All or None: Why Polygraph Waivers Undermine Trust in National Security

Polygraph exams are a standard requirement for accessing the nation’s most sensitive classified information. They’re not perfect, but they serve as a gatekeeper—one that thousands of career professionals must pass to earn trust and clearance. To waive that requirement for politically connected appointees sends a dangerous message: there’s one standard for insiders, and another for everyone else.

Dan Bongino’s rise to the FBI’s second-highest position without completing a full background check or confirmed polygraph exam is unprecedented. His access to the President’s Daily Brief, surveillance operations, and interagency intelligence coordination demands the highest level of scrutiny. Yet, instead of reinforcing that standard, the bureau appears to have bent it.

This isn’t about politics. It’s about principle.

Whether you’re a field agent in Denver or a deputy director in D.C., the rules should apply equally. If polygraphs are required for rank-and-file staff, they should be required for leadership. If they’re deemed unreliable or unnecessary, then remove them for everyone. But we cannot afford a system where loyalty or celebrity status substitutes for vetting.

Waivers like these erode morale, compromise integrity, and invite speculation. They undermine the very trust that national security depends on. If the FBI wants to maintain credibility, it must commit to a single standard: all or none.