U.S.

Department of Justice
Federal Bureau of Investigation

Office of Congressional Affairs

Office of the Assistant Director 935 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW

Washington, DC 20535-0001

July 25, 2023

The Honorable Jim Jordan

Chairman
Committee on the Judiciary
United States House
Washington, D.C. 20515

Dear Chairman Jordan:

We write in response to your letter, dated July 17, 2023, to the Federal Bureau of
Investigation (FBI), regarding your April 10, 2023, subpoena for documents regarding the
January 23, 2023, Domain Perspective (January 23rd Domain Perspective), an analytical product
published by the FBI’s Richmond Field Office, and your February 3, 2023, subpoena for
documents regarding the Attorney General’s October 4, 2021, memorandum entitled,
“Partnership Among Federal, State, Local, Tribal, and Territorial Law Enforcement to Address
Threats Against School Administrators, Board Members, Teachers, and Staff” (Attorney
General’s Memorandum). This letter and the accompanying document production supplements
our prior correspondence and productions in response to both subpoenas.

The FBI takes our oversight obligations seriously, as evidenced by the significant good
faith efforts we have made to satisfy the wide range of oversight requests made of the FBI by the
118th Congress. Since January, the FBI has received fourteen letters and three subpoenas from
this Committee, spanning a multitude of subject matters and requesting documents and testimony
from nearly 30 current FBI officials. This does not include additional letters from individual
Committee Members, or requests from any of the other seven Congressional committees of
jurisdiction over the FBI and our operations.

In response to these requests, the FBI has produced a significant amount of information
to Congress in the form of documents, briefings, and testimony, including in response to both
subpoenas discussed in your July 17 letter. During the same timeframe, the FBI has also
produced a significant amount of information to satisfy multiple separate requests from this
Committee and others, and we will continue to do so. Indeed, to date the FBI has provided this
Committee alone with fourteen written responses on thirteen different topics, accompanied by
the production of over 1,600 pages of classified and unclassified documents on eight separate
topics. The FBI has also testified at two Committee hearings and provided three briefings by
FBI leadership. These engagements reflect significant efforts by the FBI to balance among the
Committee’s requests, requests from other congressional committees, and the critical work of
carrying out the FBI’s mission. The FBI is committed to continuing to meet its responsibilities
to Congress under the accommodation process, including through several significant additional
steps outlined below.
The Honorable Jim Jordan
Page Two

As part of the accommodation process, we have consistently sought guidance on the

Committee’s priorities among its multiple requests to ensure the FBI is as responsive as
possible.1 To date, through prioritization discussions with the Committee, the Committee has
prioritized witness interviews with current and former FBI personnel. Consistent with and in
reliance upon the Committee’s requests, the FBI has made nine current FBI senior executives
available for ten transcribed interviews2—requiring multiple senior law enforcement officials to
travel across the country to appear in person—and offered to make additional witnesses available
to appear next month. Additionally, we have authorized the testimony of multiple former
employees.

The FBI’s ongoing commitment to balancing these demands while responding to each of
the Committee’s requests, consistent with Executive Branch authorities and confidentiality
interests, informs this update on the FBI’s responses to the two document subpoenas referenced
above.

Attorney General’s Memorandum

Since receiving the Committee’s February 3, 2023, subpoena, the FBI has made four
productions totaling 488 pages of documents, provided additional information in response to the
subpoena’s requests, and made four senior executives available to provide testimony regarding
the Attorney General’s Memorandum.

The Committee’s initial oversight letter to the FBI in this Congress contained an
appendix of “outstanding oversight requests” made by the Committee’s Ranking Member or
other individual Members during the 117th Congress.3 This list, which Committee staff
confirmed reflected the Committee’s oversight priorities for the FBI during the 118th Congress,
did not include any requests for documents regarding the Attorney General’s Memorandum.

Nonetheless, following receipt of the Committee’s February 3, 2023, subpoena—the first

time that the Committee had communicated its interest to the FBI—the FBI provided a lengthy
narrative response, including non-public law enforcement sensitive information, and an initial
production of documents. Our second production was made just one week later. The FBI
produced additional documents, including guidance from the Director to FBI executive
management and field leaders regarding the Attorney General’s Memorandum. The FBI made
the extraordinary accommodation of also producing nearly 400 pages of law enforcement files
containing the FBI’s internal Guardian summaries for those unclassified closed Guardians that
received the EDUOFFICIALS tag, consistent with both the Committee’s expressed needs and

1
This is in keeping with the Committee’s and the FBI’s mutual constitutional obligations to engage in “realistic
evaluation of” each other’s needs and “avoid the polarization of disputes.” United States v. AT&T Co., 567 F.2d
121, 127 (D.C. Cir. 1977). See also Letter from Carlos Uriarte, Assistant Attorney General, Office of Legislative
Affairs, Department of Justice to Hon. Jim Jordan, Chairman, House Committee on the Judiciary (Jan. 20, 2023).
2
To date, the FBI has facilitated the transcribed interviews of Executive Assistant Director Timothy Langan,
Executive Assistant Director Jennifer Moore, Special Agent in Charge Carlton Peeples, Special Agent in Charge
Kevin Vorndran, Special Agent in Charge Steve Jensen, Special Agent in Charge Joseph Bonavolonta, Special
Agent in Charge Charles Dayoub, Section Chief Laura Dehmlow, and Intelligence Analyst in Charge Nikki Floris.
3
January 17, 2023, letter to Director Wray
The Honorable Jim Jordan
Page Three

with Executive Branch confidentiality interests. We appreciate the Committee’s agreement to

receive rolling document productions, including our accommodation to produce these sensitive
law enforcement files in camera.

Around that same time, the Committee expressed that conducting transcribed interviews
of FBI officials related to the Attorney General’s Memorandum was a top priority.4 The FBI
made clear to the Committee that prioritizing interviews would affect the resources available to
process documents in response to the subpoena. But to meet the Committee’s requests that FBI
prioritize witness testimony—and even though such interviews are routinely conducted following
the production of relevant documents, which allows for common frame of reference for the
questioners and witnesses, and ultimately, a more comprehensive discussion—the FBI provided
four witnesses in April and May to address the Committee’s questions on the topic.5

Although the Committee expressly placed a priority on witness interviews, the FBI
continued to work to produce additional documents in response to the subpoena. Following
prioritization guidance the FBI received as part of the ongoing accommodations process, the FBI
tailored its electronic search for records sent or received by particular custodians the Committee
identified as of interest. The FBI also searched for and identified documents based on the
Committee’s stated priorities, including specific documents and custodians identified during the
course of transcribed interviews. Since that time, the FBI has made several supplemental
document productions containing communications regarding the Attorney General’s
Memorandum.6 On June 27, the FBI produced an additional 88 pages of documents, including
certain of the communications that the Committee identified during various transcribed
interviews as priority documents.7

We understand the Committee’s questions regarding redactions on certain of the

produced materials, and we appreciated the opportunity to discuss these issues on a call between
the Committee, the FBI, and Department of Justice (Department). This conversation helped to
better understand the specific concerns and priorities related to certain redactions.8 The
redactions reflect longstanding practices to protect certain Executive Branch confidentiality
interests, including to protect certain personal information and information related to Department
deliberations and legal advice. The FBI’s longstanding practice is to redact the personally
identifying information of non-Senior Executive Service (SES) employees to protect the
confidentiality and safety of those employees, as well as their work. We also redact personally

4
See, e.g., email from Committee staff to FBI (Mar. 9, 2023); Telephone call with Comm. Staff, H. Comm. On the
Judiciary, to Office of Legislative Affairs, Dept. of Justice and Office of Gen. Counsel Staff, Fed. Bureau of
Investigation (Mar. 13, 2023).
5
The FBI has provided EAD Timothy R. Langan, SAC Kevin Vorndran, SAC Carlton Peeples, and SAC Steve
Jensen for transcribed interviews with the Committee related to the Attorney General’s Memorandum. In addition,
multiple other FBI witnesses appearing for interviews on unrelated topics have also been asked questions regarding
the Attorney General’s Memorandum, and the FBI has allowed all such questions to be asked of each and every
witness.
6
See, e.g., FBI Document Production Bates FBI-HJC118-SB-000001-000004 (March 1, 2023), see also FBI-
HJC118-SB-000005-000014 (March 8, 2023); FBI-HJC118-SB-000362-000399 (May 26, 2023); see also FBI-
HJC118-SB-000400-000487 (June 27, 2023).
7
See, e.g., FBI Document Production Bates FBI-HJC-118-SB400-487 (June 27, 2023).
8
Telephone call with Comm. Staff, H. Comm. On the Judiciary, to Office of Legislative Affairs, Dept. of Justice
and Office of Gen. Counsel Staff, Fed. Bureau of Investigation (July 7, 2023).
The Honorable Jim Jordan
Page Four

identifying information of non-governmental individuals referenced in FBI documents.

Redactions may also be made to protect internal Department policymaking processes and legal
analysis often involving multiple Department components. Consistent with accommodation
process, following the discussion with the Committee, referenced above, additional redactions
have been lifted. Accordingly, versions of previously produced documents are being produced
today with many redactions removed.9 We are also producing additional documents, many of
which were discussed at the transcribed interviews, with limited redactions.10 If you have
additional questions about these redactions, the FBI and Department remain available to meet
with Committee staff to discuss additional accommodations that may be available given the
Department=wide equities involved.

As we have indicated when transmitting each of our prior responses to the subpoena, the
FBI has continued to search for and provide additional responsive material on a rolling basis.
Pursuant to that process, we have identified additional documents, including field office level
communications related to meetings convened with U.S. Attorney’s Offices in accordance with
the Attorney General’s Memorandum, the FBI’s role as a member of the Department’s task
force, and additional communications related to investigations identified and labeled with the
EDUOFFICIALS tag. The results of that collection and review are attached here, as well. The
invitation above to engage in further accommodation discussions applies to these documents, as
well.

With respect to the Guardian summaries provided on March 8, 2023, we understand from
your July 17 letter that the Committee is now requesting the FBI produce underlying documents
relating to those summaries. As part of the accommodation process and to allow us to focus our
efforts, if the Committee would identify which of the Guardian summaries are of interest, we are
happy to determine whether there is any corresponding documentation that could be provided,
consistent with our obligation to protect the individual privacy of potential subjects, witnesses,
and victims; law-enforcement sensitive information; and other confidentiality interests.

Finally, should the FBI identify additional materials responsive to the Committee’s
subpoena, in addition to those discussed above, we are committed to providing any such
materials as expeditiously as possible, consistent with our law enforcement, national security
obligations, and confidentiality interests.

January 23 Domain Perspective

Since receiving the Committee’s requests regarding the January 23 Domain Perspective,
the FBI has made two document productions totaling 266 pages and has provided additional
information in response to the subpoena’s requests.

As the FBI has previously stated, the January 23rd Domain Perspective, an analytical
product published by the FBI’s Richmond Field Office, failed to meet the FBI’s standards and
was withdrawn. The FBI commenced an internal review spearheaded by the Inspection Division
of the process by which the January 23rd Domain Perspective was created and internally

9
See FBI-HJC118-000488 – FBI-HJC118-000580, enclosed.
10
See FBI-HJC118-000581– FBI-HJC118-000829, enclosed.
The Honorable Jim Jordan
Page Five

published. As we have previously told the Committee, that review is nearly complete. The
FBI’s Inspection Division is available to provide the Committee a briefing on its review and
conclusions as soon as next month and proposes August 22, 2023, for the briefing.

We have endeavored to provide responsive information and documents to the Committee,

while simultaneously respecting the Inspection Division’s internal review process. To that end,
the FBI provided a redacted version of the January 23rd Domain Perspective on March 23, 2023,
along with the internal guidance regarding the standards for creation of domain
perspectives. The production included redactions for law enforcement sensitive information,
such as information specific to ongoing criminal investigations, as well as personally identifying
information. Per the Committee’s request and based upon the current law enforcement
sensitivity of information referenced in the document, we have since endeavored to remove as
many of these redactions as possible and are attaching here a less-redacted version of the January
23rd Domain Perspective.11 We respectfully request that the Committee not publicly disclose or
otherwise release the information reflected in this document without prior consultation with the
FBI.

On April 28, 2023, the FBI provided a second production of documents and a letter
providing additional, detailed information in response to your April 10 subpoena. These
productions confirmed that no other intelligence products contained the terms identified in the
subpoena. This production also included documents related to the Richmond Field Office’s
outreach to the local faith communities and communications with the Catholic Diocese of
Richmond. With respect to your recent request for additional communications between the
Richmond Field Office and the Catholic Diocese of Richmond, we are unaware of such
documents. However, we are continuing our diligence to confirm whether any such documents
exist and, if they do, we will produce them to the Committee expeditiously. Please note that of
those communications previously produced, the FBI redactions were only for personally
identifying information, almost all of which pertained to members of the public. Should the
Committee wish to see an unredacted copy of these materials, the FBI is amenable to producing
such documents in camera.

Further, as we explained in our April 28 response, the FBI has undertaken an electronic
search for additional records related to the January 23rd Domain Perspective. Having received no
feedback from the Committee on how FBI should prioritize the categories of information
requested in your April 10 subpoena, the FBI has searched for potentially responsive materials
on both the unclassified and classified enclaves of FBI systems. We are currently reviewing
these records and are committed to producing materials responsive to the subpoena on a rolling
basis, consistent with our obligations regarding law enforcement, national security, and other
Executive Branch authorities and confidentiality interests. This search was intended to cover all
portions of the subpoena’s requests, including instances in which the January 23rd Domain
Perspective was circulated by email. However, it is important to clarify that, as we previously
stated, this product was published internally on FBI intelligence platforms, consistent with how
such products are typically shared within the FBI.

11
See FBI-HJC118-DP-000268 to FBI-HJC118-DP-000278, enclosed. The only remaining redactions are on these
materials are necessary to protect the integrity of ongoing investigations and/or prosecutions, the identity of the
subject(s) of closed investigations, or the privacy and safety of non-SES FBI employees.
The Honorable Jim Jordan
Page Six

Finally, should the Committee still have questions following the Inspection Division
briefing, the FBI is prepared to make Richmond Special Agent in Charge Stanley Meador
available for a transcribed interview as soon as August 24 or 25. The FBI is happy to coordinate
a mutually agreeable date if the Committee is unavailable on those dates.

Conclusion

The enclosed productions contain law enforcement sensitive material with, as discussed
above, limited redactions to protect individual privacy and other well-established confidentiality
interests. The FBI is producing this material to the Committee as an accommodation of the
Committee’s requests. The production of this information to the Committee does not waive any
applicable privileges or other protections. Please note that by releasing law enforcement
sensitive material with limited redactions to the Committee, the FBI is making an
accommodation unique to the facts and circumstances of this particular matter; it is not a public
disclosure, but instead a good faith effort to assist the Committee in its inquiry. Disclosure of
law enforcement sensitive information could have a significant impact on the FBI’s operations.
Accordingly, we respectfully request that the Committee not disseminate or otherwise disclose
these documents without prior consultation with the FBI.
The FBI remains committed to responding to the Committee’s requests for documents
and information according to the constitutionally mandated accommodation process. As
President Reagan explained in his 1982 directive regarding congressional requests for
information, “the tradition of accommodation should continue as the primary means of resolving
conflicts between the Branches.”12 The Constitution ‘contemplates such accommodation’ and
requires each Branch to engage in a ‘realistic evaluation of [one another’s] needs.’”13
Throughout the accommodation process, the FBI has endeavored to explain to the Committee
that our responsibilities to protect Executive Branch authorities and confidentiality interests—
and our obligations to be responsive to the many congressional oversight requests we receive—
may affect the manner, scope, and pace of our productions of information to meet the
Committee’s needs. We have consistently sought to communicate these considerations to the
Committee so you may also meet your respective obligations to engage in a “realistic evaluation
of” Executive Branch needs so that we work together to achieve an appropriate “optimal
accommodation.”14

The Committee has made clear through its requests and engagements that its priorities are
not limited to its subpoenas, and the FBI has endeavored to meet the Committee’s interests and
needs accordingly. The enclosed Appendix catalogues these efforts. In total, we believe the
extensive ongoing document productions, transcribed interviews, and upcoming briefing
constitute significant accommodations to the Committee’s stated concerns and questions
regarding both the Attorney General’s Memorandum and the January 23rd Domain Perspective.

12
See Memorandum for Heads of Executive Agencies: Procedures Governing Responses to Congressional Requests
for Information (Nov. 4, 1982)
13
See United States v. AT&T, 567 F.2d 121, 127, 130 (D.C. Cir. 1997).
14
See id. at 127.
The Honorable Jim Jordan
Page Seven

We look forward to our continued engagement with the Committee regarding these, and all
other, Committee requests.

Sincerely,

Christopher Dunham
Acting Assistant Director
Enclosure

cc: The Honorable Jerrold L. Nadler

Ranking Member
The Honorable Jim Jordan
Page Eight

APPENDIX
FBI Responses to House Judiciary Committee Oversight Requests
118th Congress15

February 2023 • February 1: Authorized transcribed interview of former FBI

Executive Assistant Director Jill Sanborn.
• February 2: Provided a narrative response and document production
in response to the January 17 requests regarding the 2019 Inspection
Division DIOG Audit
• February 3: Provided a narrative response and document production
in response to the January 17 requests regarding the FBI’s domestic
terrorism symbols guides.
• February 8: Provided a narrative response and offered a briefing
regarding the January 17 and January 27 requests to interview
Executive Assistant Director Jennifer Moore.

March 2023 • March 1: Provided a narrative response and document production in

response to the February 3 subpoena regarding the Attorney General’s
Memorandum.
• March 8: Provided a supplemental document production in response
to the February 3 subpoena regarding the Attorney General’s
Memorandum, including in camera production of Guardian
summaries for unclassified closed Guardians that received the
EDUOFFICIALS tag.
• March 8: Provided a narrative response and document production in
response to the January 17 requests regarding the Secure Work
Environment at Perkins Coie LLP.
• March 9: Provided a narrative response and offered additional
briefings in response to the March 8 additional transcribed interview
requests.
• March 13: Provided a narrative response and document production
in response to the January 17 requests regarding FISA 702.
• March 14: Provided a narrative response to the January 17 requests
regarding the pipe bomb investigation.
• March 23: Provided a narrative response and document production
in response to the February 16 and March 20 requests regarding the
January 23rd Domain Perspective.
• March 29: Acting Assistant Director for the Office of Congressional
Affairs testimony before the Judiciary Committee Subcommittee on
Responsiveness and Accountability to Oversight.
April 2023 • April 6: Provided a briefing to Judiciary Committee staff regarding
domestic terrorism issues.
• April 18: Transcribed interview of Executive Assistant Director
Timothy Langan regarding the Attorney General’s Memorandum.
• April 24: Transcribed interview of Executive Assistant Director
Jennifer Moore regarding security clearance adjudications.

15
This catalogue includes significant engagements and productions to the House Judiciary Committee, but is not
comprehensive.
The Honorable Jim Jordan
Page Nine

• April 25: Provided a briefing to House Judiciary Committee staff

regarding FISA 702.
• April 28: Provided further narrative response and document
production regarding the January 23rd Domain Perspective, in
response to the April 10 subpoena.
May 2023 • May 2: Provided narrative response to the Committee’s deposition
subpoena to Executive Assistant Director Jennifer Moore.
• May 4: Transcribed interview of Special Agent in Charge Joseph
Bonavolonta regarding domestic terrorism and the Attorney General’s
Memorandum.
• May 11: Provided further narrative response to the Committee’s
deposition subpoena to Executive Assistant Director Jennifer Moore.
• May 16: Transcribed interview of Special Agent in Charge Kevin
Vorndran regarding the Attorney General’s Memorandum.
• May 17: Provided narrative response and document production
regarding security clearance adjudications.
• May 18: Transcribed interview of Special Agent in Charge Carlton
Peeples regarding the Attorney General’s Memorandum.
• May 19: Transcribed interview of Special Agent in Charge Steve
Jensen regarding domestic terrorism and the Attorney General’s
Memorandum.
• May 26: Provided further document production in response to
February 3 subpoena regarding the Attorney General’s Memorandum.
June 2023 • June 2: Transcribed interview of Executive Assistant Director
Jennifer Moore regarding security clearance adjudications.
• June 13: Transcribed interview of Special Agent in Charge Charles
Dayoub regarding the Kansas City Field Office and other issues.
• June 27: Provided further document production in response to
February 3 subpoena regarding the Attorney General’s Memorandum.
July 2023 • July 6: Authorized transcribed interview of former FBI Supervisory
Special Agent.
• July 11: Provided a briefing to Judiciary Committee Members
regarding FISA 702 at FBI Headquarters.
• July 12: Director Wray testified before the Judiciary Committee.
• July 17: Transcribed interview of Section Chief Laura Dehmlow
regarding the FBI’s Foreign Influence Task Force.
• July 19: Transcribed interview of Intelligence Analyst in Charge
Nikki Floris regarding defensive briefings and the FBI’s Foreign
Influence Task Force.
• July 21: Provided further narrative response regarding FISA 702.
• July 25: Provided further document production in response to
February 3 subpoena regarding the Attorney General’s Memorandum.
• July 25: Provided further narrative response and document
production regarding the January 23rd Domain Perspective, in
response to the April 10 subpoena.
August 2023 • August 22: Proposed briefing for Judiciary Committee Members and
staff regarding the Inspection Division’s review of the January 23 rd
Domain Perspective.
• August 24 or 25: Proposed transcribed interview of Special Agent in
Charge Stanley Meador regarding the January 23 rd Domain
Perspective.