Federal Reports

Report on Audit of the FTC’s Fiscal Year 2025 Financial Statements

What OIG Evaluated

The Office of Inspector General (OIG) performed this evaluation to (1) determine the nature and extent to which the Department funds and participates in international organizations, and (2) evaluate the Department’s use of oversight provisions for the funds it contributes to them.  

What OIG Found

OIG found that of the $9.3 billion provided to international organizations in FY 2024, $3.6 billion was assessed contributions levied by international organizations as requirements of membership. The remaining $5.7 billion was voluntary contributions, or discretionary financial assistance, designated for specific organizations and programs. According to Department officials, treaty obligations limited the Department’s ability to oversee or apply conditions to its $3.6 billion of assessed contributions. OIG found United Nations (UN) policies and legal requirements, including UN diplomatic privileges and immunities, the UN’s single audit principle, and the UN’s practice of commingling funding presented barriers to the Department’s ability to obtain detailed information about its contributions. Despite these limitations, the Department participated in international organizations’ executive boards, reviewed international organizations’ audit reports, and coordinated with other donors to strengthen oversight and reform.  The Department had greater flexibility to include oversight provisions for its $5.7 billion in voluntary contributions. However, it did not consistently include such provisions in its contribution agreements.

Specifically, OIG found that the Department inconsistently applied oversight provisions to its agreements, with provisions varying by Department bureau and type of mechanism used to provide the funds. In contrast, OIG found that other donors to international organizations, such as the European Commission and the U.S. Agency for International Development (USAID), included more stringent requirements in their own standard funding agreement provisions. The inconsistent oversight provisions created a barrier to the Department and State OIG’s ability to thoroughly oversee funds voluntarily contributed to international organizations. To enhance accountability for IO contributions, Congress included a requirement in the Further Consolidated Appropriations Act, 2024 for the Department and USAID to seek to enter into written agreements with each international organization receiving U.S. funding. These agreements were to grant timely access to financial data and to other information relevant to the Inspectors General of the Department and USAID, and to the Comptroller General of the United States. OIG found that the Department had taken limited action to implement the statutory requirement and, 16 months after the enactment of the law, had not made any request to any international organization to enter into an overarching written agreement to provide the two OIGs and Government Accountability Office (GAO) with access to financial data and other information related to U.S. contributions.  

What OIG Recommends

OIG made five recommendations to improve the Department’s oversight of voluntary contributions and strengthen its implementation of Section 7048(h). 

The VA Office of Inspector General (OIG) conducted a healthcare inspection at the Syracuse VA Medical Center (facility) to assess allegations of reduced clinical services, poor leadership communication, and staff resignations. The OIG also identified concerns about patient transfer delays and oversight of infrastructure requirements.

The OIG substantiated that clinical services were reduced. The former Facility Director closed the neurosurgery program without submitting a required clinical restructuring request, bypassing national oversight. Facility leaders allowed contracts for infectious disease and endocrinology services to lapse and did not implement contingency plans upon the lapses. The OIG also substantiated eight physicians resigned due to clinical service reductions and deficient communication. Further, coverage requirements of the facility’s complexity designation were not met, which reduced the availability of clinical services. Although the OIG did not identify any adverse patient outcomes, the OIG is concerned about the potential risk.

Facility leaders did not have a process to monitor patient transfer timeliness; therefore, the OIG was unable to determine if delays occurred. Veterans Integrated Service Network and facility leaders also did not provide compulsory oversight of facility infrastructure requirements, increasing risks to patient care. 

In response to the OIG’s recommendations, the Acting Under Secretary for Health outlined plans for communicating expectations for infrastructure deficiency waivers. The Interim Veterans Integrated Service Network Director committed to evaluating circumstances that led to facility leaders not following clinical restructuring requirements as well as ensuring accurate infrastructure reviews. The Interim Facility Director also reported plans to verify accurate infrastructure reviews, enhance communication strategies, and examine contracting and patient transfer processes.

USDA OIG'S objective was to determine whether Food and Nutrition Service has taken actions to secure IT hardware to effectively prevent Supplemental and Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP) benefit theft through card skimming, card and terminal cloning, and other similar fraudulent methods.
 

The VA Office of Inspector General (OIG) identified a potential patient safety risk related to the Veterans Health Administration’s (VHA’s) use of generative artificial intelligence (AI) chat tools for clinical care and documentation. Generative AI creates new, original content by learning patterns from existing data.  During a national review initiated on October 16, 2025, the OIG found that VHA lacks a formal process to report, track, and respond to safety issues associated with generative AI use. Not having a process precludes a feedback loop and a means to detect patterns that could improve AI tools used in clinical settings.

VHA authorizes two general-purpose AI chat tools, VA GPT and Microsoft 365 Copilot Chat, for use with patient health information. These tools rely on clinical prompts. The output from an AI chat tool can be used to support medical decision-making and copied into the electronic health record. However, generative AI can produce inaccurate outputs, which may affect diagnosis and treatment decisions.

VHA Directive 1050.01(1) requires the Office of Quality Management and the National Center for Patient Safety (NCPS) to provide oversight of VHA quality programs and VHA patient safety programs. Interviews with leaders from VHA’s NCPS and National AI Institute and the Office of Information Technology’s Chief AI Officer team revealed that generative AI chat tools deployment occurred without coordination with NCPS. The OIG is concerned about VHA’s ability to promote and safeguard patient safety.

The OIG continues to monitor this issue and will include further analysis in its final report.