WASHINGTON — The Environmental Protection Agency has been examining posts on Twitter and other social media about Scott Pruitt, the agency’s administrator, to justify his extraordinary and costly security measures, which have included first-class travel and full-time protection even on personal trips to Disneyland, the Rose Bowl and college basketball games, according to interviews and agency and congressional documents.
The social media efforts have come under scrutiny by some Democratic lawmakers, as well as senior officials at the E.P.A., who said the review had uncovered individuals sounding off against Mr. Pruitt but had found no actionable threats against him. One top E.P.A. official said in an interview that he had objected to the efforts when they were first discussed last year, to no avail.
Suspicious posts are referred to the E.P.A. inspector general’s office, which is charged with investigating threats. Spokesmen for both the inspector general and the E.P.A. declined to comment on the nature of specific threats, citing security concerns. The E.P.A. spokesman, Jahan Wilcox, said in a statement, “Scott Pruitt has faced an unprecedented amount of death threats against him.”
But two Democratic senators said on Tuesday that an agency whistle-blower had provided them with an internal E.P.A. memo concluding that a threat assessment prepared by Mr. Pruitt’s security detail did not appear to justify the increased protection. The internal memo was prepared in February by the intelligence unit of the agency’s homeland security office, according to the senators, Tom Carper of Delaware and Sheldon Whitehouse of Rhode Island.
The security detail’s assessment “DOES NOT employ sound analysis or articulate relevant ‘threat specific’ information appropriate to draw any resource or level of threat conclusions regarding the protection posture for the Administrator,” the memo said, according to a letter written by the two senators that called on the Senate to investigate the matter.
An individual involved in writing the memo, Mario Caraballo, has been removed from his job as deputy associate administrator of the homeland security office, although an E.P.A. official said the dismissal was unrelated to the memo.
The senators also said the social media activity — described in their letter as “open-source review of social media” — had uncovered “no evidence of a direct threat” to Mr. Pruitt.
Mr. Pruitt is being protected round the clock by a team of about 20 people — three times as many as on his predecessor‘s security detail — at an estimated cost of $3 million a year, according to E.P.A. officials as first reported by The Associated Press. Mr. Pruitt’s calendar, recently made public, shows that the security detail accompanies him even on days when he has no scheduled work events. Mr. Whitehouse said his office had documents showing that members of Mr. Pruitt’s security detail were present during a trip to California when the administrator visited Disneyland and the Rose Bowl.
The review of social media postings turned up commentary related to the E.P.A. and its management under Mr. Pruitt, including one “social media post in which an individual ‘stated he is not happy with some of the Administrator’s policies and wanted to express his displeasure,’” according to the letter on Tuesday from the two Democratic senators.
Mr. Carper and Mr. Whitehouse declined to release copies of the materials quoted in the letter, saying they included sensitive details about security arrangements.
Senator John Barrasso, Republican of Wyoming, who is chairman of the Senate committee that oversees the E.P.A., said that the Democrats had inappropriately released selected parts of an internal agency security memo.
“Any reasonable reading of these documents supports the Office of the Inspector General’s statements that Administrator Pruitt faces a ‘variety of direct death threats,’” Mr. Barrasso said in a statement. “This is exactly why members should not publicly disclose information that relates to the safety of a cabinet member. It is also why this committee will not hold a hearing on this issue.”
Briefings on threats to Mr. Pruitt, which included posts on social media, were delivered by E.P.A. security personnel to top agency officials, including Mr. Pruitt’s chief of staff, Ryan Jackson, according to an employee who participated in a briefing. The employee said the briefing highlighted mostly criticisms of Mr. Pruitt’s policies as having a deleterious effect on the environment, rather than instances of threats to his personal safety.
The employee said that the agency’s social media reviews had been the subject of a recent meeting that included representatives from the agency’s inspector general’s office and its homeland security office, which had produced the internal memo that was critical of the threat assessments.
Mr. Wilcox, the E.P.A. spokesman, said threat assessments were conducted within the agency’s office of compliance, using information collected from Mr. Pruitt’s security detail, the E.P.A.’s homeland security office and its inspector general’s office.
“Americans should all agree that members of the president’s cabinet should be kept safe from these violent threats,” Mr. Wilcox said.
Other government agencies and companies have used social media to monitor protesters or to look for information on emerging incidents. It is unclear whether the E.P.A. has looked to social media in the past to determine threats to an administrator.
The practice, as deployed by police departments, has brought criticism from the American Civil Liberties Union, and social media companies including Twitter have cut off access to certain software programs that authorities use to track postings.
Faiza Patel of the Brennan Center for Justice, a nonpartisan law and policy institute, said she had seen a rise in social media monitoring within law enforcement agencies, and cautioned that what people say in an Instagram post or a tweet can be open to interpretation.
“The fact that 10,000 people say, ‘I hate Scott Pruitt’ on Twitter doesn’t suggest to me there is a threat against Scott Pruitt,” said Ms. Patel, who is co-director of the center’s liberty and national security program. “It suggests there are a lot of people who dislike Scott Pruitt.”
If the E.P.A.’s review of social media was aggressively monitoring critics of Mr. Pruitt, Marc Rotenberg, president of the Electronic Privacy Information Center, a Washington-based nonprofit group, said that it might violate federal law. He cited a 2011 case that successfully challenged the Department of Homeland Security when it moved from searching for potential terror threats to tracking individuals in the United States who had been critical of the agency and its senior officials.
“The collection of data on individuals, based solely on their criticism of public officials, raises both First Amendment and federal Privacy Act questions that need to be answered,” Mr. Rotenberg said.