The FBI is using polygraphs to find critics of its Director Kash Patel

The FBI is using polygraphs to find critics of its Director Kash Patel

The FBI, under new Director Kash Patel, is using lie detector tests in an unprecedented way — not just to screen for national security risks, but to identify internal critics. According to multiple sources, dozens of agents have been subjected to polygraph exams that include questions about whether they’ve disparaged Patel or leaked unflattering information about him, including reports of his unusual demand for a service weapon despite not being a sworn agent, the New York Times reported.

The sweeping use of polygraphs — normally reserved for background checks or espionage probes — marks a sharp departure from tradition. Former senior FBI officials and national security veterans say it reflects a new culture of fear, fealty, and political retribution at the highest levels of American law enforcement.

The polygraph crackdown coincides with a broader campaign by the FBI’s new leadership to purge critics and elevate loyalists. Dan Bongino, Patel’s deputy and a former Secret Service agent turned conservative media personality, has helped lead this push. Sources say both men are reshaping the FBI into what one former agent called “an enforcement arm of the Trump agenda.”

Under their watch, agents have been sidelined, demoted, or pressured to resign — especially those linked to investigations that angered Trump allies. Senior officials from nearly 40% of the FBI’s field offices have left their posts since the start of the Trump administration’s second term, according to internal estimates and New York Times tracking.

In one particularly revealing case, Michael Feinberg, a former top official in the Norfolk field office, said he was ordered to take a polygraph over his friendship with Peter Strzok — the former counterintelligence official fired during the Trump-Russia investigation. Feinberg detailed the episode in a Lawfare essay, describing how he was told the exam would probe “the nature of [his] friendship with Pete,” under orders from Bongino.

Rather than take the test, Feinberg resigned, calling the FBI’s new direction a “cultural revolution” that sacrifices expertise in favor of “ideological purity.”

The aggressive internal shake-up has raised eyebrows over who is now in charge. Patel’s inner circle includes officials with limited federal law enforcement experience. His deputy chief of staff, Jake Hemme, became an FBI agent just two years ago. Top attorney Richard Giuditta, now the agency’s chief counsel, has no background in law enforcement and previously worked as a private business lawyer.

Patel’s sensitivity to public perception is also a recurring theme. In June, he sued former FBI official Frank Figliuzzi for claiming he spent more time in nightclubs than at work. Though MSNBC retracted the claim, Patel is seeking $75,000 in damages — and denied having spent “a single minute inside of a nightclub” since becoming FBI director. Yet he is reportedly a member of a private club in Las Vegas, where he resides.

The polygraph campaign has stoked mistrust among FBI personnel. Some former polygraphers suggest the “Patel question” could be a control question — designed to provoke a physiological reaction to compare against other answers. But many believe it’s being used to screen for ideological disloyalty.

“An FBI employee’s loyalty is to the Constitution, not to the director,” said James Davidson, a 23-year veteran of the bureau. “It says everything about Patel’s weak constitution that this is even on his radar.”

Current and former employees fear even routine criticism could cost them their careers. And the secrecy surrounding the tests — along with retaliatory firings and transfers — has left many feeling they are being watched, judged, and purged for insufficient allegiance.

This environment reflects a growing effort by political appointees to bring the bureau in line with Trump’s agenda. Polygraphing employees over their opinions, legal experts warn, may push the FBI beyond its mandate — and into dangerous territory for civil liberties.

Though polygraph results are not admissible in court, they remain a powerful tool within national security agencies. Critics say the FBI’s use of them for personal loyalty checks is unethical — and another sign of how politicized law enforcement has become.

As one former official put it: “Who hasn’t complained about their boss?” Now, under Patel and Bongino, even a passing criticism could land an agent in the hot seat — strapped to a lie detector, with their future on the line.