The Homeland Security Department (DHS) has been administering lie detector tests to employees to root out those who might be leaking sensitive information to the press.
The Wall Street Journal reported that DHS, along with several other federal agencies, has been trying to prevent employees from providing sensitive information to media outlets — especially those that are clearly biased against the Trump administration.
Polygraph exams have long been a routine tool used inside intelligence agencies, including DHS, as part of security clearances, job applications and certain investigations. But under Homeland Security Secretary Kristi Noem’s direction, they have been used to search for leaks of information that Noem and her top deputies consider disloyal or embarrassing, according to current and former officials familiar with the practice. The information the employees are accused of leaking often isn’t classified, the people said.
The exams are being administered by a little-known office inside the Transportation Security Administration, the part of DHS commonly known for screening passengers and baggage at airports. Under previous administrations, agents within TSA’s polygraph program worked on criminal or administrative investigations, according to the department’s website, and the program was used, for example, to test airport employees accused of theft of a passenger’s property.
Several employees at immigration agencies—along with the Federal Emergency Management Agency, a part of DHS that President Trump has moved to dismantle—have been asked to take polygraph exams, the people said. Those who have been asked to take exams range from top staffers in agency leadership to employees in media offices within the department who are authorized to speak with reporters but are suspected of sharing unapproved information.
WAIT. Someone actually leaked that Kristi Noem is making DHS employees take lie detector tests to find out who is ... leaking?
— Mac MacKenzie (@MacMacKenzie32) May 22, 2025
PRICELESS.https://t.co/OAjVyIiRx7
While federal agencies have used lie detector tests on employees in the past, The Journal’s report suggests that the DHS, under Secretary Kristi Noem’s leadership has expanded far beyond what has been seen in the past.
DHS spokesperson Tricia McLaughlin told The Journal that the agency is unapologetic about its efforts to root out leakers that undermine national security.”
She further explained that the department is “agnostic about your standing, tenure, political appointment, or status as a career civil servant—we will track down leakers and prosecute them to the fullest extent of the law” and that “Information doesn’t have to be classified to be confidential or not for public consumption.”
It appears the strategy may have produced some results, according to the report.
Some employees have been placed on administrative leave following their polygraphs, while others have resigned rather than take the exams, according to people familiar with the dynamics inside DHS.
I’m of two minds on this one.
Yes, the Trump administration has had serious problems with leaks. This is especially true when it comes to people feeding information to a hostile press whose only agenda is to get Democrats elected. In most cases, it is likely not appropriate for certain employees to take it upon themselves to divulge sensitive information that could do more harm than good.
On the other hand, this raises an important question. What about whistleblowers? Tom Devine, legal director for the Government Accountability Project, told The Wall Street Journal the practice could violate federal laws that shield whistleblowers from being threatened.
What happens when corrupt officials in DHS or other agencies engage in nefarious behavior? We have already seen that in many cases, those exposing malfeasance often aren’t heard until they go to the press. Moreover, it is not uncommon for corrupt officials to target whistleblowers. The threat of polygraph tests could easily be used to cow people into silence, or to punish them if they come forward with information the American public needs to know.
This could happen under any administration — especially among mid or low-level employees and managers. There should definitely be a balance between smoking out malevolent leakers and protecting those who discover corruption.