Border security is a top priority for Donald Trump, clearly given his campaign rhetoric and choices for top law enforcement and homeland security roles. Trump has pledged to hire “10,000 new agents and a 10% raise for existing agents, as well as $10,000 for retention and signing bonuses”; given his track record on that front, it is clear this is an audacious task. However, there is one aspect of the border hiring process Trump can improve to assist; removing the polygraph.
The polygraph has been an aspect of the Customs and Border Protection (CBP) hiring process since 2008, yet became a mainstay after 2010 when Congress “passed the Anti-Border Corruption Act requiring the agency to use the polygraph to vet all law enforcement applicants”. Claimed by numerous so-called authorities to be a valid and surefire way of rooting out corruption, this polygraph is different from others; Border Patrol uses a TES-C polygraph which is stated to reduce “average exam times [and] the number of retests”, instead of the “Law Enforcement Pre-Employment Test … the standard for screening federal law enforcement officers”.
James Tomsheck, a veteran Secret Service agent who headed the CBP’s Internal Affairs bureau from 2006 to 2014, said in 2018 this test degrades “false negatives for persons that are unsuitable and would be found unsuitable by the correct polygraph test [degrade] personnel security protocols to accommodate a hiring initiative in a way that is almost certain to degrade security at the border instead of enhancing security at the border”. Tomscheck argues that the TES-C leaves out questions specifically relating to drug trafficking and organized crime, instead asking counterintelligence based question, which potentially make it easier for criminal infiltrators to pass the exam.
In 2017, the Associated Press reported that Border Patrol fails some two-thirds of its applicants “more than double the average rate of eight law enforcement agencies” including the Drug Enforcement Administration, Federal Bureau of Investigation and Secret Service. From 2015 to 2024, the Government Accountability Office (GAO) found the “annual polygraph pass rate … has not surpassed 40 percent”. Some argue that border security agencies simply gain more nefarious applicants, yet as someone who has been through the U.S. Border Patrol hiring process, written about polygraphs at length, and having been through the security clearance process successfully with three separate federal agencies, I can attest the bulk of these individuals are upstanding American citizens, entering the agency for legitimate reasons, and in many cases either are veterans or prior law enforcement, holding security clearances.
Given my personal experience and research into the instrument and its’ applications, the area where Border Patrol fails to gain new hires is not in the interview, background investigation or physical test, but at the polygraph stage, a stage where a pseudoscientific, legally inadmissible, bias fraught and only “better than chance” device is used to try and make an assessment about an individual’s suitability. The fact it is still used by law enforcement for hiring purposes is unconscionable and the reasons for removing it (e.g., it is not legally valid, the science supporting it is scant or deliberately skewed, it is too susceptible to bias, it has never single handedly caught a double agent or spy, etc.) far outweigh the arguments for keeping it in government service (e.g., it’s cheaper than a background investigation, there is no replacement for it, it’s how we’ve always done business). The litmus test for any security system is that it must be productive and effective; the polygraph quite simply is not with the available scientific evidence and current hiring slump pointing to the polygraph as being a tool that hinders the agency rather than helping it.
Numerous solutions are possible for hiring without the polygraph. Including entry and routine psychological profiles (such as the MMPI) would help eliminate sociopaths and individuals with traces of psychopathy from the Patrol. Keeping stringent background investigations with an emphasis on finances would assist in rooting out individuals with large debts, gambling habits, or other debilitating financial behaviors that can lead to corruption. Reaching out to references, contacts, and conducting truly in-depth background investigations would replace much of the investigatory abilities the polygraph claims to do while ultimately being significantly more accurate. Tomschek recommended many of these in 2017, yet stopped short of full polygraph abolition.
Furthermore, there is an argument that the Top-Secret security clearance (of which a polygraph is often associated with) is unnecessary for the agency given the level of work performed by the average Border Patrol or Customs agent; these agents do not deal with classified intelligence regularly nor are involved in the intricacies of a counterterrorism or criminal investigation, they instead routinely man checkpoints and border crossings, verify documentation, or intercept Spanish speaking migrants (who are often women and children). In effect, the polygraph can easily be replaced by other investigative tools and psychological profiles which complete much of what the polygraph advocates claim to perform while doing so in a more cost effective, logical, and empirically valid way.
This should not be seen as a conservative or a liberal policy recommendation. Instead, this should be seen as a recommendation intended to improve border security, border law enforcement, and make for a stronger border force while also backed by an overwhelming amount of evidence and data. If the Trump administration desires a strong and secure border, along with a border force that is professional and appropriate for dealing with the immigration crisis, then removing the polygraph is a must. Given Trump’s favoring of polygraphs in other instances, however, it is unlikely we will see a change to this policy.
Nonetheless, if hiring 10,000 new agents and making for a stronger, more professional border force is a serious goal the administration wants done, then the border and homeland security staff both appointed and promoted to positions of policymaking should make removing the polygraph a top priority for the new administration and in their tenures.