Management Alert - FPS 

Did Not Properly Designate 

DHS Employees Deployed 

to Protect Federal 

Properties under 40 U.S.C. 

§ 1315(b)(1) 

November 2, 2020 

OIG-21-05 
 

 

 

 

 

OFFICE OF INSPECTOR GENERAL 

Department of Homeland Security 

Washington, DC 20528 / www.oig.dhs.gov 

November 2, 2020 

MEMORANDUM FOR: Chad F. Wolf 

 Acting Secretary 

Department of Homeland Security 

FROM: Joseph V. Cuffari, Ph.D. Digitally signed by JOSEPH JOSEPH V V CUFFARI Inspector General Date: 2020.11.02 17:41:01 CUFFARI -05'00' 

SUBJECT: Management Alert – FPS Did Not Properly Designate 

DHS Employees Deployed to Protect Federal Properties 

under 40 U.S.C. § 1315(b)(1) 

For your action is our final management alert, Management Alert — FPS Did Not 

Properly Designate DHS Employees Deployed to Protect Federal Properties under 

40 U.S.C. § 1315(b)(1), notifying you of an urgent issue that requires the 

Department of Homeland Security take immediate action to: (1) ensure the 

Director of the Federal Protective Service (FPS) has authority to designate DHS 

employees under 40 United States Code (U.S.C.) § 1315(b)(1); and (2) ensure 

proper, by-name designation of any DHS employees authorized to exercise 

authority under 40 U.S.C. § 1315 to protect Federal property and persons on 

that property. 

Issuance of this management alert is consistent with our duties under 

Section 2(2) of the Inspector General Act of 1978, as amended, to promote the 

economy, efficiency, and effectiveness of DHS programs and operations. 

As appropriate, we have incorporated the technical comments provided by FPS 

on the draft management alert. We have also appended the Office of the 

General Counsel’s (OGC) response verbatim to the final alert. OGC did not 

concur with either of the alert’s recommendations. Based on information 

provided in OGC’s response, we consider both recommendations open and 

unresolved. The Department of Homeland Security Directive 077-01, Follow-Up 

and Resolution for Office of Inspector General Report Recommendations, allows 

90 days for a written response. However, given the urgency of this matter, 

please ensure our office receives the following as soon as possible: (1) a written 

response that includes your and the Under Secretary for Management’s 

agreement or disagreement, as to the first and second recommendations, 

respectively; (2) corrective action plans; and (3) target completion dates for each 

recommendation. Until your response is received and evaluated, we consider 

www.oig.dhs.gov 
OFFICE OF INSPECTOR GENERAL 

Department of Homeland Security 

the recommendations open and unresolved. Please send your request or 

closure request to OIGAuditsFollowup@oig.dhs.gov. 

Consistent with our responsibility under the Inspector General Act of 1978, as 

amended, we will provide copies of our alert to congressional committees with 

oversight and appropriation responsibility over DHS. We will also post the final 

alert on our website for public dissemination. 

Please call me with any questions, or your staff may contact Sondra McCauley, 

Assistant Inspector General for Audits, at (202) 981-6000. 

cc: Under Secretary for Management 

Director of the Federal Protective Service 

www.oig.dhs.gov 2 
OFFICE OF INSPECTOR GENERAL 

Department of Homeland Security 

Summary of Issues 

Under 40 United States Code (U.S.C.) § 1315, the Secretary of the Department 

of Homeland Security is required to protect Federal property and people on that 

property.1 To assist him with this task, the Secretary can “designate employees 

of [DHS] ... as officers and agents for duty in connection with the protection of 

property owned or occupied by the Federal Government and persons on the 

property, including duty in areas outside the property to the extent necessary 

to protect the property and persons on the property.”2 We are issuing this 

management alert because the Director of the Federal Protective Service (FPS) 

did not properly designate DHS employees recently deployed to protect Federal 

properties under 40 U.S.C. § 1315(b)(1). 

Background 

FPS Director’s Attempt to Designate DHS Employees 

The Director of FPS issued memoranda in June and July 2020 that sought to 

designate personnel from U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP), U.S. 

Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE), the Transportation Security 

Administration (TSA), and U.S. Secret Service (Secret Service), pursuant to 

40 U.S.C. § 1315(b)(1). An example of one such memorandum is attached as 

Appendix C. The stated aim of these memoranda was to designate personnel to 

support FPS’ protection of Federal property and persons on the property. 

Validity of FPS Director’s Delegated Authority 

On October 25, 2019, Kevin K. McAleenan, using the title “Acting Secretary,” 

purported to delegate authority to designate DHS employees under 40 U.S.C. 

§ 1315(b)(1) to the Under Secretary for Management.3 On December 18, 2019, 

the Senior Official Performing the Duties of the Under Secretary for 

Management purported to further delegate this designation authority solely to 

the FPS Director.4 The FPS Director sought to rely on this delegation of 

authority to designate employees under 40 U.S.C. § 1315(b)(1). 

 1 See 40 U.S.C. § 1315(a). 

2 Id. § 1315(b)(1). 

3 DHS Delegation 00002, rev. 00.3, Delegation to the Under Secretary for Management ¶ 

II.A.36.b (Oct. 25, 2019). On September 8, 2020, Chad F. Wolf revised aspects of this 

delegation, but none related to 40 U.S.C. § 1315. 

4 DHS Delegation 02500, Delegation to the Director, Federal Protective Service ¶¶ II.D, III (Dec. 

18, 2019). 

www.oig.dhs.gov 3 OIG-21-05
 

OFFICE OF INSPECTOR GENERAL 

Department of Homeland Security 

We are aware that the Government Accountability Office (GAO),5 some 

policymakers, and certain private groups contend that Mr. McAleenan did not 

lawfully serve as Acting Secretary. This contention, if correct, appears to 

support the conclusion that the previously described October 25, 2019 

delegation from Mr. McAleenan to the Under Secretary for Management was 

invalid. It must be noted, however, that in an August 7, 2020 opinion issued 

by the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California in La Clinica de 

la Raza v. Trump, the court concluded that Mr. McAleenan had properly served 

as Acting Secretary.6 On the other hand, in a September 11, 2020 opinion 

issued by the U.S. District Court for the District of Maryland in Casa de 

Maryland, Inc. v. Wolf, the court concluded that Mr. McAleenan likely was not 

lawfully the Acting Secretary when he took the actions challenged by the 

plaintiffs in that case.7 On September 29, 2020, in Immigrant Legal Resource 

Center v. Wolf, another district court reached a similar conclusion.8 

Given this litigation and other matters pending in Federal court,9 and 

consistent with the prior position we enunciated on issues involving the 

Federal Vacancies Reform Act and the Homeland Security Act in response to 

GAO’s August 14, 2020 decision,10 we are not in a position to opine on the 

validity of the authority that was purportedly delegated through 

Delegations 00002 (Revision 00.3) and 02500. We do note that Mr. Wolf signed 

two documents framed as ratifications in an effort to validate certain actions 

that he and Mr. McAleenan took in their putative service as Acting Secretary.11 

Those documents did not address the validity of Delegations 00002 (Revision 

00.3) and 02500. Because of the FPS Director’s reliance on Delegations 00002 

(Revision 00.3) and 02500 to attempt to designate personnel under 40 U.S.C. 

§ 1315(b)(1), the Department should ensure that these delegations are valid, if 

 5 Matter of: Department of Homeland Security, No. B-331650 (Government Accountability 

Office Aug. 14, 2020). 

6 La Clinica de la Raza v. Trump, No. 19-cv-04980-PJH, 2020 WL 4569462, at *12–14 (N.D. 

Cal. Aug. 7, 2020). 

7 Casa de Maryland, Inc. v. Wolf, No. 20-cv-02118-PX, 2020 WL 5500165, at *20–23 (D. Md. 

Sept. 11, 2020). 

8 Immigrant Legal Resource Center v. Wolf, No. 20-cv-05883-JSW, 2020 WL 5798269, at *7–9 

(N.D. Cal. Sept. 29, 2020). 

9 See, e.g., Complaint, Don’t Shoot Portland v. Wolf, No. 20-cv-02040 ¶¶ 139–151 (D.D.C. July 

27, 2020), ECF No. 1; Complaint, Pettibone v. Trump, No. 20-cv-01464-YY ¶¶ 55–62 (D. Ore. 

Aug. 26, 2020), ECF No. 1; Fourth Amended Complaint, Battalla Vidal v. Wolf, No. 16-cv04756-NGG-JO ¶¶ 113–157 (E.D.N.Y. Aug. 28, 2020), ECF No. 308; Complaint, Santa Fe 

Dreamers Project v. Wolf, No. 20-cv-02465 ¶¶ 70–91 (D.D.C. Sept. 3, 2020), ECF No. 1. 

10 See Memorandum from Joseph V. Cuffari to Hon. Bennie G. Thompson, Chair, Committee 

on Homeland Security, U.S. House of Representatives & Hon. Carolyn B. Maloney, Chair, 

Committee on Oversight & Reform, U.S. House of Representatives, GAO Decision No. B-331650 

(Aug. 14, 2020) 3 (Sept. 14, 2020). 

11 Ratification of Department Actions, 85 Fed. Reg. 59,651-01 (Sept. 23, 2020); Ratification of 

Department Actions, 85 Fed. Reg. 65,653-01 (Oct. 16, 2020). 

www.oig.dhs.gov 4 OIG-21-05 
 

OFFICE OF INSPECTOR GENERAL 

Department of Homeland Security 

the FPS Director seeks to rely on them going forward. 

FPS Director Did Not Properly Identify DHS Employees by Name Who Could 

Exercise Authority under 40 U.S.C. § 1315 

The larger problem with the FPS Director’s approach to designation is that he 

did not identify any DHS employees by name who could exercise authority 

under 40 U.S.C. § 1315. Under subsection 1315(b)(1), the Secretary or his 

designee can designate employees as officers and agents to protect Federal 

property and persons on that property. The Homeland Security Act, the source 

of this provision, does not define the term “designate.”12 When a statute does 

not define a term, courts apply an “ordinary meaning” to it.13 Under this 

interpretive approach, the term “designate” means, “to indicate and set apart 

for a specific purpose, office, or duty.”14 As previously described, Mr. 

McAleenan sought to delegate this designation authority to the Under Secretary 

for Management, and the Senior Official Performing the Duties of the Under 

Secretary for Management then sought to delegate this authority to the FPS 

Director. This latter delegation, by its own terms, provided that the FPS 

Director cannot further delegate the authority to designate employees as 

officers and agents to protect Federal property and persons on that property.15 

Under 40 U.S.C. § 1315(b)(1) and the delegation purporting to confer this 

designation authority solely on the FPS Director, the best reading of the 

designation requirement is that the FPS Director will identify particular officers 

and agents who will exercise law enforcement authority under 40 U.S.C. 

§ 1315. This construction is supported by FPS’ own training on designation, 

which states that “1315 designation [is] applicable only to those DHS officers 

nominated by name on [a] master list.”16 The FPS Director also sought to take 

this name-specific approach in attempting to designate employees at other 

components to act under this statute. The FPS Director signed componentspecific memoranda that are written as if they are issued to particular officers 

and agents. Five times in that memorandum, the FPS Director uses the 

pronoun “you:” (1) he states that “I designate you as a law enforcement officer 

for duty in connection with your support of the Federal Protective Service (FPS) 

in the protection of federal property and persons on the impacted federal 

property that are under FPS’ protection responsibility;” (2) he notes that “[t]his 

designation is limited to law enforcement functions on the federal property 

 12 See Homeland Security Act of 2002, Pub. L. No. 107-296, § 1706, 116 Stat. 2135, 2316–17. 

13 Taniguchi v. Kan Pacific Saipan Ltd., 566 U.S. 560, 566 (2012). 14 Designate, Merriam-Webster’s Collegiate Dictionary (10th ed. 1998). 

15 DHS Delegation 02500, Delegation to the Director, Federal Protective Service ¶ III (Dec. 18, 

2019) (“The authority under paragraph II.D to designate employees of other DHS Components, 

with the consent of the Component Head, may not be re-delegated.”). 

16 FPS Authority and Jurisdiction Orientation, Slide 3 (undated). 

www.oig.dhs.gov 5 OIG-21-05 
OFFICE OF INSPECTOR GENERAL 

Department of Homeland Security 

assigned to you by FPS;” (3) he identifies the authority that “you have;” (4) he 

identifies activities that “[y]ou are authorized to conduct;” and (5) he explains 

that, “[p]rior to utilizing this authority, you are required to receive legal 

briefings provided by FPS legal advisors on 40 U.S.C. § 1315 authorities and 

jurisdiction....” 

At the end of the memoranda, the FPS Director references an attached 

distribution list, suggesting that the personnel on that list are the ones whom 

he designated. But there was no attached distribution list, and the FPS 

Director did not send the memoranda to particular officers and agents when he 

issued them. FPS acknowledged that the memoranda erroneously referenced 

rosters of employees to be designated, and provided the following explanation 

to OIG for that error: 

You are correct in that a final roster was not available nor was it 

sent at the time the memo was issued. In prior instances of cross 

designation such as at the border wall construction, sufficient time 

was available to complete the training and to provide the defined list 

of personnel for full visibility to all. While that was the intent with 

this cross-designation as the memo was drafted, the operational 

tempo and broad requirements meant that a change was necessary. 

Instead, the rosters were developed via a robust training delivery 

requirement that confirmed that individuals attended the training 

and confirmed attendance at the conclusion of the training so that a 

clear roster of personnel trained in cross designation was available. 

The cross-designation memorandums for each component head was 

provided in advance of any utilization of DHS Officers and Agents to 

support FPS protection efforts and prior to the required training 

being conducted and the cc: indicating that the full roster was 

attached should have been struck.17 

Given the FPS Director’s approach, it is impossible to identify which particular 

employees he designated, or, stated differently, indicated, set apart, or chose, 

to exercise authority under 40 U.S.C. § 1315. As a result, his memoranda did 

not designate anyone under this statute. 

This conclusion is supported by the FPS Director’s memoranda themselves, an 

example of which is reproduced in Appendix C. In those memoranda, the FPS 

Director described in explicit terms several specific law enforcement activities 

that a designated officer is authorized to conduct to protect Federal property 

 17 E-mail from FPS to Office of Inspector General (OIG) (Sept. 11, 2020, 09:17 EDT). 

www.oig.dhs.gov 6 OIG-21-05 
OFFICE OF INSPECTOR GENERAL 

Department of Homeland Security 

and persons on the property.18 Law enforcement officers from CBP, ICE, TSA, 

and Secret Service typically lack this precise scope of authority. 

Another effect of the FPS Director’s approach is that several law enforcement 

personnel were deployed to Portland, Oregon, to augment FPS’ protection 

efforts, but may not have received training on 40 U.S.C. § 1315 before they 

sought to exercise that statutory authority. In purporting to designate 

personnel, the FPS Director emphasized the importance of receiving training on 

section 1315 before exercising law enforcement authority under that statute. 

Yet we identified several individuals who deployed to Portland but whom FPS 

could not confirm received training on section 1315. Some of these individuals 

used force while deployed to Portland. We also identified several individuals 

who deployed to Portland before they received training on section 1315. As to 

this issue, FPS stated its Training and Professional Development unit, which 

administered training on section 1315, does not have visibility or input on who 

is deployed, or when they are deployed. This confusion illustrates a risk of not 

identifying, by name, those designated under section 1315. 

FPS’ Defense of Designation Approach 

According to FPS, the FPS Director properly designated officers and agents 

under 40 U.S.C. § 1315(b)(1) using the approach just described. FPS stated 

the following to OIG: 

There are no statutory or policy requirements as to how the 

implementation of the cross designation should occur as long as 

1) there is authority to cross designate, 2) the component heads 

concurred with the cross designation of their personnel, and 3) the 

officers being cross designated meet the basic requirements of the 

U.S. Attorney General Guidelines and received cross designation 

training. FPS met these 3 requirements and provided the 

documentation of the Director’s authority to cross designate 

pursuant to a delegation from [the Management Directorate], the 

component heads’ correspondence concurring with the cross 

designation of their personnel, and training records showing 

compliance with the U.S. Attorney General Guidelines and FPS 

provided training.19 

 18 A memorandum from the FPS Director purporting to designate CBP personnel under 

subsection 1315(b)(1) authorizes designees to “conduct investigations; require and receive 

information relating to offenses; serve and execute search and arrest warrants; serve 

subpoenas and summons; administer oaths; make arrests without warrant; take actions to 

preserve the peace while protecting federal government facilities and personnel; [and] bear 

firearms[,]” among other things. 

19 E-mail from FPS to Office of Inspector General (OIG) (Sept. 11, 2020, 09:17 EDT). 

www.oig.dhs.gov 7 OIG-21-05 
OFFICE OF INSPECTOR GENERAL 

Department of Homeland Security 

FPS is correct that 40 U.S.C. § 1315 does not prescribe how the Secretary, or 

the Secretary’s designee, must designate anyone under subsection 1315(b)(1), 

and we do not question DHS’ authority to exercise this statutory authority. In 

this management alert, however, we identify concerns about how DHS sought 

to exercise this designation authority in connection with its efforts to protect 

Federal property and persons on that property. 

FPS’ position ignores the requirement that the Secretary, or his designee, must 

designate officers and agents to exercise law enforcement authority under 

40 U.S.C. § 1315. The FPS Director’s repeated use of the pronoun “you” shows 

that he sought to designate particular employees, but, as noted previously, he 

did not do so. As a result, it is not possible to identify anyone he designated 

(e.g., indicated, set apart, or chose) to exercise authority under this statute. 

FPS attempts to defend the FPS Director’s approach by stating that it required 

DHS employees to take training on 40 U.S.C. § 1315, in order to exercise law 

enforcement authority under that statute. For at least three reasons,20 this 

argument is not persuasive. First, the FPS Director’s memoranda 

unequivocally state, “I designate you.” FPS did not require employees to take 

training on 40 U.S.C. § 1315 before he issued these memoranda. Attending a 

training after being designated is not a designation pre-requisite, and does not 

permit anyone to discern who, exactly, the FPS Director sought to designate 

when he issued these memoranda. 

Second, even if we assume the FPS Director had the requisite delegated 

authority to designate personnel under 40 U.S.C. § 1315(b)(1), he cannot 

further delegate that authority. The Department is correct to the extent it 

argues that section 1315 does not place limits on delegation and redelegation 

of the authority to designate officers and agents to protect Federal property and 

persons on that property; nevertheless, the delegation from the Senior Official 

Performing the Duties of the Under Secretary for Management to the FPS 

Director expressly prohibits redelegation of the section 1315 designation 

authority. Given this restriction, which the Department chose to impose on 

itself and is not required by statute, the at-issue delegation does not permit the 

FPS Director to issue designation memoranda to no one in particular, and then 

allow someone else to decide who is actually designated under subsection 

1315(b)(1). 

Third, as discussed above, FPS’ training records do not show that all of the 

DHS employees it purported to designate under subsection 1315(b)(1) actually 

 20 Fieldwork in this review is ongoing, and as a result OIG may receive additional information 

that informs our analysis of this issue. 

www.oig.dhs.gov 8 OIG-21-05 
OFFICE OF INSPECTOR GENERAL 

Department of Homeland Security 

participated in its training on 40 U.S.C. § 1315. 

Recommendations 

Recommendation 1: We recommend the Acting Secretary of Homeland 

Security ensure the Under Secretary for Management, the Director of the 

Federal Protective Service, and anyone else seeking to designate DHS 

employees under 40 U.S.C. § 1315(b)(1) have received properly delegated 

authority to do so. 

Recommendation 2: We recommend the Director of the Federal Protective 

Service or his designee, exercising properly delegated authority to designate 

DHS employees under 40 U.S.C. § 1315(b)(1), designate by name any DHS 

employees authorized to exercise authority under that statute to protect 

Federal property and persons on that property. 

www.oig.dhs.gov 9 OIG-21-05 
OFFICE OF INSPECTOR GENERAL 

Department of Homeland Security 

Department’s Response and OIG Analysis 

We provided DHS with a draft of our management alert on October 2, 2020. 

We received technical comments from FPS on October 15, and incorporated 

them into our final alert, as appropriate. On October 19, the Office of the 

General Counsel (OGC) provided written comments on the draft alert, which we 

include as Appendix B. On October 20, we received an appendix to OGC’s 

written comments, which we also include in Appendix B. OGC did not concur 

with either recommendation, so we consider both open and unresolved. 

OGC Comments to Recommendation 1: Non-concur. OGC suggests that 

OIG is taking a position on the validity of Mr. McAleenan’s status as Acting 

Secretary, which is an “about-face” from the position it enunciated in a 

September 14, 2020 memorandum to several Congressional stakeholders. 

Further, according to OGC, it has consistently maintained its legal position in 

relevant legal proceedings that Mr. McAleenan validly served as Acting 

Secretary. Until a Federal court definitively determines that question, it is 

premature to take additional steps to ensure that the FPS Director has 

designation authority under 40 U.S.C. § 1315. 

OIG Analysis of OGC Comments: This alert does not deviate from the 

approach we took in September 2020 as to the validity of Mr. McAleenan’s 

status as Acting Secretary. In both instances, we declined to weigh in on 

whether Mr. McAleenan properly served in that role. Here, we identified our 

concern in response to recent litigation developments, and as part of our 

ongoing review to assess the preparation, activities, and authority of DHS law 

enforcement officers deployed to protect Federal property. 

We alerted the Department of this concern so that it could ensure the 

delegations on which it relies to designate personnel under 40 U.S.C. 

§ 1315(b)(1) are valid. Despite OGC’s legal position that Mr. McAleenan validly 

served as Acting Secretary, Mr. Wolf has sought to ratify prior actions taken by 

Mr. McAleenan. OIG’s recommendation encourages the Acting Secretary to 

take similar, proactive steps to ensure those seeking to designate personnel 

under 40 U.S.C. § 1315(b)(1) have proper authority to do so. 

This recommendation will remain open and unresolved until we receive 

documentation confirming that the Under Secretary for Management, the 

Director of the Federal Protective Service, and anyone else seeking to designate 

DHS employees under 40 U.S.C. § 1315(b)(1) has received properly delegated 

authority to do so. Such documentation could take the form of a new set of 

delegations, or a binding judicial ruling that Mr. McAleenan was validly serving 

as Acting Secretary on October 25, 2019. 

www.oig.dhs.gov 10 OIG-21-05 
OFFICE OF INSPECTOR GENERAL 

Department of Homeland Security 

OGC Comments to Recommendation 2: Non-concur. According to OGC, the 

FPS Director properly designated officers under 40 U.S.C. § 1315(b)(1), which 

makes this recommendation unnecessary. In reaching a contrary conclusion, 

OIG improperly construed 40 U.S.C. § 1315(b)(1) as requiring by-name 

designation of officers, and did not acknowledge that FPS maintains a list of 

employees who completed FPS’ five-step cross-designation process. 

OIG Analysis of OGC Comments: While we will address OGC’s comments to 

the draft alert in the following paragraphs, we first note that FPS has taken 

steps to partially implement this recommendation, even though OGC did not 

concur with it. During our ongoing fieldwork, FPS informed us that, in 

response to this management alert, it refined its process for training 

Department personnel on 40 U.S.C. § 1315. FPS stated that, in October 2020, 

it began to issue letters to those participating in this training, signed by the 

FPS Director. FPS provided an example of such a letter, which designates 

personnel under 40 U.S.C. § 1315(b)(1). It has not issued similar letters to 

those who already participated in this training. 

In its alert, OIG concludes that the FPS Director did not properly designate 

DHS employees recently deployed to protect Federal properties under 40 U.S.C. 

§ 1315(b)(1). To support this conclusion, we considered the text of this 

subsection, the inability of the FPS Director to further delegate designation 

authority, FPS’ training materials on 40 U.S.C. § 1315, and the language the 

FPS Director used in issuing memoranda that sought to designate personnel. 

DHS Delegation 02500, Delegation to the Director, Federal Protective Service is 

of particular note. This delegation purports to delegate authority to designate 

personnel under 40 U.S.C. § 1315 from the Senior Official Performing the 

Duties of the Under Secretary for Management to the FPS Director. It states, 

“The authority under paragraph II.D to designate employees of other DHS 

Components, with the consent of the Component head, may not be redelegated.” This document—not OIG’s conclusion—limits who may designate 

personnel to exercise authority under 40 U.S.C. § 1315. Requiring by-name 

designation of employees comports with the plain language of 40 U.S.C. 

§ 1315(b)(1) and the at-issue delegation. 

OGC describes a cross-designation approach under which Department 

employees other than the FPS Director sought to designate personnel under 40 

U.S.C. § 1315(b)(1), even though they lack delegated authority to do so. 

According to OGC, the FPS Director signs and issues a letter or memorandum 

of official § 1315 cross-designation. Then, FPS provides pertinent training to 

§ 1315-designated personnel, and prepares a by-name list of personnel who 

complete the training. As we note in our alert, when the FPS Director issued 

the memoranda we describe, he did not send them to particular officers and 

www.oig.dhs.gov 11 OIG-21-05 
OFFICE OF INSPECTOR GENERAL 

Department of Homeland Security 

agents. That means that, after the fact, someone else tried to designate 

employees under 40 U.S.C. § 1315(b)(1). 

According to OGC, FPS provided training on 40 U.S.C. § 1315 to more than 

5,700 officers. According to FPS, those who took this training in October 2020 

received designation letters signed by the FPS Director. But for those who took 

this training before October 2020, someone other than the FPS Director placed 

them on a list of officers who could, according to the Department, exercise 

authority under 40 U.S.C. § 1315(b)(1). We identified no delegated authority 

permitting this approach to designation. 

OGC also asserts that FPS followed a process of designation, and that only 

after completing this process could someone from another component exercise 

authority under 40 U.S.C. § 1315(b)(1). We agree the Department can utilize a 

process of designation, and that the Department has flexibility in designing it, 

provided that the FPS Director is the official designating specific personnel. 

But the process OGC describes is not the one the FPS Director adopted, as 

illustrated by his memoranda purporting to designate personnel at other 

components. He did not describe a process that conditioned designation on 

attending training or satisfying any other requirement, but instead stated 

unequivocally, “I designate you as a law enforcement officer for duty in 

connection with your support of the Federal Protective Service (FPS) in the 

protection of federal property and persons on the impacted federal property 

that are under FPS’ protection responsibility.” 

The FPS Director’s approach rightly recognized that designation occurs at a 

specific point in time. But he did not designate anyone when he issued his 

memoranda, because he did not distribute them to particular officers and 

agents. While OGC states that the FPS Director maintains awareness of and 

monitors those who complete training on 40 U.S.C. § 1315, that is different 

from designating those personnel to exercise authority under that statute. 

Because the FPS Director did not designate those personnel, they lack the 

precise scope of authority provided by 40 U.S.C. § 1315. 

OGC also asserts that the alert is factually incorrect. We disagree. OGC 

largely bases this view on its legal disagreement with the alert’s conclusions. 

As we explain, the alert’s conclusions and recommendations are sound. OGC 

also emphasizes FPS’ cross-designation training, stating that FPS “worked 

diligently to ensure that the training requirement is met.” In our fieldwork to 

date, we identified several personnel who sought to exercise authority under 40 

U.S.C. § 1315 but who did not take the required training before doing so. This 

is a result of FPS’ approach to designation, which relied on someone other than 

the FPS Director to decide which Department personnel should augment FPS’ 

protection efforts. 

www.oig.dhs.gov 12 OIG-21-05 
 

OFFICE OF INSPECTOR GENERAL 

Department of Homeland Security 

This recommendation will remain open and unresolved until we receive 

documentation that the FPS Director or his designee, exercising properly 

delegated authority to designate DHS employees under 40 U.S.C. § 1315(b)(1), 

designated by name any DHS employees authorized to exercise authority under 

that statute to protect Federal property and persons on that property. 

www.oig.dhs.gov 13 OIG-21-05 
 

OFFICE OF INSPECTOR GENERAL 

Department of Homeland Security 

Appendix A 

Objective, Scope, and Methodology 

The Department of Homeland Security Office of Inspector General was 

established by the Homeland Security Act of 2002, Pub. L. No. 107ï296, 116 

Stat. 2135, which amended the Inspector General Act of 1978. We issued this 

management alert during an ongoing review of DHS Law Enforcement Efforts to 

Protect Federal Facilities. 

The objective of our ongoing review is to assess the preparation, activities, and 

authority of DHS law enforcement officers deployed to protect Federal property. 

We reviewed 40 U.S.C. § 1315; delegations of authority; litigation and 

administrative actions regarding the status of Kevin K. McAleenan and Chad F. 

Wolf as Acting Secretary of the Department of Homeland Security; caselaw; and 

FPS documents, including memoranda from the FPS Director, training 

materials, and e-mail correspondence describing how FPS sought to designate 

DHS employees under 40 U.S.C. § 1315(b)(1). 

We are issuing this alert under the authority conferred by the Inspector General 

Act of 1978, as amended, Section 2(2), “to promote economy, efficiency, and 

effectiveness in the administration of, and [] to prevent and detect fraud and 

abuse in, [DHS] programs and operations.” We conducted work on this alert in 

connection with an ongoing review being performed pursuant to the Inspector 

General Act of 1978, as amended, and according to the Quality Standards for 

Inspection and Evaluation issued by the Council of the Inspectors General on 

Integrity and Efficiency. We may include additional information or 

recommendations regarding the designation issue addressed in this alert in an 

additional report resulting from our ongoing review of DHS Law Enforcement 

Efforts to Protect Federal Facilities. 

www.oig.dhs.gov 14 OIG-21-05 
OFFICE OF INSPECTOR GENERAL 

Department of Homeland Security 

Appendix B 

Comments to the Draft Management Alert 

www.oig.dhs.gov 15 OIG-21-05 
OFFICE OF INSPECTOR GENERAL 

Department of Homeland Security 

www.oig.dhs.gov 16 OIG-21-05 
OFFICE OF INSPECTOR GENERAL 

Department of Homeland Security 

www.oig.dhs.gov 17 OIG-21-05 
OFFICE OF INSPECTOR GENERAL 

Department of Homeland Security 

www.oig.dhs.gov 18 OIG-21-05 
OFFICE OF INSPECTOR GENERAL 

Department of Homeland Security 

www.oig.dhs.gov 19 OIG-21-05 
OFFICE OF INSPECTOR GENERAL 

Department of Homeland Security 

www.oig.dhs.gov 20 OIG-21-05 
OFFICE OF INSPECTOR GENERAL 

Department of Homeland Security 

www.oig.dhs.gov 21 OIG-21-05 
OFFICE OF INSPECTOR GENERAL 

Department of Homeland Security 

www.oig.dhs.gov 22 OIG-21-05 
OFFICE OF INSPECTOR GENERAL 

Department of Homeland Security 

www.oig.dhs.gov 23 OIG-21-05 
OFFICE OF INSPECTOR GENERAL 

Department of Homeland Security 

www.oig.dhs.gov 24 OIG-21-05 
OFFICE OF INSPECTOR GENERAL 

Department of Homeland Security 

www.oig.dhs.gov 25 OIG-21-05 
OFFICE OF INSPECTOR GENERAL 

Department of Homeland Security 

www.oig.dhs.gov 26 OIG-21-05 
 

OFFICE OF INSPECTOR GENERAL 

Department of Homeland Security 

Appendix C 

Sample Memorandum from FPS Director 

www.oig.dhs.gov 27 OIG-21-05 
OFFICE OF INSPECTOR GENERAL 

Department of Homeland Security 

Appendix D 

Report Distribution 

Department of Homeland Security 

Secretary 

Deputy Secretary 

Chief of Staff 

Deputy Chiefs of Staff 

General Counsel 

Executive Secretary 

Director, GAO/OIG Liaison Office 

Under Secretary, Office of Strategy, Policy, and Plans 

Assistant Secretary for Office of Public Affairs 

Assistant Secretary for Office of Legislative Affairs 

Under Secretary for Management 

Chief Procurement Officer 

CBP Component Liaison 

ICE Component Liaison 

Secret Service Component Liaison 

TSA Component Liaison 

Office of Management and Budget 

Chief, Homeland Security Branch 

DHS OIG Budget Examiner 

Congress 

Congressional Oversight and Appropriations Committees 

www.oig.dhs.gov 28 OIG-21-05 
Additional Information and Copies 

To view this and any of our other reports, please visit our website at: 

www.oig.dhs.gov. 

For further information or questions, please contact Office of Inspector General 

Public Affairs at: DHS-OIG.OfficePublicAffairs@oig.dhs.gov. 

Follow us on Twitter at: @dhsoig. 

OIG Hotline 

To report fraud, waste, or abuse, visit our website at www.oig.dhs.gov and click 

on the red "Hotline" tab. If you cannot access our website, call our hotline at 

(800) 323-8603, fax our hotline at (202) 254-4297, or write to us at: 

Department of Homeland Security 

Office of Inspector General, Mail Stop 0305 

Attention: Hotline 

245 Murray Drive, SW 

Washington, DC 20528-0305