Pursuant to Homeland Security Presidential Directive 6, TSC was established to create and maintain the U.S. government’s consolidated watchlist—the Terrorist Screening Database (TSDB)—and to provide for the use of watchlist records during security-related and other screening processes. The watchlisting and screening processes are intended to support the U.S. government’s efforts to combat terrorism by consolidating the terrorist watchlist and providing screening and law enforcement agencies with information to help them respond appropriately during encounters with known or suspected terrorists, among other things. TSC receives watchlist information for inclusion in the TSDB from two sources: NCTC and the FBI. TSC receives the vast majority of its watchlist information from NCTC, which compiles information on known or suspected international terrorists. NCTC receives this information from executive branch departments and agencies—such as the Central Intelligence Agency (CIA), State, and the FBI—and maintains the information in its Terrorist Identities Datamart Environment (TIDE) database. Agencies that submit nominations to NCTC are to include pertinent derogatory information and any biographic information—such as name and date of birth—needed to establish the identity of individuals on the watchlist. The FBI provides TSC with information about known or suspected domestic terrorists.who are subjects of ongoing FBI counterterrorism investigations to TSC for inclusion in the TSDB, including persons the FBI is preliminarily investigating to determine if they have links to terrorism. In general, the FBI nominates individuals In accordance with Homeland Security Presidential Directive 6—and built upon through Homeland Security Presidential Directives 11 and 24—the TSDB is to contain information about individuals known or suspected to be or have been engaged in conduct constituting, in preparation for, in aid Nominating agencies, of, or related to terrorism and terrorist activities. NCTC, and the FBI apply a reasonable-suspicion standard to determine which individuals are appropriate for inclusion in the TSDB. NCTC and the FBI are to consider information from all available sources to determine if there is a reasonable suspicion of links to terrorism that warrants a nomination. Once NCTC and the FBI determine that an individual meets the reasonable-suspicion standard and that minimum biographic information exists, they extract sensitive but unclassified information on the individual’s identity—such as name and date of birth— from their classified databases and send the information to TSC. TSC reviews these nominations—evaluating the derogatory and biographic information—to decide whether to add nominated individuals to the TSDB. Appendix II contains additional information on the watchlist nominations process. To support agency screening processes, TSC sends applicable records from the TSDB to screening and law enforcement agency systems based on the agency’s mission responsibilities and other factors. For instance, applicable TSC records are provided to TSA for use in screening airline passengers, to CBP for use in inspecting and vetting persons traveling to and from the United States, and to State for use in screening visa applicants. Regarding individuals who are not citizens or nationals of the United States seeking to travel to and lawfully enter the United States, screening and law enforcement agencies rely on immigration laws that specify criteria for determining whether to issue visas to individuals and whether to admit them into the country. In many instances, individuals who are not citizens or nationals of the United States who have engaged in or are likely to engage in terrorist-related activities may be ineligible to receive visas or inadmissible for entry to the United States, or both. U.S. citizens returning to the United States from abroad are not subject to the admissibility requirements of the Immigration and Nationality Act, regardless of whether they are subjects of watchlist records. In general, these individuals only need to establish their U.S. citizenship to the satisfaction of the examining officer—by, for example, presenting a U.S. passport—to obtain entry into the United States. U.S. citizens are subjected to inspection by CBP before being permitted to enter and additional actions may be taken, as appropriate. On December 25, 2009, Umar Farouk Abdulmutallab, a 23-year old Nigerian man, attempted to detonate a concealed explosive device on Northwest Airlines Flight 253 en route from Amsterdam to Detroit as the plane descended into the Detroit Metropolitan Wayne County Airport. According to the Executive Office of the President’s and Senate Select Committee on Intelligence’s inquiries into events that led to the attempted attack, failures across the intelligence community—including human errors, technical problems, and analytic misjudgments—contributed to the government’s failure to identify the subject as a threat that would qualify him for inclusion on the terrorist watchlist. The inquiries concluded that the intelligence community held information on Mr. Abdulmutallab—he was included in TIDE at the time of the attempted attack—but that it was fragmentary and ultimately not pieced together to form a coherent picture of the threat he posed (see fig. 1). The government inquiries also raised issues regarding how agencies used and interpreted the 2009 watchlisting protocol for nominating individuals to the watchlist. For example, according to the Executive Office of the President’s review, although Mr. Abdulmutallab was entered into TIDE in November 2009, NCTC determined that the associated derogatory information did not meet the criteria for nominating him to the terrorist watchlist. Therefore, NCTC did not send the nomination to TSC. Also, according to the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence report, agencies may have interpreted the 2009 watchlisting protocol’s standards for placing individuals on the watchlist too rigidly, thereby preventing Mr. Abdulmutallab from being nominated for inclusion on the watchlist. Under the auspices of the Information Sharing and Access Interagency Policy Committee, TSC—in coordination with watchlisting and screening agencies—reviewed the 2009 watchlisting protocol and made recommendations regarding whether adjustments to the protocol were warranted. The Deputies Committee—a senior interagency forum that considers policy issues affecting national security—initially approved new watchlisting guidance for issuance to the watchlisting and screening communities in May 2010. After a multiagency classification review was completed, the Deputies Committee approved a final version of the Watchlisting Guidance in July 2010, which TSC issued to the watchlisting and screening communities. The July 2010 Watchlisting Guidance includes changes that were intended to address weaknesses in the nominations process that were exposed by the December 2009 attempted attack and to clarify how agencies are to nominate individuals to the watchlist. Since the guidance was approved, nominating agencies have expressed concerns about the increasing volumes of information and related challenges in processing this information and noted that the long-term impacts of the revisions may not be known for some time. For example, the watchlisting unit director from one agency reported that the agency is experiencing an increasing intake of information from its sources, which has impacted its analysts’ reviews of this information. Also, officials from some agencies reported that at times they have had to temporarily add personnel to review and process the large volumes of information. Data from the nominating agencies we contacted show that the agencies sent more nominations-related information to NCTC after the attempted attack than before the attack. According to NCTC officials, the center experienced receiving an increase in nominations beginning in February 2010. The officials noted that in May 2010, the volume of incoming nominations exceeded NCTC’s ability to process it, resulting in a backlog. NCTC has applied additional resources—both staffing and technological—to address its backlog. As a result, in October 2011, NCTC officials noted that the center had virtually eliminated its backlog. Moreover, unless TSC has the ability to process the information it receives, it cannot add information to the TSDB for use by screening and law enforcement agencies. Overall, the volume of nominations TSC is receiving from the FBI and NCTC has generally increased since the attempted attack. According to TSC officials, the center has avoided backlogs by employing a variety of strategies to address its workload, including management of personnel resources and use of more advanced technology. Since the December 25, 2009, attempted attack, agencies involved in the watchlist nominations process have pursued staffing, technology, working groups, and other solutions to strengthen the process and manage increasing volumes of information. Specifically, officials from four of the seven agencies we contacted reported that they are in the process of developing and implementing certain technological solutions to address watchlisting issues. For example, NCTC, in consultation with other members of the intelligence community, reported that it is developing information technology tools to strengthen analysts’ abilities to identify potential links to terrorism. The government has also created interagency working groups to address watchlist-related issues. Further, NCTC reported that training programs have been developed and administered to its watchlisting analysts, as well as nominating and screening agency personnel. Our review of the July 2010 Watchlisting Guidance and discussions with relevant agency officials indicated that in drafting the guidance, the watchlist community emphasized quality-assurance mechanisms as well as civil rights and civil liberties protections that should be considered when nominating individuals. While agencies are pursuing actions to strengthen the watchlisting process, no single entity is accountable for routinely assessing the overall impacts the July 2010 Watchlisting Guidance is having on the watchlisting community, the extent to which these impacts are acceptable and manageable from a policy perspective, and if the impacts indicate the need for any adjustments. Further, no entity is routinely collecting and analyzing data needed to conduct such governmentwide assessments over time. In general, officials from the nominating agencies we contacted and from NCTC and TSC said that they participated in developing the July 2010 Watchlisting Guidance and agreed with the changes, but noted that they did not know at the time how changes implemented through the 2010 guidance would impact them. Routinely assessing these impacts could help agencies address any challenges they are having in implementing the watchlisting guidance.