In one of the most controversial practices of the new era of the FBI under the Donald Trump administration, the agency has begun using polygraph tests not only to investigate leaks or improper access to classified information, but also to probe the political loyalty of its own officials.
As revealed by New York Timesdozens of senior officials have been questioned with questions as direct as whether they have said anything negative about Kash Patel, current director of the Federal Bureau of Investigation and one of the president’s closest allies.
The measure is part of a broader campaign against leaks to the press and reflects, at the same time, the director’s extreme sensitivity regarding his public image.
Patel, who is not a career agent, even requested to carry a service weapon, an unusual decision that generated internal tensions. The agency used the polygraph to try to find out who leaked that information to the media.
Former agents consulted by the New York newspaper describe these maneuvers as a “witch hunt” inappropriate for an institution whose mission should be guided by the Constitution and not by personal loyalties.
“An FBI agent’s loyalty is to the Constitution, not to the director”he recalled James Davidsonwho spent 23 years in the Bureau. He added: “The fact that Patel sees this as a threat says everything about his institutional weakness”.
Reprisals, purges and denunciation
Since the arrival of Patel to the leadership of the FBI – appointed by Trump with the support of his number two, Dan Bongino-, there has been a unprecedented purge.
Veteran agents have been forced to retire, sent to marginal positions or outright fired.
According to estimates, around 40% of the country’s field offices have undergone a total or partial renovation of their domes.
One of the most prominent figures recently removed was Tonya Ugoretzsenior intelligence analyst.
Ugoretz was suspended after her decision to stop the dissemination of a weakly substantiated report alleging that China tried to influence the 2020 elections in favor of Joe Biden.
Although his decision was based on technical criteria, it was interpreted as a political offense.
Another case that shows the new climate of distrust is that of Michael Feinbergformer head of the FBI office in Norfolk (Virginia), who was threatened with a polygraph because of his friendship with Peter Strzokthe agent fired for criticizing Trump in private messages.
Feinberg denounced the incident in the specialized media Lawfare, describing the atmosphere inside the Bureau as a “cultural revolution” that sacrifices experience for ideological obedience. He ended up resigning before taking the test.
‘Trick’ questions
Since taking over, Patel has carried out a complete reorganization of the agency. He has quickly promoted similar figures, such as Jake Hemmewho became deputy chief of staff after just three years as an agent.
At the same time, he has demonstrated a strong aversion to public criticism. In June, he sued the former senior official for defamation Frank Figliuzzicommentator on MSNBCto imply that Patel spent more time in nightclubs than in his office..
The lawsuit, for $75,000, was filed even though the chain retracted.
Patel had already tried to sue several media outlets in 2019, including the New York Timesfor how they covered their role in Ukraine politics during the Trump presidency.
On that occasion he withdrew the lawsuit, but his record suggests a sustained inclination to pursue criticism judicially.
Although polygraphs are not accepted as evidence in courtnational security agencies commonly use them in accreditation processes or internal investigations.
However, experts warn about the use of questions “trap” or control – such as whether someone has criticized the director – which could be designed to induce physiological responses useful to confront other responses.
In any case, the practice is generating deep discomfort within the agency.
“Who hasn’t complained about their boss?“said a former agent when asked about the use of these tactics. For many, the question is not whether the FBI is changing, but whether it can still be considered an independent agency.