George Maschke on DHS Polygraph Screening for Leakers

On Sunday, 9 March 2025, journalist James Menendez spoke for the BBC World Service’s Newshour program with AntiPolygraph.org co-founder George Maschke about the U.S. Department of Homeland Security’s decision to use polygraph screening in an attempt to ferret out leakers. The edited interview, as broadcast the same day, may be listened to below. A transcript follows:

James Menendez: You’re listening to Newshour from the BBC World Service. To the United States now, and reports that the Department of Homeland Security is performing polygraph tests, commonly known as lie detector tests, and they’re doing these on staff to try to find out who’s been leaking information about immigration operations. The DHS Secretary, Kristi Noem, has blamed lower-than-expected arrest figures from immigration raids on leaks of details to migrant aid organisations and also to the media.
Well, George Maschke is a former U.S. army intelligence officer and interrogator who co-founded the public interest website AntiPolygraph.org back in 2000. As the website name suggests, he thinks lie detector tests are a bad thing, so presumably, he disapproves of this move.
George Maschke: Yes, I think it’s a misguided policy decision, because it’s likely to result in innocent people being falsely accused. At the same time, anyone who is leaking sensitive information could easily beat the polygraph using simple countermeasures that anyone could learn. So, it’s not surprising then, that in the history of the United States there is no documented case where the polygraph has ever solved a leak investigation.
Menendez: So they have been used before to try and find leakers, have they?
Maschke: Yes they have, including in the White House during the presidency of Ronald Reagan, and it was an utter failure.
Menendez: Can employees—federal employees—can they refuse to take the test?
Maschke: Technically, yes, but if they do, they will suffer adverse employment consequences, up to and including termination.
Menendez: Given that they are still used, presumably they must have some function. They must work to some extent.
Maschke: Well, they are not scientifically accurate at all, but they do have some usefulness in interrogations where the person who’s being questioned doesn’t understand that they don’t actually work. So, if you can convince someone that you can read their mind with the polygraph, they may be more likely to confess if they are, in fact, guilty. So that’s really the key reason that government agencies in the United States continue to cling to the polygraph despite its scientific shortcomings.
Menendez: But if you’re an innocent person, and you’re perhaps nervous about the scenario, I mean that might show up as a positive result, might it? That nervousness, even though the person hasn’t actually done anything wrong?
Maschke: That is absolutely right. The polygraph is not able to distinguish between someone who’s nervous because they’re guilty or someone who’s just nervous because they have fallen under suspicion. So, it’s quite common for truthful people to fail the polygraph, and especially in situations where you’re looking for something that’s rare and uncommon, you’re going to end up with more innocent test takers failing than actually guilty persons.
Menendez: You failed a polygraph test, didn’t you, when you were applying for a job at the FBI. What happened then?
Maschke: That’s correct. I was one of the first people polygraphed by the FBI when they started this policy in 1995. I was a reserve intelligence officer at the time with a top secret clearance, but I was basically accused of being a spy, based on polygraph chart readings, and disqualified from FBI employment for life as a result, and eventually it led to the end of my career in the U.S. army as well.
So, failing a polygraph if you’re telling the truth can have devastating career consequences, which is something I’m concerned about with the current polygraph dragnet going on in the Department of Homeland Security.
Menendez: Why is the U.S. so keen on polygraph tests do you think? I mean it’s not something you ever hear of being used in other places.
Maschke: The polygraph was invented in the United States, at the Berkeley, California Police Department, in 1921, and it was quickly adopted by police departments across the United States without proper scientific evaluation. A lot of uncritical journalism helped to promote popular belief in the polygraph. Since then, some scientific critiques have been done, but they’ve been largely ignored because the polygraph has such a strong foothold in the bureaucracy in the United States.
Menendez: George Maschke there. You’re listening to Newshour from the BBC….