Letter to Hon. David Pekoske, Administrator, Transportation Security Administration - Grassley Presses TSA, FBI On Work With "Rogue' Unauthorized Commerce Dept. Law Enforcement, Intelligence Unit

Letter

Dear Administrator Pekoske:
On August 2, 2021, I wrote a letter to the Department of Commerce (DOC) relating to
serious allegations of misconduct within the DOC's Investigations and Threat Management
Service (ITMS).
1 On September 3, 2021, the DOC Office of General Counsel responded to my
letter and also released a report titled, "Report of the Programmatic Review of the Investigations
and Threat Management Service."2
In the report, the DOC found that ITMS did not possess
adequate legal authority to investigate an array of criminal activity it sought to address.3
For
example, ITMS neither had the authority to submit or execute search warrants nor conduct
counterintelligence investigations, yet it did so anyway.4
As a result of the totality of ITMS's
conduct, the DOC recommended the elimination of the entire ITMS unit and to redistribute the
remaining responsibilities to other units within the DOC.5
The DOC report also found that, based on a July 2019 report from the Department of
Commerce Inspector General (OIG), "ITMS agents flew armed without a required flying-armed
policy, in violation of Transportation Security Administration (TSA) requirements."6
According
to the OIG, although ITMS did not have an official flying armed policy, it applied for and
received a Unique Flying Armed Number (UFAN) from the TSA.
7 In addition to ITMS's
apparent lack of qualification as a unit to fly armed, five out of the eleven ITMS "special agents"
did not complete the Criminal Investigator Training Program (CITP) at the Federal Law
Enforcement Center (FLETC).8
According to the FLETC website, the CITP curriculum includes training identified as "TSA regulations: Flying Armed." 9
As a general matter, in order to fly
armed one must complete a TSA Flying Armed course.
10 Accordingly, it appears that five
agents may not have completed the training required to fly armed. Based on the available
evidence, ITMS did not have a flying-armed policy and its agents failed to complete the
necessary training to qualify for a UFAN; however, the TSA still provided one.
In light of the Senate Judiciary Committee's jurisdiction over law enforcement and
intelligence activities and to better understand TSA's role in this matter, please answer the
following questions no later than October 27, 2021:
1. Please provide all records relating to the Transportation Security Administration's (TSA)
relationship with the Department of Commerce's Investigations and Threat Management
Service (ITMS).
2. How many UFAN applications did ITMS submit with TSA and who were they submitted
for? How many of those applications were approved? Please provide all records relating
to ITMS's application and approval for a UFAN.
3. Please provide documentation of all rules, regulations, and guidelines outlining how TSA
processes applications for UFANs and how TSA verifies the accuracy of information
provided.
4. Before approving ITMS for a UFAN, was TSA aware that five ITMS employees had not
received the training necessary to qualify for flying armed? Was TSA aware that ITMS
did not have a valid "flying armed policy"? If so, why was ITMS approved for a UFAN?
5. Please provide all records relating to Department of Commerce personnel flying armed.
Please include names of the employees, carriers, dates of travel, flight numbers, departure
locations, and destinations.
6. Did TSA send any training materials to ITMS to review and complete? If so, when?
Please provide all records that were sent to ITMS.
Thank you for your attention to this important matter.
Sincerely,

Source