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.

Two milestones in two days: authority first, then the money

In a statement released immediately after the Senate vote, Sen. Adam Schiff said the resolution “reaffirms Congress’ constitutional role” and is meant to end the conflict and bring servicemembers home. That reflects the core oversight point: a war-powers vote signals Congress’s constitutional role, but it does not automatically determine what funding Congress will provide next.

On June 24, OMB sent the supplemental package to House Speaker Mike Johnson. The House Appropriations Committee then confirmed the $87.6 billion package was “officially transmitted” to the committee for review—meaning this is a procedural handoff, not enacted spending.

What the $87.6B request says it would cover

OMB’s letter says most of the supplemental request is for urgent needs tied to Operation Epic Fury (OEF), including operational costs and classified programs. In the letter’s headline numbers, the request totals $87,596,238,000.

For the Iran operation, OMB lists $67.1 billion for the Department of War, including:

• $17.3 billion for operational costs
• $21 billion for munitions
• $12.1 billion for “other classified programs”

The letter also points to multiple classified-request elements across agencies. In the public table, those include (for example) an FBI account described as supporting Operation Epic Fury and “other classified needs,” and a Department of Energy item described as a classified request.

Beyond the war accounts, the public table includes several reader-relevant totals, such as:

• $768 million for the Department of Energy, primarily for the National Nuclear Security Administration for OEF-related activities
• $1.4 billion for the Ebola virus outbreak in Central Africa
• $11.1 billion for American farmers, including $10 billion in temporary economic assistance for certain crop year 2026 plantings
• $500 million for restoration and construction projects in and around Washington, D.C.
• $1 billion for the final design and construction of a modernized Penn Station in New York City
• $600 million for General Services Administration facilities (including elevator-related capital projects)
• $1 billion for the Pension Benefit Guaranty Corporation Fund

Where Congress is processing it—and what that means for oversight

The House Appropriations Committee’s confirmation matters because it means the package is now in committee review, where members can press for reporting requirements, procedural handling of classified material, and policy limits tied to what’s being funded.

The oversight-money standoff: will war powers shape the supplemental package?

As committees begin reviewing Estimate No. 2, the practical fight is whether Congress treats the war-powers rebuke as a funding constraint that shapes the bill’s conditions and timing—or whether it funds replenishment for urgent war-related costs while still asserting limits elsewhere.

What to watch next:

• Whether committee leaders attempt to separate Operation Epic Fury-related accounts from other items (like Ebola, farmers, and infrastructure) or bundle them.
• Whether negotiations produce conditions tied to oversight and implementation questions raised by the war-powers vote.
• How classified portions are handled procedurally (for example, via classified briefings or separate oversight channels) without turning the public review into a blank check.

Sources

• White House / OMB: “Estimate No. 2” supplemental funding letter to Speaker Mike Johnson (June 24, 2026) — $87.6B request
• AP News: White House seeks $87.6B supplemental for Iran war costs, plus farmers and Ebola (reported in context of congressional pushback)
• Defense News (Reuters): White House asks Congress for $87.6B, mostly for Iran war (June 24, 2026)
• Sen. Adam Schiff (press statement): Senate vote to approve War Powers Resolution to remove U.S. forces from Iran hostilities (June 23, 2026)
• House Appropriations Committee (Cole/Calvert): Statement on White House defense supplemental request; confirms $87.6B transmitted for review (June 24, 2026)