FBI’s Controversial Use of Polygraphs: Loyalty Tests or Security Measure?

Traditionally, the Federal Bureau of Investigation has used polygraph examinations to identify internal security threats—employees who may have compromised classified information or otherwise posed a risk to national security. However, under the leadership of its current director, Kash Patel, the use of lie detector tests has expanded considerably and taken on a more pointed tone.

Since Mr. Patel assumed the role of FBI Director, the bureau has intensified its reliance on polygraph tests, even using them in highly specific circumstances, such as probing whether staff members have made disparaging remarks about the director himself.

According to two individuals with direct knowledge of the polygraph questions, as well as several others familiar with related incidents, some high-ranking personnel have been asked outright whether they have spoken negatively about Mr. Patel. In one notable case, a polygraph test was reportedly administered to determine who leaked information to the media regarding Mr. Patel’s request for a service weapon—a curious request, given that he is not a sworn law enforcement officer. Several sources confirmed that dozens of staff have been asked to undergo polygraph screening, although it remains uncertain how many of them were specifically questioned about their views on the director.

The increased use of polygraphs and the nature of the questions signal a larger effort by Mr. Patel to clamp down on leaks, and they reflect what many see as his deep concern with his public image. Former senior officials describe these measures as not only inappropriate but also politically motivated, highlighting what they view as a dangerous new standard at the FBI—where loyalty to leadership is increasingly valued over open discussion or dissent. Criticizing Mr. Patel or his deputy, Dan Bongino, could now be enough to cost someone their job.

“An FBI employee’s duty is to the Constitution, not to the director or his deputy,” said James Davidson, a retired FBI agent who served for 23 years. “That Mr. Patel sees criticism of himself as a security concern says everything about his fragile character.”

The FBI has declined to publicly comment on the matter, citing the sensitivity of personnel decisions and internal deliberations.

Since the start of the Trump administration, political appointees have steadily expanded their influence over the bureau. Employees involved in prior investigations perceived to have been politically inconvenient have been forced out or sidelined. Over time, some of the bureau’s most experienced and respected officials have either been dismissed or voluntarily resigned.

A significant number of personnel have chosen to leave the bureau, fearing retaliation from Mr. Patel or Mr. Bongino for carrying out investigations that clashed with the political preferences of former President Trump and his allies. Sources estimate that roughly 40 percent of field office leaders across the country have either left, been reassigned, or retired since the new leadership took over. This estimate, tracked by The New York Times, underscores the rapid pace of turnover under the current administration.

One of the more recent high-profile cases involves Tonya Ugoretz, a seasoned intelligence analyst who previously led the bureau’s intelligence directorate. About two weeks ago, she was placed on administrative leave, coinciding with disclosures about her decision to retract an intelligence report from a relatively unvetted source in Albany, New York. The informant had claimed that China attempted to interfere in the 2020 election in favor of then-candidate Joe Biden—a claim based on limited and indirect intelligence. According to emails made available to Congress, Ms. Ugoretz, who was working in the cyberdivision at the time, had the report withdrawn due to its significant deficiencies. Another colleague involved in the review process opted to retire soon after Mr. Patel’s confirmation as director.

In the wake of these departures, a new generation of leadership has risen. Will Rivers, previously the head of the security division, was elevated to the FBI’s third-highest position in March. He is known to have a close working relationship with both Mr. Patel and Mr. Bongino and has been instrumental in implementing their personnel changes. Jake Hemme, who according to his LinkedIn profile became an FBI agent in July 2022, now serves as Mr. Patel’s deputy chief of staff for policy—a remarkably fast career ascent.

In response to a recent editorial in The New York Times that criticized the current leadership for transforming the FBI into a vehicle for advancing Mr. Trump’s political agenda, Mr. Bongino responded with defiance. While dismissing the piece as a “poorly reasoned smear job,” he nonetheless acknowledged that he and Mr. Patel had indeed overseen sweeping staffing changes and a major internal reorganization of the bureau.

Although courts do not usually accept polygraph results as admissible evidence, lie detectors remain a common tool among national security agencies, especially for background checks and sensitive investigations.

Under the current leadership, however, the use of polygraphs has grown notably aggressive. Employees subjected to these tests have often witnessed colleagues being purged or demoted. In one case, a staff member was placed on leave, then recalled to undergo a polygraph test, according to a source familiar with the event. Current and former officials see such actions as punitive and excessive, fostering an atmosphere of fear and suspicion. Some fear that the agency is encouraging internal surveillance, creating a culture of informants.

One particularly troubling incident involved Michael Feinberg, a former senior agent in the Norfolk, Virginia, field office. He was reportedly threatened with a polygraph test due to his personal friendship with Peter Strzok, the counterintelligence veteran dismissed for sending anti-Trump messages. Mr. Strzok played a pivotal role in the 2016 investigation into possible links between Trump campaign officials and Russia and appears on Mr. Patel’s so-called “enemies list,” which he published in his book Government Gangsters. How the FBI leadership discovered Mr. Feinberg’s friendship with Mr. Strzok remains unclear.

Mr. Feinberg recounted his experience in a post for the national security blog Lawfare. He described how Dominique Evans, the new head of the Norfolk office, informed him he would have to undergo a polygraph to explore the nature of his friendship with Mr. Strzok. Feinberg alleged that the directive came from Mr. Bongino. In his article, he warned of a broader pattern: “Under Patel and Bongino, professional expertise and operational skill are regularly traded for ideological conformity and ongoing political interference.”

Feinberg added that continuing in his position would have required him to “beg forgiveness, display submission, and pledge personal loyalty”—a ritual he likened to a “cultural revolution” within the FBI. He ultimately chose to resign before the polygraph could be administered.

According to former FBI polygraphers, the controversial question about whether employees had ever criticized Mr. Patel may have been designed as a “control question”—used to trigger physiological responses that can be compared to reactions during other questions. However, regardless of its purpose, the question is fueling mistrust and raising fears that the bureau is becoming politically compromised.

Mr. Patel has shown sensitivity to his reputation throughout his time in public service. In June, he filed a defamation lawsuit against Frank Figliuzzi, a former FBI official and MSNBC commentator, over comments suggesting Patel spent more time in nightclubs than at work. Although the network retracted the claim, Mr. Patel sued for $75,000 in damages, asserting that he had not spent “a single minute inside of a nightclub” since becoming director. He is known to be a member of the exclusive Poodle Room at the Fontainebleau resort in Las Vegas, near his residence.

The lawsuit was candid about its intentions, claiming that Figliuzzi “fabricated this story out of personal animus toward Director Patel,” aiming to undermine the leadership of the FBI under President Trump and boost his own credibility.

This is not Mr. Patel’s first foray into litigation. In 2019, while serving on the National Security Council under Trump, he sued several news organizations, including The New York Times, over reports questioning his role in shaping Ukraine policy. He dropped the case in 2021.

Ultimately, veteran FBI officials have described the polygraph question regarding criticism of the director as not only unprecedented but also unnecessary. As one former senior employee quipped, “Who hasn’t complained about their boss at some point?” for 12 years after the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks.

Who hasn’t complained about their boss, one former F.B.I. official mused.