The statement is not 100% exact but close enough for a reasonable person (e.g., claimed 70% vs. actual 65%). Learn more in Methodology.
Documentation from the U.S. Office of Personnel Management lists the named DOI offices and bureaus as critical to implementing the cited strategy.
The Department of the Interior press release states that specific DOI law-enforcement offices and bureaus "have been identified by the U.S. Office of Personnel Management as critical" to implementing President Trump’s strategy to "secure the border, protect our country, and keep American citizens safe." The U.S. Office of Personnel Management’s 2026 law‑enforcement special rate FAQ and related materials do say that certain front-line law enforcement personnel are critical to implementing the President’s border and public-safety strategy and describe using special salary rates for those positions, explicitly naming U.S. Park Police officers among the covered categories. However, OPM’s publicly available documents identify broad categories and specific occupational groups (e.g., CBP, ICE, Secret Service, Federal Bureau of Prisons, FBI, DEA, U.S. Marshals, ATF, and National Park Service – U.S. Park Police officers) rather than the full list of DOI components cited in the Interior release (such as Bureau of Indian Affairs – Office of Justice Services, Bureau of Land Management – Law Enforcement, and certain Fish and Wildlife Service divisions). There is no clear OPM document that individually designates every DOI office and bureau listed by Interior as critical to the strategy, even though some DOI law-enforcement roles (notably U.S. Park Police) are explicitly covered. On balance, the claim is close in spirit—OPM did identify certain front-line law enforcement personnel, including some within DOI, as critical to implementing the President’s border and public-safety priorities—but it overgeneralizes by implying that all the specific DOI offices and bureaus listed were explicitly identified by OPM in that way, which is not fully supported by available evidence. The verdict is therefore Close because the underlying linkage to OPM’s designation of certain law-enforcement personnel is real, but the statement extends that designation more broadly than OPM’s documented language clearly supports.