In a move that has sent ripples through the U.S. intelligence community and reignited debate over government transparency, Director of National Intelligence Tulsi Gabbard has recently issued a directive calling for a sweeping review of whether random polygraph tests could be used to root out press leaks among intelligence employees and contractors. The memo, circulated in the month leading up to October 8, 2025, does not establish new policy but underscores and reinforces existing regulations and legal statutes, according to multiple reports from CBS News, Just The News, and El Balad.
Gabbard’s order, which comes amid a spate of unauthorized disclosures of classified information during President Trump’s second term, specifically asks agencies to assess the feasibility of conducting random polygraph examinations. The focus: questions about whether employees or applicants have leaked information to the press, to be included in the standard security clearance adjudication process. As reported by CBS News, this is not a sudden or isolated shift, but rather part of a broader, ongoing effort by the Trump administration to clamp down on leaks that could, in the words of DNI spokesperson Olivia Coleman, “damage U.S. strategic alliances and credibility and endanger sources and methods vital to intelligence gathering.”
Notably, the directive does not require agencies to immediately implement random polygraph testing. Instead, it mandates a review—essentially a feasibility study—of whether such testing could become a routine part of counterintelligence investigations. The memo, according to an official in Gabbard’s office, “does not create any new policies but emphasizes existing regulations and legal statutes.”
Yet, the irony of the situation was not lost on observers. The very existence of the directive was leaked to the media—prompting Coleman to remark to CBS News that “the fact that deep state actors leaked information about DNI Gabbard's directive, aimed at preventing leaks and protecting classified information, to the media is both deeply ironic and a powerful reminder of why her efforts to identify and deter leakers is urgently necessary.”
The context for Gabbard’s directive is a fraught one. In September 2025, former FBI Director James Comey was indicted by a federal grand jury, accused by the Justice Department of making false statements to Congress when he denied leaking information to the media. Meanwhile, earlier this year, Gabbard herself made criminal referrals to the Justice Department regarding two cases of illegal leaks, with a third referral in the pipeline, including a high-profile leak to The Washington Post about the Venezuelan gang.
The push for polygraph testing is not without precedent. As CBS News and El Balad point out, Gabbard’s directive echoes aggressive approaches taken by previous administrations—Democratic and Republican alike. During the Obama administration, after the major leaks by NSA contractor Edward Snowden, then-DNI James Clapper ordered agencies to question applicants and employees about whether they had shared classified material with the press. The Bush administration, too, was known for its hard-line stance, employing additional polygraph examinations and even seizing journalists’ phone and email records as part of leak investigations.
Historically, these efforts have not been without controversy. Critics from across the political spectrum have argued that such policies risk chilling press freedoms and deterring whistleblowers from coming forward with information that may be in the public interest—even if unclassified. As one official familiar with Gabbard’s memo told CBS News, “the U.S. government has a responsibility to safeguard its information, [but] the mandate could stem the flow of information the public has the right to know.”
National security attorney Bradley Moss, a partner at the Washington, D.C., law office of Mark Zaid, did not mince words in his criticism. “This is an obnoxious flexing of bureaucratic muscle by yet another Trump agency head seeking to intimidate and abuse their workforce. Gabbard has the authority to impose this requirement, but it's a serious waste of finite resources that will do little but force out a few officials and disrupt agency operations in the interim,” Moss told CBS News. He also raised concerns about the possibility of political favoritism, stating, “Everyone should keep an eye on those officials who are exempt from this requirement and how closely politically aligned they are with Gabbard.”
Supporters of the directive, however, argue that the stakes are simply too high to ignore. With a recent uptick in unauthorized disclosures, the administration insists that robust measures are necessary to protect sensitive information and preserve the integrity of intelligence operations. According to internal findings referenced by the Office of the Director of National Intelligence (ODNI), a lack of polygraph examinations has emboldened some former intelligence community members to spy for U.S. adversaries—a threat that, if left unchecked, could have far-reaching consequences for national security.
The debate over polygraph testing is hardly confined to the intelligence community. The Washington Post reported last week that the Pentagon is considering implementing widespread random polygraph testing for service members, civilian employees, and contractors within the Office of the Defense Secretary and the Joint Staff. This would be accompanied by a requirement for these individuals to sign nondisclosure agreements. However, Pentagon spokesman Sean Parnell pushed back forcefully against these reports, telling CBS News, “The Washington Post's reporting is untrue and irresponsible anonymously sourced garbage.”
As the administration weighs these measures, the balance between protecting national security and upholding the public’s right to know remains a flashpoint. Activists and legal experts caution that prosecuting officials who leak to the press under the Espionage Act—the same law used to prosecute spies and traitors—raises serious questions about the boundaries of government secrecy and the health of democracy. The chilling effect, they warn, could stifle the kind of whistleblowing that has historically brought government wrongdoing to light.
Still, the push for heightened scrutiny is unlikely to subside anytime soon. Gabbard’s directive, while not a sea change in policy, signals a renewed commitment to leak prevention that is very much in step with the Trump administration’s broader approach. Whether this will lead to fewer leaks or simply drive them further underground remains to be seen.
For now, the intelligence community finds itself at a crossroads—caught between the imperatives of secrecy and the demands of transparency, with the fate of whistleblowers, journalists, and the public’s right to know hanging in the balance.
