logo
The Trump administration revives an old intimidation tactic: the polygraph machine

The Trump administration revives an old intimidation tactic: the polygraph machine

Yahooa day ago

A version of this story appeared in CNN's What Matters newsletter. To get it in your inbox, sign up for free here.
When President Ronald Reagan's White House threatened thousands of government officials with polygraph exams, supposedly to protect classified data (but probably also to control press leaks), his Secretary of State George Shultz threatened to resign.
Reagan's White House backed down and agreed to impose the tests only for those suspected of espionage, according to a 1985 New York Times report.
In terms of catching spies, polygraph tests failed spectacularly in key moments. More on that in a moment.
First, consider the second Trump administration, which is leaning in on polygraphs, presumably to ferret out leakers, but also as an apparent method of intimidation.
'The polygraph has been weaponized and is being used against individuals who have never had a polygraph requirement, whether pre-employment or security, in their entire federal careers,' said Mark Zaid, an attorney who specializes in representing people who work in national security, after a slew of published reports about polygraph threats throughout the Trump administration.
The tests are frequently being used to identify not leaks of classified information but rather 'unclassified conversations regarding policy or embarrassing decisions that have made their way through the rumor mill or directly to the media,' said Zaid, who has previously testified before Congress about the use of polygraphs and sued federal agencies for their practices.
► At the FBI, the New York Times reports, an increased use of polygraphs has 'intensified a culture of intimidation' for agents.
► At the Pentagon, officials publicly threatened to conduct polygraph tests as part of an effort to figure out how the press learned that Elon Musk was scheduled to get a classified briefing about China, which a billionaire with business interests in China probably should not get. It's not clear if polygraph tests were ultimately administered as part of the probe, according to CNN's report.
► At the Department of Homeland Security, according to CNN, polygraph tests have been used on FEMA and FAA officials in addition to those in more traditional national security roles.
Administration officials have defended the practice as a way to protect government information.
DHS Secretary Kristi Noem defended the use of polygraph tests during an interview on CBS in March. 'The authorities that I have under the Department of Homeland Security are broad and extensive,' she said.
Previously, per Zaid, polygraphs have been used as a sort of 'weeding device,' not unlike a physical fitness test for large pools of applicants to national security and law enforcement roles. After that, some employees — particularly in the intelligence community — may be given exams every five or 10 years, sort of like a random drug test.
What's happening now is something different.
Polygraph tests are 'being used against individuals who have never had a polygraph requirement, whether for pre-employment or security, in their entire federal careers,' Zaid said.
Most Americans have never been subjected to a polygraph, and that's in large part because Congress acted to largely outlaw them from use in the public sector in 1988, a time when millions of Americans were being polygraphed each year and companies were using them to bar people from jobs and conduct coercive internal investigations.
For an example of why polygraphs were problematic, look back at an old '60 Minutes' segment in which Diane Sawyer submits to an exam and hidden cameras are used to show how the bias of the examiner affects results.
'If you're trying to find one leaker in an organization of 100 people, you could end up falsely accusing dozens of people,' according to Amit Katwala, author of the polygraph history Tremors in the Blood: Murder, Obsession and the Birth of the Lie Detector. 'And you might not even catch the culprit — there's no evidence to suggest that an actual lie detector is even scientifically possible,' he told me in an email.
The Employee Polygraph Protection Act was signed into law in 1988 by Reagan, years after his showdown with Shultz. But the law kept polygraphs for the public sector, particularly for national security and law enforcement.
In the national security world, the principle of protecting the innocent is 'flipped on its head,' according to Zaid.
'We would rather ruin 99 innocent people's careers than let the one new Ed Snowden, Aldrich Ames or Robert Hanssen get through,' he said.
If polygraphs have a spotty record in detecting lies, they have a horrible record in detecting spies.
A Senate Intelligence Committee report from 1994 explores how the CIA officer Aldrich Ames, who spied for the KGB, evaded detection for years in part because he passed multiple polygraph exams. At the same time, the same report describes how another CIA employee who aided the KGB, Edward Lee Howard, did so in part because he felt jilted by the CIA after he was fired for failing a polygraph exam.
Then there was the shocking trial of FBI official and Russian spy Robert Hanssen, who had never been given a polygraph in his career, there was an uptick in their use at some agencies, including the FBI and the Department of Energy.
At the turn of the 21st century, the US government commissioned a large-scale report on the efficacy of the polygraph undertaken by a special committee at the National Research Council.
They found the scientific evidence on polygraphs to be more than lacking.
'As a nation, we should not allow ourselves to continue to be blinded by the aura of the polygraph,' Stephen Feinberg, the Carnegie Mellon professor who led the study, testified before Congress.
Ames offered his assessment of the polygraph machine in a letter from prison published in 2000, calling the polygraph 'junk science that just won't die' and saying it is most useful as an instrument of coercion.
'It depends upon the overall coerciveness of the setting — you'll be fired, you won't get the job, you'll be prosecuted, you'll go to prison — and the credulous fear the device inspires,' he wrote.
Polygraphs are frequently used in criminal investigations, but rarely used in court.
The idea behind the polygraph, which was first developed in the '20s, is that lying causes stress.
The examiner hooks a person up to monitors that gauge things like blood pressure and fingertip sweat. A pre-interview helps formulate common questions that create a baseline and reactions to more probing questions are compared to that baseline.
But it's not a scientific process, and it can be beaten, or misled, since at its core the machine is simply measuring physiological responses. Frequently, incriminating information is offered by nervous exam-takers who don't understand exactly how the process works.
Pop culture often suggests that when a person is hooked up to a polygraph machine, their lies will be detected. But that is not exactly true.
'The polygraph works because we think it works. It's a tool of psychological coercion in an already intimidating environment—particularly when it has the weight of the federal government behind it,' Katwala told me.
But the intimidation is probably the point.
'Using the polygraph may not help you catch the leakers, but the idea of it could well scare any potential future leakers into keeping their mouths shut,' Katwala said.
The man credited with fully developing the polygraph, a Berkeley police officer named John Larson, who also had a PhD in psychology, would later turn on his invention as unreliable, according to Katwala.
Larson was inspired by the truth-telling machine of William Marston, himself a psychologist, but one with an active imagination and a flair for the theatrical. Zaid described him as the PT Barnum of polygraphy. Here's a video of Marston using a polygraph-like machine and claiming to identify the varying emotions of blonde, brunette and redheaded women. His conclusion was that redheads like to gamble, brunettes are looking for love and blondes are easiest to scare. Okay.
Marston also invented the comic book hero Wonder Woman, with her Lasso of Truth.
Katwala warns that there are new technologies being developed with the help of AI or revolving around brain waves, but he argues they should be viewed just with the same skepticism as the polygraph machine.
'None of them get past the Pinocchio's nose problem — everyone's different, and something that works for one person might not work for everyone,' he said.
But they could all be used in the same coercive way as the polygraph machine.

Orange background

Try Our AI Features

Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:

Comments

No comments yet...

Related Articles

Migrants and ICE officers contend with heat, smog and illness after detoured South Sudan flight

time9 minutes ago

Migrants and ICE officers contend with heat, smog and illness after detoured South Sudan flight

WASHINGTON -- Migrants placed on a deportation flight originally bound for South Sudan are now being held in a converted shipping container on a U.S. naval base in Djibouti, where the men and their guards are contending with baking hot temperatures, smoke from nearby burn pits and the looming threat of rocket attacks, the Trump administration said. Officials outlined grim conditions in court documents filed Thursday before a federal judge overseeing a lawsuit challenging Immigration and Customs Enforcement efforts to swiftly remove migrants to countries they didn't come from. Authorities landed the flight at the base in Djibouti, about 1,000 miles (1,600 kilometers) from South Sudan, more than two weeks ago after U.S. District Judge Brian E. Murphy in Boston found the Trump administration had violated his order by swiftly sending eight migrants from countries including Cuba and Vietnam to the east African nation. The judge said that men from other countries must have a real chance to raise fears about dangers they could face in South Sudan. The men's lawyers, though, have still not been able to talk to them, said Robyn Barnard, senior director of refugee advocacy at Human Rights First, whose stated mission is to ensure the United States is a global leader on human rights. Barnard spoke Friday at a hearing of Democratic members of Congress and said some family members of the men had been able to talk to them Thursday. The migrants have been previously convicted of serious crimes in the U.S., and President Donald Trump's administration has said that it was unable to return them quickly to their home countries. The Justice Department has also appealed to the Supreme Court to immediately intervene and allow swift deportations to third countries to resume. The case comes amid a sweeping immigration crackdown by the Republican administration, which has pledged to deport millions of people who are living in the United States illegally. The legal fight became another flashpoint as the administration rails against judges whose rulings have slowed the president's policies. The Trump administration said the converted conference room in the shipping container is the only viable place to house the men on the base in Djibouti, where outdoor daily temperatures rise above 100 degrees Fahrenheit (38 degrees Celsius), according to the declaration from an ICE official. Nearby burn pits are used to dispose of trash and human waste, and the smog cloud makes it hard to breathe, sickening both ICE officers guarding the men and the detainees, the documents state. They don't have access to all the medication they need to protect against infection, and the ICE officers were unable to complete anti-malarial treatment before landing, an ICE official said. 'It is unknown how long the medical supply will last,' Mellissa B. Harper, acting executive deputy associate director of enforcement and removal operations, said in the declaration. The group also lacks protective gear in case of a rocket attack from terrorist groups in Yemen, a risk outlined by the Department of Defense, the documents state. ___

Trump Asks Supreme Court to Allow Education Department Firings
Trump Asks Supreme Court to Allow Education Department Firings

Yahoo

time11 minutes ago

  • Yahoo

Trump Asks Supreme Court to Allow Education Department Firings

(Bloomberg) -- President Donald Trump asked the US Supreme Court to let him resume dismantling the Department of Education, seeking to lift a lower court order that requires the reinstatement of as many as 1,400 workers. Next Stop: Rancho Cucamonga! ICE Moves to DNA-Test Families Targeted for Deportation with New Contract Where Public Transit Systems Are Bouncing Back Around the World US Housing Agency Vulnerable to Fraud After DOGE Cuts, Documents Warn Trump Said He Fired the National Portrait Gallery Director. She's Still There. The emergency filing Friday challenges a federal district judge's conclusion that Trump's effort to shut down the department would leave it unable to perform duties required under US law, including managing federal student loans, aiding state education programs and enforcing civil rights law. The filing marks the 17th time since Trump's inauguration that his administration has asked the Supreme Court for help as he seeks to implement a far-reaching agenda through executive orders and other unilateral steps. It's the first Supreme Court clash to squarely address Trump's authority to dismantle entities created by Congress, including the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau, the US Agency for International Development and the US Institute of Peace. Education Secretary Linda McMahon announced March 11 that the department was cutting half its staff through a reduction in force. Trump followed with a March 20 executive order that said McMahon should 'to the maximum extent appropriate and permitted by law, take all necessary steps to facilitate the closure of the Department of Education.' The effort is being challenged in two lawsuits, one brought primarily by states led by Democrats and the other filed by several Massachusetts public school systems and unions. US District Judge Myong Joun in Boston ruled in May that the personnel cuts would 'likely cripple the department.' He said the challengers were likely to succeed in showing that Trump lacked power to effectively dissolve the department by getting rid of its employees, closing regional offices and moving programs to other federal agencies. 'A department without enough employees to perform statutorily mandated functions is not a department at all,' Joun wrote. 'This court cannot be asked to cover its eyes while the department's employees are continuously fired and units are transferred out until the department becomes a shell of itself.' The Boston-based 1st US Circuit Court of Appeals on Wednesday refused to block Joun's ruling, paving the way for Trump's Supreme Court filing. Cavs Owner Dan Gilbert Wants to Donate His Billions—and Walk Again YouTube Is Swallowing TV Whole, and It's Coming for the Sitcom What America's Pizza Economy Is Telling Us About the Real One The SEC Pinned Its Hack on a Few Hapless Day Traders. The Full Story Is Far More Troubling Is Elon Musk's Political Capital Spent? ©2025 Bloomberg L.P. Error in retrieving data Sign in to access your portfolio Error in retrieving data Error in retrieving data Error in retrieving data Error in retrieving data

Musk-Trump alliance craters
Musk-Trump alliance craters

USA Today

time12 minutes ago

  • USA Today

Musk-Trump alliance craters

Musk-Trump alliance craters | The Excerpt On Friday's episode of The Excerpt podcast: USA TODAY Domestic Security Correspondent Josh Meyer has the latest on the feud between Elon Musk and President Donald Trump. Plus, Josh takes a look at how the feud might end. Here's what you need to know about this week's travel ban. The Department of Homeland Security is ending its Quiet Skies surveillance program. The Supreme Court sides with a straight woman in a 'reverse discrimination' case. USA TODAY National Correspondent Elizabeth Weise tells us about invasive Asian needle ants. Let us know what you think of this episode by sending an email to podcasts@ Hit play on the player below to hear the podcast and follow along with the transcript beneath it. This transcript was automatically generated, and then edited for clarity in its current form. There may be some differences between the audio and the text. Podcasts: True crime, in-depth interviews and more USA TODAY podcasts right here Taylor Wilson: Good morning. I'm Taylor Wilson, and today is Friday, June 6th, 2025. This is The Excerpt. Today, Musk and Trump take their feud to a new level. Plus, details on this week's travel ban. And let's talk about invasive ants. ♦ Elon Musk and President Donald Trump's beef reached a new level of personal jabs yesterday. I caught up with USA TODAY Domestic Security Correspondent Josh Meyer for a look at their ramped-up feud. Hello, sir. Josh Meyer: How's it going, Taylor? Taylor Wilson: Good, good, Josh. Thanks for hopping on, on this. We've been keeping a close eye on this alliance between Trump and Musk for weeks, and now this relationship really seems to be blowing up. What's the latest as Trump threatens to cut billions in federal contracts with Musk's companies? Josh Meyer: Well, it's blowing up in spectacular fashion, Taylor. Trump has threatened to end billions of dollars in federal contracts that Musk's companies have or have had with the government. He's also seeking billions more in contracts through SpaceX, through his AI company, and so forth. Trump, in one of his tweets during this escalating feud, said, "The easiest way to save money in our budget, billions and billions of dollars, is to terminate Elon's governmental subsidies and contracts." He said, "I was always surprised that Biden didn't do it". Of course, Musk replied, and it kept escalating from there. Taylor Wilson: Absolutely. We'll get to some of those escalations. He also responded to this threat over government contracts by saying SpaceX will pull back from some of its work, and we know SpaceX does a lot of work for the government. What can you tell us here? Josh Meyer: Musk said he's already going to be decommissioning their Dragon spacecraft, which does payload deliveries to the International Space Station. Musk has already taken steps, he says, to pull back some of the deliveries from his contracts, including to NASA and the Defense Department. I'm not sure he can do that. I assume there's going to be some lawsuits flying from both of these guys in terms of this, but this is really like two junior high school kids that break up, and they're just getting very personal and very nasty, and they're just threatening all sorts of things and won't talk to each other. Who knows where this is going to end? Taylor Wilson: Speaking of nasty, I know Musk has even alleged that Trump's name is listed in classified files related to Jeffrey Epstein. What did he say here? What happened here? Josh Meyer: Basically, Musk said, "Time to drop the really big bomb. Real Donald Trump is in the Epstein files. That is the real reason they have not been made public. Have a nice day DJT." I mean, it's really getting quite nasty here. Taylor Wilson: Yeah. Well, Musk's various companies have benefited from billions in government contracts over the past two decades. We've touched on some of this. What would this Trump threat to pull billions mean for Elon's businesses if came to fruition? Josh Meyer: A lot of the billions in subsidies came in the early years. I mean, Tesla got hundreds of millions, if not billions of dollars of subsidies early on. We're at the point now where, I think, it's 18 different companies or entities from within the Musk empire are getting some federal money, and it's not that easy to just pull them back. I mean, Trump is threatening to do this, but SpaceX delivers a lot of payloads to the International Space Station. It helps get satellites up into space. It's interwoven within the fabric of the US government in ways that would be hard to disentangle. I'm not sure how much of this is actually going to happen, but I can say that there's people that are watching X, as it's now called very, very carefully to see how much more they escalate. I know that there's people acting as intermediaries to try to get both of them to calm down, but we don't really know where this is going to end. Taylor Wilson: As you write, Josh, the political battlefield is littered with the scorched remains of some of Trump's previous allies who picked a fight with him or were on the receiving end of one. I'll ask you, could Musk be next? Josh Meyer: Well, I think he already is next. The question is how much. I talked to John Bolton, who is Trump's national security adviser, and that was fired by Trump/faced Trump's vindictiveness, too. I mean, he wrote a book called In The Room Where It Happened. Trump tried to get it shut down before it could be published, claiming that he was using classified materials. Tried to get him prosecuted. What Bolton said about the current spat, "It's going to end up like most mud fights do, with both of them worse off. The question is how much worse the country is going to be off as a result." Taylor Wilson: All right. I'm sure this is not the last of this. Josh Meyer covers domestic security for USA TODAY. Thanks, Josh. Josh Meyer: Thanks, Taylor. ♦ Taylor Wilson: We're learning more about President Trump's travel ban this week. On Wednesday, he signed the sweeping proclamation that will bar or partially restrict entry to the US from nearly 20 countries, citing national security concerns. The ban prohibits travel into the US for foreign nationals from Afghanistan, Chad, the Republic of Congo, Haiti, Iran, and many other countries, and he issued travel suspensions for a number of other nations. The White House emphasized that the ban targets countries with high visa overstay rates and that are deficient with regards to screening and vetting. There are similarities to Trump's controversial 2017 ban, which targeted several majority-Muslim nations and faced widespread protests and legal challenges. Former president Joe Biden repealed that ban in 2021, calling it a stain on our national conscience. This latest ban includes exceptions for lawful permanent residents, current visa holders, and certain visa categories, and individuals whose entry serves US national interests. Though, those qualifications were not specified. ♦ The Department of Homeland Security is ending its controversial Quiet Skies surveillance program for airline travelers, saying yesterday that since its existence, it has failed to stop a single terrorist attack while costing US taxpayers $200 million a year. Homeland Security Secretary Kristi Noem said that the program had been improperly politicized and that under the guise of national security, the Quiet Skies watch list was used to target political opponents and benefit political allies. Noem said the Transportation Security Administration will maintain its critical aviation and security vetting functions, and the Trump administration will return TSA "to its true mission of being laser-focused on the safety and security of the traveling public". Quiet Skies was revealed in 2018 by the Boston Globe, which said the program deployed air marshals who fly armed and undercover to thwart terrorists, to track dozens of suspicious travelers daily. Lawmakers and civil rights groups have long criticized the program for potentially masking racial or religious discrimination in deciding who to focus on. Part of identifying suspicious travelers had relied on noticing behaviors like fidgeting or having a penetrating stare, which government watchdogs and some lawmakers have criticized in the past as an unreliable basis for probable cause. ♦ The Supreme Court agreed yesterday that a worker faced a higher hurdle to sue her employer as a straight woman than if she'd been gay. The unanimous decision could trigger a wave of reverse discrimination lawsuits, and it came amid a national backlash from some against DEI programs. The justices rejected a lower court's ruling that Marlean Ames could not sue the Ohio Department of Youth Services because she had failed to provide background circumstances showing the department was that unusual employer who discriminates against the majority. US Court of Appeals for the DC Circuit said back in 1981 that, while white people are covered by the Civil Rights Act, it defied common sense to suggest that the promotion of a Black employee justifies an inference of prejudice against white coworkers in our present society, but the law itself, which bans discrimination based on race, color, religion, sex, or national origin, does not set different thresholds for members of minority and majority groups. You can read more with the link in today's show notes. ♦ Asian needle ants are spreading across the country. I spoke with USA TODAY National Correspondent Elizabeth Weise, to learn more about this invasive species. Thanks for joining me, Beth. Elizabeth Weise: Once more into the scary creatures beat. Taylor Wilson: Well, I love the scary creatures beat, Beth. Let's start with the basics, though. What are these ants? Elizabeth Weise: They're called Asian needle ants, and the problem with them is they look like a lot of other ants, so there's no way that they're Asian needle ants until they sting you. Then, you know. Taylor Wilson: Well, all right. What does happen when they sting you? Elizabeth Weise: They are carnivorous. They hunt prey, especially termites. They love termites. They're used to attacking. If they sting you... They're not very aggressive, but if you reach into where they live, they will sting you. First, you feel this intense sharp pain like somebody poked you with a needle. That lasts for a couple of minutes, and then it fades and you're like, "Cool, I'm fine." Then, five minutes later, you feel the same thing again as if you'd just been stung but you hadn't. The pain continues to reoccur in the same place. It disappears. It comes back. It disappears. It comes back. One of the researchers I spoke with said, for him, that pattern lasts for about two hours, but he has talked to people for whom the reoccurring pain can go up to two days. That's not the only thing. These ants also... They can cause severe allergic reactions in some people and in about 1% of the people that get stung, they can cause anaphylactic shock, which can kill you. Taylor Wilson: Well, in terms of how they got here and how they've spread in the US, tell us about this mystery behind this. Elizabeth Weise: It's a bit of a mystery. They were first recorded in the US in Georgia in 1932, but they must have been here before that because two years later in '34, they were being seen in three different states, mostly in the southeast. They live in mulch and loamy soil. It's thought they probably came over in the root ball of trees that were being imported. They're originally from Asia. They occur natively in China, Japan, and Korea. There's thought that they might've come over perhaps in the flowering cherry trees, the ones that we just had the blooms of and that are popular in Washington, that were very popular at the turn of the 20th century. A lot of them were imported from Japan. At that time, trees were transported with soil around their roots. We don't do that anymore, partly because it's dangerous because they can carry things with them. Taylor Wilson: I guess you don't want heaps of these in your back or front yard. What can folks listening at home do about these ants? Elizabeth Weise: Yeah. There's not a lot you can do to prevent their arrival. They're now in more than 20 states, mostly in the southeast, but they've been seeing as far north as Connecticut/as far south as Florida. If you leave them alone, they will be fine. They will not bother you. They're not like fire ants that will go on the rampage. But they do like to live in mulch and loam, so if you're out gardening... Or they also like to live in rotting logs, so if you've got a wood pile and you pick that up/up a log, you might disturb a nest. They're a little hard to deal with because they don't lay pheromone trails. Most ants lay a pheromone trail, and so, one, you can see where the nest is. You follow it back. And two, you can disrupt the pheromone trail and stop them. These don't. You have to look to see where their nest is. Then, you can put out bait. Protein bait works really well. That will kill off the nest. But all the entomologists I spoke with said, "Don't try and do just widespread spraying because it's not going to work because they're underground, and you'll kill a lot of things that you want in your garden and you probably won't kill the ants." Taylor Wilson: And they are invasive, right? These ants, Beth? What have they done ecologically? Elizabeth Weise: I mean, that's the other problem, is that like a lot of invasive species, when they show up someplace where they did not evolve, they out-compete other native ants. It turns out they will push out other ants. They'll eat a lot of insects that would've been there otherwise. Those are important... I mean, even termites. You don't want termites in your house, but you sure need termites out in the forest because they're what break down fallen logs. If you don't have termites, those logs don't necessarily break down as fast. Another thing is, this was interesting, a researcher who's now in Hong Kong did some work. There are ants that disperse seeds. They eat them, and they carry them away, and then the seeds get dispersed and plants and trees grow. The Asian needle ants out-compete those seed-dispersing ants. The Asian needle ants don't disperse the seeds. They just stay where they fall and they die. Then, they're seeing places where plants that should be spreading naturally are not. Taylor Wilson: All right. Elizabeth Weise is the national correspondent with USA TODAY. Thanks, Beth. Elizabeth Weise: You're so welcome. Thanks a lot. ♦ Taylor Wilson: Thanks for listening to The Excerpt. We're produced by Shannon Rae Green and Kaely Monahan, and our executive producer is Laura Beatty. You can get the podcast wherever you get your audio, and if you're on a smart speaker, just ask for The Excerpt. I'm Taylor Wilson, and I'll be back tomorrow with more of The Excerpt from USA TODAY.

DOWNLOAD THE APP

Get Started Now: Download the App

Ready to dive into the world of global news and events? Download our app today from your preferred app store and start exploring.
app-storeplay-store