What the Pentagon’s Sweeping Polygraph Hunt Has Revealed

Pentagon investigators administered polygraph tests to dozens of military officers and civilian employees in August as part of an investigation into disclosures about the nation’s dwindling weapons stockpiles. 

The polygraph tests, first reported by The New York Times last week, followed Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth’s announcement in July that the Pentagon was forming a joint task force with the Department of Justice to identify and prosecute what he called the “unauthorized disclosure ​of sensitive” information to the press.

Spokesman Sean Parnell said in a statement to TIME that the Pentagon does not comment on investigative matters but “takes all leaks of classified national security information extremely seriously and investigates accordingly.”

“Securing classified information is critical to ensuring the security of the United States and of our troops deployed around the world,” the statement said.

The August interrogations included some 50 members of the Joint Staff, according to the Times. CBS News also reported that several dozen officials were tested earlier this summer, including those from the U.S. Central Command.

Why did the Pentagon polygraph dozens of officials?

Sources familiar with the matter told multiple outlets this summer that U.S. supplies of certain critical munitions—including long-range precision-guided missiles and air-defense interceptors—had fallen dangerously low. They suggested that its inventory would likely dwindle further amid the ongoing war with Iran. 

Sources told The Washington Post that Trump clashed with Hegseth over the matter during a visit to Camp David on July 31, claiming that he had been “misled on extreme munitions shortages that now threaten to limit military options with Iran.”

Trump refuted the idea that there were any shortages in a Truth Social post on Aug. 6.

“The U.S. has massive amounts of ‘munitions,’ especially of certain types,” Trump wrote in his post. “Additionally, large amounts are being manufactured and shipped to the U.S. as needed.”

The President called for lengthy imprisonment for those caught leaking information to the press.

“The ‘leakers’ of these treasonous statements are being hunted down,” he added. “Long term jail sentences will be sought!”

In a separate post that same day, he denied that he’d fought with Hegseth, calling the reports “completely unfounded rumors.”

“I am extremely happy with the job that Pete Hegseth is doing,” he said.

Trump intensified his attacks on the coverage on Sept. 3, calling media outlets who reported on the shortages “treasonous scum” who refuse to “accurately report” on the conflict with Iran.

Despite Trump’s repeated denials of a broad munitions shortage, the Center for Strategic and International Studies (CSIS) estimated in late July that missile interceptor inventories have dropped—with Patriot inventories now under 1,000 and THAAD inventories at about 250. 

Exact figures about the U.S. weapons cache are classified—and that’s for a good reason, according to Harrison Mann, a former defense intelligence official and a senior fellow with the advocacy group Win Without War.

“That is valuable information to any U.S. adversary,” he tells TIME. “Obviously, if they know that we're out of ammo in some significant way, it changes deterrence calculations for U.S. adversaries.”

At the same time, however, he argues that any shortage would likely be clear to the public and to Iran.

“Smart people can put together pretty accurate estimates of what the U.S. has used up between looking at what's been produced, which isn't necessarily a closely guarded secret, and looking at what has been expended on the battlefield,” he says. “Maybe not with the same amount of fidelity [as Pentagon officials], but the Iranians can tell when they're not getting hit by as many standoff munitions, and certainly everyone can tell when U.S. and partners have run out of interceptors.”

Mark Cancian, a senior adviser with the CSIS Defense and Security Department, says he and his colleague created CSIS’s July report on dwindling munitions using only “unclassified” sources.

“If two people at a think tank can do this analysis with entirely unclassified sources, then the Chinese, with tens of thousands of intelligence operatives, and way better sources of information can get much better numbers,” Cancian says.

What Pentagon polygraph rules require—and what the tests found

The Pentagon adheres to specific guidelines and restrictions when administering polygraph tests. They are most commonly used in pre-employment and vetting for intelligence agencies like the National Security Agency and the Defense Intelligence Agency. They are also administered when personnel are seeking or maintaining access to top-secret, special-access, or other sensitive information—as well as in the event of unauthorized disclosures of classified information. 

Pentagon rules require an examinee’s written consent and allow the person to end the examination at any time. For an issue-specific counterintelligence examination, investigators must have interviewed the person, reasonably believe that the person knew about or was involved in the matter, pursue other investigative avenues as thoroughly as circumstances permit, and determine that the polygraph is essential to the investigation.

The Defense Secretary is also required to establish a process for monitoring the “responsible and effective” use of polygraphs and to make information about their use available to congressional defense committees.

The Pentagon has not released enough information to determine whether investigators followed all those requirements. It also has not disclosed the investigation’s findings. CBS News, however, reported that no one had failed the questions meant to determine whether any officials had leaked information to the media.

It also said that the polygraph tests included a wide range of questions pertaining to national security. Specifically, The New York Times reported that officials were asked if they had disclosed classified information to members of the press, according to information provided by its sources close to the investigation, and if they had provided information about diminished munitions stocks. 

People familiar with the effort told the Times that the tests appeared intended not only to identify a leaker but also to deter officials who might leak classified information to the media in the future.

How unusual are polygraphs in Pentagon leak investigations?

While the use of polygraphs is not unheard of, the sheer number of people targeted during this investigation is uncommon, officials told CBS News.

David Pozen, a law professor at Columbia University, pointed TIME toward his article for the Harvard Law Review that assesses information leaks within the federal government.

“Periodically, task forces have recommended that the White House take concerted steps to facilitate leak investigations, such as regularizing the use of polygraphs and requiring government employees who speak with the press to provide advance notice, followed by summaries of what was discussed,” he wrote.

This was notably implemented during Ronald Reagan’s presidency in 1983. Reagan authorized polygraph testing in investigations of unauthorized classified disclosures, although he barred agencies from using the results alone to discipline employees.

Polygraphs have been considered or used in leak investigations under more recent administrations, as well. During the George W. Bush administration, the FBI interviewed nearly 100 members and staff of congressional intelligence committees while investigating leaked intelligence connected to the Sept. 11 attacks. Agents commonly asked whether they would take polygraphs, but most declined.

In subsequent years, publicly documented operations involving dozens of senior military officials appear exceedingly rare. But the Trump Administration has used polygraphs in previous leak investigations. 

In early 2025, the Department of Homeland Security administered lie detector tests to identify people suspected of disclosing plans for immigration raids. That year, members of Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth’s office were reportedly polygraphed in response to a leak investigation. At the direction of Director Kash Patel, the FBI also began using polygraphs in leak investigations in 2025. In a separate episode this year, more than two dozen current and former members of Patel’s security detail—in addition to some information-technology employees—were reportedly tested in an effort to identify sources of leaks about his leadership.

Still, Cancian says that polygraph use is more common at intelligence agencies than among senior military staff. He characterizes a polygraph hunt of this scale as incredibly unusual.

How the Pentagon’s polygraph hunt could affect future disclosures

While no leakers have been identified to the public, and it remains unknown whether the efforts uncovered any, the tests may serve a secondary purpose—which is to dissuade officials from sharing information in the future.

Cancian says the investigation stems from an “understandable” desire for senior Pentagon officials to have candid conversations with their employees without worrying about leaks to the press.

“Every administration is concerned about that. I think this one is particularly concerned about that,” Cancian says. Otherwise, officers may hesitate to put concerns in writing, circulate formal objections, or talk openly within authorized channels. The Joint Staff is tasked with giving civilian leaders candid assessments of readiness, risk, and operational sustainability, while coordinating with combatant commands around the world.

“Meetings get smaller and smaller, fewer and fewer people can attend because of concerns that larger groups, you know, might leak,” he says.

Mann adds that a polygraph test is known as an “inconclusive” tool.

“You can game them. You can get false positives,” he says. “So, you certainly won't necessarily get to the bottom of whatever you're searching for by running a lot of polygraphs, but it is quite effective as an intimidation tool and as a deterrent against leaks.”

He says that many officials are “still nervous” about doing routine polygraph tests, even if they have “nothing to hide.”

“They know it's something that you can fail and that can then disrupt your career or suspend your clearance if you can't pass it, even if it's just because you were nervous that day,” Mann continues.

He says that this polygraph hunt is a way for Hegseth to test the loyalty of his employees amid pressure over the continuation of efforts in Iran. Just this week, Republican Senator Thom Tillis of North Carolina urged Trump to replace Hegseth as Defense Secretary.