The US Department of Defense is requesting $30.3 million over five years to develop an upgraded lie detection system, according to budget documents. The initiative, dubbed «Polygraph+» or «Polygraph Next,» aims to modernize federal polygraph and credibility assessment technologies through artificial intelligence and machine learning scoring algorithms, along with a technique called «standoff sensing» that would allow physiological readings to be taken without physical contact with subjects.
The project, first reported by [source], is designed to improve the accuracy and reliability of deception detection tools. However, critics argue it may represent yet another unsuccessful attempt to use technology for identifying lies. «It’s a misguided effort to reduce the complex to something that is tangible,» says Kyri Kotsoglou, a legal scholar at Northumbria University in the UK who researches polygraph use in justice systems.
The proposal emerges amid heightened tensions within the Defense Department. Under Secretary Pete Hegseth, the Pentagon has increasingly employed polygraph tests to identify sources of alleged press leaks. In September, the New York Times reported that staff members on the Joint Staff underwent polygraph examinations following news coverage about depleted US weapons stockpiles in the Iran conflict.
The Defense Counterintelligence and Security Agency (DCSA), which handles federal background checks, would oversee Polygraph+. According to the budget document—which Congress has not yet approved—the technology would support employee vetting and «insider threat detection.» Specific technologies remain unspecified, and DCSA did not respond to inquiries for additional details.
Previous Pentagon initiatives provide potential indicators of the program’s direction. In 2023, the Defense Innovation Unit (DIU) conducted an open solicitation for companies developing deception detection products. Two firms were selected: Presage Technologies, which claims its standard cameras can measure heart rate and breathing rate, and Altec Research, a medical sensor company expanding into non-contact sensing. A DIU-released video of Altec’s prototype shows it monitoring head movement, facial skin temperature, and pore activity. Neither company responded to requests for comment, and the DIU declined to comment.
Contemporary lie detection technology has remained largely unchanged since the polygraph’s invention. Examiners assess blood pressure, pulse, respiration, and perspiration to evaluate truthfulness, comparing physiological responses between baseline questions («Is the sky blue?») and target questions («Have you ever committed a crime?»).
The federal government administers tens of thousands of these tests annually during employee screening, yet the technology’s reliability has faced repeated challenges, and results are seldom admissible in court. In 1983, Congress’s Office of Technology Assessment determined there was minimal evidence supporting polygraph use for employee screening. In 2003, the US National Research Council (NRC) characterized evidence for its effectiveness as «weak at best.»
Research indicates humans can detect lies with slightly better than chance accuracy without technical assistance. The American Polygraph Association claims 80% to 94% accuracy for polygraphs. However, the 2003 NRC report noted that even a screening test with such accuracy could produce numerous errors. With the Department of Defense employing 2.8 million people, an imperfect system at that scale could falsely accuse tens of thousands.
Additional concerns exist. Polygraph interpretations are frequently subjective, and racial and ethnic minorities face higher likelihood of being judged deceptive. Furthermore, with training, interviewees can learn countermeasures to defeat the test—for instance, artificially elevating physiological responses to baseline questions by stepping on a hidden pin.
«If you know how it works, you can beat it,» says Sophie van der Zee, an associate professor studying deception at Erasmus University in Rotterdam. She notes the machine’s primary effect is deterrence—subjects often confess before testing begins. «But that only works if people think a polygraph works,» she observes.
Various alternative lie detection strategies have been attempted over the years, employing thermal cameras, pupil trackers, and brain scans. None have produced reliable results outside laboratory settings. The fundamental problem: no single telltale sign of lying applies universally. «There is still no Pinocchio’s nose,» says van der Zee.
AI could theoretically improve detection by identifying patterns in data that human examiners miss. AI algorithms are also better suited for «multi-modal» deception detection, which combines multiple measurements into an overall deception score that is harder to manipulate. According to van der Zee, three underlying processes occur during deception: physiological stress, cognitive load, and conscious efforts to conceal lying. Current polygraph technology addresses only one.
«The more you can have combined methods that approach it from these three different angles, the more successful you will be,» van der Zee says. This concept isn’t new—in the 2000s, researchers at Manchester Metropolitan University in the UK developed a system called Silent Talker that generated deception scores from video footage. This was later incorporated into iBorderCtrl, an EU-funded pilot program. In the US, a project called AVATAR combined eye tracking, voice analysis, and body movement detection for border crossing applications. All these initiatives quietly disappeared.
Kotsoglou describes combining AI with polygraphs as «the worst of both worlds» because it adds uncertainty to an already invalid tool. Even if AI or machine learning identifies previously unseen patterns in physiological data, it cannot reliably connect them to lying because no real ground truth exists.
«Even if you have all the records in the world from polygraph tests, you don’t know whether those polygraph tests are right or not,» says Marion Oswald, a law professor who has co-authored with Kotsoglou on polygraph use in justice systems. She worries that new lie detection methods will, like the polygraph, serve more as psychological props than scientific instruments.
«It seems very much a response to the concern of the current administration to leaks and perceived lack of loyalty,» says Oswald. «[Lie detection is] being used as a threat, to intimidate and force people to confess to things, as opposed to anything that’s actually getting valid information.