On Wednesday, fresh off his various hockey exploits, Federal Bureau of Investigation Director Kash Patel rolled out a unique partnership with the Ultimate Fighting Championship.
“I’m thrilled to announce this historic seminar between the FBI and the UFC at Quantico,” Patel said in a statement that was released by the mixed martial arts organization. “This is a tremendous opportunity for our FBI agents to learn and train with some of the greatest athletes on earth — helping the world’s premier law enforcement agency be even better prepared to protect the American people.”
According to the statement, the program will involve some of the top fighters who have participated in UFC’s pay-per-view bouts hosting an “exclusive training seminar” for students and the bureau’s senior staff at the FBI Special Agent Academy in Quantico. The event is set to take place on Saturday and Sunday.
Patel reportedly began floating the idea of a UFC partnership with the bureau early last year, almost immediately after he became FBI director. Per the announcement, the seminar will involve UFC talent giving “insight into how they train for competition” and demonstrating “specific techniques and tactics, offering a unique perspective to the students as they prepare to enter the field office.”
Basic mixed martial arts techniques — particularly grappling — can be useful for law enforcement agents. These tactics can be utilized for self defense or de-escalation as they can be used to subdue a target without striking or weaponry. Martial arts practitioners regularly offer training sessions to police agencies around the world.
However, the roster the UFC is bringing to the FBI consists of some of the combat sport’s elite, including current interim lightweight champion Justin Gaethe, former middleweight champion Chris Weidman, and Brazilian jiu-jitsu legend Renzo Gracie. Fighters at this level typically offer insights best suited to elite practitioners of the sport — and their advice often comes at a high price. For example, last month, Gracie offered a seminar to students at one of his own academies that cost $100 per person. Rates for similar events outside of academies are often higher and these elite athletes typically do not participate for fees of less than four or five figures.
Spokespeople for the UFC did not respond to questions from TPM about the cost of the seminar or who is footing the bill. An FBI spokesperson similarly did not respond to questions about whether the bureau is paying for the seminar or receiving it as a gift from the UFC.
“Thank you for reaching out, however the FBI does not have further information to share other than the press release and quote from Director Patel,” the FBI spokesperson said.
Patel has previously faced questions about his use of bureau resources to provide security for his girlfriend and for his recent trip to the Olympics in Italy, where he partied with the gold medal winning U.S. men’s hockey team. The FBI director, who criticized his predecessors for their use of private planes, has used the bureau’s jets extensively, including for the Olympics trip and to visit his girlfriend, prompting sharp questions from Congress.
The UFC has an extensive relationship with the administration of President Donald Trump that has mixed profits and promotion. UFC CEO Dana White is a personal friend of Trump’s. The organization is also set to stage fights on the White House lawn in June. That event is expected to cost roughly $60 million.
TKO Group Holdings, which owns the UFC, has said it will take on all of the costs associated with the White House event. However, the company has also been clear that the marquee bout is an opportunity for potential sponsorships and promotion. During a quarterly earnings call last month, TKO Group Holdings President and Chief Operating Officer Mark Shapiro suggested it was an especially valuable opportunity in light of the UFC’s new streaming deal with Paramount, another company that has a complex relationship with the Trump administration.
“This is an investment for the long term,” Shapiro said. “This is about earned media. This is about sampling, new fans, casual viewers, a spectacle on a stage that will ultimately expand our audience, our viewership and our success on Paramount+.”
After news of Patel’s interest in a partnership with the FBI broke last year, Reuters spoke with a former Justice Department official who questioned the value of any potential collaboration and dismissed it as being “clearly motivated by the glitz and glamour show, and Trump’s friend.”
A former senior government official who discussed the UFC seminar with TPM said it could be a worthwhile opportunity for the FBI. However, the person also noted there are regulations related to the costs of the event.
“There are complex frameworks that need to be met for both accepting gifts or procuring services and something like this would presumably fall into either category,” said the former official, who requested anonymity. “There are ways to do it. The question is, are they doing it the right way? I can make the argument that, from a recruitment standpoint, this is valuable, so it’s worth paying a branded company more.”
The official noted there could be legal and ethical issues if the bureau did not follow the proper procedures for bidding on contracts or receiving gifts in its staging of the seminar. And, for now, it seems there are no clear answers to any questions about the event’s cost.
“If they didn’t follow the procedures, that would be a problem,” the former official said.
Virginia Canter is the Anticorruption and Ethics Chief Counsel & Director at the State Democracy Defenders Fund. She previously served as a White House Associate Counsel for Presidents Barack Obama and Bill Clinton and held senior ethics roles at multiple agencies. In a phone call with TPM, Canter similarly noted there were legal and ethical questions surrounding the FBI’s UFC seminar and that many of them center on how the costs are being covered.
“If they’re paying for it, you can probably argue that there’s something unique about it and maybe there’s a sole-source basis to do it. If it’s a procurement, they should be following the rules,” Canter said.
Canter noted different issues come up if the FBI is receiving the seminar free of charge.
“The Department of Justice has gift acceptance authority from what I can see, but generally, you can’t solicit a gift,” Canter said. “This would have to have been something where someone reached out to the FBI from the UFC and offered it to them. … You can solicit if you get approval in advance from the attorney general or the deputy attorney general, so you’d have to go to a pretty high level to solicit a gift.”
Canter said this question of soliciting a gift is particularly relevant given Patel’s expressed interest in the partnership. And she further said the fact his comments came so early in Trump’s second term made it unlikely he had the proper approval.
“Clearly he encouraged the solicitation,” said Canter. “If he didn’t actually solicit it, he did encourage it. The question is if he got permission for those comments and it’s doubtful he did.”
According to Canter, if the seminar is a gift, it would have to be included in an annual report sent to the attorney general. This report is also provided to the House and Senate Appropriations Committees, making this a matter subject to potential congressional oversight.
Canter also said the seminar could raise questions about “the appearance of impropriety” since issues involving the UFC or related businesses could come before the FBI.
“The closer you are to an investigative role, the more you have to think about, maybe this isn’t something you would want to accept,” Canter said. “Is there a possibility of a conflict of interest? Look, there are controversies that arise in sports.”
Canter pointed to past investigations involving major sports leagues and gambling. Late last year, according to ESPN, the UFC and FBI were reportedly “actively working together on an investigation into unusual betting” ahead of one of the promotion’s fights. She also said government agencies need to think carefully any time they get publicly involved with a business.
“Any time you’re doing a high-profile event you are potentially lending the appearance of an endorsement,” Canter said. “Then you have to step back and think, is that consistent with general government ethics guidelines?”
Overall, she said a key question is whether the seminar is “a serious endeavor” or something “where it looks like the agency is endorsing a business.” And, on that point, Canter was clearly dubious of the entire enterprise.
“Are they really training agents or is this a TV promotional opportunity for someone to take off their shirt? You have to look at all the optics,” Canter said, adding, “This just seems more like a media opportunity than anything given the sports nature of it and the controversy over betting. I would think twice about it.”
Source link
