Yesterday, I spoke with Associated Press reporter Tara Copp about polygraphs in connection with the Defense Department’s investigation of a leak concerning a classified briefing that Elon Musk was to receive at the Pentagon. A memo by Secretary of Defense Pete Hegseth’s chief of staff suggests that polygraphs may be used in this investigation:
I think it’s important to note that there is no documented instance of the polygraph ever solving a federal leak investigation.
Respectfully, given that the whole point of the poly is to intimidate the subject, what’s the difference whether it’s being used for pre-employment background, periodic review, or special investigation?
The polygraph format used, and the likelihood of one’s passing, may vary depending upon the circumstances. For example, new applicants are typically subjected to counterintelligence-scope polygraph screening using the so-named Test for Espionage and Sabotage. Since virtually no one is a spy, and DoD polygraphers are well aware of this, the politically acceptable pass rate is necessarily very high.
In a leak investigation, by contrast, which is not a general screening investigation, the politically mandated high pass rates associated with CI-screening do not apply. The risk of failing (rightly or wrongly) will be higher.
Why would the “risk” be higher if the subject is telling the truth? Why would there be any risk at all if the machine works like they say it does and someone is being truthful? (Yes, this was written with heavy sarcasm). Oh how I wish it was as simple as going through a CI-only once upon a time. Anyone in the major leagues of the IC got the FS.