Export Controls: GAO Report Highlights Challenges in Firearms Licensing and Monitoring
The U.S. Government Accountability Office (GAO) recently released a report titled Export Controls: Improvements Needed in Licensing and Monitoring of Firearms (GAO-25-106849), which evaluates the impact of transferring jurisdiction over nonautomatic and semiautomatic firearms exports from the Department of State to the Department of Commerce. This shift, implemented in 2020, was intended to streamline trade processes while ensuring sensitive items remain under appropriate oversight. However, the GAO’s findings indicate that the transition has led to increased exports, particularly to resellers in high-risk countries, and raised concerns about inconsistent regulatory oversight, personnel gaps, and conflicting duties among agencies.
The report finds that the total value of U.S. commercial exports of these firearms increased by 7% following the jurisdictional transfer, rising from $960 million to $1.03 billion. This surge was particularly pronounced in exports to resellers, some of whom operate in countries identified as high-risk destinations for firearms diversion or misuse. In response to these concerns, the Department of Commerce revised its licensing review processes in 2024 to mitigate the risk of unauthorized firearm use.
One of the report’s most critical findings is the inefficiency in the interagency review process for firearms exports. While Commerce oversees export licensing, the Department of State continues to review these applications for potential foreign policy and national security implications. However, GAO discovered that State’s review process is fragmented across multiple bureaus, leading to inconsistencies and duplicative efforts. The lack of a centralized, agency-wide guidance document exacerbates this problem, as different bureaus apply varying standards in their assessments. GAO recommends that State develop comprehensive guidance to ensure consistency and alignment with U.S. national security and foreign policy goals.
Another significant issue identified by GAO is the Bureau of Industry and Security’s (BIS) approach to end-use monitoring. BIS is responsible for ensuring that exported firearms reach their intended recipients and are not diverted for illicit use. However, the agency faces staffing shortages in high-risk regions, such as the Western Hemisphere and Africa, where firearms diversion is a particular concern. BIS currently lacks dedicated personnel for conducting end-use checks in these regions and must often rely on personnel from the International Trade Administration (ITA) to fulfill these duties.
The GAO report highlights a fundamental conflict in ITA’s role in end-use monitoring. ITA officers are primarily tasked with promoting U.S. commercial interests abroad, including facilitating firearms exports. However, they are also occasionally asked to conduct end-use checks, a duty that may require restricting exports in certain cases. This dual responsibility creates a conflict of interest, as ITA personnel may be incentivized to prioritize business promotion over rigorous compliance checks. Furthermore, neither BIS nor ITA has established formal guidelines to separate these potentially conflicting roles, raising concerns about the impartiality and effectiveness of end-use monitoring.
The report also notes a lack of training and formal oversight mechanisms for end-use monitoring personnel. While BIS relies on Export Control Officers (ECOs) to conduct checks, many ECOs lack specific training on firearms export compliance. Additionally, GAO found that some end-use checks take significantly longer than prescribed, with an average of 159 days for pre-license checks and 91 days for post-shipment verifications. The absence of clear performance benchmarks and personnel shortages further hampers the efficiency of this critical oversight function.
For federal contractors involved in firearms exports, the GAO report underscores the need for heightened compliance efforts. The evolving regulatory landscape means that contractors must be prepared for increased scrutiny in licensing applications and end-use verification processes. Companies exporting firearms should proactively engage with regulatory agencies to ensure their practices align with new requirements. Moreover, contractors may need to reassess their internal compliance protocols to account for the heightened risks of diversion in high-risk markets.
Additionally, the report’s recommendations, if implemented, could lead to a more structured and predictable export licensing process. The creation of uniform State Department guidance could improve transparency and consistency, benefiting contractors by reducing ambiguity in export approvals. At the same time, enhancements to BIS’s end-use monitoring capabilities may lead to stricter post-export compliance requirements, necessitating stronger internal controls within exporting firms.
Ultimately, the GAO’s findings highlight the challenges in balancing national security concerns with the facilitation of international trade. The report calls for decisive action from both the Department of State and the Department of Commerce to address existing weaknesses in licensing and monitoring processes. Federal contractors engaged in firearms exports must remain vigilant and adaptable as regulatory reforms unfold in response to these findings.
Disclaimer: This blog post is a summary of the GAO-25-106849 report and does not guarantee accuracy or provide legal advice. Contractors and other stakeholders should consult official government sources or legal professionals for specific guidance on export control compliance.
