DEPARTMENT OF THE TREASURY
W ASHINGTON, D.C. 20220

October 4, 2017

OFFICE OF
INSPECTOR GENERAL

MEMORANDUM FOR INSPECTOR GENERAL THORSON
FROM:

Rich Delmar
Counsel

SUBJECT:

Inquiry Re Use of Government Aircraft by Secretary Mnuchin

After media and public inquiries appeared regarding Secretary Mnuchin’s use, on August 21, of
a government aircraft for a trip to the Mint’s Bullion Depository in Kentucky, you tasked me to
conduct an inquiry regarding the trip’s planning and justification. I requested relevant records
from the Department’s Office of General Counsel. We later received media inquiries indicating
that the Secretary had used, or requested, government air transport for other trips, and I
expanded my record request to include all such requests and uses. We received more records
in early September. After analysis of those submissions and discussions with relevant
Department officials, we made a further information request on September 191, which resulted
in production of more records as well as a legal discussion from OGC, which is set out and
analyzed below. Last week, in light of similar events at other departments, we expanded the
inquiry to include uses of non-governmental aircraft other than regularly-scheduled commercial
airline service; i.e. charters.
Based on the material obtained, discussions with Departmental officials, my research, and
analysis of OGC’s legal presentation, I present the following fact summations and conclusions
for your review, and possible referral to the Department for its consideration.
Background
Nine requests for use of government aircraft have been made on behalf of the Secretary.
Seven resulted in provision of military aircraft; one is for a trip planned for later this month, and
one (the “honeymoon trip”) was withdrawn. Below I provide the details of each request, the
process by which each was made and reviewed, and the legal/policy/operational standards that
appear to have been applicable.
In addition to the universe of government aircraft requests, we asked the Assistant Secretary for
Management if the Secretary has used chartered private air transport at Government expense.
The ASM advised that no such uses have occurred. We were also advised that the Department
has an MOU with the Federal Aviation Administration, dated October 1, 2014, for provision of
as-needed air transportation. As described more fully below, three of the trips at issue involved
discussions with FAA officials about the possibility of using FAA aircraft; ultimately none was
ever used.

1

In which we asked about the current controlling guidance on making requests for government aircraft,
and for all records created by or received by any Treasury employee or contractor, to include
memoranda, emails, records of phone calls, records of meetings, and all other recordations of activity,
including drafts, that provide analysis and justification for a support mission designation or a use of
government aircraft vice other means of transportation.

TREAS-17-0420-A-000001

 Of the nine requests (seven trips taken, one planned for late October, and one request
withdrawn) noted in this report, all were requests made to the White House for designation as
White House Support Missions. We were told by a Treasury OGC official that the Department
followed procedures propounded by the White House when it requested use of government
aircraft for the Secretary’s travel. These procedures, we were told, had been issued by the
Obama Administration, and had been carried over and adopted by the Trump Administration.
The White House Guidance (the Daley Memo)
On April 4, 2011, White House Chief of Staff William Daley issued a memo to all executive
departments and agencies regarding procedures to request use of military aircraft on White
House Support Missions. This memo was a reiteration and update of a memo propounded by
then-Chief of Staff Rahm Emanuel in early 2009. This memo explains that the general
standards for use of government aircraft are set forth in OMB Circular A-126, dated February
10, 19932, and that these standards apply to all senior executive branch officials and to all
government-owned; leased, chartered and rental aircraft operated by Executive Agencies. In
particular, the memo clarifies that only in “rare circumstances” may an employee of a
department or agency travel on a military aircraft "in support of the President or Vice President"
on a so-called "White House Support Mission." The memorandum also provides procedures for
obtaining approval to travel as a White House Support Mission.
To be considered a White House Support Mission, the President must have specifically directed
that the travel occur. Travel that is simply in general furtherance of a Presidential initiative does
not qualify. Nor does the fact that the President is aware of, or agrees with, the need for a trip
necessarily make it a White House Support Mission. The President must have directed the trip
to be made. The Daley memo states that the President must have specifically directed the
government employee to undertake the assignment that requires the travel, although it is not
necessary that the President have personally and specifically directed the use of military
transport to undertake that assignment. The White House Deputy Chief of Staff for Operations is
authorized to designate the particular means of transportation.3
Furthermore, to be designated a White House Support Mission, the Daley Memo requires that
one or more of the following circumstances must also exist:
Section 4 of the OMB Circular, however, specifically states: “4. Scope and Coverage. This Circular
applies to all government-owned, leased, chartered and rental aircraft and related services operated by
Executive Agencies except for aircraft while in use by or in support of the President or Vice President.
2

And the otherwise generally applicable Federal Travel Regulations note, at 41 C.F.R. § 301-70.808:
Do the rules in this part apply to travel on Government aircraft by the President and Vice
President or by individuals traveling in support of the President and Vice President?
Given the unique functions and needs of the presidency and the vice presidency, section 4 of
Circular A-126, “Improving the Management and Use of Government Aircraft,” Revised May
1992, makes clear that Circular A-126 does not apply to aircraft while in use by or in support of
the President or Vice President.
Since the principal purpose of the rules in this part is to implement Circular A-126, the rules in this
part also do not apply to such travel. If any questions arise regarding travel related to the
President or Vice President, contact the Office of the Counsel to the President or the Office of the
Counsel to the Vice President, respectively.
3

This process is modified by the September 29 memo from the OMB Director, M-17-32, set out and
discussed below.
TREAS-17-0420-A-000002

 Commercial airline or aircraft service (including charter) is not reasonably available;
“reasonable availability” mean that the commercial means is unable to meet the
traveler's departure and/or arrival requirements within a 24-hour period;
Use of government aircraft is more cost-effective than commercial air;
Use of government aircraft is required to meet emergency needs or national security
concerns (e.g., an emergency exists, there are demonstrated personal security
requirements, there are 24-hour secure communications requirements, or there are
identified emergency action responsibilities); or,
Other compelling operational considerations make commercial transportation
unacceptable.
Once designation as a White House Support Mission is approved, the Deputy Chief of Staff for
Operations has discretion in approving a request as reimbursable (agency pays by reimbursing
DOD) or non-reimbursable (DOD absorbs expense) in connection with the overall review of a
request for approval.
.
The Deputy Chief of Staff for Operations, or his/her designee, must approve all requests for
designation as a White House Support Mission. All requests must be in writing and should
include the information contained in, and be in substantially the same form as, the template
incorporated in the memo (set out below).
Requests submitted by Cabinet-level officials, agency heads, Presidential emissaries, or
individuals acting on their behalf -other than requests from the State Department-should be
forwarded in writing to the Assistant to the President for Cabinet Affairs (Cabinet Secretary).
The Cabinet Secretary will review the request and will forward any requests that meet the
above-stated guidelines with his recommendation to the Assistant to the President for
Management and Administration. He, in turn, will consult with the White House Military Office to
determine the cost of the proposed travel, to assess the availability of aircraft, and to obtain a
recommendation from the Director of the White House Military Office on whether to approve the
request. The request and all recommendations will then be forwarded to the Deputy Chief of
Staff for Operations who may consult with the White House Counsel (or his designee), prior to
making a final determination to approve or deny the request and, if approved, whether the
approval is on a reimbursable or non-reimbursable basis.
Requesting agencies shall make every effort to submit requests as early as possible, and to the
extent feasible, no later than 7 days before the proposed travel. Subsequently, these requests
should be approved by the Deputy Chief of Staff for Operations no later than 4 working days
before the initial travel date to ensure aircraft availability and provide adequate time for aircrew
mission planning (e.g. diplomatic clearances, airfield suitability, instrument approach/departure
procedures, weather, and visas). If the requesting agency cannot meet the 7 day timeline, an
exception to policy must be requested. Justification for this exception must be provided in the
"Special Considerations" paragraph of the WHSM request. A copy of the request should be
forwarded to White House Airlift Operations at the same time it is submitted to the Cabinet
Secretary or National Security Advisor. The Memo then specifies this process:
The Deputy Chief of Staff, or the Assistant to the President for Management and
Administration, will notify the requesting party of the final decision and will return the
signed, approved/denied request to the originator, with copies to the Office of
Management and Administration, the National Security Staff or Cabinet Secretary, (as
appropriate), and White House Airlift Operations.
TREAS-17-0420-A-000003

 If approved, the requesting party must designate a 24-hour point of contact that is then
responsible for initiating contact with White House Airlift Operations, reviewing all
mission details, and advising if the request is withdrawn or cancelled. After consulting
with the point of contact, White House Airlift Operations will task the appropriate
Department of Defense organization to plan and execute the mission.
Once a request is approved, any change in the date, itinerary, or number/nationality of
passengers must be submitted in writing to the Deputy Chief of Staff for Operations,
with copies to White House Airlift Operations, the Assistant to the President for
Management and Administration, and the Cabinet Secretary or National Security
Advisor, as appropriate. White House Airlift Operations will notify the Department of
Defense of significant changes in mission plans only after the Deputy Chief of Staff
approves the change.
The Daley memo incorporates a template to be used for officials to request White House
Mission Support designation and authority to use government aircraft:
MEMORANDUM FOR DEPUTY CHIEF OF STAFF
THROUGH:

DIRECTOR OF THE OFFICE OF MANAGEMENT AND
ADMINISRATION

THROUGH:

CABINET AFFAIRS OR NATIONAL SECURITY COUNCIL (AS
APPROPRIATE)

FROM:

AS APPROPRIATE

SUBJECT:

Request White House Mission Designation for Travel

Request approval of the following proposed White House Mission:
1. Requesting Principal: (must be Cabinet, Cabinet level Executive, Director of CIA or
Director of FBI).
2. Purpose of the trip: (include statement outlining reasons that agency assets or
commercial aircraft accommodations are not available or appropriate for the mission).
3. 24 hour Point of Contact: (include telephone numbers/email)
4. Travel Itinerary:
a. Dates: (from initial departure until final destination)
b. Requested time of departure: (at initial location and each intermediate location)
5. Total number of passengers: (list all passengers by name, to include the Principal;
annotate if a foreign national)
6. Special considerations: (Secure communications required? Reimbursable/nonreimbursable request? Why memo is submitted less than 7 days prior to the proposed
departure date?)
APPROVED AS NON-REIMBURSABLE
APPROVED AS REIMBURSABLE
TREAS-17-0420-A-000004

 DISAPPROVED
Deputy Chief of Staff
Cc: Director, White House Military Office
Cabinet Affairs or Exec Secy, National Security Staff {as appropriate)
Director, White House Airlift Operations

TREAS-17-0420-A-000005

 For each of the nine trip requests at issue, I provide a summary and analysis using the following
format, which incorporates the required elements in the Daley memo template.
TRIP REQUEST ANALYSIS
Trip dates, itinerary specified?
White House Support Mission designation requested?
President directs trip be made?
Purpose analysis/justification provided?
Commercial airline or aircraft service (including charter) is not reasonably available;
“reasonable availability” definition is that the commercial means is unable to meet the
traveler's departure and/or arrival requirements within a 24-hour period;
Use of government aircraft is more cost-effective than commercial air;
Use of government aircraft is required to meet emergency needs or national security
concerns (e.g., an emergency exists, there are demonstrated personal security
requirements, there are 24-hour secure communications requirements, or there are
identified emergency action responsibilities); or,
Other compelling operational considerations make commercial transportation
unacceptable.
Request submitted to proper White House officials?
Assistant to the President for Cabinet Affairs (Cabinet Secretary).
Assistant to the President for Management and Administration then consults with
White House Military Office to determine cost, assess availability of aircraft, and to
obtain recommendation from Director of White House Military Office.
The request and all recommendations will then be forwarded to Deputy Chief of Staff
for Operations who may consult with White House Counsel (or designee), prior to
making final determination to approve or deny the request and, if approved, whether
approval is on a reimbursable or non-reimbursable basis.
Request made timely, or exception explained?
Requesting agencies shall make every effort to submit requests as early as possible,
and to the extent feasible, no later than 7 days before the proposed travel.
If the requesting agency cannot meet the 7 day timeline, an exception to policy must be
requested. Justification for this exception must be provided in the "Special
Considerations" paragraph of the WHSM request.
A copy of the request should be forwarded to White House Airlift Operations at the
same time it is submitted to the Cabinet Secretary or National Security Advisor.
The Deputy Chief of Staff, or the Assistant to the President for Management and
Administration, will notify the requesting party of the final decision and will return the

TREAS-17-0420-A-000006

 signed, approved/denied request to the originator, with copies to the Office of
Management and Administration, the National Security Staff or Cabinet Secretary, (as
appropriate), and White House Airlift Operations.
If approved, the requesting party must designate a 24-hour point of contact that is then
responsible for initiating contact with White House Airlift Operations, reviewing all
mission details, and advising if the request is withdrawn or cancelled.
Once a request is approved, any change in the date, itinerary, or number/nationality of
passengers must be submitted in writing to the Deputy Chief of Staff for Operations, with
copies to White House Airlift Operations, the Assistant to the President for Management
and Administration, and the Cabinet Secretary or National Security Advisor, as
appropriate.

TREAS-17-0420-A-000007

 TRIP REQUEST ANALYSES
Trip No.1
London/Berlin/Baden-Baden, March 15-18, 2017
White House Support Mission designation requested?
Yes.
President directs trip be made?
Not explicit4; however, memo states that Secretary is President’s principal representative
at the G-20 Finance Ministers’ Conference, and that additionally during the trip the
Secretary will meet with the British Finance Minister and Bank of England Governor
and the French Finance Minister.
Purpose analysis/justification provided?
As with the other trips discussed here, no detailed analysis provided. The request
memo makes a standard statement that “due to scheduling, logistics, and secure
communications needs,” non-reimbursable government air transportation is requested.
The conclusory statements are not supplemented with details, and thus do not provide
the level of detailed analysis clearly called for in the Daley Memo framework.
For this trip, we were provided with emails indicating some internal research on
commercial air alternatives, with discussion why they would not work. But it does not
appear that this analysis was incorporated in the request memo. We were also
provided with similar Support Mission request memos for three trips to G-20 Finance
Ministers Conferences in 2014, 2015, and 2016, all of which used the same summary
justification, and all of which were approved. .
Documentation shows trip was made using a C-32 transport (military version of Boeing
757), that per-hour cost was $15,994, that aircraft was used for 18.83 hours, and direct
costs were thus computed as $301,167.02.

4

This may be a limitation of the format of the request form: it may be intended to allow the conclusion that
approval of the request by the Deputy Chief of Staff denotes Presidential direction. In fact, the Treasury
General Counsel advised that he discussed the process with the White House Counsel’s Office, and that
The White House Counsel’s Office again confirmed to [him] that the signature of the White House
Deputy Chief of Staff for Operations constitutes the only signature required or provided under the
Daley Memorandum for approval of White House Support Mission requests. The White House
Counsel’s Office further confirmed that the White House Deputy Chief of Staff’s approval signifies
that the necessary conditions for conducting a White House Support Mission have been met.
TREAS-17-0420-A-000008

 Trip No. 2
Bari, Italy, May 11-14, 2017
White House Support Mission designation requested?
Yes
President directs trip be made?
Not explicit. See note 4. However, memo states that Secretary is President’s principal
representative at the G-20 Finance Ministers’ Conference,
Purpose analysis/justification provided?
No detailed analysis provided. Memo asserts “due to scheduling, logistics, and secure
communications needs,” non-reimbursable government air transportation is requested.
“A plane with secure communications capabilities is requested given the potential for
developments during travel related to a number of issues.”
Treasury requested provision of a C-40 (military version of Boeing 737); however,
documents show trip conducted in C-32 (757), with $15,944 hourly rate, 19.66 hours
expended, for total direct cost of $314,442.04.

TREAS-17-0420-A-000009

 Trip No. 3.
Ottawa, Canada, June 9, 2017
White House Support Mission designation requested?
Yes.
President directs trip be made?
Not explicit. See note 4. Memo states trip is for “bilat” [bilateral] conference with
Canadian Finance Minister as well as conference with business leaders.
Purpose analysis/justification provided?
No detailed analysis provided. Memo asserts “due to scheduling, logistics, costs, and
secure communications needs” government air is requested. Memo then states that a
plane with secure communications capabilities is “required given the potential for
developments during travel related to a number of issues.” No further detail provided in
memo or in other material provided to OIG.
Treasury requested provision of a C-40B (737). Air Force indicated direct aircraft costs
were $16,350. Treasury had earlier discussed with FAA use of its aircraft pursuant to
2014 MOU.
Passenger manifest includes several media members and Ms. Louise Linton, Secretary
Mnuchin’s wife. Records include determination of cost of her travel, pursuant to Federal
Travel Regulation, and proof that it was paid by the Secretary.

TREAS-17-0420-A-000010

 Trip No. 4.
Miami, June 15, 2017
White House Support Mission designation requested:
Yes.
President directs trip be made?
Not explicit. See note 4. Memo states trip is for “bilat” conference with Mexican Finance
Minister as well as attendance at Conference Prosperity and Security in Central
America.
Purpose analysis/justification provided?
No detailed analysis provided. Memo asserts “due to scheduling, logistics, costs, and
secure communications needs” government air is requested. Memo then states that a
plane with secure communications capabilities is “required given the need for the
Secretary’s participation on a secure call during travel.” No further detail provided in
memo or in other material obtained by OIG.
Treasury requested provision of a C-37B (military version of Gulfstream 550). Air Force
indicated direct aircraft costs were $43,725.50. Treasury had earlier discussed with FAA
use of its aircraft pursuant to 2014 MOU; FAA provided cost estimate for use of its
aircraft of $26,953.33. Records show communication from Treasury Travel Office to
Secretary’s assistant: “while I understand that current availability of commercial flights do
not accommodate scheduling needs, for your awareness, the cost per person on
commercial air is approximately $688 round trip.”
Passenger manifest shows Secretary, 4 staff, and 2 Secret Service agents outbound;
Secretary and 3 Secret Service agents on return trip.

TREAS-17-0420-A-000011

 Trip No. 5.
New York, August 15, 2017
White House Support Mission designation requested?
Yes
President directs trip be made?
Yes. President requested Secretary comes to Bedminster, N.J. (later changed to Trump
Tower in New York) to discuss pending issues regarding tax reform and tariffs. Request
non-reimbursable use of government aircraft.
Purpose analysis/justification provided?
No detailed analysis provided. Some discussion of other summoned Cabinet members
coming on same air mission for cost savings, but amended request memo on August 10,
shows manifest both ways of Secretary, his chief of staff, and Secret Service detail.
However, August 14 internal email suggests Secretary of Transportation and OMB
Director were on flight to New York, but not on return trip, apparently because Secretary
Mnuchin was planning on conducting a classified phone discussion with the Secretary of
State, and the others lacked the necessary clearances that would have allowed the
Secretary to speak openly.
Treasury requested provision of a C-37A (military version of Gulfstream V). Air Force
indicated direct aircraft costs were $15,112.50. Trip routing was Joint Base Andrews to
Teterboro and return, 179 miles each way.

TREAS-17-0420-A-000012

 Trip No. 6.
Louisville and Ft. Knox, Kentucky, August 21, 2017
White House Support Mission designation requested?
Yes, trip for official event with Senate Majority Leader McConnell and other
officials and visit to Mint’s Bullion Depository at Ft. Knox. Request reimbursable use
of government aircraft.
President directs trip be made?
Not explicit. See note 4.
Purpose analysis/justification provide?
No detailed analysis provided. Standard language used: “Due to scheduling, logistics,
and communications needs, the use of reimbursable military aircraft, preferably a C-40,
is requested.”
This trip had been under discussion for some time and was originally scheduled for
earlier in August, but it was pushed back to accommodate the delay in the Senate’s
recess. Six dates in mid-August were proposed to Leader McConnell and August 21
worked for everyone. There is no indication that the date was chosen to coincide with
the solar eclipse. When an earlier date was under consideration, there was discussion
with FAA to use their aircraft; cost quoted at $17,486.29. But there was concern that the
available FAA aircraft, a Cessna Citation, would be unusable if the runway at Godman
Army Airfield (Ft. Knox’s facility) was wet5. In the end, an Air Force C-37B (Gulfstream
550) was used, at a stated cost of $26,900.25.
There is internal communication suggesting that secure communications would not be
needed on this trip; however the final August 16 memo requesting White House Mission
designation later stated “A plane with communications capabilities is requested in the
event that the Secretary’s participation on a call during travel arises.”
Ms. Louise Linton, the Secretary’s wife, was aboard the aircraft, both outbound and
inbound. Records indicate that the applicable reimbursement amount was determined,
and was paid by the Secretary.
.

5

We have not independently verified this assertion.

TREAS-17-0420-A-000013

 Trip No. 7.
Parkersburg, WV and Las Vegas, NV, August 28-29, 2017
White House Support Mission designation requested?
Yes, trip for official events with Senators Capito and Manchin and Representative
McKinley in WV and Senator Heller in NV. Request reimbursable use of government
aircraft.
President directs trip be made?
Not explicit. See note 4.
Purpose analysis/justification provided?
No detailed analysis provided. Standard language used: “Due to scheduling, logistics,
and communications needs, the use of reimbursable military aircraft, preferably a C-40,
is requested.” Memo further states “A plane with communications capabilities is
requested in the event that the Secretary’s participation on a call during travel arises.”
Records show two hours of official events in Parkersburg and two hours of official events
in Las Vegas. Air Force records show trip made in C-37A (Gulfstream V) for total direct
cost of $94,100.50.

TREAS-17-0420-A-000014

 Trip No. 8.
Trip to several countries in Middle East, late October 2017
White House Support Mission designation requested?
Yes, trip for “bilats” and press conferences with host government officials and
participation in business roundtables with local and other business leaders.
President directs trip be made?
Not explicit. See note 4.
Purpose analysis/justification provided?
No detailed analysis provided. Standard language used: “Due to scheduling, logistics,
and communications needs, the use of reimbursable military aircraft, preferably a C-40,
is requested.” Memo further states need for secure communications capabilities; no
specifics provided, and email states that secure communications is “preferred,” and that
presently available C-40 lacks secure communication suite. Proposed manifest shows
Secretary, nine Treasury and two non-Treasury officials, ten Secret Service, and seven
media. No Air Force computation form yet prepared.

TREAS-17-0420-A-000015

 In addition to the eight completed and planned trips discussed above, I reviewed the paperwork
associated with a trip request that was submitted and then withdrawn. This request was for
personal travel: the honeymoon trip of the Secretary and Ms. Linton to Britain, France and Italy,
occurring August 3-12, 2017
White House Support Mission designation requested?
Form starts out with request under Federal Travel Regulation’s “required use”
designation, but also recites request for designation as White House Support Mission.
Department states that support mission designation request was an error; see
discussion at end of this section.
President directs trip be made?
Not explicit. See Note 4
Purpose analysis/justification provided?
Memo advises that Secretary plans to meet with French Finance Minister while on trip,
and states that Secretary needs to be able to monitor many sensitive issues6 No
detailed analysis provided. Records show communication between Treasury Office of
International Affairs and State Department advising of personal trip, and Secretary’s
need to make a call at the TS/SCI level while in Scotland. Several inquiries about
availability of secure communications and SCIFs; concerns that only embassies have
facilities capable of handling TS/SCI calls and activities. Internal discussions assert that
military aircraft will be cheaper than setting up portable SCIFs, and ‘most cost-effective”
way to assure access to secure communications.
On October 2, I was advised that the Secretary is among the senior government officials
who are required by applicable authority and policy to have access to secure
communications at a high level of classification at all times – including both official and
personal travel. I confirmed this by reviewing relevant documents. I was further advised
that this trip request was the subject of a meeting between the Secretary’s chief of
staff and the White House Deputy Chief of Staff, and that after alternative secure
communications assets were discussed and provided, this request was withdrawn at the
meeting. This is the submission I received from an OGC official regarding this use
request:
From August 3 to 12, the Secretary took a personal trip to Europe in connection with
which Treasury evaluated various options for ensuring the availability of secure
communications capabilities. Treasury first evaluated the Secretary’s ability to access
local Secure Compartmented Information Facilities while on travel in Edinburgh, Paris,
Gargnano (Italy), and Milan. With the exception of Paris, Treasury did not identify
appropriate facilities that were readily accessible. Treasury determined that the
appropriate facility nearest to Edinburgh was located in London, and the appropriate
facility nearest to Gargnano and Milan was located in Rome. Other surveyed locations,
including any military installations proximate to the Secretary’s route of travel, could not
provide TS/SCI communications support. Treasury next submitted a request to the
White House for the use of a military aircraft to meet the Secretary’s secure
communications needs. It was anticipated that an appropriately configured aircraft
could provide communications support while in transit and on the ground – essentially
functioning as a mobile SCIF. On the same day that the request was submitted, the
6

Nine categories of sensitive issues were described to me by OGC officials on October 2.
TREAS-17-0420-A-000016

 Secretary’s Chief of Staff met with the White House Deputy Chief of Staff about the
request. During the conversation between the Secretary’s Chief of Staff and the White
House Deputy Chief of Staff, the Chief of Staff orally withdrew the request after being
informed that the White House could and would provide alternative secure
communications capabilities. The request was not granted or denied at any time and
was pending for less than six hours.
On August 2, the Secretary attended a training session by the White House Military
Office on the use of the secure communications capability that was provided. The
Secretary regularly used this capability to engage in secure communications during the
trip, and he also used the U.S. Embassy in Paris to conduct certain official business.
During the trip, the Secretary traveled on commercial flights, including one short
chartered flight, and the Secretary paid for all such flights himself.
Additionally, on October 4, OGC provided a further statement to clarify the basis for this
trip request:
On August 1, 2017, Treasury requested authorization to use government aircraft
in connection with the Secretary’s upcoming personal trip to Europe. This
was not a White House Support Mission Designation request.
Unlike the Support Mission requests—which were titled as requests for
White House Mission Designations in the subject line—the August 1 request
was titled “Request for MilAir Support for TS-SCI Communications during
Travel.” In addition, the first page of the request clearly states that White House
approval was being sought “pursuant to the ‘required use’ provision of Federal
Travel Regulation § 301.10.261”—which has no application to White House
Support Missions—and the request’s analysis focuses entirely on the criteria
for “required use” approval. The last page of the request mistakenly refers to a
White House mission; that stray reference was an error, as the substance of
the request makes clear.

TREAS-17-0420-A-000017

 Department’s Position
On September 25 an OGC official responded to our September 19 questions and request for
records:
You also asked whether Treasury OGC authorized or otherwise provided input on the
Department’s nine requests to the White House for the use of military aircraft by the
Secretary since January 2017. As discussed below, none of these travel requests were
of the type that triggers the requirement under the Federal Travel Regulation that the
Department’s senior legal official authorize the travel; accordingly, no such authorization
was sought or provided. However, OGC did provide input in connection with some of
the travel requests.
The Federal Travel Regulation (FTR) generally provides that the agency’s senior legal
official (or his/her principal deputy) must authorize, in advance and in writing, all travel by
senior federal officials on government aircraft. 41 C.F.R. § 301-10.262(b). For
Treasury, such authorization would be provided by the General Counsel or the Principal
Deputy General Counsel. However, the FTR contains two exceptions applicable to the
travel requests about which you have inquired.
First, the FTR does not apply to use of military aircraft on “White House Support
Missions,” i.e., missions led by Cabinet-level officials or Presidential emissaries in
support of the President or Vice President. 41 C.F.R. § 301-70.808 (“Circular A-126
does not apply to aircraft while in use by or in support of the President or Vice President.
Since the principal purpose of the rules in this part is to implement Circular A-126, the
rules in this part also do not apply to such travel.”); see also Circular A-126, Paragraph 4
(“Scope and Coverage”) (“This Circular applies to all government-owned, leased,
chartered and rental aircraft and related services operated by Executive Agencies
except for aircraft while in use by or in support of the President or Vice President”).
Instead, authorization for “designation as a White House Support Mission” using
government aircraft must be requested from the White House pursuant to a longstanding approval process in place since at least 2005. See Memorandum from William
M. Daley (April 4, 2011) (establishing guidelines and specifying a template entitled
“Request White House Mission Designation for Travel”); Memorandum from Rahm I.
Emanuel (March 13, 2009) (predecessor memorandum); “White House Support Mission”
request from 2005 (attached). The White House Deputy Chief of Staff for Operations
makes this designation. He “may consult with the White House Counsel (or his
designee),” see Daley Memorandum at 2, but pre-authorization by the agency senior
legal official is not required, presumably because the White House is in the best position
to assess whether a request meets its own standards and to allocate use of military
aircraft among Cabinet officials.
Second, under the FTR, the agency senior legal official does not authorize travel by the
agency head if the President determines that the travel meets the “required use travel”
standard. 41 C.F.R. § 301-10.262(a)(1). “Required use travel” may include personal
travel and may be authorized because of a bona fide communications need (e.g., the
need to maintain continuous secure communications capability), security reasons, or
exceptional scheduling requirements. 41 C.F.R. § 301-10.261(b). (There also is
classified guidance on the availability of secure communication capabilities that we
would be glad to discuss with you.)7

As noted above in the discussion of the “honeymoon trip,” I did review this material and I conclude that it
appears to be as asserted.
TREAS-17-0420-A-000018

7

 With regard to Treasury’s requests to the White House since January 2017 for use of
military aircraft, eight requests (including that related to the Fort Knox trip) sought
designation as White House Support Missions. Adhering to the process mandated by
the White House, the Secretary’s office submitted memoranda to the White House
Deputy Chief of Staff for Operations in each case and specifically requested “White
House Mission Designation” for the proposed travel and authorization to use government
aircraft. Seven of the requests were approved by the White House, and one is still
pending. Although OGC did review a subset of the White House Support Mission
requests before they were sent by the Secretary’s office to the White House, neither the
FTR nor the written White House procedures required pre-approval for such requests by
the agency’s senior legal official. Based on our research (including conversations with
the Travel Office and with [the former Assistant General Counsel responsible for general
law and ethics]), this is also fully consistent with the Treasury practice during the prior
Administration.
Circular A-126 and the Daley Memorandum note that, for travel to qualify as a “White
House Support Mission,” the President must have “specifically directed” that the travel
occur. The Daley Memorandum prescribes a process for securing that direction.
Indeed, the form of request provided by the Daley Memorandum is expressly titled
“Request White House Mission Designation for Travel” (emphasis added). Rather than
personally approving every White House Support Mission by every Department or
agency and every Presidential emissary, the President acts through an established
procedure administered by his subordinates. As mandated by the White House,
agencies propose trips for designation as “White House Support Missions,” and the
White House Deputy Chief of Staff “approve[s] all requests for designation as a White
House Support Mission” using military aircraft. As best as we can ascertain based on
review of past travel memoranda and conversations with the Treasury Travel Office, the
“White House Support Mission” travel of the prior three Secretaries was all approved by
the White House Deputy Chief of Staff with no separate or freestanding determination or
direction by the President. In short, Treasury defers to the process required by the
White House, and we are not aware of any instance of the White House suggesting that
their specified process was insufficient to secure both “White House Support Mission”
designation and authorization to use military aircraft for such a mission.
The only other request by Treasury to the White House for authorization of travel on
government aircraft was in relation to the Secretary’s personal trip to Europe (August 312). As previously explained, the Secretary is a member of the National Security
Council and has responsibility for the Office of Terrorism and Financial Intelligence. He
requires access to secure communications even when he is on personal travel, and
Treasury considered a number of options to meet that need during his trip to Europe.
On August 1, the Secretary’s office submitted a memorandum to the White House
asking the White House to consider the use of a government aircraft during the
Secretary’s travel under the “required use” standard. The request submitted to the
White House made this clear. (“Treasury makes this request pursuant to the ‘required
use’ provision of the Federal Travel Regulation. . . .”) Although OGC reviewed this
request to ensure the appropriate White House authorization was sought, OGC did not
pre-authorize the proposed travel because, as indicated above, the FTR provides that
the agency’s senior legal official need not provide separate authorization if the President
determines that the Secretary’s travel qualifies as “required use travel.” 41 C.F.R. §
301-10.262(a)(1). Ultimately, travel on government aircraft was deemed unnecessary
after the Department identified an alternative secure communications solution that would
address the Secretary’s needs. Treasury withdrew the request on the same day it was
submitted.
TREAS-17-0420-A-000019

 Observations and Recommendations
This inquiry has determined that from the time he took office until today, Secretary Mnuchin has
taken seven official trips using government aircraft, and plans are in place for an eighth such trip
later this month.
I see no violation of law in these requests and uses. Getting approval from appropriate White
House officials to designate the trips as White House Support Missions places them out of the
purview of OMB Directive A-126 and otherwise applicable limitations in the Federal Travel
Regulation. And the clarified basis for the request associated with the August personal travel is
consistent with the demonstrated requirement that the Secretary have access to secure
communications even during personal travel.
What is of concern is a disconnect between the standard of proof called for in the Daley memo,
and the actual amount of proof provided by Treasury and accepted by the White House in
justifying these trip requests. My summaries show that in almost all cases a single boilerplate
statement constituted the whole analysis and justification for designation and use of military
aircraft, despite the fact that the memo clearly calls for a more rigorous and complete provision
of facts and arguments. In the few cases where there was some discussion within Treasury, it
was sparse, and does not appear to have been actually transmitted to the decision makers in
the White House. A part of the OGC statement set out above captures the situation, and the
problem, well:
As best as we can ascertain based on review of past travel memoranda and
conversations with the Treasury Travel Office, the “White House Support Mission”
travel of the prior three Secretaries was all approved by the White House Deputy Chief
of Staff with no separate or freestanding determination or direction by the President. In
short, Treasury defers to the process required by the White House, and we are not
aware of any instance of the White House suggesting that their specified process was
insufficient to secure both “White House Support Mission” designation and authorization
to use military aircraft for such a mission.
Of course, what worked in the past may not work going forward. The OMB memo issued last
week8 strongly suggests that more rigor will be required in future requests. I recommend that the
8

On Friday, September 29, OMB Director Mulveney issued a memo to all Executive Departments and
Agencies, M-17-32 on the subject of Travel on Government-Owned, Rented, Leased, or Chartered
Aircraft:
In light of recent events, the President has asked me to remind the heads of all executive
departments and agencies of Administration policies on travel.
First, as to law and formal policy: Government-owned, rented, leased, or chartered aircraft should not be
used for travel by Government employees, except with specific justification -per the Office of Management
and Budget (OMB) Circular A-126 (May 22, 1992), Improving the Management and Use of Government
Aircraft, and the Federal Travel Regulation (FTR).
However, beyond the law and formal policy, departments and agencies should recognize that we are
public servants. Every penny we spend comes from the taxpayer. We thus owe it to the taxpayer to work
as hard managing that money wisely as the taxpayer must do to earn it in the first place.
Put another way, just because something is legal doesn't make it right. Even when the criteria of Circular
A-126 and the FTR allow for the use of Government-owned, rented, leased, or chartered aircraft,
departments and agencies should still consider whether commercial air travel is a more appropriate use
of taxpayer resources. Accordingly, with few exceptions, the commercial air system used by millions of
Americans every day is appropriate, even for very senior officials.

TREAS-17-0420-A-000020

 OIG advise that future requests be ready to justify government air in greater detail, especially
regarding cost comparisons and needs for security and other special factors. I further
recommend that the Department require review of all such requests by the Office of General
Counsel, to assure that all requests are complete, fully compliant with all applicable law,
regulation, and policy, and present as strong and convincing a case as possible to justify this
increasingly visible use of a government asset.

Therefore, all travel on Government-owned, rented, leased, or chartered aircraft, except space available
travel and travel to meet mission requirements (as those situations are defined in Circular A-126) shall
require prior approval from the White House Chief of Staff. Full-time required use travelers are exempted
from this requirement. Further guidance from the White House Chief of Staff on the approval process will
be forthcoming. OMB is also reviewing longstanding guidance pertaining to the use of Governmentowned, rented, leased, and chartered aircraft and welcomes any suggestions that would strengthen
existing controls. In the meantime, departments and agencies are reminded that they are required to
adhere to the FTR and Circular A-126.
TREAS-17-0420-A-000021