The United States government is proposing to allocate $30.3 million over five years toward developing an advanced lie detection system, according to budget documents. The initiative, dubbed «Polygraph+» or «Polygraph Next,» would concentrate on artificial intelligence and machine learning algorithms for scoring, along with «standoff sensing»—a method that captures physiological data without requiring physical contact with the individual being tested.
Budget records indicate the project aims to «modernize federal polygraph and credibility assessment technologies» to enhance their precision and dependability. However, this endeavor may simply represent another entry in a lengthy history of unsuccessful efforts to deploy technology for deception detection. «It’s a misguided effort to reduce the complex to something that is tangible,» remarks Kyri Kotsoglou, a legal academic at Northumbria University in the UK who researches polygraph applications within justice systems.
This development occurs amid significant internal tension. Under Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth, the Pentagon has increasingly employed polygraph examinations in efforts to identify sources of purported media leaks. In September, the New York Times reported that personnel on the Joint Staff underwent polygraph testing following news stories about diminishing US weapons inventories during the conflict with Iran.
The Polygraph+ program would be overseen by the Defense Counterintelligence and Security Agency (DCSA), which handles background investigations for the federal government. Per the budget proposal—still pending congressional approval—the new technology would support vetting of job candidates and «insider threat detection.» Specific technologies remain unspecified, and the DCSA did not provide additional details upon request.
Clues might come from other Pentagon initiatives. In 2023, the Defense Innovation Unit (DIU) launched an open call for companies offering products suitable for deception detection.
It chose two firms: Presage Technologies, which asserts it can gauge heart and respiration rates via ordinary cameras, and Altec Research, a medical sensor firm expanding into contactless sensing methods. A DIU-released video of Altec’s prototype demonstrates its ability to monitor head motion, facial skin temperature, and pore activity. Neither Presage Technologies nor Altec Research responded to comment requests. The DIU declined to comment.
Lie detection tools have seen minimal advancement since the polygraph’s introduction. Examiners assess blood pressure, pulse, respiration, and perspiration to gauge truthfulness. They evaluate responses by comparing physiological reactions to control questions such as «Is the sky blue?» against relevant ones like «Have you ever committed a crime?»
Federal agencies administer tens of thousands of these tests annually during employee screenings, yet the method’s reliability faces frequent criticism—and results seldom hold up in court. In 1983, Congress’s Office of Technology Assessment concluded there was scant evidence backing polygraph use for employee screening, and in 2003, the US National Research Council (NRC) described the evidence for its effectiveness as «weak at best.»
Research indicates humans detect lies correctly just over half the time without technological aids. The American Polygraph Association claims accuracy rates of 80% to 94%. However, the 2003 NRC report noted that even such accuracy in screening could produce numerous errors. With the Department of Defense employing 2.8 million individuals, an imperfect system at that scale might wrongly flag tens of thousands.
Additional concerns exist. Polygraph results are frequently subjective: interpretations can vary, and minority individuals are more often deemed deceptive. Moreover, with training, interviewees can adopt countermeasures to defeat the test—such as artificially boosting responses to control questions by stepping on a concealed 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 device’s primary impact is deterrence—subjects often confess before testing starts. «But that only works if people think a polygraph works,» she adds.
Various novel lie detection approaches have been explored over time, from thermal imaging to pupil tracking to brain scans. None have produced reliable out-of-lab results. The core issue: no universal indicator of lying exists across all individuals and situations. «There is still no Pinocchio’s nose,» van der Zee says.
AI might theoretically improve this by uncovering data patterns beyond human examiners’ reach. AI algorithms could also enable «multi-modal» deception detection, merging various metrics into a comprehensive deception «score» that’s tougher to manipulate. According to van der Zee, three underlying factors drive lie detection: physiological stress, cognitive load, and deliberate concealment efforts. Existing polygraph tech 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 idea isn’t novel—in the 2000s, UK researchers at Manchester Metropolitan University created a system called Silent Talker that derived a deception score from video. It was later integrated into iBorderCtrl, an EU-funded trial. In the US, the AVATAR project combined eye tracking, voice analysis, and body movement detection for border use. All these efforts quietly disappeared.
Kotsoglou argues that merging AI with polygraphs is «the worst of both worlds,» introducing uncertainty atop invalidity. Even if AI or machine learning detects novel patterns in physiological data, it can’t reliably tie them to lying due to the absence of a true baseline.
«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-written with Kotsoglou on polygraph use in justice. She worries new lie detection forms will, like the polygraph, serve more as psychological crutches than scientific instruments.
«It seems very much a response to the concern of the current administration to leaks and perceived lack of loyalty,» Oswald says. «[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.