain roughly 10 additional weeks to finish full-year fiscal year 2027 appropriations.

That extra time could reduce the immediate pressure before October 1, but it would push unresolved spending decisions toward another major confrontation in December. The proposed December 11 deadline—not December 4—would apply only if the Senate-passed version becomes law or a later agreement uses that date.

Sources

• Government Publishing Office: H.R. 6500 (EAS)
• U.S. Senate roll call: H.R. 6500
• U.S. House Clerk: Roll Call 272
• Associated Press: Senate funding bill

James R. Macy was sworn in on August 17, 2026, for a five-year term expiring August 27, 2030. The NLRB’s current roster lists Macy, Chairman James R. Murphy and Scott A. Mayer as Republicans, alongside Democrat David M. Prouty. The agency’s fifth statutory seat remains vacant.

The change matters because the Board primarily acts as a quasi-judicial body. When an appropriate case reaches it, a majority can preserve, narrow or reverse earlier precedent through a formal decision.

A roadmap, not an immediate change in the law

On August 26, General Counsel Crystal Carey issued GC Memo 26-04, titled “Further Guidance Regarding General Counsel Priorities.” The memo provides enforcement and case-handling guidance to the NLRB’s regional offices. It is not a Board decision and does not itself change the legal standards that employers, workers or unions must follow.

Carey directed regional offices to continue investigating and prosecuting cases under existing Board law rather than waiting for possible changes in precedent. Existing rules therefore remain in effect while cases that could become vehicles for reconsideration move through the agency.

The distinction is important: the General Counsel leads the NLRB’s prosecutorial function, while the Board decides cases and establishes or changes agency precedent.

Which rulings could face challenges?

Carey’s memo identifies precedents that her office has challenged or intends to challenge when a suitable case arises. It does not guarantee that any particular precedent will be reversed.

One is Stericycle, the 2023 decision concerning workplace rules. Under that standard, a workplace policy may violate federal labor law when employees could reasonably interpret it as limiting their rights to organize or engage in protected concerted activity, even if the policy does not expressly mention unions.

The memo also identifies McLaren Macomb, which addressed severance agreements containing broad confidentiality or nondisparagement provisions. Another potential target is the Board’s 2024 Amazon decision, which generally barred employers from requiring workers to attend meetings about unionization under threat of discipline.

Carey also points to Cemex, which changed the framework for union recognition and bargaining orders, and Thryv, which expanded possible make-whole remedies for direct or foreseeable financial harm caused by unfair labor practices.

What workers and employers should watch

Workers and unions should continue relying on current NLRB standards when organizing, raising protected workplace concerns or filing unfair-labor-practice claims. Employers should likewise continue complying with the rules now in force, including standards involving handbook language, severance agreements, union recognition and remedies.

A precedent reversal would require more than a new Board member or a General Counsel memo. An appropriate live case would need to present the issue, the parties would typically have an opportunity to submit briefing, and the Board would have to issue a formal decision. That decision could then face review in federal court.

The next meaningful signal will therefore be a formal Board ruling in a pending case. Until then, Macy’s appointment and Carey’s August 26 guidance show where the agency’s enforcement strategy may be headed, but they do not automatically overturn existing labor-law protections or employer obligations.

Sources

• James R. Macy Sworn in as Board Member — National Labor Relations Board
• GC Memo 26-04: Further Guidance Regarding General Counsel Priorities — National Labor Relations Board
• NLRB General Counsel Targets Stericycle, Other Biden-Era Precedents — SHRM

The review was issued August 26, 2026, after multiple congressional requests received in early 2025. It examined the operational effects of selected CFPB workforce and contract actions, including employee-related actions, stop-work orders and contract changes.

What the review found

According to the inspector general, stop-work orders temporarily left CFPB personnel unable to perform work involving enforcement, supervision and other agency functions.

Contract actions also caused temporary service disruptions affecting the CFPB’s consumer complaint database and other operational processes. The review did not say that complaints were permanently lost or that the agency permanently stopped enforcing federal consumer-finance laws.

Workforce-reduction actions had limited operational impact during the period examined because court orders halted their implementation. The inspector general therefore did not treat those reductions as fully carried out.

The findings describe interruptions in agency operations, but they do not establish how many consumers were affected or whether any disruption caused financial harm.

Why the complaint database matters

The CFPB complaint database allows consumers, researchers and the public to review trends, read complaint narratives and download data about financial products and services. The agency says the database generally updates daily and is intended to show how companies respond to complaints.

There is a built-in delay. Complaints sent to companies for response become eligible for publication after the company responds, confirms a commercial relationship or after 15 days, whichever comes first. Recent trends therefore may not include every complaint that has already been submitted.

The CFPB also warns that the database is not a statistical sample of all consumer experiences. A low complaint count does not necessarily mean consumers suffered little or no harm, and complaint narratives reflect consumers’ accounts rather than findings independently verified by the agency.

What the report did not decide

The inspector general said its review focused on high-level operational effects, not whether the CFPB’s actions complied with laws or regulations. Those legal questions remain connected to ongoing litigation.

The agency-wide review listed zero recommendations, zero questioned costs and zero funds identified for better use. It was not a finding of waste, fraud or financial loss, and it did not quantify the broader effect of the operational disruptions on consumers or financial markets.

How this fits with GAO oversight

A separate Government Accountability Office report, published in January 2026 and publicly released in February, described CFPB reorganization actions that included stop-work orders, closed supervisory examinations and terminations involving employees, contracts and enforcement cases. GAO said some actions were subject to litigation and had not been finalized at the time of its review. The agency said it would examine the effects of those actions in future work.

The two reports answer different questions. The inspector general review provides an operational account of selected workforce and contract actions. GAO’s report addresses the status of the broader reorganization and identifies additional oversight work that may clarify its effect on the bureau’s statutory duties.

What to watch next

Court proceedings and future oversight work may clarify whether the temporary interruptions described in the review led to longer-lasting changes in enforcement, supervision, complaint processing or other CFPB services.

For consumers, the complaint database remains a public resource for examining complaints and company responses. Readers reviewing recent data should account for publication delays and should not interpret a temporary gap or lower recent volume as proof that complaints were not submitted or that consumer problems ended.

Sources

• Federal Reserve Board and CFPB Inspector General review
• CFPB Consumer Complaint Database
• GAO report on CFPB reorganization efforts

As of August 28, 2026, the FDA lists Kyle A. Diamantas, J.D., as acting commissioner. The agency’s leadership roster lists the principal deputy commissioner position as vacant and shows several other senior posts under acting leadership.

Overton must be reviewed and confirmed by the U.S. Senate before she can become commissioner. Until that happens, the nomination itself does not change FDA rules governing vaccines, medicines, food safety, tobacco products, medical devices or abortion medication.

What Trump announced

Trump announced Overton’s nomination on August 19. She is a physician and deputy director of the White House Domestic Policy Council who has worked on several of the administration’s health initiatives.

Associated Press reporting said Overton has been involved in administration efforts involving vaccine policy and drug prices. She also appeared with Trump and Health and Human Services Secretary Robert F. Kennedy Jr. at an August 10 White House event involving an executive order on childhood vaccines.

Trump said he wants Overton to pursue faster cures, increased innovation, clinical-trial changes and lower drug prices. Those are administration priorities, not completed FDA policy changes.

What the FDA currently shows

The FDA’s official commissioner page identifies Diamantas as acting commissioner. Before taking that role, he led the agency’s Human Foods Program and oversaw food-safety and nutrition activities.

The FDA leadership roster lists the principal deputy commissioner position as vacant. The agency’s organization chart also identifies acting leaders for the Center for Biologics Evaluation and Research, the Center for Drug Evaluation and Research, the Center for Tobacco Products, the Office of External Affairs and the Human Foods Program.

The official pages therefore show an agency with a nominee for its top job but an interim leadership structure in place. Those vacancies and acting assignments do not, by themselves, establish that FDA decisions have been delayed or that consumers face a specific safety problem.

What happens next in the Senate

Overton’s nomination is expected to face scrutiny from the Senate Health, Education, Labor and Pensions Committee. The process can include written questions, a public hearing and committee consideration before a possible vote. A confirmation vote by the full Senate would be required for Overton to take the job permanently.

Committee Chairman Bill Cassidy, a Republican from Louisiana and a physician, has raised concerns about Overton’s management experience, staffing and morale at the FDA, and her participation in the administration’s vaccine executive order. Democratic lawmakers have also criticized the nomination.

As of August 27, Axios reported that the committee had not yet received Overton’s paperwork. The report said a confirmation hearing before November was not expected, but that timing could change as the paperwork is submitted and the Senate sets its schedule.

Why the nomination matters

The FDA commissioner oversees an agency whose decisions affect patients, health professionals, consumers and companies nationwide. The next commissioner will face questions about drug approvals, vaccine policy, food regulation, tobacco products, medical devices and the administration’s efforts to lower prescription-drug prices.

Abortion medication is another issue to watch. Axios reported that Overton has previously criticized the increased use of mifepristone and called for additional safety protections. Those views could intensify political debate, but they do not amount to a new FDA action. Any change in the drug’s regulatory status would require formal agency steps.

For consumers, the immediate takeaway is limited: the FDA has a nominee but no confirmed permanent commissioner. The next concrete signals will be the nomination’s formal Senate referral, submission of Overton’s paperwork, any committee hearing, her responses to lawmakers and any committee or full-Senate vote.

Sources

• FDA Commissioner
• Associated Press nomination report
• Axios Senate and abortion-policy report

ATF disclosed the incident Wednesday, August 26, 2026. The agency said the affected environment operated separately from the ATF enterprise network. After discovering the incident, ATF said it terminated connections to the environment, began forensic and incident-response work, coordinated with the Justice Department and completed required notifications.

Senior Justice Department officials designated the event a “major incident” under applicable federal guidelines. That is an official classification for handling and reporting the event; it does not establish how much information, if any, was accessed, copied or exposed.

ATF says its core systems were not affected

ATF said there is no indication that the incident affected its enterprise network, eForms system or any other ATF system. The agency also said the event has not affected its ability to perform its missions.

The statement is important for firearms businesses and members of the public who use ATF’s online services. ATF’s public disclosure does not indicate that eForms or the broader agency network was breached or taken offline. Those services may continue to operate while investigators examine the isolated environment.

What the standalone system reportedly contained

An ATF spokesperson told The Record that the standalone system contained information about targets of ATF investigations. The spokesperson said the system was not connected to ATF case-management systems, laboratory systems or eForms.

That detail makes the incident potentially sensitive even though ATF says its larger systems were isolated. The agency has not publicly described the specific categories of information stored on the system or said whether the material included personal information, investigative records or both.

What remains unknown

ATF has not disclosed when the incident was discovered, how an attacker gained access or whether information was viewed or removed. The agency also has not said whether individuals must be notified or whether investigators have attributed the event to a particular group.

Those questions may depend on the forensic work now under way. The initial disclosure confirms the incident and the government’s response, but it does not establish that data was accessed or stolen.

Qilin claim remains unverified

The ransomware group Qilin listed ATF on a leak site, according to independent reporting. The group did not publicly provide samples or other evidence supporting its claim, and ATF has not attributed the incident to Qilin or confirmed that ransomware was involved.

The listing should therefore be treated as an allegation, not a verified finding. Investigators will need to determine whether the event involved data theft, encryption, unauthorized access or another type of compromise.

What readers should watch next

For now, ATF says its enterprise network, eForms platform and other systems remain operational and that its missions have not been disrupted. Consumers, firearms businesses and members of the public should rely on future ATF or Justice Department notices rather than assume that ATF’s public-facing services were compromised.

The next meaningful updates are likely to address the forensic findings, the nature of the information held in the standalone system, possible attribution and whether notification or protective steps are required. Because the investigation remains ongoing, the agency’s assessment of the affected data could change.

Sources

• ATF responds to cybersecurity incident
• DOJ firearms agency says hackers breached system containing investigation targets
• ATF investigating ‘major’ cyber incident after ransomware group claim

The timing puts Hamilton’s leadership and FEMA’s operational capacity under scrutiny. NOAA identifies August, September and October as the peak period for Atlantic hurricane activity, but its seasonal outlook does not predict whether a particular storm will make landfall or which communities could be affected.

What changed at FEMA

Hamilton is returning to an agency he temporarily led in 2025. The Associated Press reported that he was later fired after publicly opposing efforts to eliminate FEMA. That history is part of the political and operational context surrounding his confirmation, but it does not by itself establish how he will run the agency now.

The Senate action gives Hamilton the confirmed position to lead FEMA. It does not by itself change the agency’s statutory authority, disaster-aid rules or current division of responsibilities among federal, state, local, tribal and territorial governments.

Those responsibilities remain part of a broader debate over disaster policy. The administration has advocated a more state-centered model, while some proposed changes could require congressional action. Any shift in FEMA’s formal role would need to be reflected in enacted law, regulation, official policy or agency practice.

Hamilton’s stated priorities

In written testimony to the Senate Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs Committee, Hamilton said disaster response should be “locally executed, state led and federally supported.” He also said FEMA should become more agile, responsive and accountable, reduce internal red tape, modernize its technology and strengthen partnerships with state, local, tribal and territorial governments.

Those are priorities Hamilton stated before confirmation, not proof that FEMA’s role has already changed. The practical question will be which changes he can make within his authority and which will require new policy, regulation or legislation.

Hamilton also said federal assistance should reach survivors rapidly when it is warranted. That pledge will be tested through disaster-declaration reviews, grant and recovery operations, and FEMA’s coordination with state and local emergency managers.

The readiness problem

A Government Accountability Office review found that recent overlapping disasters exposed weaknesses in the federal response workforce. After Hurricanes Helene and Milton, only 4% of FEMA’s incident-management workforce was available to deploy as of November 1, 2024, GAO reported.

GAO also said concurrent disasters, limited workforce capacity and undertrained surge responders made federal response more difficult. According to FEMA data cited by GAO, the agency’s active workforce fell from about 25,800 employees on January 1, 2025, to about 23,350 on June 1, 2025. Twenty-four Senior Executive Service employees departed during that period, including 20 through a workforce-reduction program.

Those figures describe conditions documented through 2025, not a current August 2026 headcount. They show why staffing, training and deployment capacity will be important measures of Hamilton’s performance, especially if emergencies overlap.

Why the calendar matters

NOAA’s seasonal outlook provides a broad estimate of Atlantic activity. It does not forecast individual landfalls or show whether a specific state, city or neighborhood will be struck. A season with lower or near-average overall activity could still produce a serious disaster in a vulnerable community.

Residents should continue following local emergency-management officials, FEMA and the National Hurricane Center rather than relying on seasonal averages. Evacuation orders, shelter information and storm-specific forecasts will provide more useful guidance than the seasonal outlook alone.

What to watch next

The next signals will come from FEMA’s staffing and deployment decisions, its coordination with states and territories, the handling of disaster declarations, and the speed of grants and survivor assistance. Observers will also be watching whether Hamilton converts his stated priorities on technology, partnerships and red tape into formal changes or measurable improvements.

The clearest accountability test will come if multiple emergencies require federal personnel and resources at the same time. Hamilton now has the confirmed position to lead FEMA. The open question, as of August 15, 2026, is whether the agency can deliver reliable, timely assistance when the next major or overlapping disaster arrives.

Sources

• Associated Press: Senate confirms Cameron Hamilton to lead FEMA
• U.S. GAO: Federal Response Workforce Readiness
• Senate Homeland Security Committee: Hamilton written testimony
• NOAA Climate Prediction Center: 2026 Atlantic Hurricane Outlook

The Justice Department’s Office of Information Policy published the government-wide figures on July 2, 2026. Agencies processed 1,635,055 requests during the fiscal year, an increase of nearly 9% and a record high. Yet the backlog reached 339,671 requests at the end of FY2025, up 27% from FY2024.

The figures describe a system handling more requests than ever while leaving more cases pending. For people seeking federal records, that can mean longer waits for documents used in journalism, litigation, research, oversight and personal matters.

Demand rose faster than processing

Federal agencies received 205,765 more requests than in FY2024, a 13.7% increase. The report’s backlog count includes requests that remained pending beyond the statutory 20-working-day processing period or, when unusual circumstances applied, beyond an extension of up to 30 working days.

That designation does not necessarily mean an agency denied access. It means the request remained unresolved under the report’s timing definition. Government-wide totals also include requests carried over from earlier fiscal years, so the 1,635,055 processed cases should not be read as a measure of how many FY2025 requests were fully resolved.

The report also cautions against treating every processed request as a substantive records release. In FY2025, 49.56% of processed requests were closed for procedural or administrative reasons. Of the requests that received substantive exemption-review decisions, 93.72% resulted in either a full or partial release.

Appeals backlog more than doubled

Administrative appeals added another pressure point. Agencies received 32,059 appeals in FY2025, up 59.38% from the prior year, and processed 23,108, an increase of 24.4%. The appeals backlog rose 116.5% to 11,652.

Other timing measures show a mixed picture. The report said 91% of expedited-processing determinations were made within 10 calendar days. At the same time, the average processing time for simple-track requests was 48.96 days among the agencies that reported that measure, up from 44 days in FY2024.

A few agencies drive much of the total

Government-wide averages can hide significant differences among agencies. The five agencies receiving the most requests accounted for 84% of all FY2025 demand, with the Department of Homeland Security alone accounting for 60%.

Those five agencies were DHS, the Department of Justice, the Department of Veterans Affairs, the Department of War and the Department of Health and Human Services. Their concentration matters when readers compare agencies: a large department handling high-volume requests can affect national totals differently from a smaller agency handling fewer but more complex records requests.

Foia provides agency-level data on requests received and processed, backlogs, oldest pending cases and other measures.

Staffing is part of the capacity picture

The National Archives’ Office of Government Information Services reported a concurrent staffing and backlog trend across 25 major agencies: a 16% decline in full-time FOIA staff alongside a 27% increase in backlogs. The comparison covers 15 Cabinet-level departments and 10 independent agencies, not every federal entity subject to FOIA.

That finding provides context, but it does not establish that staffing reductions caused every agency’s result. The Justice Department has cited several operational pressures, including higher request volume, greater complexity, retirements, hiring constraints and technology challenges.

In its own FY2026 Chief FOIA Officer Report covering FY2025 performance, DOJ said its request backlog rose from 21,567 to 29,308. The department also reported responding to 147,588 FOIA requests during FY2025 and described backlog-reduction efforts involving personnel, technology, process changes and training.

What requesters can do

People waiting on a federal records request can check the agency’s status information and ask for an estimated completion date. If access is denied or records are withheld, the requester can file an administrative appeal. The Office of Government Information Services also assists with disputes and communication problems, although it cannot compel an agency to release records.

The FY2025 numbers show a federal disclosure system under sustained demand: processing reached a record level, but unresolved requests and appeals expanded more quickly. The totals do not reveal the complexity of each case, the exemptions applied, litigation involving particular requests or the outcome for any individual requester. For that reason, agency-level comparisons remain essential when assessing how quickly the public can obtain federal records.

Sources

• DOJ FY2025 government-wide FOIA summary
• National Archives OGIS FY2025 annual report

Acting Attorney General Todd Blanche issued the guidance through the department’s Office of Legal Policy. The Justice Department said the document updates its department-wide Religious Liberty Guidelines from 2017.

The guidance gives agencies a framework for considering existing constitutional and legal protections as they develop policies and carry out government programs. It is guidance rather than a statute, regulation or court ruling, and it does not automatically change every federal employment, grant or contracting decision.

Rules and agency decisions

Agencies are instructed to consider religious-liberty impacts when developing rules and policies. That review includes concerns raised during notice-and-comment periods, when members of the public and organizations can submit views on proposed federal rules.

The guidance also directs agencies to designate officers to review regulatory proposals for compliance with religious-liberty protections. The stated purpose is to bring those concerns into the agency review process before rules and policies are finalized.

The document cites the Constitution, the Religious Freedom Restoration Act, Title VII of the Civil Rights Act and other applicable federal laws. The Religious Freedom Restoration Act was enacted in 1993. Title VII is among the federal legal authorities identified in the guidance in connection with religious protections in employment.

The guidance’s rulemaking provisions therefore reach more than a single department program or individual decision. They address how executive agencies are expected to identify and evaluate religious-liberty questions while drafting rules, reviewing proposed policies and considering public comments.

Employment, enforcement and federal funding

The updated document addresses religious accommodations and religious expression in federal employment. It reaffirms protections for religious expression by federal workers and for scheduling accommodations in federal workplaces.

Those provisions direct agencies to account for religious-liberty concerns in workplace policies and in the consideration of individual accommodation issues. The guidance does not itself resolve a particular employee’s request or require an automatic outcome in every case.

Enforcement is another area covered by the guidance. Agencies are directed to consider religious-liberty protections when carrying out enforcement actions, along with their responsibilities under the Constitution and applicable federal law.

The document also addresses federal contracts and grants. It says religious organizations must be able to compete on equal footing with secular organizations for federal contracts and grants.

That language applies to the way executive agencies evaluate programs involving federal funding. It establishes a principle for agency review, rather than identifying a particular contract or grant award that has already changed under the updated guidance.

What changes immediately

The Justice Department’s action updates the department’s 2017 guidance and sets expectations for executive departments and agencies as they assess religious-liberty issues. Its stated scope includes the drafting of rules, consideration of public comments, enforcement activity, federal workplace decisions, contracting and grant programs.

The guidance could affect how agencies evaluate religious accommodations, religious expression by federal workers, enforcement actions and eligibility for federally funded opportunities. The practical effect will depend on how agencies apply the guidance in those areas and how the cited constitutional and statutory protections bear on particular decisions.

The department’s announcement did not identify specific agency rules, contracts or grant decisions that had already changed because of the update. It also did not specify how the guidance will affect pending litigation or individual accommodation requests.

For now, the July 23 release is a department-wide update directing federal agencies to incorporate religious-liberty considerations into their existing work. It builds on the 2017 guidelines and points agencies to the Constitution, the 1993 Religious Freedom Restoration Act, Title VII and other applicable federal laws.

The department said the guidance is intended to protect individual religious practitioners and religious organizations as federal agencies carry out their responsibilities throughout the United States. The update places religious-liberty considerations across several areas of executive-branch decision-making rather than limiting them to a single type of dispute.

For people and organizations interacting with federal agencies, the policy could be relevant to workplace practices, federally supported programs, government contracts, regulations and enforcement actions. Its practical effect will depend on how agencies apply the direction to particular decisions and circumstances.

What the guidance covers

The guidance directs executive departments and agencies to ensure that federal actions comply with constitutional protections for religious liberty. The covered activities include the design or administration of federal programs, employment practices, contracting, rulemaking and enforcement.

Those categories reach many of the ways the federal government affects individuals, employers, organizations and recipients of federal support. An agency’s approach to a workplace policy, a grant or contract, a proposed rule or an enforcement matter may involve religious-liberty considerations under the updated direction.

The Justice Department’s Justice Manual identifies federal civil-rights and religious-liberty laws enforced by the department. Its discussion includes protections involving employment, education, health care, grants, contracts and interactions with the government. The updated guidance places those legal protections in the broader context of federal agency action.

The department specifically cited the Constitution, the Religious Freedom Restoration Act, commonly known as RFRA, Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 and other applicable federal laws. The references connect the guidance to existing constitutional and statutory protections that agencies must consider when carrying out covered activities.

Policy direction, not a new statute

The document is an executive-branch policy guidance rather than a court ruling or a statute. It is a direction for federal departments and agencies as they make decisions; it is not itself a judicial ruling resolving a particular conflict.

The guidance also does not provide one universal answer for every situation involving a religious accommodation and another civil-rights obligation. The relevant facts, the law governing a particular program or workplace and the government action at issue can shape how a dispute is evaluated.

That distinction matters because the announcement concerns how agencies account for religious-liberty protections in their work, while individual disputes may still require separate consideration under the applicable law. The Justice Department has not identified particular pending disputes that will change immediately as a result of the update.

What happens next

Executive departments and agencies will be responsible for accounting for the guidance in their own programs and actions. That includes the areas identified by the Justice Department: federal programs, employment, contracting, rulemaking and enforcement.

The department has not specified how individual agencies will revise existing regulations or enforcement manuals in response. As agencies apply the guidance, the significance of the update will become clearer through decisions involving the Constitution, RFRA, Title VII and other applicable federal civil-rights laws.

The July 23 announcement therefore represents a government-wide direction for executive-branch decision-making, not a final ruling on a particular religious-liberty dispute. Its immediate reach is federal executive departments and agencies, while its practical consequences will depend on how those agencies address specific situations involving religious practice, government programs, employment, contracts, rules or enforcement.

The guidance says religious conduct should be reasonably accommodated whenever doing so is practicable and permitted by law. The department said the policy is intended to prevent federal actions from discriminating on the basis of religion.

The guidance applies nationwide to federal agencies, religious organizations and religious practitioners. It gives agencies a common policy direction for handling religious-liberty questions, although the specific effect will depend on how individual agencies implement it.

What the guidance says

The Justice Department’s announcement describes religious exercise as encompassing belief, worship and religious conduct in daily life. That language places everyday conduct within the department’s stated framework for evaluating religious-liberty protections.

It also directs federal agencies to provide reasonable accommodations for religious conduct when those accommodations are practicable and legally permitted. The wording does not mean that every requested accommodation must be granted. Instead, agencies are instructed to consider accommodation within the limits of applicable law and practical circumstances.

The department’s stated objective is to ensure that federal action does not discriminate on the basis of religion. The guidance therefore concerns how agencies interact with people and religious organizations as they carry out federal programs, policies and responsibilities.

The announcement does not establish a judicial ruling or change federal statute. It is an executive-branch guidance document, rather than a constitutional amendment, court order or act of Congress.

Broader federal policy context

The updated Justice Department guidance follows other federal activity focused on religious liberty. The Treasury Department and Internal Revenue Service announced plans to provide guidance to religious organizations on religious-liberty and tax-administration issues.

That Treasury and IRS announcement provides policy context for the Justice Department’s action, but the two announcements address different agency responsibilities. The Treasury and IRS effort concerns tax administration, while the Justice Department guidance establishes direction for federal agencies more broadly on religious-liberty protections.

A Religious Liberty Commission also delivered a draft report in June 2026. The report was based on seven hearings and testimony from more than 100 witnesses. Its recommendations included civil-rights enforcement and civic education related to religion.

The commission’s document was a draft report, while the Justice Department’s July announcement was updated agency guidance. Those are separate federal actions and should not be treated as the same type of legal measure.

What happens next

Federal agencies will determine how the guidance is applied in their own operations. Its practical effect will depend on agency implementation and on any future litigation over the scope of religious accommodations or the interaction between religious conduct and other legal requirements.

The July 23 announcement does not identify a single comprehensive list of regulations or programs that will change. Instead, it sets out principles for federal agencies to use when considering religious exercise, daily conduct and reasonable accommodation.

For religious organizations and practitioners, the immediate development is a government-wide statement that their religious exercise may include conduct outside formal worship. For agencies, the guidance emphasizes that religious-liberty considerations should be part of decisions involving federal action, subject to what is practicable and permitted by law.

The decision expands presidential control over the executive branch and could affect the independence of regulators and other federal agencies throughout the United States. It also gives President Donald Trump broader authority to replace agency leaders whose policies or decisions conflict with his administration’s priorities.

The Court treated the Federal Reserve as a distinct exception. Its role in setting interest rates was central to that distinction, preserving a separate level of protection for the nation’s central bank even as the ruling broadened presidential removal power elsewhere.

What the ruling changes

Federal laws have often limited a president’s ability to dismiss the leaders of agencies that are designed to operate with some independence from the White House. Those statutes can require a president to show cause, such as misconduct or poor performance, before removing an agency head.

The Supreme Court’s ruling rejected or narrowed those protections for most agency leaders. In practical terms, presidents generally will have greater authority to decide whether those officials remain in office, rather than having to wait for a legally recognized reason for removal.

That shift can make agency leadership more directly responsive to the elected president. It can also make changes in administration policy easier to carry out across departments and regulatory bodies. The ruling’s implications extend beyond any single agency because it addresses the relationship between presidential authority and the structure of the federal government.

The decision does not mean the president can remove every federal official without restriction. The Court’s treatment of the Federal Reserve shows that the ruling preserves at least one important distinction, and the precise reach of that exception depends on the Court’s reasoning.

A break from older precedent

The ruling was described as a major departure from a 91-year-old precedent that had limited presidential power to remove certain agency leaders. That earlier approach supported the idea that Congress could give some independent officials protection from dismissal except for cause.

By moving away from that framework, the Court strengthened the president’s position in disputes over who controls the executive branch. The change concerns both the president’s ability to select agency leadership and the extent to which Congress can shield those leaders from direct political removal.

The issue is closely tied to separation of powers. Congress creates agencies and sets the rules under which they operate, while the president is responsible for executing federal law. The ruling places greater weight on presidential supervision when those powers come into conflict.

Why it matters for regulators

Independent regulatory agencies can make decisions affecting financial markets, businesses, consumers and other parts of the economy. Their leaders may also oversee enforcement and rulemaking that can outlast a presidential administration.

With broader removal authority, a president may be able to change the direction of those agencies more quickly by replacing their leaders. Supporters of stronger presidential control may view that as a way to improve accountability: voters elect the president, and the president can be held responsible for executive-branch policy.

Critics of expanded removal power have long argued that independence can protect agency decisions from short-term political pressure. The Supreme Court’s decision therefore has consequences not only for personnel decisions but also for the balance between presidential accountability and regulatory independence.

The Federal Reserve exception is especially significant because interest-rate decisions affect borrowing costs, inflation and economic conditions across the country. The Court recognized the Fed’s rate-setting role as distinct, but the ruling does not establish that every other independent agency receives the same protection.

The June 29 decision is now the governing rule for the federal removal-power dispute described by the Court. Its effects will depend on how the administration applies the ruling, how Congress responds, and how future cases clarify the boundaries between the general rule and the Federal Reserve exception.

The report, identified as Recent Federal Workforce Changes at OPM, carries the number GAO-26-108916. GAO describes it as an overview of recent changes involving the federal workforce. The agency’s release listing does not state how many employees were affected by the actions covered in the report.

GAO’s July 16–20 release cluster includes at least six public reports. Alongside the OPM workforce review, the list includes reports concerning hypersonic weapons, national laboratories, cyber workforce programs, congressional directed spending and aviation cybersecurity. Those reports address separate oversight subjects and do not represent a single combined finding.

The reports are available as public documents for congressional and public review. The workforce changes matter because staffing decisions can affect federal agencies’ capacity to deliver benefits, provide services and enforce regulations nationwide. In a separate report, GAO also identified weaknesses involving federal spending-data quality, improper-payment estimates, program inventories and Freedom of Information Act processing, adding to its continuing oversight of federal administration and transparency.

The guidance covers five listed areas of federal action: programs, employment, contracting, rulemaking and enforcement. It establishes an executive-branch policy framework for considering religious-liberty concerns, but it is not a new statute or court ruling.

What the guidance directs agencies to review

The Justice Department says agencies should account for religious-liberty impacts when developing rules and policies. The review also applies to federal programs and enforcement actions, creating an administrative process for examining potential conflicts involving religious exercise.

The guidance emphasizes accommodating religious exercise when doing so is practicable and permitted by law. That language does not mean every accommodation request must be approved. The department’s announcement says accommodations remain subject to applicable law and practical limits.

For federal employees, the guidance addresses religious expression and scheduling accommodations. Those provisions concern how agencies handle religious observance and expression in the workplace while applying the legal standards identified in the document.

Religious organizations and federal funding

The revised guidance also addresses religious organizations that seek to participate in federal grants and contracts. It says those organizations must be allowed to compete on an equal footing with secular organizations in federal contracting and grant programs.

That framework is relevant to organizations that seek federal support or perform work under federal agreements. The announcement describes protections involving religious organizations’ participation in grants and contracts, while the practical details will depend on how agencies apply the guidance to individual programs and decisions.

Legal authorities cited by the department

The guidance cites the Constitution, the Religious Freedom Restoration Act, Title VII and recent Supreme Court precedent. Those authorities provide the legal framework the department says agencies should consider when evaluating religious-liberty questions in employment, programs, contracting, rulemaking and enforcement.

The department’s Office of Legal Policy is among the entities associated with the guidance. Acting Attorney General Todd Blanche announced the update through the Justice Department.

What changes next

The July 23 announcement does not identify a specific pending federal rule, contract or enforcement action that will change immediately because of the revision. It also does not say that statutory requirements have been altered.

Instead, the immediate change is administrative: federal agencies are directed to include religious-liberty considerations in the development and review of policies and actions across the five covered areas. The effect on employees, applicants for federal funding, contractors, religious organizations and people seeking accommodations will depend on agency implementation and future legal disputes.

The updated guidance follows a June 26, 2026, summary report from the Presidential Religious Liberty Commission. That report provided policy context for the administration’s religious-liberty agenda and included recommendations concerning reporting channels, federal enforcement, anti-Semitism and religious organizations. The Justice Department’s July announcement, however, is the action that formally updates the department’s guidance.

For now, the next known step is implementation by executive departments and agencies. The announcement does not provide a separate deadline for that process or specify individual agency actions that must occur by a particular date.

The development gives lawmakers a potential path to extend federal appropriations beyond the election period rather than allowing funding to lapse while campaigns are underway. It does not, however, guarantee that agencies will remain open: At the time of the report, the measure had not become law.

The measure is a stopgap spending bill, meaning its stated purpose is to provide temporary funding rather than settle the federal government’s full-year appropriations. Its target is funding for federal agencies past the November 2026 midterm election period and into early December.

The guidance applies to federal programs, employment practices, contracting, rulemaking and enforcement actions. The department said the revision updates its 2017 Religious Liberty Guidelines and reflects U.S. Supreme Court decisions issued since those guidelines were released.

What the guidance covers

The document identifies the Constitution, the Religious Freedom Restoration Act, commonly known as RFRA, and Title VII as relevant legal authorities for federal agencies handling religious-liberty issues.

In practical terms, agencies are being directed to account for those protections when they design or administer programs, make employment decisions, award or manage contracts, write rules and pursue enforcement actions. That places religious-liberty considerations across several parts of the federal government’s work rather than limiting them to a single type of dispute.

The guidance is aimed at interactions between the federal government and religious individuals and organizations. Acting Attorney General Todd Blanche said the revision is intended to protect those individuals and organizations in their dealings with the federal government.

What is changing from the previous guidance

The Justice Department’s prior guidance was issued in 2017. The department described the new document as an update and expansion of those guidelines, with the revision taking account of Supreme Court decisions issued since that time.

The announcement does not identify a specific lawsuit, agency decision or accommodation request that the updated document resolves. It also does not establish a new statute. Instead, it sets out direction for how executive departments and agencies should account for existing constitutional and statutory protections in their work.

That distinction matters for people and organizations seeking religious accommodations or challenging federal action. The guidance may shape how agencies evaluate requests, workplace practices, contracting decisions and enforcement disputes, but it does not mean that every accommodation request must be granted.

What happens next

The next stage will be implementation by executive departments and agencies. The practical effect of the guidance will depend on how agencies apply it in federal programs, employment, contracting, rulemaking and enforcement.

Future litigation may also determine how the guidance operates in particular disputes. The Justice Department’s announcement does not itself resolve pending lawsuits, and the guidance does not change constitutional law. Courts and agencies will continue to address the specific facts and legal questions that arise in individual cases.

For religious organizations and individuals interacting with the federal government, the updated document provides a department-wide statement that religious-liberty protections should be considered in those interactions. For agencies and federal contractors, it signals that those considerations remain relevant across workplace, program, procurement, regulatory and enforcement decisions.

The July 23 announcement therefore marks an administrative policy update, not a final resolution of every religious-liberty dispute. Its significance will be measured by agency implementation and by future litigation over how constitutional protections, RFRA and Title VII apply in specific circumstances.

The finding matters for Congress, agency leaders and the public as lawmakers evaluate federal spending and prepare for future budget and appropriations decisions. GAO said weak performance information makes it harder to determine whether programs are delivering their intended results.

What GAO reviewed

The report examined 15 federal programs at five agencies. Those programs provide direct services solely to pregnant women, young children and their families.

That targeted review does not mean every federal program lacks performance measures. But GAO said the examination illustrated broader challenges in how agencies define program goals, collect information and use that information to manage their work.

Federal spending covers trillions of dollars in programs Americans rely on, including health care, public safety and disaster support. The quality of the information used to assess those programs affects how Congress and agencies oversee that spending.

The three steps GAO identified

GAO identified three core steps for improving program effectiveness: defining goals, collecting relevant data and using the information in management decisions.

Clear goals give agencies a basis for determining what a program is supposed to accomplish. Relevant data can then help show whether the program is moving toward those objectives. Finally, managers need to use the information when making decisions, rather than treating performance measures as a reporting exercise separate from day-to-day oversight.

According to GAO, weaknesses in any of those steps can limit the ability of agencies and Congress to evaluate results. Without clear goals, it can be difficult to define success. Without relevant data, agencies may not be able to assess progress. And without using the information in management decisions, collecting it may have little effect on how programs operate.

What the report does — and does not — show

GAO’s findings concern program management and measurement. They do not by themselves establish that the programs reviewed are ineffective.

The report also does not conclude that all federal spending is wasteful or fraudulent. Its central concern is whether agencies have the information needed to show what programs are accomplishing and to support decisions about their effectiveness.

For people who depend on federal services, the report is an oversight finding rather than an announcement of benefit reductions or service losses. The source packet does not identify any cuts, program terminations or changes to eligibility.

Why the finding matters for budgeting

Congress and agency leaders make decisions about federal programs against competing demands for public funds. GAO’s report says those decisions are harder to evaluate when agencies cannot clearly connect program activities with intended results.

Better goals and data would give lawmakers and agency officials more useful information when reviewing whether programs are working as intended. The report therefore provides a taxpayer-focused warning about the limits of current oversight, particularly across services involving health care, public safety, disaster support and families.

The July 21 report does not set a new statutory deadline or announce a specific follow-up action. Its immediate contribution is to identify weaknesses in the measurement process and outline the three-part approach GAO says agencies need in order to improve their assessment of federally funded programs.

The department described the release as the first major update to its religious-liberty guidance since 2017. The guidance addresses rulemaking, enforcement, federal employment, contracting and grant programs, creating a government-wide framework for how agencies should review issues involving religion.

For people and organizations dealing with federal agencies, the practical significance is that religious-liberty considerations are now expressly built into the department’s instructions for agency decision-making. The guidance could affect how future rules, enforcement actions, employment decisions and funding processes are evaluated.

What agencies are being told to do

The guidance directs agencies to consider religious-liberty impacts when developing rules and policies. It also requires agencies to designate officers who will review regulatory proposals for compliance with religious-liberty protections.

That review requirement places religious-liberty analysis inside the federal regulatory process rather than treating it only as an issue raised after a policy has been finalized. The source packet does not identify a specific pending rule or enforcement case that will immediately change as a result.

The guidelines also address enforcement. They reference protections associated with the Religious Freedom Restoration Act, Title VII of the Civil Rights Act and the First Amendment. The Justice Department’s announcement identifies those legal protections as part of the framework discussed in the updated guidance.

The update includes federal workplace accommodations. Examples identified by the department include scheduling and religious expression in the workplace. The guidance therefore speaks both to how agencies regulate the public and to how the federal government handles religious practice by its own employees.

Grants and contracts

Religious organizations are addressed in the guidance’s provisions on federal contracting and grants. The department says those organizations must be allowed to compete on equal footing with secular organizations in federal contracting and grant programs.

The guidance further says agencies may not condition participation in federal programs on a religious organization giving up its religious character or its hiring rights. That instruction could matter to religious organizations seeking federal funds or contracts, although the source packet does not identify a particular award, application or dispute affected immediately by the release.

The department’s stated approach is to preserve participation by religious organizations while requiring agencies to account for religious-liberty protections when administering federal programs. The guidance is directed at executive departments and agencies nationwide.

Part of a broader policy effort

The update follows recent work by the Justice Department’s Religious Liberty Commission. A June 26, 2026, commission news entry records a draft report and recommendations addressing religious expression, anti-Semitism and federal enforcement.

The Associated Press reported that the commission’s draft report was 224 pages and included recommendations concerning religious expression in government, schools and the public square. That report provides context for the administration’s broader religious-liberty agenda, but it is separate from the July 23 guidance.

The distinction matters: the commission’s report was described as a draft, while the Justice Department announced the updated guidelines as executive-branch guidance. The source packet does not establish that the guidelines create a new federal statute or regulation, alter constitutional law, override Title VII or the Religious Freedom Restoration Act, or displace court decisions.

What happens next

Federal agencies are expected to apply the guidance as they develop rules and policies, review regulatory proposals, handle employment accommodations, conduct enforcement and administer grants and contracts. The requirement that agencies designate review officers is one of the clearest operational steps identified in the announcement.

No separate implementation deadline is provided in the source packet, and no specific pending case or funding decision is identified. The next effects will therefore depend on how individual agencies incorporate the guidance into their own reviews and decisions.

The Justice Department’s Office of Information Policy published the government-wide summary on July 2, 2026. The underlying report is dated July 1 and covers the federal fiscal year that ended September 30, 2025—not calendar year 2025.

Agencies processed a record 1,635,055 requests, nearly 9% more than in FY 2024. But incoming requests increased faster, rising 13.7%. The number of backlogged requests reached 339,671 at the end of FY 2025, up 27% from the previous year.

Under the Justice Department’s definition, a request is backlogged when it has been pending longer than the statutory period of 20 working days, or up to 30 working days when unusual circumstances apply. The figure does not mean that every request was unanswered or that every case involved an improper delay.

What the processing total does—and does not—mean

A request listed as processed is not necessarily one in which an agency completed a substantive review and released records.

Of the 1,635,055 requests processed in FY 2025, 824,767, or 50.44%, were closed after a substantive decision to release or withhold information under FOIA. The remaining 810,290, or 49.56%, were closed for procedural or administrative reasons.

Among the 824,767 requests that received substantive decisions, 772,999, or 93.72%, resulted in a full or partial release. The other 6.28% were fully denied based on FOIA exemptions.

Those figures should not be read as a simple release rate for all requests received. They describe different stages of the process: requests received, requests closed, and requests that received a decision about whether records could be released are not interchangeable categories.

Appeals also became harder to clear

Administrative appeals are separate from lawsuits filed in federal court. They provide a way for requesters to challenge an agency’s response within the FOIA process.

Agencies received 32,059 administrative appeals in FY 2025, up 59.38% from FY 2024, and processed 23,108, a 24.4% increase. The end-of-year appeals backlog reached 11,652, up 116.5% from the previous year.

The increase suggests that pressure extended beyond initial requests. A requester disputing a delay, redaction or denial may face a second queue before a court case is even considered. The government-wide average processing time for agencies reporting appeal data was 93.76 days, although individual agency averages varied substantially.

National averages hide agency-level differences

The average processing time for simple-track requests was 48.96 days among agencies reporting data, up from 44 days in FY 2024. That figure is a government-wide average, not a deadline or a reliable prediction for every requester.

Workloads differed sharply by agency. The Department of Homeland Security accounted for about 60% of requests received government-wide and 50% of the year-end backlog. The Department of Justice, Department of Veterans Affairs, the Department of War and the Department of Health and Human Services were also among the five agencies receiving the most requests.

The Justice Department reported that 58 agencies, including DHS, HUD, DOJ and State, averaged 20 days or less for simple-track requests. Other agencies reported longer averages. Timelines can also change based on the agency component, the complexity of the request, the number of records locations searched and whether another agency must be consulted.

Requesters can review agency annual reports and downloadable FOIA.gov data before filing. Agencies may also assign requests to different tracks or provide estimated completion dates.

Staffing and cost pressures

The government reported 4,823.17 full-time-equivalent FOIA staff in FY 2025. The measure includes dedicated FOIA professionals and cumulative portions of other employees’ time spent handling FOIA work.

Estimated FOIA-related costs totaled $661.4 million. Agencies reported collecting about $2.5 million in FOIA fees, equal to approximately 0.38% of estimated costs. The difference reflects the broader work involved in searching, reviewing, consulting, redacting and releasing records, as well as handling litigation-related activities.

The National Archives’ Office of Government Information Services found that full-time FOIA staff declined 16% between FY 2024 and FY 2025 across 15 Cabinet-level departments and 10 independent agencies, while backlogs at those agencies increased 27%. That comparison provides workforce context, but it does not by itself establish that staffing reductions caused any particular delay or explain conditions at every federal agency.

The Government Accountability Office has separately described federal information quality, accessibility and transparency as issues tied to oversight, program management, fraud prevention and public trust. That broader accountability perspective helps explain why FOIA performance matters beyond the individual requester waiting for records.

What to watch next

The next indicators will include agency backlog-reduction plans, staffing and technology changes, proactive disclosures and the way agencies report estimated completion dates and appeals.

A FOIA Advisory Committee approved seven recommendations in June, including proposals involving staffing, technology, backlog management and possible statutory changes. The recommendations are advisory. They have not become congressional legislation or binding requirements across federal agencies.

For requesters, the practical lesson is to check the specific agency’s annual report and current FOIA data rather than rely on the national average. The FY 2025 numbers document rising demand and capacity pressure across the federal system, but they do not by themselves explain why an individual request was delayed, closed administratively or withheld.

Sources

• DOJ FY 2025 Annual FOIA Report Summary
• National Archives OGIS FY 2025 Annual Report
• GAO Federal Information Transparency review

That is the central finding of a Government Accountability Office assessment published July 21, 2026. GAO said many federal programs still lack clearly defined goals, useful performance measures and relevant data, limiting Congress’s and agency leaders’ ability to judge results.

The assessment covers programs tied to health care, public safety, disaster support, food assistance and veterans’ services. It does not conclude that every program is ineffective. Rather, it says decision-makers often do not have enough information to determine which programs are producing their intended results.

Spending and participation are not the same as results

GAO distinguishes among three kinds of information agencies use to manage programs.

Inputs are resources, such as federal funding, staff or equipment. Outputs are activities or services delivered, such as the number of people receiving benefits or disaster claims processed. Outcomes show whether conditions improved—for example, whether a public-safety effort reduced a risk or whether assistance produced better health or economic results.

Inputs and outputs can show that a program is operating. They do not, by themselves, establish that it is achieving its public purpose.

GAO said programs often lack measurable goals or the data needed to assess progress. Without those elements, agencies cannot reliably identify what needs to change, and Congress has less evidence when deciding whether to continue, revise or redirect funding.

Why the gap matters across government

Federal programs often operate alongside related efforts at the same agency or at other agencies. When programs do not define goals consistently or collect comparable performance information, policymakers have a harder time determining which approaches work better or whether efforts are unnecessarily fragmented.

GAO describes incomplete effectiveness information as a risk that can contribute to waste and inefficiency. It is not proof of fraud, unlawful spending or failure by every program. Better performance information can help policymakers coordinate related programs, target resources and identify services that need improvement.

GAO’s 2026 annual report on duplication, overlap and fragmentation identified a lack of consistent information on program effectiveness among the risks that can accompany poorly managed related programs. The report also said congressional and agency action on earlier recommendations had produced financial and operational benefits, while hundreds of matters remained open.

Three programs still need fuller performance systems

A more specific example comes from a GAO review published May 5, 2026. GAO examined 15 federal programs at five agencies that provide some amount of direct services solely to pregnant women, children through age 5, or their families.

Twelve of the 15 had federal performance-management processes that set goals, collected information and used it to assess results. GAO recommended that the remaining three programs fully develop those processes: the Preschool Development Grants Birth Through Five Program at the Department of Health and Human Services, the WIC Farmers Market Nutrition Program at the Department of Agriculture, and the Veterans Health Administration Maternity Care Coordinator Program at the Department of Veterans Affairs.

All three recommendations were listed as open in the review. HHS disagreed with its recommendation, USDA neither agreed nor disagreed, and VA agreed and said it anticipated completing a federal-level process by October 2026. Those positions and target dates are not the same as completed reforms.

The review also found that the 15 programs were fragmented across five agencies and overlapped to some extent, but GAO said they were not duplicative because they differed in beneficiary characteristics or services. GAO said completing the performance processes could help agencies assess results, identify potential improvements and target resources more appropriately.

What improvement can look like

GAO points to the Department of Homeland Security’s Securing the Cities program as an example of progress after oversight recommendations. The program helps state and local governments detect and deter nuclear terrorism.

In 2019, GAO found that DHS lacked information to fully track cities’ use of program funds or assess performance. In a 2024 review, GAO found that the program had established goals, performance measures and milestones and was conducting quarterly financial assessments. GAO said those changes put DHS in a better position to monitor performance and identify needed actions.

That example shows the value of performance management, but GAO also says additional evidence may be needed to determine whether a program is actually effective. Process evaluations examine whether a program is being implemented as intended. Outcome evaluations examine whether activities are aligned with desired results and whether changes are consistent with program goals. Impact evaluations compare results with what would have happened without the program.

The broader management problem

A separate GAO report published June 23 found that the Office of Management and Budget and four selected agencies had not fully implemented new requirements under the Federal Agency Performance Act of 2024.

GAO said OMB’s 2025 guidance did not fully address several statutory requirements for agency strategic reviews, including requirements involving senior leaders, stakeholders and annual reporting. GAO also found that none of the four selected agencies had fully implemented the new strategic-review requirements. The recommendations to OMB and the selected agencies were listed as open.

The federal performance framework calls for strategic goals, measurable priorities and regular, data-driven reviews. The next test will be whether agencies turn those requirements into usable evidence about outcomes—not simply reports on money spent and services delivered.

What readers should watch

For taxpayers, beneficiaries and lawmakers, the practical question is not only whether a program spends its money or reaches participants. It is whether agencies can show that the program is improving the conditions it was designed to address.

Watch for OMB guidance, agency strategic reviews, congressional oversight and updates on the three open recommendations involving HHS, USDA and VA. Evidence that agencies add measurable outcome goals, usable data and independent evaluations would show movement from activity reporting toward stronger accountability.

Sources

• GAO assessment on federal program effectiveness
• Performance.gov federal performance framework

The report is an accounting of award status, not a finding that the canceled money was wasted or improperly withdrawn. It also does not show that every award classified as pending remained unresolved on August 3, 2026.

Four agencies were included

GAO report GAO-26-108434 covers the Environmental Protection Agency, the Department of the Interior, the National Telecommunications and Information Administration and the Department of Transportation. Together, those agencies had about $628.4 billion in combined budget authority from the Infrastructure Investment and Jobs Act and the Inflation Reduction Act available for all or part of fiscal years 2022 through 2025.

The agencies reported approving about 9,500 awards worth $128 billion. That total includes $122.8 billion in awards approved without modification and $5.5 billion approved with changes to terms or amounts. They reported about $17.8 billion in canceled awards and $33.6 billion in awards pending a final outcome.

GAO said the canceled category includes awards that were terminated, rescinded or withdrawn, as well as awards discontinued by recipients. Some canceled awards were previously announced but unobligated, meaning not every cancellation resulted in federal funds being deobligated. An approved award is also not necessarily fully paid or completed.

Reviews followed January 2025 executive orders

Most of the selected agencies developed new processes after executive orders and related administration priorities beginning January 20, 2025. The processes included checks against executive-order terms and priorities, including references to diversity and environmental justice.

Senior officials made final decisions on whether awards would be approved without changes, modified or canceled, according to agency documents and officials cited by GAO. The executive orders directed agencies to review funding and allowed changes in some circumstances, but the GAO report does not establish that the orders themselves canceled particular awards.

The pace of funding activity varied. GAO said three of the four agencies paused some obligations or disbursements during their reviews. EPA temporarily paused disbursements for awards selected for cancellation, Interior intermittently paused obligations and disbursements, and DOT continued disbursing already-obligated awards but did not obligate announced, unobligated awards until they had been reviewed and approved. NTIA officials said the agency continued obligating and disbursing funds during its review.

That distinction matters because an award decision is not the same as a payment. GAO reported that the four agencies had obligated about 76% of their IIJA budget authority and disbursed about 54% of those obligated funds during fiscal years 2022 through 2025. For the selected agencies receiving IRA money, about 72% was obligated and about 60% of obligated funds was disbursed as of September 30, 2025. Those figures describe broader spending activity, not just the awards listed in the review-status table.

Broadband delays show the practical stakes

Rural broadband funding was one visible example of the uncertainty. Roll Call reported June 30 that about $20 billion in remaining funds connected to the Broadband Equity, Access and Deployment program was delayed while recipients awaited new guidance. NTIA Administrator Arielle Roth told lawmakers that the guidance would come “this summer” but did not provide a specific date.

GAO separately reported that most BEAD awards had not reached the project-implementation phase, when NTIA disburses funds to recipients, as of June 30, 2025. NTIA had also rescinded approvals of recipients’ final proposed plans and required new plans aligned with modified requirements.

The delay could affect states, broadband applicants, contractors and communities planning projects, but it should not be treated as proof that a particular local project failed. The GAO totals describe agency-reported categories across multiple programs and agencies.

What the report does not answer

GAO said the review-status data were sufficiently reliable to describe the reported status of the reviews, but the agency could not corroborate the data project by project against other available information. EPA and NTIA also did not provide all requested data. NTIA initially provided review-status information through June 30, 2025, although it later supplied some additional information that GAO incorporated where relevant.

The cutoff dates also differ by agency: EPA provided data as of February 25, 2026; Interior and DOT provided data as of September 30, 2025; and NTIA provided its principal status data as of June 30, 2025. GAO said NTIA and DOT reported between February and April 2026 that they had made final decisions on many awards that had previously been pending.

GAO also treated about $20 billion tied to two EPA Greenhouse Gas Reduction Fund programs as pending a final outcome. EPA had announced that the grants were terminated, but GAO said EPA’s data still showed them as fully obligated as of March 2026 and that the status of efforts to recover money disbursed to a private financial agent remained unclear.

The review does not cover the Energy or Agriculture departments. GAO said it expects separate reports on those agencies in September 2026, so the current totals do not represent every federal IIJA and IRA program.

For a specific project, readers should check the relevant agency’s award notices, Usaspending records and disclosures from the recipient. Those records may show whether an award was approved, modified, canceled, obligated or disbursed—and whether its status changed after the dates used in GAO’s review.

Sources

• U.S. Government Accountability Office report page
• Roll Call broadband funding report

For readers who want accountability in how paperwork-reduction efforts are managed, the audit’s core message is straightforward: regulators can describe the review process, but GAO says they don’t consistently document what outcomes followed, or connect issues raised in the reviews to concrete actions.

What EGRPRA requires

EGRPRA requires the Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System, the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation (FDIC), and the Office of the Comptroller of the Currency (OCC) to review their regulations at least once every 10 years. The statute also calls for a joint report to Congress.

GAO says the agencies were in their third such review cycle as of July 2026.

GAO’s finding: outcomes are hard to connect to subsequent actions

GAO says the connection between EGRPRA reviews and later regulatory actions is often unclear. In GAO’s account, some actions described around the EGRPRA effort were initiated in response to other statutory requirements, while others were started before or while the review was underway.

GAO also found documentation gaps about attribution. In a review of Federal Register final rulemakings that cited EGRPRA from January 2014 through December 2023, GAO identified 41 final rulemakings meeting its criteria—but GAO says only seven of those (17%) specifically cited comments received during the EGRPRA review. For the remaining 34 rulemakings, GAO says agencies either did not explain how the action connected to EGRPRA or used broader language without describing how the EGRPRA work contributed.

What’s missing inside the review process

Beyond the attribution problem, GAO says the agencies don’t have fully documented procedures for key decision steps—particularly: (1) identifying which rules are outdated or unduly burdensome, and (2) determining whether issues raised in the reviews warrant action.

GAO also says the review processes don’t fully incorporate leading-practice analytical elements for retrospective reviews, including a framework for (a) prioritizing which rules to analyze, (b) conducting cost-benefit analysis (where practicable), and (c) assessing the combined or cumulative burden of multiple regulations.

Six recommendations—what agencies are being asked to do next

GAO makes six recommendations, with two each directed to the Federal Reserve, FDIC, and OCC. GAO’s recommendations ask each agency to implement documented procedures for identifying outdated, unnecessary, or unduly burdensome regulations and deciding on actions during EGRPRA reviews, and to incorporate a framework for prioritization, cost-benefit analysis, and cumulative-burden assessment.

GAO reports that the agencies neither agreed nor disagreed with the recommendations, and it lists them as open.

Why this matters to everyday finance

Even when the end result is “no change,” paperwork requirements affect compliance workflows, staffing, and operating costs for banks—and those costs can ultimately affect customers and businesses that rely on financial services.

GAO’s focus here is accountability and transparency: the next EGRPRA cycle is a key test of whether regulators build a decision record that makes review outcomes easier to evaluate and harder to dismiss as process without measurable follow-through.

Sources

• GAO-26-108027 landing page (published July 23, 2026)
• GAO-26-108027 full report (HTML)

What happened, and who is affected

ProPublica reported that Trump fired EAC Democrats Benjamin Hovland and Thomas Hicks, while allowing Republican commissioner Christy McCormick to resign. ProPublica also reported that voter advocates and Democratic state election officials warned the move could create a practical gap. The Associated Press similarly reported that the White House confirmed the removals and pointed to a Supreme Court decision as the basis for the action.

Roll Call added additional details, reporting that Trump fired Chair Thomas Hicks and Benjamin Hovland and that Christy McCormick resigned—resulting in “no members” on the commission.

What the EAC does that ties into voting administration

On its own website, the EAC describes responsibilities that include developing guidance to meet HAVA requirements and adopting voluntary voting-system guidelines; serving as a national clearinghouse of election-administration information; accrediting testing laboratories and certifying voting systems; and auditing the use of HAVA funds. The agency also maintains the national mail voter registration form developed under the National Voter Registration Act.

With commissioners removed, the key practical question for states and local election officials is less about whether staff exists and more about whether certain formal, time-sensitive steps that rely on commissioner involvement can continue on the same timetable—or face delays—while new leadership is pending.

The legal backdrop: a Supreme Court removal precedent

Reporting tied the White House’s justification to the Supreme Court’s decision in Trump v. Slaughter, decided June 29, 2026. In broad terms, the ruling expanded the president’s authority to remove leaders of independent executive agencies notwithstanding statutory limits, reshaping the legal assumptions behind “independent” oversight structures.

That’s why the change at the EAC quickly became a governance-and-timing story for election administration: it affects what a federal election-assistance agency can formally do while it lacks sitting commissioners.

What to watch next

In the days ahead, election officials and voters will want watch-for updates on three fronts:

• Whether new commissioners are nominated/confirmed quickly: AP reported it wasn’t clear whether Trump planned to fill the vacancies immediately.
• Continuity signals from the EAC: any official guidance clarifying what can proceed while the commission is without members—especially around grant-related oversight and voting-system testing/certification pathways.
• Possible legal challenges: removed commissioners and other stakeholders may seek court review, with more litigation possible.

For local election administrators, the bottom line is uncertainty: even if day-to-day election management remains largely with states, federal assistance and technology oversight can still be affected by whether the EAC can act through its commissioner structure during a time-sensitive midterm period.

Sources

• Associated Press: EAC members removed—what it could mean
• U.S. Election Assistance Commission (EAC) — About the EAC
• ProPublica: Trump pushes out last federal EAC members
• U.S. Supreme Court: Trump v. Slaughter (official opinion PDF)