Reconnaissance RC-26: Air Force Inspector General’s Investigation of RC-26B Operations, 1-4 June 2020

Video footage from a Washington National Guard RC-26 over a wildfire in Oregon:

Secretary of Defense through the Secretary of the Air Force tasked the Department of the Air Force Inspector General to go investigate the use of RC-26 recently in the support of civil unrest events across the country. So we did. DOD media transcript:

And there were a total of seven flights in four cities and we looked at every single one of them. And we — there were two big buckets that we looked at. The first bucket is the use of the RC-26 inappropriately collect on U.S. persons at all. Did we violate the Intel Oversight rules, given the capabilities of the airplane? And then the second question is: was — were the appropriate authorities used and exercised in the use of such assets, specifically the RC-26?

And it took us a little longer than I wanted to to get this done, but we couldn’t afford to get it wrong. So we left no stone unturned. And we went back to the airplanes that flew the mission. And luckily data is normally is preserved from the missions, so we collected the data to see it for our own — with our own eyes. We didn’t just ask people “what do you think you did?” or — we have to see it as I.G. investigators. 

We interviewed the crews. So we interviewed a total of 31 people and looked at: what were you tasked to do in the first place, and was that appropriate? And then what did you actually do, and was that appropriate?

And the takeaway, the headline — and you’ll see why in detail in the report — is on none of the flights, that’s seven flights, four cities, did any of the crews violate the rules of intel collection on U.S. persons. So — and they weren’t anywhere close to the left and right limits.

We were looking at fires that were burning outside of structures to determine safety response — fire department, and how the crowd’s — you know, interacting with the fire and how law enforcement is supposed to react to all of that. So it was geographic monitoring.

And what we didn’t see is monitoring or tracking of an individual, right, at all. We didn’t see they were tracking any person — why are you interested in this person. 

To give you an extreme example, which obviously would be clearly inappropriate, if you’re — somebody exits a building and you get a handoff — this is just an example to give you. So what’s the other extreme? Somebody gives a look at that lat-lon exiting the building is . And now, you’re tracking [him] as an individual. 

[He] is moving around. You see [him] doing something illegal, you hand it off to law enforcement. [He] gets arrested. That video is used as evidence. That is an example of clearly, totally 100 percent inappropriate, right.

So again, what we saw was geographic monitoring and not individual tracking. And the monitoring was for crowd size; crowd flow; a lot of fires, how large they were, what the impact — safety impact of them were. And I can prove that, right? We interviewed the crew, we have the data. And so that one I’m not even closely waffling on. And we — it took us time to get there because we have to see it with our own eyes. So that’s the glass — you know, that’s the good news.

We did find, however, that the governing policies at the DOD level for the use of such equipment in such circumstances — and they’re dated. The policies are not new. They’ve existed for many, many years. I think all the way back to 10 years, don’t quote me — but it’s quite a while.

When you look at them — and we have a battalion of attorneys sitting around on my I.G. team looking at this. And they’re loose, they’re open for interpretation. So one of the recommendations, and we have several in the report, is to tighten down on these governing policies so that there is no room for inaccurate interpretation. 

And the reason that’s important, when we looked at the authorities that were used to use this platform we found some disconnects, right. And the first one is the interpretation that this platform is not considered an intel platform. That is an important thing. Because when you see — designate a platform an intel platform, it is — has governance all the way up to the Sec. Def. of when it can be used in such circumstances. 

So the Guard Bureau’s interpretation — and by the way, historically, always been the case ever since this platform has existed — that this is not an intel platform, we disagreed with in the report. And by the way, this report was legally reviewed all the way up at the OSDGC level for a purpose because this is DOD level guidance that we’re talking about. So we — we totally disagreed with that.

Obviously, it starts with an R. It’s an RC-26. That’s a reconnaissance. And the reasons that were given why it was not viewed an intel platform, we were not convinced. And we said, no, that should be an intel platform.

Well, once you reach that threshold, you have to — the requirements, the authorities of who can authorize the use go all the way — you have to ask the Secretary of Defense to use such a platform. And then there are carve-outs to use it with appropriate measures and make sure intel oversight’s not violated, so on and so forth.

So they didn’t ask the Sec. Def. to use the platform in the way they did because they didn’t view it as an intel platform — which, by the way, wasn’t a one-off. They’ve never viewed it that way in the entire existence of this platform.

The second thing is this was the first time we could find that the RC-26 was used for — in support of civil disturbance. So they — doctrinally, they didn’t have anything to support such use.

It’s historically been used for counter-drug missions, which is its primary intended purpose, but also for disaster relief. Like you have people – you know, you have floods and people are stuck on roofs and they’re trying to figure out where they are. They can use the RC-26 to find those folks so they could be rescued.

We didn’t find any instance in the past where they’ve used it for such things so it was a – kind of a new thing and there was not a sufficient doctrine behind it to support the use. So again, we called out the policies as being too loose, open for interpretation and we believe the way the Guard Bureau interpreted the policies and – and not asking the appropriate questions was not appropriate. 

So the go-dos are to fix the policies and there are stakeholders that – that they’re directed to in the report. You’ll see the recommendations at the end to tighten down the policies. The only thing else I’d like to flag is we also called out the – the use of specific funds for the execution of this mission – and I know that’s a – kind of a contentious discussion at times – but we took the position it’s – it’s legally supportable that the use of 32 U.S.C. 502(f) funding, just training for the execution of – of such missions is not appropriate and needs to be looked at.

FOR THE FULL 70 Page Investigation click here