Presidential Travel: Secret Service and DOD Need to Ensure That Expenditure Reports Are Prepared and Submitted to Congress
Released: 2019-02-05T00:00:00

Letter

Background

Agency Support of Presidential Travel

Guidance governing executive agencies’ use of government aircraft generally does not apply to aircraft in use by or in support of the President. Memorandum opinions to the White House from the Department of Justice’s Office of Legal Counsel have provided guidance for categorizing expenses associated with official, political, and personal travel by the President or Vice President. These memoranda provide that certain individuals—such as Secret Service and military aides and support personnel—are required in the performance of their official duties to accompany the President whenever he travels. Further, the official nature of the responsibilities performed by these persons does not change depending upon whether the trip is official, political, or personal and their expenses should generally be paid from public funds.

DOD organizations such as the Air Force 89th Air Wing, Presidential Airlift Group, and Marine Helicopter Squadron One provide passenger airlift for presidential travel (fig. 1). The Air Force Air Mobility Command also provides aircraft to move equipment, such as limousines, to support the President’s travel. The Military Working Dog Program and Explosive Ordnance Disposal Program support protection of the President while he is on travel by providing explosive detection capabilities.

The Secret Service protects the President through a layered security plan that includes securing locations the President will be visiting, as well as physically screening individuals entering secure areas and conducting background checks on individuals scheduled to be within close proximity to the President, as deemed necessary. Secret Service personnel who support presidential travel include personnel from the Presidential Protection Division and from various headquarters divisions that support protective operations, field offices across the country that provide additional manpower, and the field office with jurisdiction over the location. Additionally, the field office with jurisdiction over the location provides logistical support, additional manpower, regional expertise, and coordinates with state and local law enforcement entities. Consistent with the Presidential Protection Assistance Act, the Secret Service requests support from other agencies—including the Coast Guard and DOD—as necessary when the President travels.

The Coast Guard primarily secures the waterways in support of protecting the President, family members, and other designated protectees, as necessary. Specifically, when requested by the Secret Service, the Coast Guard will enforce security zones and provide air intercept capabilities for protectees. Local assets are used to the extent that they are available. However, the Coast Guard can request additional support from Coast Guard assets across the nation to meet the security demand.

Costs Related to Presidential Travel

Costs related to presidential travel fall into two primary categories:

Operational costs include costs for assets used to transport or provide protection for the President or spaces used for operational purposes. These include costs for government aircraft and vehicles, such as Air Force One, Marine One, airlift, patrol boats, and hotel rooms used as command centers.

Temporary duty costs are costs incurred for personnel who are traveling on official business. These costs include those for transportation, lodging, meals and incidental expenses and other travel-related expenses for personnel supporting the President’s trips. They also include travel-related expenses for personnel who operate the government aircraft and vehicles used to support the President’s trips and Secret Service agents who provide protection. They include the costs for additional personnel who provide bomb detection and disposal capability—military working dog teams and explosive ordinance disposal teams—and support personnel from the White House Military Office, the White House Communications Agency, and the White House Transportation Agency.

Two regulations implement statutory requirements and executive branch policies for travel, allowing agencies to pay for or reimburse their employees’ per diem expenses (lodging, meals, and incidentals expenses) and other travel-related expenses:

The Federal Travel Regulation (FTR), issued by the General Services Administration (GSA), applies to Secret Service personnel.

The Joint Travel Regulations (JTR), issued by the Department of Defense, apply to DOD personnel.

Both regulations allow agencies to pay for employees’ daily expenses when they travel, based on allowances set by GSA for the applicable location and date (per diem rates) or the actual expense of travel. Under the FTR, the maximum amount that a civilian employee may be reimbursed is 300 percent of the applicable per diem rate. The JTR allows uniformed service members to be reimbursed up to 300 percent when they travel in the continental United States, but they can be reimbursed more than 300 percent of the per diem rate for lodging when they travel outside the continental United States.

Costs for each presidential trip may vary, because each trip is unique. Costs associated with each trip can be influenced by a number of factors, mainly the location, number of protectees, foreign visitors, time of year, the protectee’s schedule of events, and the airlift requirements—including the originating location of airlift flights. The combination of these factors can increase or decrease the cost to transport and protect the President. Specifically, an increase in the number of protectees, including foreign dignitaries, would require the Secret Service to deploy additional personnel to support its protective operations.

Presidential Protection Assistance Act of 1976

The Presidential Protection Assistance Act establishes procedures and reporting requirements for protective services provided by the Secret Service. The primary aim of the legislation was to strengthen control over costs for protective services, particularly at non-governmental properties, by centralizing in the Secret Service authority and accountability for such costs. The Act continues the authority of executive departments and agencies to assist the Secret Service in meeting its protective responsibilities but specifies that protective services may only be provided at the request of the Secret Service and must be on a reimbursable basis except when temporary support is provided by DOD and the Coast Guard and is directly related to protecting the President, Vice President, or an officer immediately next in the order of succession to the office of the President. The Act further requires that the Secret Service, DOD, and the Coast Guard submit semiannual reports in March and September to six congressional committees on expenditures pursuant to the Act.

Costs for the President’s Travel for Four Trips to Mar-a- Lago Totaled about $13.6 Million

For the President’s four trips to Mar-a-Lago from February 3, 2017 to March 5, 2017, we estimate that federal agencies incurred costs of about $13.6 million. As shown in table 1, these costs consisted of approximately $10.6 million for operating costs and $3.0 million for temporary duty costs. DOD and DHS incurred the majority of these costs—about $8.5 million and $5.1 million, respectively. As previously mentioned, these figures do not include certain classified cost information. Moreover, they do not include the salaries and benefits of U.S. government civilian and military personnel traveling with the President or involved with agency travel preparations, because these personnel would have received their salaries and benefits for the conduct of their regular duties and responsibilities regardless of whether the President traveled.

We identified about $60,000 in expenses paid to Mar-a-Lago for these four trips. DOD lodging expenses of about $24,000 were within GSA limits of 300 percent of the per diem rate. DHS expenses of about $36,000 were for space required by the Secret Service for operational purposes. The legal authorities that the Secret Service relied on to pay for these kinds of rooms do not limit how much the agency can pay; however, none of the rooms used to meet operational security standards exceeded the maximum allowed under the FTR’s actual expense reimbursement method.

Costs Incurred by DOD

DOD incurred an estimated $8.5 million in costs to provide support for the President’s four trips to Mar-a-Lago from February 3, 2017 to March 5, 2017, as shown in table 2 below. The majority of these costs were operational costs for DOD assets, specifically, for operating Air Force One and Marine Corps One to transport the President, as well as airlift support from the Air Mobility Command.

Table 2 shows the estimated costs incurred by DOD for these trips. The cost per flying hour for military aircraft is a significant cost driver that affects the overall costs of any presidential travel. These costs are predominately borne by the Air Force and the Marine Corps, because they operate the aircraft used by the President. Generally, Air Force One costs represent the operating costs to fly the President from Joint Base Andrews, Maryland, to Palm Beach, Florida. Similarly, the Marine Corps One costs represent the operating costs to fly the President between the White House and Joint Base Andrews. For the airlift support requirements, the Air Mobility Command used aircraft departing from various U.S. Air Force bases. These aircraft arrived at Joint Base Andrews or Marine Corps Base Quantico to transport Secret Service personnel and vehicles and Marine Corps personnel and helicopters to support the trip before returning to their air base of origin (see fig. 2).

DOD also incurred temporary duty costs for DOD personnel who supported these trips, including the travel associated with the aircrews and support personnel for Air Force One and Marine Corps One. Each of the military services also provided military working dog teams (see fig. 3) and explosive ordnance disposal teams to provide explosive detection and disposal capabilities and to perform patrol functions.

Finally, personnel from the White House Military Office incurred travel expenses associated with the President’s trips. For these four trips, the majority of DOD personnel stayed at nearby hotels with rooms at the GSA rate or within 300 percent of the GSA per diem rate, as required by the FTR and JTR. DOD paid $24,414.70 to Mar-a-Lago for lodging expenses for DOD personnel. We reviewed lodging receipts and confirmed that these payments were within 300 percent of the GSA per diem rate.

Costs Incurred by DHS

DHS incurred an estimated $5.1 million in costs to provide support for the President’s four trips to Mar-a-Lago from February 3, 2017 to March 5, 2017. Of this figure, the Secret Service incurred about $1.6 million to provide support. This included per diem and other related travel expenses, such as commercial airfare or use of rental cars for officials traveling in advance of the President. We identified about $35,750 in expenses for operational space at Mar-a-Lago for these four trips. Table 3 shows the estimated costs incurred by the Secret Service and the Coast Guard for these trips.

The majority of costs incurred by the Secret Service were temporary duty costs associated with travel to protect the President. The number of agents assigned to the protective detail for each trip varied based on the number of protectees present (including foreign dignitaries) and unrelated events at the same location.

To execute the four trips, the Secret Service leveraged support from across the agency and field offices across the country to implement protective operations for the President’s travel. Agents were assigned as part of the protective detail—providing twenty-four hour protection for the President or other protectee; members of the advance team—determining and implementing the security plan for the site; or on-site support throughout the duration of the visit.

For example, agents from the Secret Service’s Presidential Protective Division, Uniformed Division, and Technical Security Division, among others, traveled in advance of the President to assess the location and develop and implement a security plan. Further, agents from Secret Service field offices across the country provided additional manpower at Mar-a-Lago and supported the Presidential Protection Division within the Office of Protective Operations —which holds primary responsibility for the daily protection of the President—in ensuring that the location remained safe for the President and other protectees.

The majority of agents who supported the four trips during our time frame did not stay at Mar-a-Lago. The Secret Service booked a limited number of rooms around the President to meet operational security requirements. According to officials, these rooms allowed the Secret Service to provide 360-degree protection around the President. For these four trips, most Secret Service agents stayed at nearby hotels at which rooms were at the GSA lodging rate or within 300 percent of the GSA per diem rate, consistent with the FTR.

Coast Guard’s Costs and Resources

The Coast Guard incurred about $3.4 million in costs to provide support for the four trips to Mar-a-Lago. The majority of these costs were operational costs for Coast Guard assets, specifically, the use of small response boats, special purpose law enforcement boats, deployable rotary wing aircraft, and marine protection-class cutters to provide support in waterways near Mar-a-Lago (see fig. 4). For the Coast Guard, operating costs are determined by the type of boat or aircraft used and the hourly operating costs.

According to Coast Guard officials, to the extent possible, they request support from assets that they determine are within close proximity to the travel location. For the four Mar-a-Lago trips, support was requested from the local Miami sector, Kings Bay (Georgia), New Orleans (Louisiana), Houston (Texas), Boston (Massachusetts), and New York (New York).

The Coast Guard incurred other travel-related costs, such as for meals and incidental expenses and lodging for officials on temporary duty assignment to support the President’s travel. Coast Guard officials noted that, if possible, personnel are to stay on the asset (for example a boat); however, if this is not possible, they are to stay in nearby lodging at or within 300 percent of the GSA per diem rate. Coast Guard officials confirmed that personnel supporting presidential travel for these four trips did not stay at Mar-a-Lago.

Costs for the Secretary of Homeland Security’s Travel

The Department of Homeland Security incurred costs of about $6,000 in connection with the Secretary of Homeland Security and staff’s travel to Mar-a-Lago on March 4, 2017. Costs included transportation to and from Mar-a-Lago and per diem expenses (meals and incidental expenses). According to DHS officials, agents supporting the protection of the Secretary of the Department of Homeland Security were multi-staffed and protected other protectees at the same time. Therefore, travel costs for personnel associated with the Secretary’s protective detail are captured in the overall travel costs for this trip. No lodging costs were incurred at Mar- a-Lago in connection with the Secretary of Homeland Security’s travel.

Additional Costs by Other Agencies for Official Travel

The Department of Justice and the Department of State incurred costs of about $29,000 for official travel to Mar-a-Lago during these four trips. The Department of Justice incurred costs of about $18,000 to transport the Attorney General, his Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) detail, and three Department of Justice personnel to Mar-a-Lago for one trip. The operational costs were for the FBI Gulfstream 550 used to transport the officials from the Washington, D.C. area to West Palm Beach, Florida and back. The Department of Justice provided documentation that no Department of Justice or FBI personnel had per diem expenses, since the trip was less than 12 hours. In addition, the Department of State incurred costs of about $10,000 to provide interpreter support and protocol officials associated with the President’s trip to Mar-a-Lago in February 2017 when the Prime Minister of Japan was a guest.

Costs for the President’s Two Adult Children’s Travel to Uruguay, the Dominican Republic, and the United Arab Emirates Totaled about $396,000

The Secret Service incurred costs of approximately $396,000, primarily for Secret Service agents’ temporary duty costs, while protecting Donald Trump, Jr., Eric Trump, and their spouses during three international trips taken during January and February 2017, as shown in table 4 below. Eric Trump traveled to Uruguay from January 3, 2017 to January 5, 2017 and the Dominican Republic from February 2, 2017 to February 3 2017. Donald Trump, Jr., Eric Trump, and their spouses traveled to the United Arab Emirates from February 14, 2017 to February 19, 2017. The Secret Service protects presidential family members domestically and internationally. Children of the President with a protective detail are required to receive protection twenty-four hours a day, and agents who are part of their detail travel with them wherever they go.

For international travel, because there are no local Secret Service field offices in most countries, the Department of State supports the Secret Service by booking and paying for all hotel reservations required by Secret Service and State Department personnel and coordinating onsite needs. This includes, but is not limited to, acquiring rental cars, phones, and interpreters at the trip’s destination. Transportation for individuals in foreign offices is booked in a variety of ways. For example, agents may book their own flights, flights may be booked by a contracted agency, or sometimes the local embassy may assist in booking transportation. Meals and incidental expenses are reimbursed to the traveler. The Secret Service and the Department of State have implemented a memorandum of understanding detailing their respective roles and responsibilities and, as required by law, the Secret Service is to reimburse the Department of State for all costs incurred in support of the Secret Service’s protective operations.

Documentation provided by the Secret Service confirmed that Donald Trump Jr., Eric Trump and their spouses flew on commercial aircraft. Officials from the 89th Airlift Wing confirmed that no military aircraft supported these trips. Secret Service agents protecting the Trump family flew by commercial aircraft. Additionally, reimbursement documentation provided by both the State Department and the Secret Service confirmed that no costs were incurred for chartered air travel.

As with all protective missions, Secret Service officials noted that the number of agents assigned to the detail depended on the number of protectees and the threat environment, among other things. The trips to the Dominican Republic and Uruguay each included only one protectee, and the trip to the United Arab Emirates included four protectees.

Secret Service and DOD Have Not Reported Costs as Required Under the Presidential Protection Assistance Act of 1976

For fiscal years 2015 through 2017 we found that, of the three agencies required to report costs incurred for protecting the President and others under the Presidential Protection Assistance Act, only the Coast Guard reported semiannually on costs under the Act. The Secret Service did not do so consistently, and DOD did not report any protection costs during this time frame.

Coast Guard: The Coast Guard submitted the semiannual reports required under the Act for fiscal years 2015 through 2017. To facilitate complying with the Presidential Protection Assistance Act, the Coast Guard developed and implemented a policy for preparing the semiannual reports to Congress. The policy contains business rules identifying what information is to be collected and by whom, who is responsible for compiling the information, and time frames for when the information is to be submitted internally. For example, the Coast Guard operationalized collection of this information by requiring a form to be used when collecting information related to protective details for the Vice President and the President. Its internal policy and additional guidance also require that information be submitted internally no more than 14 days after each event and validated no more than 30 days after each event. According to agency officials, these business rules and forms are published and provided to all Coast Guard field units, and quarterly reminders about completing the forms are disseminated via email.

Secret Service: The Secret Service has not consistently submitted the semiannual reports to Congress and does not have a policy for ensuring that the semiannual reports are prepared. Specifically, we found that the Secret Service submitted semiannual reports to Congress in 2015 but had not submitted semiannual reports for fiscal years 2016 and 2017. The Secret Service notified us that it was compiling and submitting reports for fiscal year 2017 after we had brought the reporting requirement to officials’ attention during the course of our review. Secret Service officials told us that they were unaware that the reports for 2016 and 2017 had not been submitted until we requested this information.

According to Secret Service officials, the division that is responsible for preparing and submitting the reports to Congress experienced a transition in leadership during the period when there was the lapse in reporting. Specifically, management and the personnel responsible for preparing and submitting the reports to Congress were no longer with the agency in 2016 and therefore could not brief incoming management hired in 2017. According to officials, this contributed to a reporting lapse. Standards for Internal Control in the Federal Government states that management should implement control activities through policies, for example, by documenting responsibilities for each unit. Control activities are the policies, procedures, techniques, and mechanisms that enforce management’s directives to achieve the entity’s objectives. Further, management should also define objectives clearly to enable the identification of risks and define risk tolerances. This would include defining objectives in specific terms so they are understood at all levels and can be carried out without regard to personnel changes. This further involves clearly defining what is to be achieved, who is to achieve it, how it will be achieved, and the time frames for realizing the achievement. Establishing a policy defining requirements for producing the semiannual reports to Congress—including what is to be reported, the entity responsible for preparing and submitting the reports, and reporting time frames—and an oversight mechanism to ensure that the reports are prepared and submitted to Congress, may better position the Secret Service to consistently report required expenditure data to specified congressional committees as required.

DOD: DOD has issued a policy related to collecting information on its support for the Secret Service’s protective duties but has not produced and submitted the required reports to Congress in accordance with its policy. DOD officials were unaware that the reports had not been submitted until we requested them. According to DOD officials, the reports were not submitted as a result of an administrative oversight, and they could not determine when the reports had last been submitted.

This situation is in part the result of weaknesses in DOD’s existing policy and implementing instruction with regard to specific information that could help ensure the reports are consistently produced and provided to Congress. For example, the policy requires that any DOD organization incurring costs associated with support provided to the Secret Service collect and report the costs to the Assistant Secretary of Defense for Homeland Defense and Global Security, the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, and the Chief Financial Officer. However, neither the policy nor underlying instruction sets forth time frames for internal or external reporting to ensure that the semiannual dates are met. Further, DOD has no mechanism for ensuring that the required information is submitted to Congress.

As previously noted, internal control standards require that management should implement control activities through policies and define objectives clearly to enable the identification of risks and define risk tolerances. This involves clearly defining what is to be achieved, who is to achieve it, how it will be achieved, and the time frames for realizing the achievement. Moreover, the policies, procedures, techniques, and mechanisms that enforce management’s directives to achieve the entity’s objectives are to be defined.

According to a DOD official, in March 2018 the department began efforts to gather the information necessary to prepare the required report. However, collecting the information has been challenging, largely due to the multiple data sources and inconsistent methods for capturing the data to date. Therefore, according to DOD officials, once the department completes its initial data collection effort, officials plan to assess the adequacy of the data and review DOD’s existing guidance to identify revisions needed to ensure that future reports are submitted in accordance with Presidential Protection Assistance Act. However, the agency has not yet defined the steps necessary to fulfill near-term reporting requirements under the Act, or time frames for doing so. By addressing these issues, DOD could be better positioned to comply with the law.

Further, while DOD officials anticipate updating the policy and instruction at a future date, steps and time frames for completing the update have not yet been defined, and it is unclear when or whether the updates will occur. Updating DOD’s policy and instruction to specify the requirements and establish an oversight mechanism may better position DOD to report expenditure data to Congress, as required, on a semiannual basis and enhance visibility over the costs associated with providing protective services, in particular in relation to protection at nongovernmental properties.

Conclusions

The Secret Service, with help from the Coast Guard and DOD, plays a vital role in protecting the President during his travels. The Presidential Protection Assistance Act was intended to establish procedures to control the expenditure of federal funds for protection at nongovernmental properties; it requires that each of these entities report expenditures under the Act. The Secret Service, the Coast Guard, and DOD have all incurred costs related to protection for the President and others. However, information on such costs is limited, because only the Coast Guard has been reporting them. As a result, Congress lacks information about the amounts that DOD and the Secret Service have expended for providing protection—including providing protection at nongovernmental properties. This limits congressional efforts to ensure accountability for these costs. The Secret Service does not have a policy in place that defines and enforces reporting requirements, and DOD’s policy and underlying instruction lack important details such as time frames for reporting expenditures and a mechanism for ensuring that the required information is submitted to Congress. DOD has initiated steps to develop required reports but has not identified the specific steps it will take and the time frames within which these efforts will be completed.

Recommendations for Executive Action

We are making one recommendation to the Director of the Secret Service and two to the Secretary of Defense.

The Director of the Secret Service should establish a policy defining requirements for producing the semiannual reports of expenditures required by the Presidential Protection Assistance Act of 1976, as amended, and an oversight mechanism to ensure that the Secret Service consistently submits these reports to specified congressional committees. (Recommendation 1)

The Secretary of Defense should ensure that the Under Secretary of Defense for Policy updates its policy and instruction on providing support to the Secret Service to define the requirements for producing semiannual reports of expenditures required by the Presidential Protection Assistance Act of 1976, as amended. These requirements should, at a minimum, include (1) the steps and time frames for completing updates to the policy and instruction, (2) time frames for reporting the expenditures, and (3) an oversight mechanism to ensure that the Department of Defense consistently submits these reports to specified congressional committees. (Recommendation 2)

The Secretary of Defense should ensure that the Under Secretary of Defense for Policy defines the steps, including time frames, necessary to achieve near term reporting requirements under the Presidential Protection Assistance Act of 1976, as amended, and submit the reports as required. (Recommendation 3)

Agency Comments

We provided a draft of this report for review and comment to the Executive Office of the President, and the Departments of Homeland Security, Defense, Justice, and State. DHS and DOD provided written comments, which are reproduced in appendixes I and II respectively. In their comments, DHS and DOD concurred with their respective recommendation(s).

DHS concurred with our first recommendation, which called for the Secret Service to establish a policy defining requirements for producing the semiannual reports of expenditures required by the Presidential Protection Assistance Act of 1976, as amended, and an oversight mechanism to ensure the Secret Service consistently submits these reports to specified congressional committees. Specifically, the Secret Service has recently updated several guidance documents related to the Act. It further plans to publish a directive during fiscal year 2019 documenting the requirements for producing the semiannual reports and defining the oversight mechanism to ensure that the reports are consistently submitted.

DOD concurred with our second recommendation, which called for DOD to update its policy and instruction on providing support to the Secret Service to define the requirements for producing semiannual reports of the expenditures required by the Presidential Protection Assistance Act of 1976, as amended.

DOD concurred with our recommendation that DOD define the steps, including time frames, necessary to achieve near term reporting requirements under the Presidential Protection Assistance Act of 1976, as amended, and submit the reports as required.

DHS and DOJ also provided technical comments, which we incorporated into the report as appropriate.

The Department of State and the Executive Office of the President had no comments.

As agreed with your offices, unless you publicly announce the contents of this report earlier, we plan no further distribution until 30 days from the report date. At that time, we will send copies to the Executive Office of the President; the Secretary of Homeland Security; the Director of the Secret Service; the Commandant of the Coast Guard; the Secretary of Defense; the Secretaries of the Army, Navy, and Air Force; the Commandant of the Marine Corps; the Under Secretary of Defense for Policy; the Secretary of State; and the Attorney General.

Consistent with section 10 of the Presidential Protection Assistance Act of 1976, this report is also being sent the Committees on Appropriations and on the Judiciary, the House Committee on Oversight and Government Reform, and the Senate Committee on Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs.

In addition, the report is available at no charge on the GAO website at http://www.gao.gov.

If you or your staff have any questions concerning this report, please contact Brian Lepore at (202) 512-4523 or leporeb@gao.gov or Diana Maurer at (202) 512-9627 or maurerd@gao.gov. Contact points for our Offices of Congressional Relations and Public Affairs may be found on the last page of this report. Key contributors to this report are listed in appendix III.

Appendix I: Comments from the Department of Homeland Security

Appendix II: Comments from the Department of Defense

Appendix III: GAO Contact and Staff Acknowledgments

GAO Contact

Staff Acknowledgements

In addition to the contact named above, Gina R. Hoffman, Assistant Director; Joseph P. Cruz, Assistant Director; Tracy Barnes, Kerstin Hudon, Jennifer Kamara, Joanne Landesman, Carol Petersen, Michael Silver, Janet Temko-Blinder, and John Wren made key contributions to this report.