National security lawyer, Department of Justice whistleblower, and Salon contributing writer Jesselyn Radack (@JesselynRadack on X) has published a scathing critique of Department of Defense efforts to clamp down on unfavorable media coverage, including the use of polygraphs as a tool of intimidation, in an article titled “Pete Hegseth’s Polygraph Theater.” Excerpt:
Secretary of Defense Pete Hegseth’s paranoia over leaks has undermined the Pentagon and press freedom. His measures range from the extreme to the petty: restricting reporter access to the Pentagon, firing Stars and Stripes news staff over unfavorable coverage and hiring influencers to fluff his raging but insecure little ego.
However, even the Defense Department’s calisthenics-addled secretary has managed to outdo himself. In his most draconian move yet, the Pentagon polygraphed some 50 high-ranking military officers and civilian officials on the Joint Staff, which coordinates operations, policy and war plans with combatant commanders worldwide. Hegseth made the top brass sit for polygraphs over news reports about the war with Iran; specifically, how it has depleted crucial supplies of sophisticated munitions, including Patriot interceptors and long-range missiles. He still doesn’t understand that his polygraph flex makes him more twerp than Top Gun among those he is supposed to be leading.
This was hardly the first time Hegseth tried to weaponize polygraphs against his own people. In the spring of 2025, his personal attorney and political adviser Tim Parlatore was involved in efforts to polygraph Patrick Weaver, the secretary’s senior adviser. Weaver complained to the White House, which intervened and ordered Hegseth’s team to stand down. Then, in October 2025, Hegseth’s team proposed nondisclosure agreements and broad, random polygraphs for more than 5,000 military, civilian and contractor personnel in the Office of the Secretary of Defense and Joint Staff.
Those episodes predated the current two waves of polygraphs in 2026 over sources for news stories about the U.S.’s dwindling munitions inventory during the Iran war. Early this summer, several dozen personnel — including high-ranking combatant leaders and others from U.S. Central Command — were given lie detector tests. That brings us to the most recent, especially broad round of polygraphs in August on the same topic.
Read the rest of the article here.
We have just a minor quibble with Radack’s commentary. Further on in the article, she writes that polygraphs have “an up to 20% false positive rate.” It’s actually much worse than that. In a suppressed U.S. government study obtained by AntiPolygraph.org, the false positive rate exceeded 60%. Indeed, polygraph “testing” has not been shown through peer-reviewed research to reliably detect deception at better-than-chance levels under field conditions.
Let me expand on the last part of this article. The general media consensus is that lie detectors are 80% accurate, or have a 20% false-positive rate. Now, let’s compare the CVSA to the polygraph. Interestingly, the Kelly Damphousse study at the University of Oklahoma found the CVSA to be around 35% accurate in the field, or similar to the suppressed U.S. government study on polygraphs. So, the government could save millions of dollars and have roughly 10 to 15 percent better accuracy if they flipped a coin on each person they examine.
Another scenario is that someone is fired based on a false positive; they may elect to sue the government and/or the polygraph manufacturer. A competent attorney would have a field day examining a polygraph examiner. I am reminded of the Lesley Stahl interview in 1986 where she ripped a new one on a poly guy.